Further Thoughts on Linear B po-re-na, po-re-si, and po-re-no-

Roger D. Woodard

1. Introduction

Opinions have varied and swayed regarding the interpretation of the Linear B term po-re-na. Whatever meaning is assigned, many would draw the forms po-re-si and po-re-no- into their interpretation of po-re-na, and vice versa. In this investigation I begin with the interpretation of po-re-na that appears most probable and reconsider po-re-si and po-re-no- on the basis of both internal and comparative evidence.

2. Po-re-na

Pylos tablet Tn 316 has been the object of close scrutiny since the early days of Linear-B scholarship and remains a document of interest for various reasons, not least of which is the recurring verbal phrase of lines 2–3 on the front of the tablet and of 1–2, 5, and 8 on the reverse: do-ra-qe, pe-re, po-re-na-qe, a-ke. The document reads as follows:
.1     po-ro-wi-to-jo,
.2                      i-je-to-qe, pa-ki-ja-si, do-ra-qe, pe-re, po-re-na-qe
.3     pu-ro a-ke, po-ti-ni-ja AUR *215VAS 1 MUL 1
.4     ma-na-sa, AUR *213VAS 1 MUL 1 po-si-da-e-ja AUR *213VAS 1 MUL 1
.5     ti-ri-se-ro-e, AUR *216VAS 1          do-po-ta AUR *215VAS 1
.6     empty
.7     empty
.8     empty
.9     empty
.10   pu-ro
The remainder of this side of the tablet lacks line ruling
di-we si-p̣ọ-ṛọ ti-mi-ṭọ
.1               i-je-to-qe, po-si-da-i-jo, a-ke-qe, wa-tu
.2               do-ra-qe, pe-re, po-re-na-qe, a-ke
.3a                                                                                                                       -ja
.3b    pu-ro          AUR *215VAS 1 MUL 2 qo-wi-ja, ṇạ-[   ], ko-ma-we-te
.4               i-je-to-qe, pe-ṛẹ-*82-jo, i-pe-me-de-ja-qe di-u-ja-jo-qe
.5               do-ṛạ-qe, pe-re-po-re-na-qe, a, pe-re-*82 AUR+*213VAS 1 MUL 1
.6               i-pe-me-ḍẹ-ja AUR 213VAS 1 di-u-ja AUR+213VAS 1 MUL 1
.7      pu-ro          e-ma-a2, a-re-ja AUR *216VAS 1 VIR 1
.8               i-je-to-qe, di-u-jo, do-ra-qe, pe-re, po-re-na-qe a-ḳẹ
.9               di-we AUR *213VAS 1 VIR e-ra AUR *213VAS 1 MUL 1
.10               di-ri-mi-jo | di-wo, i-je-we, AUR *213VAS 1 [    ]
.11     puro
.12     empty
.13     empty
.14     empty
.15     empty
.16     pu-ro
The remainder of this side of the tablet lacks line ruling
The tablet can be translated in the following way. My interpretation of the verbal phrase do-ra-qe, pe-re, po-re-na-qe, a-ke has been informed by Willi (1994–1995), who rightly recognizes, I believe, a recurring coordinated syntagm of a primitive Indo-European pattern, and, especially, by Nagy (2015 and 2017), who realizes that a formulaic parallel to this lexical concatenation is expressed in Iliad 23.509–513:
.1     In the month of Plowistos [1]
.2        Χ both offers sacrifice [2] at Pa-ki-ja-ne, and carries gifts and
.3         takes Y for the carrying: to Potnia 1 GOLD *215-CUP [and] 1 WOMAN
.4     to Ma-na-sa 1 GOLD *213-BOWL [and] 1 WOMAN; to Posidāheia 1 GOLD *213-BOWL [and] 1 WOMAN
.5     to the Tris-hērōs : 1 GOLD *216-CUP; to Dospotās 1 GOLD *215-CUP
di-we si-p̣ọ-ṛọ ti-mi-ṭọ [4]
.1     X both offers sacrifice at the shrine of Poseidon, and the city takes
.2     and carries gifts and takes Y for the carrying:
.3     1 GOLD *215-CUP [and] 2 women to Boia // to Komāwenteiā
.4     and X offers sacrifice at the shrine of Pe-re-*82, of Iphimedeia, and of Diwia
.5     and carries gifts and takes Y for the carrying: to Pe-re-*82 1 GOLD *213-BOWL [and] 1 WOMAN
.6     to Iphimedeia 1 GOLD *213-BOWL; to Diwia 1 GOLD *213-BOWL [and] 1 WOMAN
.7     to Hermāhās a-re-ja 1 GOLD *216-CUP [and] 1 MAN
.8     X both offers sacrifice at the shrine of Zeus, and carries gifts and takes Y for the carrying:
.9     to Zeus 1 GOLD *213-BOWL [and] 1 MAN; to Hera *213-BOWL [and] 1 WOMAN;
.10     to Drimios | the son of Zeus 1 GOLD *213-BOWL [ ]
In the formulaic phrase do-ra-qe, pe-re, po-re-na-qe, a-ke the form po-re-na is here interpreted as the infintive phorēnai (φορῆναι) ‘for the carrying’. This interpretation follows the observations and suggestions of Ventris and Chadwick 1956:285 (“Though one might logically expect this last word [i.e. po-re-na] to be an unattested noun meaning something like ‘cup-bearer’, it is possible that it merely represents φορῆναι ‘to carry’.”); [5] Chantraine 1973:497 (“L’infinitif porena, qui semble attesté à Pylos [Documents, p. 285], répond exactement à l’homérique φορῆναι.”; see also p. 505); and especially Willi 1994–1995 and Nagy 1994–1995, revised and expanded in Nagy 2015 and Nagy 2017:§§100–122. [6] The infinitive phorēnai (φορῆναι) ‘for the carrying’ functions within the syntax of the tablet as, in effect, the dative of a verbal nominal, reflecting early Indo-European usage. [7] The sense is thus ‘X carries gifts and takes Y for the carrying’, where the referent of X in context is likely to be understood as Pylos, and Y refers to an unnamed individual whom the agent ‘takes’ and who is given the task of ‘carrying’ the specified vessels. The conjunction of verbs denoting conveyance that is seen here—pherein and agein (φέρειν καὶ ἄγειν) ‘to carry/bear’ and ‘to take/drive’—represents a Greek reflex of a primitive Indo-European syntagm in which the coordination of *bher- and *h1aǵ- (or *h2eǵ-) expresses (respectively) the ‘carrying’ of portable plunder and the ‘taking’ or ‘driving away’ of animals or people. As this description of the Indo-European formula suggests, the actions captured by the phrase fall within the sphere of warrior activity. [8] In his studies of Pylos tablet Tn 316 Nagy (2015:§§8–9, 17; 2017:§§100–103) underscores the parallel co-occurrence of these Greek verbs in Iliad 23.512–513, which, as we noted, he offers as a parallel for the procedures described in the tablet. In the epic the setting of the action is provided by the funeral games for Patroclus. The victory in the chariot race at the games has gone to the powerful warrior Diomedes; the prize is a tripod with handles and a slave woman. Diomedes’ Argive companion and charioteer, [9] the ‘mighty Sthenelus’ (ἴφθιμος Σθένελος), takes possession of the prize and gives to his ‘comrades in arms’ (ἑταῖροι) (1) the woman ‘to take’ (φέρειν) and (2) the tripod ‘to carry off’ (ἄγειν), while he unyokes the horses. In his comments on the lines, Eustathius (Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 4.773) notes that here the use of agein (ἄγειν) ‘to carry off’ and pherein (φέρειν) ‘to take’ subscribes to the conventional practice of differentially applying the former verb to an ‘animate’ object (ἔμψυχος) and the latter to an ‘inanimate’ (ἄψυχος).
While the recent interpretations of Willi and Nagy align with those of Chadwick 1956 and so on, by the date of the publication of the 1961 international colloquium on Mycenaean studies in Racine, Wisconsin, [10] Chadwick (1964:23) has changed his mind regarding the interpretation of po-re-na, identifying it as an “acc[usative] pl[ural],” hence, a nominal. [11] In the same volume, both Lejeune and Georgiev offer views on the form. Like Chadwick, Lejeune (1964:92) advocates for a nominal interpretation of po-re-na: “Du point de vue de la forme, po-re-na peut être soit l’accusatif (sg. ou pl.) d’un nom en –νᾱ, soit l’accusatif pl. d’un nom en -νον.” Georgiev, however, reads the form as the infinitive (1964:128)—“po-re-na = Hom. φορῆναι” (citing Ventris and Chadwick 1956:285 and Bartoněk 1959:121)—and in doing so reverses his earlier (1956) interpretation of po-re-na as a noun *phorēn (*φορην; see below). In his review of this collection of papers (i.e. Bennett 1964), Palmer (1965:315) has harsh words for Georgiev: “It is regrettable to see po-re-na still quoted as an athematic infinitive, although it has long been recognised to be a noun … ,” citing only himself (Palmer 1955) for this “long-recognized” view. [12] In his Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts (first published 1963) Palmer had glossed po-re-na as “‘defilements’ (?),” [13] as in Palmer 1955 (p. 10). In his review of the Bennett volume, however, Palmer (1965) proposes a different sense, writing that (p. 320) “it would seem most plausible to take the word as referring to cult objects which can be ‘incensed’ and girded (?).” The second element of this compound description is secondary to the form po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja (“acceptable as a festival name” [p. 317]) on Pylos tablet Un 443 + 998 (discussed below), on which tablet there also occurs the form tu-ru-pte-ri-ja that Palmer links to the root thu- and which he views as fundamentally meaning ‘to incense’ (see his discussion on pp. 316–322; tu-ru-pte-ri-ja is most commonly understood to spell struptēriā, later στυπτηρία, ‘alum’). Clearly there has been a good bit of opinion switching in the matter of the meaning of po-re-na.
In the second edition of Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Ventris and Chadwick 1973:460–461) Chadwick proposes that “the po-re-na [of Tn 316] must be the ten persons who are led to the rite; though no Greek word provides an interpretation it may seem appropriate to translate as victims.” Several other investigators who regard po-re-na as a noun, both before and since Ventris and Chadwick 1973, have advocated for the sense ‘victims’. [14] Palaima can be numbered among those who contend for a nominal interpretation, though he states (1999:454) that he finds “no compelling reason why po-re-na has to refer to human victims,” [15] but does not dismiss the possibility that such is the proper reading. Palaima allows the potentiality that the sense of the term could be ‘porteur’, [16] thus connecting po-re-na with the root of the verb phorēnai (φορῆναι). As we have just seen, in 1956 Georgiev had interpreted po-re-na as accusative of a noun *phorēn (*φορην)—a view that he subsequently abandoned. Among those who view the form as a nominal, this morpho-lexical analysis of po-re-na has, however, been that one most widely held, if sometimes tentatively (thus, Palmer 1969:267: “the morphological analysis of *φορενα is unclear”). [17]
As we have seen, in his investigation of the recurring phrase do-ra-qe, pe-re, po-re-na-qe, a-ke, Nagy, along with Willi, contends for the reading of po-re-na as the infinitive phorēnai (φορῆναι). In doing so Nagy responds to objections to his arguments that appear in Palaima 1996–1997 and 1999 (see also Palaima 2011:66), pointing out the significant problem that an envisioned o-grade nominal *phorēn (*φορην) would be of a type without morphological parallel in Greek (Nagy 2015 §§ 20–25), a hobbling hardship undoubtedly reflected in the vacillations and uncertainties that characterize the treatments of earlier investigators. While advocating for this interpretation Palaima too acknowledges the difficulty (1999:454n57): “The o-grade treatment in *po-re = *φορην is problematical no matter whether one interprets the word ‘actively’ as ‘he/she who carries’ or ‘passively’ as ‘he/she/it who/which is brought.” [18] Contrast with an aberrant *phorēn (*φορην) the expected e-grade seen in phernē (φερνή), Aeolic pherena (φέρενα), [19] denoting ‘dowry; bridal gift’—i.e. that which a bride brings. To explicate the meaning Joannes Tzetzes, Exegesis in Homeri Iliadem 115.71, makes recourse to the feminine participle hai pherousai (αἱ φερούσαι) ‘those bearing’: φερένας καὶ φρένας τὰς φερούσας νοῦν. Doric shows a form pherna (φερνά), attested at Epidaurus (IG IV2, 1 40.6–7; IG IV2, 1 41.7–8) and used to signify the portion of an offering that is dedicated to a deity—consistent in sense with use of the formula of offering presentation of Pylos tablet Tn 316, in which the infinitive phorēnai (φορῆναι) occurs.
In arguing that po-re-na spells the infinitive phorēnai (φορῆναι), Nagy (2015 §4) draws attention to two important dialect considerations: (1) the refashioning of finite verbs terminating in - éō (-έω) as athematic forms ending in - ēmi (-ημι) and (2) the formation of the corresponding infinitives in -ēnai (-ῆναι) represent an innovation associated with the Arcado-Cypriot dialect group of the first millennium BC. [20] This Arcadian dialect feature is visible in the Homeric Kunstsprache: both Eustathius, in his commentary on the Iliad, and Homeric scholia draw explicit attention to the athematic finite verb phorēmi (φόρημι) and its relationship to the infinitive of the form phorēnai (φορῆναι). [21] That the Greek of the Linear B documents shares the innovation—as suggested by phorenai (φορῆναι)—gives evidence of a particular dialect relatedness between that second-millennium linguistic system and Arcado-Cypriot. This specific observation is consistent with an otherwise endorsed view of the palpable closeness of Mycenaean Greek and Arcado-Cypriot. [22] Nagy is careful to suggest (2015:§5) that it is the standard dialect of Mycenaean that is especially closely related to Arcado-Cypriot—the Mycenaean dialect which has been called Normal Mycenaean, as opposed to Special Mycenaean. Nagy’s is an important proposal, for it spells out that whatever Special Mycenaean is—in terms of affiliation with the known first-millennium BC dialects—it is not the dialect ancestral to Arcado-Cypriot. [23]

3. Po-re-si

Thebes tablet Of 26 preserves the form po-re-si, an apparent dative plural, which has been commonly cited in support of a nominal interpretation of po-re-na. [24] Tablet Of 26 records consignments of wool (ku LANA) preceded by a grammatical directive (either an allative in -de or a dative-case form) that signals the recipient:
.1     pu2-re-wa ,                     ku LANA PA 1 ka-ka[   ] ku LANA PA 1
.2     su-me-ra-we-jo ,          ku LANA PA 1 1 ko/qi-ḍẹ-wa-o , do-de ku LANA PA 1
.3     di-u-ja-wo , do-de[  ]      ku LANA PA 1 po-re-si ku LANA 1
Toward identifying the recipients in these lines we can rewrite them with partial translation in the following way:
.1     For Pu2-re-wa ku LANA PA 1; for Ka-ka[   ] ku LANA PA 1
.2     For Su-me-ra-we-jo ku LANA PA 1; to the do of Ko/Qi-de-wa ku LANA PA 1
.3     to the do of Di-u-ja-wo ku LANA PA 1; po-re-si ku LANA 1
As the translation indicates, allative expressions appear to occur twice, when the wool is destined for a do (commonly interpreted as ‘house’, i.e. [δῶ])—that of Ko/Qi-de-wa and that of Di-u-ja-wo. These forms have been construed as genitives, given the context provided by this and related tablets: Ko/Qi-de-wa is not otherwise attested in the Mycenaean documents; Di-u-ja-wo is most likely genitive plural of Diwyarwos (Δίϝyαρϝος) ‘priest of Diwia’. [25]
Commonly, however, recipients appearing on the Thebes Of tablets look to be marked by the dative case. Palaima (1996–1997:308–309) points out that the use of allative expressions (and locatives) alongside datives is frequently found in Mycenaean allocation records, particularly those dealing with matters of cult. [26] In the instance of the Thebes Of series, dative singular morphology can be identified with reasonable confidence in the case of the names written Pa-pa-ra-ki (Of 25); A-re-i-ze-we-i (Of 37); and Qa-ra2-te (Of 38). [27] The dative plural ma-ri-ne-we-ja-i, a derivative of a man’s name, or possibly of a theonym, [28] ‘to the women of Ma-ri-ne-u’, is found twice in these materials (Of 25; Of 35).
Del Freo and Rougemont (2012:270), extrapolating from Hiller (1987:245–246), are most likely correct in proposing that various feminine appellatives appearing in the Of tablets are to be read as dative singular (as opposed to nominative plural, in light of the absence of secure nominative plurals “of rubric” in the Of series, in contrast to the presence of secure dative plurals). [29] This nominal set consists of at least the following: (1) a-ka-i-je-ja, a derived adjectival form found twice on Of 27, modifying du-qo-te-ja and pu2-ke-qi-ri-ne-ja (these being perhaps names of women); [30] (2) a-pi-qo-ro, identifying an ‘attendant’, [31] and a-ra-ka-te-ja ‘spinner’ on tablet Of 34, the two contrasting as, in some sense, ne-wa versus pa-ra-ja, ‘new’ versus ‘old’, respectively; [32] (3) te-pe-ja, on tablet Of 35, denoting a maker of a kind of cloth (te-pa, a densely woven fabric) and written sequentially after Ko-ma-we-te-ja, the theonym (Komāwenteiā) found on the reverse of Tn 316, naming one of those deities to whom gifts are carried; (4) no-ri-wo-ki-de on Of 36 (line 1) apparently designating a woman who produces another variety of cloth; [33] (5) also on Of 36—the nominal a-ke-ti-ra2 ‘decorator’, listed twice as a recipient of wool, once (line 2) in conjunction with the allative phrase po-ti-ni-ja, wo-ko-de ‘to the woikos of Potnia’; Chadwick suggests that in the Mycenaean documents woikos (in the allative wo-ko-de), in opposition to do (in the allative do-de), may refer to the “house of a deity” or “temple”. [34]
Beyond these, other recipients are probably recorded in the dative case on tablets of the Of series from Thebes. Succinctly, this set consists minimally of the following men’s names: Pu2-re-wa (Of 26); [35] Su-me-ra-we-jo (Of 26); [36] Pi-ro-pe-se-wa (Of 28); [37] I-da-i-jo (Of 28); [38] Ku-ru-me-no (Of 33) [39] —and perhaps also Ne-e-to (Of 38) and Ṇẹ-a2-ri-da (Of 39). [40]
In addition to Potnia and Komāwenteiā (and possibly Ma-ri-ne-u), yet other deities appear in the Thebes Of series, and are likely marked as dative recipients. On tablet Of 28 wool is consigned E-ra, most probably ‘for Hera’, whose name is seemingly modified by an epithet ke-o-te-ja. The fragmentary tablet Of 31 appears to preserve allative phrases in lines one and two, followed in the third line by the form E-ma-a2 ‘for Hermāhās’ (Hermes)—yet another god for whom gifts are reported as carried on Tn 316.
This brings us to a closer consideration of the form po-re-si of tablet Of 26. We have seen now that it co-occurs with two allative phrases and two probable datives of proper names (Pu2-re-wa and Su-me-ra-we-jo). In light of the evidence regarding the marking of recipients of wool on Of tablets in the dative case, po-re-si must certainly be read as dative, and this seems to have been the default parsing for most investigators. [41] Those who interpret po-re-na as a nominal on Tn 316 (rather than as an infinitive) would see in po-re-si a dative plural of that same nominal. Hiller (2011:182), for example, writes that po-re-si “is obviously the dat. (pl.) of po-re-na, designation of persons (victims, bearers of gold vessels?) who appear in clearly religious function on the Pylos ‘pantheon tablet’ Tn 316.” [42] In order to understand the term as a dative denoting ‘ones who bear [gold vessels etc.]’ it is not, however, necessary to interpret po-re-si as a form of the problematic, conjectured noun *phorēn (*φορην).
As we have seen, it is the Arcadian dialect of the first millennium BC that is crucially significant in elucidating the morphology of second-millennium po-re-na. Verbs that end in -éō (-έω) in most dialects appear as athematic verbs in -ēmi (-ημι) in Arcadian, with corresponding infinitives formed in -ēnai (-ῆναι). Linear B po-re-na can be understood to spell this infinitive phorēnai (φορῆναι). In his discussion of Arcadian verb morphology, Dubois (1988:143) draws attention to an accusative singular participle kuensan (κυενσαν; IPArk 34.12), comparing the Attic inscriptional correspondent kuōsan (κυõσαν; SEG 33:147.39, 44), participle of the thematic contract verb kueō (κυέω) ‘to bear in the womb, be pregnant with’. The Arcadian participle kuensan (κυενσαν) clearly points to an athematic finite verb *kuēmi (*κύημι). [43] In other words:
Arcadian kuensan (κυενσαν) : kuēmi (κύημι) :: Attic kuōsan (κυõσαν) : kueō (κυέω)
Correspondingly, Linear B po-re-si on Thebes tablet Of 26 must certainly spell the dative plural participle phor-en-si (φορ-εν-σι), [44] recording an allotment of wool assigned ‘to/for those who carry’. Compare, with Ionic thematic morphology, the participle, for example, of Iliad 8.89, where the charging chariot steeds of Hector are described as θρασὺν ἡνίοχον φορέοντες (phoreontes) Ἕκτορα ‘those that carry the recklessly bold charioteer, Hector’.
Aeolic shares with Arcadian the -ēmi (-ημι) athematic inflection of verbs that terminate in -éō (-έω) in Attic-Ionic and elsewhere (but not the corresponding infinitive in -ēnai [-ῆναι]). Thus, Alcaeus fr. 41.10 (Lobel and Page) preserves ]phoren[t]es [ (]φόρεν[τ]ες [) ‘ones carrying’, a nominative plural participle of phorēmi (φόρημι). One would have expected Aeolic *phorēntes (*φόρηντες) and perhaps the reading should be emended accordingly. Regardless, the significance of this form for understanding Mycenaean po-re-si can hardly be overstated. The context of Alcaeus’ participle is one having cult indications, with surrounding fragmented references to notions agnai (ἄγναι) ‘pure’ (l. 7); iran (ἴραν) ‘sacred’ (l. 9); oin[o]n (οἶν[ο]ν) ‘wine’ (l. 11); kitharis (κίθαρις) ‘lyre’ (l. 14); te]menos lakhois[a (τέ]μενος λαχοισ[α) ‘having obtained a temenos’ (l. 17); k]oruphan polēos (κ]ορύφαν πόληος) ‘peak of the polis’ (l. 18); Aphrodita (Ἀφρόδιτα) ‘Aphrodite’ (l. 19). We surely find ourselves here enmeshed in a lexical web of Lesbian ritual [45] that continues among its constituent strands an ancestral Mycenaean cult term for those whose role it is ‘to bear’—phorēnai (φορῆναι)—offerings for the gods. The quasi-official nature of the participle’s use in Mycenaean cult terminology is revealed by the alternation of po-re-si with forms such as po-ti-ni-ja wo-ko-de ‘to the woikos of Potnia’ and names of divine and priestly recipients in the Of series as discussed above. Compare here the term ka-ra-wi-po-ro (κλαϝι-φόρος) ‘key bearer’, naming a sacred officiant at Pylos.
Regarding the short vowel of the reading ]phoren[t]es [ (]φόρεν[τ]ες [) of this fragment, compare later spelling variation seen in three Lesbian inscriptions: (1) IG XII,2 15.18 from Mytilene (ca. 193 BC) shows a genitive plural participle katoikēntōn (κατοικήντων), from athematic *katoikēmi (*κατοίκημι), Attic katoikeō (κατοικέω) ‘to settle, dwell in’; (2) SEG 36:750.17, also from Mytilene, but earlier (ca. 340–330 BC), [46] attests a short-vowel variant of the participle, katoikentōn (κατοικέντων); (3) IG XII Suppl. 692.23 from Eresos (second century BC) similarly preserves katoikenṭ[ō]ṇ (κατοικέντ̣[ω]ν̣). [47] Some conditioned shortening of the suffixal vowel is perhaps suggested in the context created by the participial morphology by the later fourth century. [48]

4. Po-re-no-

There is at least one—possibly two—additional Linear B form(s) in which a purported nominal po-re-na has been judged to play a role. As mentioned above Pylos tablet Un 443 + 998 records the entry po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja, followed by a specification of a measure of wool. The tablet reads as follows:
.1     ku-pi-ri-jo , tu-ru-pte-ri-ja , o-no LANA 10 *146 10
.2     po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja       LANA 3
.3                  ]ḍọ-ke , ka-pa-ti-ja , HORD 2 te-ri-ja GRA 1̣ LANA 5
We saw that Palmer (1965) segments po-re-no from the syntagm/compound and connects the remaining morphology (zo-te-ri-ja) with that family of terms headed by the verb zōnnumi (ζώννυμι) ‘to gird’, identifying po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja as the name of a festival. [49] Many investigators have proceeded likewise. [50]

4.1 Sanskrit bharaṇa and related forms

Towards making sense of Linear B po-re-no (in po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja), it is important to take account of the Sanskrit derivative nominal bharaṇa-. [51] The Sanskrit verbal root bhar- (from PIE *bher-) ‘to bear, carry’ is cognate with Greek pher- (φερ-)—thus, Sanskrit bharati, Greek pherō (φέρω), the finite verbs. With the Sanskrit thematic nominal bharás ‘bearing’ (adjective) and bháras ‘a bearing away, plunder’ (noun), from e-grade *bher-, compare Greek phorós (φορός) ‘bearing’ and phóros (φόρος) ‘payment, tribute’ (i.e. ‘that which is brought’), from o-grade *bhor-. With these o-grade forms of Greek compare Sanskrit bhāra- ‘burden; labor; bulk’. For Greek e-grade nominal derivatives consider pher-ma (φέρ-μα) ‘fetus; harvest’ (Sanskrit bharman- ‘support; nourishment’), in addition to the above-mentioned phernē (φερνή), Aeolic pherena (φέρενα) ‘dowry; bridal gift’, and pherna (φερνά), denoting the deity’s portion.
Sanskrit bharaṇa- is derived from bhar- by means of the suffix -ana-, descended from a primitive Indo-European formant *-e/ono-. The Sanskrit suffix produces two morpho-semantically distinct formations, depending on accent placement, both of which constitute nominals with conspicuous verbal qualities. Thus, on the one hand, when the accent falls on the root, a neuter noun is derived that signifies the result of an action: for example, vácana- ‘word’ (from vac- ‘to speak’), káraṇa- ‘deed’ (from kr̥- ‘to make, do’). On the other hand, when the accent falls on the -ana- suffix (i.e. -aná-), the nominal derived serves as an adjective or “agent noun”: for example, vacaná- ‘speaking’, karaṇá- ‘active, skilled’ (i.e. ‘doing’). [52] Avestan provides evidence of the inherited formant as well: for example, ham-ərəna- ‘battle’ beside Sanskrit sam-áraṇa- ‘battle’ (from r̥- ‘to go towards, attack’; cf. Greek or-nu-mi [ὄρ-νυ-μι] ‘to incite, rush on’); varəna- ‘choice, belief’ beside Sanskrit varaṇá- ‘choosing’. [53]
The formant is clearly of primitive Indo-European origin, leaving reflexes outside of Indo-Iranian. [54] Comparable formations occur regularly and plentifully in Slavic built with the e-grade of the Indo-European formant (i.e. *-eno-) and functioning as past passive participles, as in Old Church Slavic nes-enŭ ‘carried’. [55] The formant similarly survives in Germanic, typically attested as reflexes of the o-grade, though the e-grade variants are widely, if not commonly, preserved. In his examination of the variable survival of *-eno- in Germanic, Nielsen (1992:641–642) [56] identifies past participles of this e-grade form from across the Germanic family, such as the following: Old English binumine ‘taken away’, forsleginum ‘struck down’; Old Frisian fendsen ‘caught’, hwendsen ‘hung’; Old Norse gripinn ‘seized’, tekinn ‘taken’; Early Runic faikinaz ‘threatened’, haitinaz ‘called’; Gothic fulgins ‘secret’ (i.e. ‘hidden’), aigin ‘property’ (i.e. ‘owned’); and probably Old High German abasnitine ‘cut off’ and Old Saxon bismitin ‘soiled’ and kumin(a) ‘come’. [57]
Morphologically, Sanskrit bharaṇa-, denoting ‘bearing’; ‘the act of bearing (in the womb), bringing; (hence) payment’, [58] suggests a Greek o-grade cognate phoreno- (φορενο-). Sanskrit bháraṇa- surfaces in the Rig Veda—in hymn 10.36, “an extremely obscure hymn” dedicated to All Gods, but principally a song in praise of Agni. [59] The locative bharaṇe occurs in the sixth stanza, in a reference to gods carried within a womb (seemingly the womb of Agni; see 6c–d): bharaṇa- here appears to signify the fetal ‘burden’ of the womb, [60] or else the action of bearing a fetus (i.e. of being in the condition of pregnancy). [61] If, in fact, po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja denotes a festival, and if Linear B po-re-no- spells phoreno- (φορενο-), o-grade equivalent to bharaṇa-, as appears probable, then the festival so named could literally (componentially) denote something like a ‘girding of fetus-bearing’, that is, ‘of childbearing’. For semantic similarity within Greek compare the, chiefly, o-grade forms phor-a (φορ-ά) ‘gestation; productiveness’, phor-as (φορ-άς) ‘fecund; brood-mare’, phor-imos (φόρ-ιμος) ‘fertile’, pher-ma (φέρ-μα) ‘fetus’. [62] The e-grade structural equivalent survives in Aeolic pherena (φέρενα), ‘dowry; bridal gift’, the exact cognate of Sanskrit bharaṇa-. [63] One might possibly understand the po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja as a communal celebratory event dedicated to clothing women in a way that makes an outward declaration of a fetus borne within them. Such a ‘girding of childbearing’, one might imagine, may simply be an “un-girding” or a girding with something other than a conventional belt (on pregnant women depicted as wearing unbelted garments on archaic Greek votive plaques see Lee 2012:26–28).
More likely, however, po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja would name a festival at which women who had given birth were ritually and symbolically re-girded following birth. The anthropological primitive associating untying and unbinding with childbirth has been carefully explored by Bettini (2013:69–82, see especially pp. 70–74), who draws attention to how a woman’s act of ungirding as labor begins became, in antiquity, a metaphor for birthing, as seen, for example, in Callimachus Hymns 4.209 (λύσατο δὲ ζώνην ‘she loosened her belt’) and 4.222 (μίτρην ἀναλύεται ‘she is undoing her girdle’), used of Leto (mother of Apollo and Artemis). The lexical concatenation of luō + zōnē (λύω + ζώνη), as in 4.209, finds expression in the adjective lusizōnos (λυσίζωνος) ‘loosening the belt’, used as an epithet of Eileithyia in her role as goddess who comforts and brings women through childbirth (Theocritus Idylls 17.60; Cornutus De natura deorum 73; Orphic Hymns 2.7–9), and similarly of Artemis (Libanius Epistulae 371.4; Hesychius Λ 1443). [64] The metaphor is encountered in the form luein mitrēn (λύειν μίτρην) ‘to loosen the girdle’ in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius (1.288): a scholiast on the line explains that ‘women giving birth for the first time loosen their girdles and dedicate them to Artemis; for which reason there is also a temple of Artemis Lusizonos in Athens’. [65] Lee (2012:33–36; 2015:213–214), following Morizot 2004, draws attention to a fourth-century BC votive plaque from Echinus that depicts worshippers of Artemis presenting an infant before an image of the goddess, with a variety of gowns—votive offerings, seemingly—shown as suspended within the goddess’ shrine. She also notes the practice of women offering various garments to Artemis in her sanctuary at Brauron. [66] On textile dedications to deities recorded in the epigrams of the Greek Anthology see Table 32 in Brøns 2016. [67] Seven such dedicatory epigrams are specified as occasioned by childbirth: in each of these instances the recipient deity is either Eileithyia (three times) [68] or Artemis (four times); [69] and garments offered include belts, undergarments, breastbands, hairbands, chitons, pepla—among still other items, including, commonly, sandals, the loosening of which is conspicuous in the sympathetic context of easy birthing (see Bettini 2103:71–74). A cult setting for Pylos tablet Un 443 + 998 (on which po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja occurs) is suggested by the occurrence of the name Ka-pa-ti-ja (Karpathiā) on line three (see above), naming a woman who contributes a large quantity of barley, perhaps for the celebration of the festival; a cult official—a ka-ra-wi-po-ro (κλαϝιφόρος) ‘key bearer’—of the same name appears on Pylos tablets Eb 338 + fr. and Ep 704. [70]
The apparent mention of alum (tu-ru-pte-ri-ja) in line one of tablet Un 443 + 998 could possibly be pertinent in regard to cult and fertility. As is well known, alum could be used in the process of coloring wool in order to make the dye take, [71] and perhaps the mention of alum here is significant only in that way. Perhaps wool was required to be dyed a particular color for use in a rite associated with the po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja festival. But alum, a strong astringent, has other uses, notably in the realm of healing. For example, in the Hippocratic corpus its use in various mixtures is prescribed as a styptic in the treatment of ulcers (e.g. De ulceribus 12, 14), of hemorrhoids (De haemorrhoidibus 7, 8), and of fistulae or a prolapsed rectum (De fistulis 3, 7, 9, 10). But of greater relevance in the present context are prescribed gynecological usages; thus: (1) if a woman has had difficulty conceiving, vaginal insertion of wool soaked in an unguent and alum is prescribed in order to promote pregnancy (De natura muliebri 53); (2) the same condition of infertility can be addressed with a mixture of alum, bull’s gall, and burnt deer horn (De mulierum affectibus 225); (3) among prescribed pessaries is one of Egyptian alum wrapped within wool, and another of butter, alum, and honey applied to a linen cloth (De natura muliebri 97).

4.2 Primitive Indo-European *e/ono- in Greek

While Linear B po-re-no- can be reasonably read as phoreno- (φορενο-), cognate with Sanskrit bharaṇa-, the evidence for survival of the primitive Indo-European suffix *-eno- in Greek is meager. [72] We have already noted the Aeolic feminine pherena (φέρενα), denoting that which a bride brings. Aeolic thus continues not only the Mycenaean participle po-re-si (Lesbian ]φόρεν[τ]ες [) ‘ones carrying’) but an e-grade form of Mycenaean po-re-no- as well.
Reflexes of o-grade *-ono- appear to be slightly more common. The following examples can be identified: (1) kl-ono-s (κλ-όνο-ς) ‘confused motion; throng’ (beside kelomai [κέλομαι] ‘to urge, exhort’), from Proto-Indo-European *kel- ‘to drive, set in motion’; [73] (2) thr-ono-s (θρ-όνο-ς) ‘seat; oracular seat’, beside Linear B to-no (i.e. thor-no-s), as well as to-ro-no-wo-ko (probably thr-ono-worgoi ‘seat makers’), from an Indo-European root *dher- ‘to hold firm’, also source of, inter alia, Sanskrit dharaṇa- ‘supporting; support’ (from *dher-eno-) and dharma- ‘what is established; law’ (from *dher-mn̥-); [74] (3) khr-ono-s (χρ-όνο-ς) ‘time’, of uncertain origin; [75] (4) amp-ekh-ono-n (ἀμπ-έχ-ονο-ν; and ampekhonē [ἀμπεχόνη]) ‘shawl; clothing’ (i.e. ‘that which encloses’), from Proto-Indo-European *seǵh- ‘to hold fast’ (i.e. Greek ekhō [ἔχω]), compare Sanskrit abhi-ṣah- ‘to overwhelm’, abhi-ṣā-ta- ‘gained’(Rig Veda 5.41.14); (5) possibly phth-ono-s (φθ-όνο-ς) ‘malice’. [76] Probable feminine nominals include these: (6) hēd-onē (ἡδ-ονή) ‘enjoyment, pleasure’, from primitive Indo-European *sweh2d- ‘to be sweet, pleasant’; compare Sanskrit svād-ana-, ‘tasting’ (neuter noun) and ‘making savory’ (adjective); [77] (7) per-onē (περ-όνη) ‘pin (of a buckle, etc.)’ (beside peirō [πείρω] ‘to pierce’), from Proto-Indo-European *per- ‘to pass through’, [78] and compare Sanskrit par-aṇa- ‘crossing’ and pār-aṇa- ‘bringing over’ (adjective) and ‘carrying through’ (neuter noun); (8) bel-onē (βελ-όνη) ‘needle’, from Proto-Indo-European *gwel- ‘to throw; pierce’; [79] (9) ak-onē (ἀκ-όνη) ‘whetstone’, from Proto-Indo-European *h2eḱ- ‘sharp’. [80]

4.3 Primitive Indo-European *-no- in Greek and Sanskrit

In its relative rarity in Greek the *-e/ono- suffix fundamentally parallels the status of the related formant *-no-. Primitive Indo-European -*no- competes with, or otherwise varies with, the more common suffix *-to- as a formant used to derive verbal adjectives. Ancestral *-to- and *-no- both survive in Sanskrit, in which language the distribution shows some sensitivity to phonological context, [81] and are there used to form past participles, [82] as in Avestan as well. [83] The reflex of *-no- appears in Sanskrit past participles such as chinná- ‘cut’, kīrṇá- ‘scattered’, bhugná- bent’, pūrṇá- ‘full’, and so on (about 70 examples); [84] much more common is the survival of *-to-, as in gatá- ‘gone’, śrutá- ‘heard’, srutá- ‘flowed’, tatá- ‘stretched’, hatá- ‘slain’, and so forth. A similar imbalance of frequency holds in Avestan. [85] Greek too continues *-to-, using it—somewhat as in Indo-Iranian, though not identically—to form verbal adjectives; thus Greek cognates survive for each of the Sanskrit forms just cited: batós (βατός) ‘passable’, klutós (κλυτός) ‘renowned’, hrutós (ῥυτός) ‘flowing’, tatós (τατός) ‘able to be stretched’, phatós (φατός) ‘slain’ (respectively). In addition, in Sanskrit, as in Avestan, *-no- also forms a few adjectives that are not attached to verb paradigms as productive synchronic formations—as well as some nouns. For example, Sanskrit yajñá- ‘worship, devotion, prayer’ exists alongside a past participle iṣṭá-, from yaj- ‘to worship, consecrate’; uṣṇá- ‘hot’, beside uṣṭá-, ‘burnt’, from uṣ- ‘to burn’. The Sanskrit reflexes of *-no- thus also bifurcate morpho-semantically, though not in exact parallel to those of *-eno-.
While Greek reflexes of *-to- are plentiful, the comparable use of *-no- is attested by only a relatively few forms, [86] much as in Indo-Iranian. In Greek *-no- gives rise chiefly to, again, verbal adjectives. [87] One of the most conspicuous examples is provided by hagnos (ἁγνός) ‘sacred, holy’, matched precisely by the Sanskrit substantival cognate yajñá- ‘worship, devotion, prayer’, occurring with great frequency in the Rig Veda, and by Avestan yasna- ‘sacrifice’. The etymon is a primitive root *yaǵ-, and both Greek and Indo-Iranian attest verbal reflexes as well: Greek hazomai (ἅζομαι) ‘to stand in awe of’; Sanskrit yajati ‘to worship; offer’; Avestan yazaite ‘to honor’. [88] Greek hagnos (ἁγνός) ‘sacred, holy’ is archaic and clearly a form inherited from the cult language of an earlier Indo-European moment, as are its Indo-Iranian cognates. It is regularly used attributively with theonyms, as with Artemis (i.e. Ἄρτεμις ἁγνή etc.), [89] Demeter, [90] Persephone/Kore, [91] Apollo/Phoebus, [92] Zeus, [93] Pallas, [94] Hestia, [95] Helios, [96] Cypris, [97] Muses, [98] Nereids, [99] Hades, [100] Eumenides. [101] The form hagnos (ἁγνός) is well attested early—Homer (though only in the Odyssey), Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, lyric, Pindar, and Aeschylus all know it. At some moment the -no- morphology of the form was repudiated, in a sense, and a by-form hagios (ἅγιος) was created; the nonce form is well attested from Herodotus onward, [102] though without replacing hagnos (ἁγνός) in antiquity. The two terms can co-occur, as in Isidorus Hymns to Isis 3.2: ‘O holy (hagnos [ἁγνός]) Isis—holy (hagios [ἅγιος]), great, greatly-named Deo’—and found even within the same phrase structure, as in Orphic Hymns 41.7 ‘revealer of the holy (hagios [ἅγιος]) marriage-bed of holy (hagnos [ἁγνός]) chthonic Zeus’. In each of these instances hagnos (ἁγνός) continues its conventional, and undoubtedly liturgical, attributive function.
With hagnos (ἁγνός) compare the nearly synonymous Greek semnos (σεμνός) ‘revered, holy’. Semnos (σεμνός), first attested in the Homeric Hymns and lyric, [103] is a -no- derivative of the verb root seen in sebomai (σέβομαι) ‘to worship; feel shame’, from ancestral Indo-European *tyegw- ‘to withdraw in awe’. [104] The Greek verb is of common origin with Sanskrit tyajati ‘to stand back from something’, having a *-to- past participle tyaktá- ‘left’, [105] with which compare the formal Greek equivalent septos (σεπτός) ‘august’ (earliest in Aeschylus Prometheus Bound 812). The reflexes of *yaǵ- and *tyegw- form a tight semantic set, and the two roots appear to have their beginning in a period of Graeco-Indo-Iranian linguistic and cultural unity. The utilization of the rare -no- suffix in the derivation of semnos (σεμνός) could perhaps be attributed to morpho-semantic influence of hagnos (ἁγνός) on a lexeme with which it shares cult usage; though that a common ancestral -no- formation was eliminated in Indo-Iranian in favor of -to- is equally probable, if not more so, in light of Sanskrit phonological sensitivities and given the divergence in function of primitive *-no- exhibited between Greek and Indo-Iranian. In parallel with hagnos (ἁγνός), the adjective semnos (σεμνός) is frequently used as an attributive modifier of divine names: thus we find semnos (σεμνός) so used with, for example, the theonyms Athena/Pallas, [106] Poseidon, [107] Zeus, [108] Demeter, [109] Persephone, [110] Artemis, [111] Apollo/Phoebus, [112] Hera, [113] Aphrodite/Cypris, [114] Dione, [115] Prometheus, [116] Thetis, [117] Charities, [118] Hades, [119] Erinyes/Eumenides. [120]
To this set of two Greek -no- formations can be added deinos (δεινός) ‘terrible’, derived from the root of the verb deidō (δείδω), originating in a perfect *de-dwoi-a (*δε-δϝοι-α), from Indo-European *dwei- ‘to fear. [121] Sanskrit preserves, with an -s- extension of the root, the finite verb dveṣṭi ‘to hate, be hostile’, producing a -ta- past participle dviṣṭa- ‘hated’; compare the Avestan verb dvaēš- ‘to be hostile’. The Sanskrit past participle appears in the Rig Veda (9.73.5) in the compound Indradviṣṭa- ‘hated by Indra’, describing those spiritually hostile ones who are destroyed by a sacred sound associated with the god Varuṇa and with the sacrificial material called Soma. As with hagnos (ἁγνός) and semnos (σεμνός), the -no- derivative deinos (δεινός) can be used as an attributive modifier of theonyms: Ares/Enyalius, [122] Charybdis, [123] Athena, [124] Artemis, [125] Aphrodite/Cypris, [126] Phoebus, [127] Persephone, [128] Keres, [129] Eris, [130] Styx, [131] Erinyes, [132] Hades, [133] Echidna. [134] In addition, a recurring syntagm of Greek is deinos/deinē theos (δεινὸς / δεινὴ θεός) ‘terrible god(dess)’, found especially in epic and tragedy and used to denote a variety of deities, most often female: Athena/Pallas, [135] Calypso, [136] Circe, [137] Thetis, [138] Hecate, [139] Eris, [140] Nymphs, [141] Keres, [142] Erinyes, [143] Rhea, [144] Nemesis, [145] Echo, [146] Apollo, [147] Zeus, [148] Dionysus, [149] Helios, [150] Hypnos and Thanatos, [151] Triton, [152] Ares, [153] ‘Grief’ deified, [154] unnamed gods. [155] Compare with the syntagm deinos/deinē theos (δεινὸς / δεινὴ θεός) ‘terrible god(dess)’ the compound adjective theou-dēs (θεου-δής) made with the related formant -dēs (-δής) and referencing the proper holding of the gods in fear. [156] It recurs in formulaic lines at Odyssey 6.120–121, 8.575–576, 9.175–176, and 13.201–202, in which theou-dēs (θεου-δής) stands in opposition to the descriptor oude dikaioi (οὐδὲ δίκαιοι) ‘not just’, and aside from that found at 19.109 and 364.
In a brief but wide-ranging article, Singh (1995:257–258) succinctly contends that in epic usage deinos (δεινός) belongs to the “domain of the sacred and not the profane” (perhaps with a nod to Benveniste). [157] He takes note of the occurrence of the phrase deinos theos (δεινὸς θεός) at Iliad 4.514, to which, as we have just seen, several other examples could be added, and also of the phrase ‘terrible portents of the gods’ (δεινὰ πέλωρα θεῶν) at Iliad 2.321 (with reference to birds being devoured by a serpent that was then turned to stone, all in the midst of a sacrifice). He mentions too the existence of the similar genitival phrase deinoio pelōrou (δεινοῖο πελώρου); this observation could also be fleshed out a bit. The phrase is found several times as a syntagmatic unit in Homeric and Hesiodic poetry; serpentine contexts are typical. It occurs at Iliad 5.741–742 with reference to the head of the Gorgon upon the aegis (ἐν δέ τε Γοργείη κεφαλὴ δεινοῖο πελώρου | δεινή τε σμερδνή τε, Διὸς τέρας αἰγιόχοιο), [158] head of a ‘terrible monster’, and a kephalē (κεφαλή) ‘head’ which is itself further characterized by the adjective deinē (δεινή) in coordination with its (near) synonym smerdnē (σμερδνή, term to which we shall soon return); for the syntagm compare Odyssey 11.634 and Shield 223–224 (of the Gorgon), Theogony 856 (of Typhoeus; cf. 825 and 829), but also Odyssey 10.168 (of a great stag). Singh also draws attention to the recurring phrase deina … epea (δεινὰ … ἔπεα) ‘terrible words’ within formulaic lines at Iliad 5.439, 16.706, and 20.448, though fails to note what must be a significant factor for his claim, namely that the first two of these (and compare 16.787–789) are the terrible enunciations of Apollo—speech acts, in effect, that repulse Greek warriors—and in the remaining instance (20.448) it is, in a case of poetic inversion, Achilles who speaks such words to an Apollo-adumbrated Hector. We should also add for consideration Odyssey 8.405–412, lines in which Euryalus, in a ritual setting of gift-giving, invokes the ‘Storm winds’ (ἄελλαι) to seize and bear away any epos … deinon (ἔπος … δεινόν) ‘terrible word’ that had been ‘uttered’ (the archaic verb bazō [βάζω]) against Odysseus. Finally, Singh mentions Iliad 2.755, in which line we read: ‘for it [the Titaressus] [159] is a branch of the Styx, terrible water of oath’ (ὅρκου γὰρ δεινοῦ Στυγὸς ὕδατός ἐστιν ἀπορρώξ). We can add to this the recurring formulary of Iliad 15.37–38, Odyssey 5.185–186, and Homeric Hymn to Apollo 85–86, in which the water of the Styx is equated to ‘both the greatest and most terrible oath for the blessed gods’ (ὅς τε μέγιστος | ὅρκος δεινότατός τε πέλει μακάρεσσι θεοῖσι). Benveniste is again pertinent as he emphasizes that the oath of the gods—this most terrible oath—is not a divine speech act but instead an act that finds expression in the very waters of the Styx that are poured, “being a material invested with baneful powers”: [160] the material which is the terrible god equates to a terrible act of cult speech. [161] We can remind ourselves that Hesiod, Theogony 776, calls the goddess of these waters deinē Stuks (δεινὴ Στύξ) ‘terrible Styx’, and in the line preceding names her stugerē theos athanatoisi (στυγερὴ θεὸς ἀθανάτοισι) ‘hateful to the immortals’, playing stugerē (στυγερή) ‘hateful’ and deinē Stuks (δεινὴ Στύξ) phonically and semantically—and in fact etymologically—off of one another, both stugerē (στυγερή) and the goddess’ name being derived from the same primitive etymon, which is also source of the -no- adjective stugnos (στυγνός), to which we now turn.
Occupying similar semantic territory as deinos (δεινός), but collectively far less commonly attested than either hagnos (ἁγνός), semnos (σεμνός), or deinos (δεινός) individually, are three other -no- derivatives: (1) stugnos (στυγνός) ‘hated, horrible’; (2) smerdnos (σμερδνός) ‘terrible (to perceive)’; and (3) phriknos (φρικνός) ‘dreadful, terrible’. This last is a hapax legomenon (Hesychius Φ 886). Of the remaining two, stugnos (στυγνός) appears earliest in Archilochus fr. 171.1 and occurs frequently in tragedy, as in, for example Aeschylus Persians 286 and 976, used in Persian characterizations of Athens, and 472, of the deity that caused the Persian destruction. [162] Of common origin with the name of the river Styx ‘Hateful’– called deinē Styx (δεινὴ Στύξ) by Hesiod (Theogony 776), as we have just seen [163] stugnos (στυγνός) is conventionally linked to the Proto-Indo-European etymon *(s)teu- ‘to move forcefully’, a root showing various consonant extensions among its wide-ranging reflexes—a *-g- in the instance of stugnos (στυγνός). [164] Compare the Sanskrit nasal-infix form tuñjati ‘to strike’. The Sanskrit noun tuja- denotes ‘thunderbolt’; in Rig Veda 6.26.4 an obscure figure called “Tuji the ritual enunciator” is said to have been aided by Indra (see also Rig Veda 10.49.4). An -áya- form of the verb, tujayant-, appears in Rig Veda 7.104.7, used of Indra and Soma driving off demons. The second of these -no- formants, Greek smerdnos (σμερδνός) ‘terrible (to perceive)’, is comparatively rare; more common is the by-form smerdaleos (σμερδαλέος). [165] As we have already noted, Homer uses smerdnos (σμερδνός) to describe the head of the Gorgon upon the aegis (Iliad 5.741–742)—here in conjunction with deinos (δεινός)—and twice, formulaically, of the battle roaring of Ajax (Iliad 15.687, 732). Hesychius (Σ 1232) glosses smerdnos (σμερδνός) as deinos (δεινός). This adjective smerdnos (σμερδνός) has been traced to the Indo-European etymon *smerd- ‘to pain’, [166] a variant of the root *merd- ‘to scrape, rub away’, source of Sanskrit mr̥dnāti ‘to crush; destroy’: the intensive marmartti occurs in the Rig Veda, in hymn 2.23.6, as Br̥haspati, here virtually identical to Indra, is invoked imperatively to employ his ‘seizing calamity’ (duchunā harasvatī) against one that would set a snare for the poet. [167]
Standing in approximate semantic opposition to the preceding set is the -no-adjective terpnos (τερπνός) ‘pleasing, pleasurable’. We find it early in Semonides fr. 7.53, of the absence of anything pleasing among weasels; Mimnermus fr. 1.1, of the pleasures of Aphrodite; Tyrtaeus fr. 12.38, of enjoying life’s pleasures before descending into Hades’ realm; Sappho fr. 160.1 (L-P), of pleasurable songs; Theognis 1.256, of the pleasure of gaining what one loves. It is frequent in Pindar. With terpnos (τερπνός) compare Sanskrit tr̥ptá- ‘satisfied’, as in Rig Veda 7.38.8, either of chariot horses or the divine warrior Maruts. [168] Compare also the compound asu-tr̥p- ‘enjoying (i.e. taking) another’s spirit (asu-)’, as in Rig Veda 10.14.12, of the hounds of Yama (god of the dead) and 10.87.14, of the demonic element—or in the sense ‘enjoying life’, as in Rig Veda 10.82.7, of certain hymn-chanting priests who live too well and gorge on offerings. [169] The Greek and Sanskrit forms are descended from Indo-European *terp- ‘to take pleasure’, having reflexes in Germanic and Balto-Slavic as well. [170]
A further example of the Greek -no- formant is provided by steg(a)nos (στεγ[α]νός) [171] ‘enclosing’, from Proto-Indo-European *(s)teg- ‘to cover’. [172] The Greek adjective (steganos [στεγανός]) is first attested in Aeschylus Agamemnon 358 in a prayer to Zeus and Nyx, used in describing the net the gods had cast over Troy. Compare the Sanskrit past participle sthagita- ‘hidden’, used of the goddess Sarasvatī in a metaphorical expression referring to failed verbal expression. [173] With this compare particular Greek uses of the finite verb stegō (στέγω) to denote enunciatory suppression, as in Tiresias’ prophetic words at Oedipus Tyrannus 341: ‘These things [i.e. ἔπη ‘words’; l. 340] will come to pass, even if I myself hide them in silence’ (ἥξει γὰρ αὐτά, κἂν ἐγὼ σιγῇ στέγω). [174] Hesychius (Σ 1681) glosses neuter steganon (στεγανόν) as signifying ‘to hide words and not to proclaim them’ (στέγειν τοὺς λόγους καὶ μὴ ἐξαγγέλλειν). A reflex of *(s)teg-no- also survives in Latin tignum, [175] archaic term denoting materials used in constructing a building or vineyard (Festus p. 364M) [176] and providing the derivative tigillum ‘beam’. The derivative occurs notably in the rite of the sororium tigillum, referring to the sacred beam beneath which Horatius passed in making expiation for the shedding of his sister’s blood, and used more broadly in putting away the warrior’s combat fury following battle. [177] Both the particular and the general case entail attempted suppression of powerful potentialities, polluting and destructive, in a context of cult operations. Germanic and Celtic reflexes of *(s)teg- are also attested.
Two of the three most frequently attested Geek verbal adjectives in -no-, semnos (σεμνός) ‘revered, holy’ and hagnos (ἁγνός) ‘sacred, holy’, belong centrally to the realm of worship. [178] The (by far) most frequently attested, deinos (δεινός), is also routinely employed in a way that parallels the use of semnos (σεμνός) and hagnos (ἁγνός) as language descriptive of the gods, modifying attributively the names of divine beings. It also participates in the recurring and long-lived syntagm deinos/deinē theos (δεινὸς / δεινὴ θεός) ‘terrible god(dess)’. We have, moreover, seen good reasons for identifying deinos (δεινός) as central to the lexicon of cult. Stugnos (στυγνός) ‘hated, horrible’ and smerdnos (σμερδνός) ‘terrible (to perceive)’ function synonymously, at times in conjunction with deinos (δεινός), and display linguistic ancestry that is at home in the realm of religious speech. Much the same can be said of steg(a)nos (στεγ[α]νός) ‘enclosing’.
Preservation of archaic -no- morphology in the instance of these several forms must surely be another expression of the tendency of early Indo-European languages to cling to the ancestral lexicon of religion and cult speech with particular tenacity, as observed by Vendryes a century ago (“un nombre assez considérable de mots qui se rapportent à la religion et notamment à la liturgie du culte, au sacrifice” [1918:266]). Vendryes is principally concerned with the languages of the eastern and western edges of the Indo-European expansion area (Italic, Celtic, and Indo-Iranian) and the primitive priestly classes that characterize the societies of those regions, though in at least one instance (p. 270) he brings a parallel from that investigative domain to bear on a problem of Greek, as he argues for the etymological commonness of hieros (ἱερός) ‘holy᾽ and hieros (ἱερός) ‘lively᾽ (Sanskrit iṣira-), contra Boisacq, comparing Old Irish nóeb ‘holy’ (*noib-o-) and niab, Welsh nwyf, ‘excitation’ (*neib-o-). A related historical and social linguistic dynamic must be operative in the relic preservation of primitive Graeco-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indo-European *-no- lexical morphology in Greek, one in which ancestral priestly formulae and enunciations provide a model for efficacious religious linguistic structures, even if inherited Indo-European priestly structures have been modified among the Greeks (at least among post-Mycenaean Greeks).
If Linear B po-re-no is to be rightly understood as phoreno- (φορενο-), cognate with Sanskrit bharaṇa-, a form providing a trace preservation of the ancestral formant *-eno-, the cause of that preservation must similarly lie in the use of the term in sacred phrasing. No less than po-re-si, po-re-no- must belong to the Mycenaean lexicon of cult—as it self-evidently does, to the extent that the compound po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja has been rightly understood to be the name of a religious festival. Moreover, many students of Linear B would identify yet an additional example of phoreno- (φορενο-) being used in a parallel way.
The brief and broken inscription of Pylos tablet Ua 1413 (from a series containing the state-banquet documents) inventories in its first line a consignment of cloth: 7 units of *146 cloth and 1 unit of *166+WE, with a break following. The second line begins ro-u-si-jo, a-ko-ro ‘field of Lousos’, referencing the environs of one of the major cities in the vicinity of the Pylos palace. This locational descriptor is followed by a single and incomplete form, po-re-no-tu-ṭẹ[. The form has been aggressively and “almost universally restored” [179] to read po-re-no-tu-ṭẹ[-ri-ja, with the second element of the form, *tu-te-ri-ja, understood as θυ(σ)τήρια, [180] denoting an element of offering; and, thus, for those who interpret po-re-na as victims, the restored po-re-no-tu-ṭẹ[-ri-ja signals the ‘sacrifice of victims’. [181] As mentioned above, the form po-ro-no-tu- ṭẹ[ has, as with po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja, been interpreted as the name of a festival. [182] Palaima (1999:455), urging caution, notes that according to Aristarchus (p. 455n62) “in Homer θύειν [thuein] is used of offering and burning but never of slaughtering victims in sacrifice (σφάξαι [sphaksai]).” Palaima also calls attention to Plato’s Euthyphro 14C, in which Socrates is made to say that the act of thuein (θύειν) is that of making a gift to the gods. We might note that Plato’s Socrates contrasts this act with that of eukhesthai [εὔχεσθαι] ‘to pray’, which is asking something from the gods. If in fact po-re-no-tu-ṭẹ[ were properly restored as po-re-no-tu-ṭẹ[-ri-ja we would likely see a reference to an offering made in conjunction with phoreno- (φορενο-) in the sense ‘childbearing’. Such a ritual offering, whether undertaken in order to promote conception and ensure healthy fetal development and safe childbirth or in thanksgiving for these, belongs to the same sphere of activity as the presentation of votive vestments of pregnancy to Artemis that we considered above in our discussion of po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja. In fact, the action described by the hypothesized form *po-re-no-tu-te-ri-ja could itself entail the offering of such textile items. Is the po-re-no-tu-ṭẹ[-ri-ja a festival at which such vestments were offered? As we observed above, various votive objects offered to such ends are well attested in post-Mycenaean Greece, as are prayers of thanksgiving for aid in birth. [183] In the documents of Mycenaean Greece the birth goddess Eileithyia is mentioned four times, and in three of these instances (Knossos tablets Od 714, 715, and 716) she is mentioned in conjunction with a consignment of wool.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the interpretation of Linear B po-re-na as a Mycenaean athematic infinitive phorēnai (φορῆναι) is consistent not only with an Indo-European syntagmatic pattern and a linguistic feature of the closely related Arcadian dialect, but is also consistent with the analysis of po-re-si as a dative plural, specifically phor-en-si (φορ-εν-σι), the dative plural of the athematic participle of phorēnai (φορῆναι), of a type attested in both Arcadian and Aeolic. The interpretation of one form informs that of the other. Po-re-no-, in contrast, preserves a primitive Indo-European morphology. Read as a nominal phoreno- (φορενο-), cognate with Sanskrit bharaṇa-, the Mycenaean form is likely inherited from the liturgical language of Proto-Graeco-Indo-Iranian tradition, if not from that of an earlier period.


Andersen, Henning. 1998. “Slavic.” In Ramat and Ramat 1998, pp. 415–453.
Aura Jorro, Francisco. 1985. Diccionario micénico. Volume 1. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
———. 1993. Diccionario micénico. Volume 2. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Bader, Françoise. 1969. “De mycénien MATOROPURO, AREPOZOO à grec ΜΑΤΡΟΠΟΛΙΣ, ἈΛΕΙΦΟΒΙΟΣ: Le traitement des sonantes-voyelles au premier millénaire.” Minos 10:7–63.
Bakker, Egbert J (ed.). 2010. A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Bartoněk, Antonin. 1959. “Review of Ruijgh 1957.” Sborník P. F. F. Brněnské University 8:120–122.
———. 1987. “On the Prehistory of Ancient Greek.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 26:7–22.
———. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Belayche, Nicole et al. (eds.). 2005. Nommer les dieux : théonymes, épithètes, épiclèses dans l’Antiquité. Turnhout : Brepols.
Bennett, Emmett L. (ed.). 1964. Mycenaean Studies: Proceedings of the Third International Colloquium for Mycenaean Studies held at “Wingspread,” 4–8 September 1961. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Benveniste, Émile. 1935. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Librairie Adrien-Maisonneuve.
———. 1969. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Two volumes. Paris: Les Édition de Minuit.
———. 1973. Indo-European Language and Society. Translated by Elizabeth Palmer. London: Faber and Faber Limited.
Bettini, Maurizio. 2013. Women and Weasels: Mythologies of Birth in Ancient Greece and Rome. Translated by Emlyn Eisenbach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bichlmeier, Harald; Ondřej Šefčik; and Roman Sukač (eds.). Forthcoming. Title TBA. Hamburg: Baar-Verlag.
Bierl, Anton; Rebecca Lämmle; and Katharina Wesselmann (eds.). 2007. Literatur und Religion, II: Wege zu einer mythisch-rituellen Poetik bei den Griechen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Blümel, Wolfgang. 1982. Die aiolischen Dialekte: Phonologie und Morphologie der inschriftlichen Texte aus generativer Sicht. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Blundell, Sue and Margaret Williamson (eds.). 1998. The Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient Greece. London: Routledge.
Boisacq, Émile. 1950. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Fourth edition. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Bresson, Alain. 2015. The Making of the Ancient Greek Economy: Institutions, Markets, and Growth in the City-States. Translated by Steven Rendall. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brøns, Cecile. 2016. Gods and Garments: Textiles in Greek Sanctuaries in the 7th to the 1st Centuries BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Brugmann, Karl. 1892. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Volume 2. Part 1. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
Brugmann, Karl and Albert Thumb. 1913. Griechische Grammatik. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Buck, Carl Darling and Walter Petersen. 1945. A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives. Reprint edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Budin, Stephanie Lynn. 2016. Artemis. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Burrow, T. 1955. The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber and Faber.
Chadwick, John. 1964. “Pylos Tablet Un 1322.” In Bennett 1964, pp. 19–26.
Chadwick, John and Lydia Baumbach. 1963. “The Mycenaean Greek Vocabulary.” Glotta 41:157–271.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.
———. 1973. Grammaire homérique. Volume 1. Reprint edition. Paris: Édition Klincksieck.
Cleland, Liza. 2005. The Brauron Clothing Catalogues: Text, Analysis, Glossary and Translation. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges Ltd.
Cole, Susan Guettel. 1998. “Domesticating Artemis.” In Blundell and Williamson 1998, pp. 24–43.
Dasen, Véronique (ed.). 2004. Naissance et petite enfance dans l’Antiquité: Actes du colloque de Fribourg, 28 novembre–1er décembre 2001. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
De Miro, Ernesto; Louis Godart; and Anna Sacconi (eds.). 1996. Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia: Roma/Napoli, 14–20 ottobre 1991). Rome: Gruppo editoriale internazionale.
Del Freo, Maurizio and Françoise Rougemont. 2012. “Observations sur la série Of de Thèbes.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 54:263–280.
Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid; Stefan Hiller; and Oswald Panagl (eds.). 1999. Floreant studia Mycenaea: Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.–5. Mai 1995. 2 volumes. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Dillon, Matthew. 2002. Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion. London: Routledge.
Donald, Moira and Linda Hurcombe (eds.). 2000. Gender and Material Culture in Historical Perspective. New York: St. Martin’s.
Doniger, Wendy. 2005. The Rig Veda. Reprint edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Doria, Mario. 1965. Avviamento allo studio del miceneo: struttura, problemi e testi. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo.
Dubois, Laurent. 1988. Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Duhoux, Yves. 1976. “Idéogrammes textiles du linéaire B: *146, *160, *165 et *166.” Minos 15 :116–132.
———. 1983. Introduction aux dialectes grecs anciens: Problèmes et méthodes. Recueil de textes traduits. Louvain-la-Neuve: Cabay.
———. 2008. “Mycenaean Anthology.” In Duhoux and Morpurgo Davies 2008, pp. 243–393.
Duhoux, Yves and Anna Morpurgo Davies (eds.). 2008. A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World. Volume 1. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
———. 2011. A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World. Volume 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Egetmeyer, Markus. 2010. Le dialecte grec ancien de Chypre. Two volumes. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Erbse, H. 1969–1988. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Ernout, Alfred and Antoine Meillet. 1959. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Fourth edition. Paris: Klincksieck.
Foxhall, Lin and Karen Stears. 2000. “Redressing the Balance: Dedications of Clothing to Artemis and the Order of Life Stages.” In Donald and Hurcombe 2000, pp. 3–16.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vjačeslav V. Ivanov. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Translated by Joanna Nichols. Two volumes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
García-Ramón, José L. 1996. “Sobre la tablilla PY Tn 316 y el pretendido presente radical i-je-to.” In De Miro, Godart, and Sacconi 1996, pp. 261–268.
Geldner, Karl Friedrich. 1951–1957. Der Rig-Veda. Four volumes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Georgiev, Vladimir. 1956. Vtoroe dopolnenie k slovarju krito-mikenskich nadpisej (= Second supplément au lexique des inscriptions créto-mycéniennes). Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.
———. 1964. “Mycenaean among the Other Greek Dialects.” In Bennett 1964, pp. 125–139.
Gérard-Rousseau, Monique. 1968. Les mentions religieuses dans les tablettes mycéniennes. Rome: Edizione dell’Ateneo.
Goetze, Albrecht. 2009. The Hittite Ritual of Tunnawi. Reprint edition. New Forward and Bibliography by K. C. Hanson. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock.
Grassmann, Hermann. 1875. Wörterbuch zum Rig Veda. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.
Gulizio, Joann. 2000. “Hermes and e-ma-a2: The Continuity of his Cult from the Bronze Age to the Historical Period.” Živa Antika 50:105–116.
Hajnal, Ivo; Daniel Kölligan; and Katharina Zipser (eds.). 2017. Miscellanea Indogermanica: Festschrift für José Luis García Ramón zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Harðarson, Jón Axel. 2017. “The Morphology of Germanic.” In Klein, Joseph, and Fritz 2017, vol. 2, pp. 913–954.
Heisserer, Andrew J. and René Hodot. 1986. “The Mytilenean Decree on Concord.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 63:109–128.
Heubeck, Alfred. 1966. Aus der Welt der frühgriechischen Lineartafeln: Eine kurze Einführung in Grundlagen, Aufgaben und Ergebnisse der Mykenologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hiller, Stefan. 1987. “A-pi-qo-ro Amphipoloi. ” Minos 20–22:239–255.
———. 2011. “Mycenaean Religion and Cult.” In Duhoux and Morpurgo Davies 2011, pp. 169–211.
Hiller, Stefan and Oswald Panagl. 1986. Die frühgriechischen Texte aus mykenischer Zeit. Second edition. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Hooker, J. T. 1977. “The Language of the Thebes OF Tablets.” Minos 16:174–178.
Jackson, A. V. Williams. 1892. An Avestan Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
Jamison, Stephanie W. 1983. Function and Form in the -áya-Formations of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Jamison, Stephanie W. and Joel P. Brereton. 2014. The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. 3 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Killen, John T. 1979. “The Knossos Ld (1) Tablets.” In Risch and Mühlestein 1979, pp. 151–181.
———. 1983. “Mycenaean Possessive Adjectives in -e-jo.” Transactions of the Philological Society 81:66–99.
———. 2008. “Mycenaean Economy.” In Duhoux and Morpurgo Davies 2008, pp. 159–200.
Klein, Jared; Brian Joseph; and Matthias Fritz (eds.). 2017. Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Three volumes. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lee, Mireille M. 1999. The Myth of the Classical Peplos. Ph.D. dissertation. Bryn Mawr College.
———. 2012. “Maternity and Miasma: Dress and the Transition from Parthenos to Gunē.” In Petersen and Salzman-Mitchell 2012, pp. 23–42.
———. 2015. Body, Dress, and Identity in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lejeune, Michel. 1964. “Sur quelques termes du vocabulaire économique mycénien.” In Bennett 1964, pp. 77–109.
———. 1976. “ΔΩ ‘maison’.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 17:79–84.
Linders, Tullia. 1972. Studies in the Treasure Records of Artemis Brauronia Found in Athens. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.
Lobel, E. and D. L. Page. 1968. Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta. Reprint edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lunt, Horace G. 2001. Old Church Slavonic Grammar. Seventh revised edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lupack, Susan. 2006. “Deities and Religious Personnel as Collectors.” In Perna 2006, pp. 89–108.
Luria, Salomon. 1957. “Vorgriechische Kulte.” Minos 5:41–52.
Mallory, J. P. and D. Q. Adams (eds.). 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
Maurice, Nicole. 1988. “Analogie et flexion nominale en grec mycénien: le datif-locatif pluriel des thèmes en -n-.” Minos 23:117–146.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1978. Sanskrit-Grammatik. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 1992. Griechische Sprachwissenschaft. Two volumes. Berlin. Walter de Gruyter.
———. 2003. Indo-European Linguistics. With contributions by Matthias Fritz and Manfred Mayrhofer. Translated by Charles Gertmenian. Berlin. Walter de Gruyter.
Monier-Williams, Monier. 1979. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Reprint edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morizot, Yvette. 2004. “Offrandes à Artémis pour une naissance: Autour du relief d’Achinos.” In Dasen 2004, pp. 159–170.
Nagy, Gregory. 1968. “On Dialectal Anomalies in Pylian Texts.” In Atti e memorie del 1° congresso internazionale di micenologia. Volume 2, pp. 663–679. Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo.
———. 1994–1995. “A Mycenaean Reflex in Homer: Phorênai.” Minos 29–30:171–175.
———. 2007. “Did Sappho and Alcaeus Ever Meet? Symmetries of Myth and Ritual in Performing the Songs of Ancient Lesbos.” In Bierl, Lämmle, and Wesselmann 2007, pp. 211–269. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hlnc.essay:Nagy.Did_Sappho_and_Alcaeus_Ever_Meet.2007.
———. 2008. “Greek: An Updating of a Survey of Recent Work.” http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_Nagy.Greek_an_Updating.2008.
———. 2015. “A Second Look at a Possible Mycenaean Reflex in Homer: Phorēnai.” http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hlnc.essay:Nagy.A_Second_Look_at_a_Possible_Mycenaean_Reflex_in_Homer.2015.
———. 2017. “Things Said and Not Said in a Ritual Text: Iguvine Tables Ib 10–16 / VIb 48–53.” In Hajnal, Kölligan, and Zipser 2017, pp. 509–549. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hlnc.essay:Nagy.Things_Said_and_Not_Said_in_a_Ritual_Text.2016.
Nakassis, Dimitri. 2013. Individuals and Society in Mycenaean Pylos. Leiden: Brill.
Nicole, Jules. 1966. Les scolies genevoises de l’Iliade. Two volumes. Reprint edition. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
Nielsen, Hans F. 1989. Germanic Languages: Origins and Early Dialectal Interrelations. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
———. 1992. “Variability in Old English and the Continental Germanic Languages.” In Rissanen et al. 1992, pp. 640–646.
Ogden, Daniel. 2013. Drakon: Dragon Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olsen, Barbara. 2014. Women in Mycenaean Greece: The Linear B Tablets from Pylos and Knossos. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Palaima, Thomas G. 1996–1997. “Po-re-na: A Mycenaean Reflex in Homer? An I-E Figure in Mycenaean?” Minos 31–32:303–312.
———. 1999. “Kn02—Tn 316.” In Deger-Jalkotzy, Hiller, and Panagl 1999, pp. 437–461.
———. 2011. “Scribes, Scribal Hands, and Palaeography.” In Duhoux and Morpurgo Davies 2011, pp. 33–136.
Palmer, L. R. 1955. “A Mycenaean Calendar of Offerings (PY Kn02).” Eranos 53:1–13.
———. 1962. “Review of Bennett, Chadwick, Ventris, and Householder 1959.” Gnomon 34:578–579.
———. 1965. “Review of Bennett 1964.” Language 41:312–329.
———. 1969. The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts. Enlarged and corrected edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, L. R. and John Chadwick (eds.). 1966. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perna, Massimo (ed.). 2006. Fiscality in Mycenaean and Near Eastern Archives: Proceedings of the Conference Held at Soprintendenza Archivistica per la Campania, Naples, 21–23 October 2004. Paris: de Boccard.
Petersen, Lauren Hackworth and Patricia Salzman-Mitchell (eds.). 2012. Mothering and Motherhood in Ancient Greece and Rome. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Ramat, Anna Giacalone and Paolo Ramat (eds.). 1998. The Indo-European Languages. London: Routledge.
Ringe, Donald. 2017. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic: A Linguistic History of English. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ringe, Donald and Ann Taylor. 2014. The Development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Risch, Ernst. 1966. “Les différences dialectales dans le mycénien.” In Palmer and Chadwick 1966, pp. 150–157.
Risch, Ernst and Hugo Mühlestein (eds.). 1979. Colloquium Mycenaeum: Actes du sixième colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens tenu à Chaumont sur Neuchâtel du 7 au 13 septembre 1975. Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel.
Rissanen, Matti; Ossi Ihalainen; Terttu Nevalainen; and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.). 1992. History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rix, Helmut; Martin Kümmel; Thomas Zehnder; Reiner Lipp; and Brigitte Schirmer. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben [= LIV]. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Rizza.
Rodríguez, Juan Piquero. 2014. “Hipótesis sobre las funciones y la indumentaria de los po-re-na micénicos.” ’Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones 19:193–212.
Rougemont, Françoise 2005. “Les noms des dieux dan les tablettes inscrites en linéaire B.” In Belayche et al. 2005, pp. 325–388.
Ruijgh, C. J. 1967. Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
Singh, Prem. 1995. “Once Again on The Ode on Man.” In Taneja and Sena 1995, pp. 257–264.
Spyropoulos, Theodoros G. and John Chadwick. 1975. The Thebes Tablets II. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.
Staal, Frits. 1989. Rituals and Mantras: Rules Without Meaning. New York: Peter Lang.
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taneja, G. R. and Vinod Sena (eds.). 1995. Literature East and West: Essays Presented to R. K. DasGupta. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Limited.
Thompson, Rupert J. E. 2010. “Mycenaean Greek.” In Bakker 2010, pp. 189–199.
Thumb, Albert and A. Scherer. 1959. Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte. Part two. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
van der Valk, Marchinus. 1971–1987. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes. Four volumes. Leiden: Brill.
Vendryes, Joseph. 1918. “Les correspondances de vocabulaire entre l’indo-iranien et l’italo-celtique.” Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris 20:265–285.
Ventris, Michael and John Chadwick. 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vilborg, Ebbe. 1960. A Tentative Grammar of Mycenaean Greek. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Walde, Alois and Julius Pokorny. 1927. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. Volume 2. Berlin and Leipzig: de Gruyter.
———. 1930. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. Volume 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2011. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. Third edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Wendel, Karl. 1935. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium vetera. Berlin: Weidmann.
Whitney, William Dwight. 1960. Sanskrit Grammar: Including both the Classical Language, and the Older Dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. Second Edition. Ninth Reprinting. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Willi, Andreas. 1994–1995. “Do-ra-qe Pe-re Po-re-na-qe A-ke: An Indo-European Figure in Mycenaean?” Minos 29–30:177–185.
Woodard, Roger D. 1986. “Dialectal Differences at Knossos.” Kadmos 25:49–74 and http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hlnc.essay:WoodardR.Dialectal_Differences_at_Knossos.1986.
———. 2006. Indo-European Sacred Space: Vedic and Roman Cult. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
———. 2013. Myth, Ritual, and the Warrior in Roman and Indo-European Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. Forthcoming a. “Hated by All Gods: Lycurgus, Bellerophon, and the Twin Maladies of the Indo-European Warrior in Homer’s Iliad.” In Meurant forthcoming.
———. Forthcoming b. “A Formal and Functional Interpretation of Linear B qi-wo as k w iwo- ‘Cairn’.” In Bichlmeier, Šefčik, and Sukač forthcoming.


[ back ] 1. For the reading of the month name po-ro-wi-to as Plowistos (Πλωϝιστός) the ‘month of sailing’ see Palmer 1955:11 and 1969:254–255.
[ back ] 2. For the sense of the verb i-je-to see, inter alia, García-Ramón 1996.
[ back ] 3. Pylos is written in oversized symbols along the left margin of the text area, positioned approximately as in the translation.
[ back ] 4. A graffito, closely matched by sequences on Pylos tablets Aq 218 and Xa 412. On possible interpretations see Palaima 2011:51–52n30, with bibliography.
[ back ] 5. See also Vilborg 1960:113, tentatively following Ventris and Chadwick’s interpretation.
[ back ] 6. Herein references to Nagy’s work are to paragraph numbers of the revised and expanded versions.
[ back ] 7. This is a use that certainly reflects the origin of the primitive Indo-European infinitive, as Willi (1994/1995:184n51) suggests. On early Indo-European infinitives as nominal case forms, see, inter alia, Szemerényi 1996:324–326 and Meier-Brügger 2003:184, 243–244, both with helpful bibliography.
[ back ] 8. Willi (1994-1995:181–185) also notes the significance of the Mycenaean phrase as an expression of the Indo-European syntagm. He argues for the employment of the Indo-European formula in ritual contexts outside of the Pylos tablet, drawing attention to Cato’s prayer of lustration (De agricultura 141) and the ritual described on Iguvine Tables III and IV. Cato’s prayer is of course addressed to the warrior deity Mars. On the warrior affiliation of Indo-European rites involving movement through space see Woodard 2006.
[ back ] 9. Iliad 2.562–563; 4.365–367; 5.241–243; 8.112–115.
[ back ] 10. See Bennett 1964.
[ back ] 11. And for the same view expressed still earlier in print, see Chadwick and Baumbach 1963:254: “po-re-na PY Tn 316 has been interpreted as infin. phorēnai (φορῆναι) but is now generally believed to be a noun.”
[ back ] 12. Palmer (1965:315n9) cites Ventris and Chadwick (1956; in spite of Chadwick and Baumbach 1963:254, noted above) and Chantraine (1957 [=1973]) as still considering po-re-na to be an infinitive.
[ back ] 13. See Palmer (1969 [revised edition]: 53, 63, 260, 266–267, 446).
[ back ] 14. On the attribution of the meaning ‘victims’ to a nominal po-re-na, with varying degrees of confidence, see, inter alia, Heubeck 1966:102 (“ ‘Opferdiener’, ‘Sklave’, ‘Menschenopfer’ o. ä.”); Ruijgh 1967:115n79; Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:94; Duhoux 1976:127 (“po-re-na pourrait signifier approximativement « victimes », vel sim.”); Hooker 1977:176–178 (“it is probable, on the whole”); Aura Jorro 1993:143; Bartoněk 2003:247, 252, 377, 379; Duhoux 2008:331; Hiller 2011:181–182 (with the gloss “victims, bearers of gold vessels?”), 199–200, 206–207.
[ back ] 15. See also Palaima 2011:66.
[ back ] 16. This is the gloss proposed by Gérard-Rousseau 1968:177.
[ back ] 17. On *φορην in addition to Georgiev 1956:67 and Palmer 1969:267 see also, inter alia, Luria 1957:42 (φορηνά); Gérard-Rousseau 1968:177 (*φορην); Duhoux 1976:127 (*φορήν). Thumb and Scherer 1959 question a reading of po-re-na as accusative plural of *φορήν, along with its meaning “die als Tribut geschuldeten Menschen;” similarly, Doria 1965:232 -- *φορηνά (?) ‘offerte, vittime sacrificali’? (φορέω).
[ back ] 18. Toward affirming *phorēn (*φορην) Palaima offers, in the same footnote, examples of various morphologies which he would argue to buttress the interpretation.
[ back ] 19. Aelius Herodianus and Pseudo-Herodianus De prosodia catholica 3,1.327; Etymologicum magnum p. 790.
[ back ] 20. Nagy references Thumb and Scherer 1959:133, 169. See also, inter alia: for Arcadian, Dubois 1988:142–146, 176–177; and for Cypriot, Egetmeyer 2010:1:469–471, and 524–525 on the infinitival evidence in Cypriot.
[ back ] 21. See Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem (= van der Valk 1971–1987) 1.284; 2.17, 142, 429; 3.66; Scholia in Iliadem (scholia vetera [= Erbse 1969–1988]) 10.270; Scholia in Iliadem (scholia vetera et recentiora e cod. Genevensi gr. 44 [= Nicole 1966]) 10.270.
[ back ] 22. On which see Nagy 2008:II§§139–141. See also, inter alia, Thumb and Scherer 1959:326; Vilborg 1960:22; Palmer 1969:36–37, 60–62; Chantraine 1973:504–507; Duhoux 1983:46–47; Bartoněk 1987:12–13 and Table B; Thompson 2010:198–199.
[ back ] 23. We should note that this is the express opposite of the conclusion reached by Duhoux (1983:47–48), who judges Special Mycenaean likely to be ancestral to Arcado-Cypriot. He bases his conclusion on three (of the four) dialect characteristics that distinguish Normal Mycenaean from Special Mycenaean: the three Normal Mycenaean traits continue into none of the attested dialects of the first millennium BC (with a couple of marked exceptions, on which see Risch 1966:157 and Nagy 2008:II§§125–133) and, thus, their absence from Arcado-Cypriot does not, in and of itself, provide good evidence for uniquely sorting Arcado-Cypriot with Special Mycenaean. Both Duhoux (1983:48) and Nagy (2008:II126–133) appeal to sociolinguistic considerations in accounting for the survival of the Special Mycenaean dialect characteristics. On Special Mycenaean see especially Risch 1966; Nagy 1968; and Woodard 1986.
[ back ] 24. See, inter alia, Ventris and Chadwick 1973:461 and 573, indicating uncertainty; Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:94; Duhoux 1976:127; Hooker 1977:176; Aura Jorro 1993:143; Palaima 1996–1997:308–309 and 1999:455; Bartoněk 2003:247, 252, 377, 379; Hiller 2011:182.
[ back ] 25. The interpretation follows observations made by Ruijgh 1967 and Gulizio 2000. Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:88 take Di-u-ja-wo to be a man’s name, but the -wo termination is problematic; they attempt to resolve the problem by uncomfortably emending the reading to di-u-ja-wo<-no>; others have followed. For discussion of the form see Woodard forthcoming b.
[ back ] 26. Palaima observes (p. 308) that this is especially so in texts “with religious associations where the pinpointing of a particular sanctuary within a locale may easily merge in the mind of the scribe receiving and recording information with the deity worshipped at a particular locale or workers or officials located there.”
[ back ] 27. With the last named compare the allative of tablet Of 37, Qa-ra-to-de, preceding A-re-i-ze-we-i.
[ back ] 28. For discussion see, inter alia, Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:93; Killen 1979:176–178 (especially note ** on p. 178); Rougemont 2005:336n56; Duhoux 2008:261–262; Killen 2008:188.
[ back ] 29. On a case-by-case basis Chadwick often but not always concurs: see Ventris and Chadwick 1973:532–533; Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:105–106.
[ back ] 30. See Ventris and Chadwick 1973:541, 575; Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:105; Killen 1983:72, 75–76; Aura Jorro 1985:197; 1993:177–178.
[ back ] 31. See Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:92; Hiller 1987:243–246.
[ back ] 32. In Chadwick’s view the adjectives ne-wa and pa-ra-ja likely reference wool rather than personnel; see Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:92 and 96. One is reminded, however, of the Hittite and Luvian religious officiant called the SALŠU.GI ‘Old Woman’. The Old Woman herself utilizes wool in, for example, conducting the purifying rites described in the Hittite Tunnawi ritual (see Goetze 2009:9–15) and conducting the ritual (CTH 433.2) for appeasing the tutelary god of the kurša.
[ back ] 33. See Aura Jorro 1985:478. On the morphology of no-ri-wo-ki-de (vis-à-vis no-ri-wo-ko at Pylos) see the comments of Meier-Brügger 1992:2:25, with bibliography.
[ back ] 34. See Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:89, 93. Contra Chadwick’s interpretation see Hooker 1977:174–176. See further discussion in Woodard forthcoming b.
[ back ] 35. See Ventris and Chadwick 1973:576; Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:104.
[ back ] 36. See Aura Jorro 1993:304, with bibliography.
[ back ] 37. See Ventris and Chadwick 1973:572; Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:105.
[ back ] 38. See Aura Jorro 1985:271–272, with bibliography.
[ back ] 39. See Aura Jorro 1985:408, with bibliography.
[ back ] 40. See Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:107.
[ back ] 41. Thus, Spyropoulos and Chadwick 1975:105; Lejeune 1976:82 (deferring to Chadwick); Duhoux 1976:127; Hiller 1987:246 and 2011:182; Palaima 1996–1997:308–309; Del Freo and Rougemont 2012:270.
[ back ] 42. Cf. Palaima 1999:455. See also Rodríguez 2014, who would interpret po-re-na as denoting individuals who carry offerings but who explicitly rejects (see p. 196, n. 24) the infinitival interpretations of Willi and of Nagy.
[ back ] 43. Here Dubois also calls attention to the gloss of Hesychius K 4434: kuessan: kuousan (κύεσσαν· κύουσαν).
[ back ] 44. With the spelling po-re-si (from earlier *phor-ent-si) compare Linear B spellings such as dative pa-si (from earlier *pant-si), as in pa-si-te-o-i ‘for all gods’ (frequent at Knossos), and so on; see, inter alia, Ventris and Chadwick 1973:83; Lejeune 1982:75.
[ back ] 45. On ritual performance of Aeolian lyric see Nagy 2007, with references to earlier work.
[ back ] 46. See Heisserer and Hodot 1986:119.
[ back ] 47. Compare also Thessalian dative plural katoikentessi (κατοικέντεσσι) in IG IX,2 517.14 and 18, from Larisa (214 BC).
[ back ] 48. See the discussion of Blümel 1982:54, 218–219 who draws attention to Lesbian inscriptions (1) and (3) above and suggests a shortening of the vowel before the sequence sonorant + obstruent, and conversely, in certain finite forms, a lengthening conditioned by the same context.
[ back ] 49. On po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja as a festival name see earlier Palmer 1962:578n1, and also 1969:446.
[ back ] 50. See Heubeck 1966:105; Ruijgh 1967:115; Duhoux 1976:127–128; Hiller and Panagl 1986:312; Palaima 1995:455; 1996–1997:306–308; Bartoněk 2003:207, 379; Lupack 2006:100n46; Hiller 2011:172, 199.
[ back ] 51. On the morphology see Burrow 1955:150–151; Whitney 1960:426–428.
[ back ] 52. See Whitney 1960:427; Burrow 1955:150.
[ back ] 53. On the Avestan morphology, see Jackson 1892:214–215.
[ back ] 54. See Brugmann 1892:141–145.
[ back ] 55. See, inter alia, Burrow 1955:150; Andersen 1998:446–447; Lunt 2001:110–111.
[ back ] 56. See also Nielsen 1989:8–9; Harðarson 2017:945–947.
[ back ] 57. Nielsen (1992:642) observes: “Both ablaut grades were thus originally known throughout Germanic.” A Germanic sound change analysis speculated by Ringe and Taylor (2014:20) is redundant and unlikely in light of the comparative evidence; Ringe 2017:218 appears to be more in line with Brugmann, Nielsen, Harðarson et al.
[ back ] 58. From *bher-eno-. While Indo-European *e and *o generally merge with *a as a in the evolution of Sanskrit, *o develops into ā in open syllables (Brugmann’s Law).
[ back ] 59. The quotation is from Jamison and Brereton 2014:1424; see their translation and discussion of the hymn on pp. 1424–1426. See also Geldner 1951–1957:3:177–180.
[ back ] 60. Grassmann 1875:927.
[ back ] 61. Monier-Williams 1979:747.
[ back ] 62. Within the same semantic realm, compare teknon (τέκνον) ‘offspring’, nominal derived from the root of tiktō (τίκτω) ‘to bear offspring’ (of uncertain etymology) by the related formant -no- (on which see below).
[ back ] 63. See already Brugmann 1892:141.
[ back ] 64. Hesychius references the use of lusizōnos (λυσίζωνος) to describe also a woman at the point of becoming a bride, the moment of presenting her reproductive capacities to her husband, writing that the term is used of any woman who has been given in marriage. Complementary to this, the Suda reports (Λ 859) that lusizōnos (λυσίζωνος) describes a woman who has had intercourse with a man, as virgins about to have sex dedicate their own virginal belts to Artemis.
[ back ] 65. Scholia in Apollonii Rhodii Argonautica (scholia vetera [= Wendel 1935]) 33: λύουσι γὰρ τὰς Ζώνας αἱ πρώτως τίκτουσαι καὶ ἀνατιθέασιν Ἀρτέμιδι· ὅθεν καὶ Λυσιζώνου Ἀρτέμιδος ἱερὸν έν Ἀθήναις. See Bettini 2013:263n17 on the scene of such a dedication illustrated on an Attic white-figure vase.
[ back ] 66. These items are catalogued in Cleland 2005; see also Linders 1972 and Foxhall and Stears 2000. See also Lee 1999:218–269 and especially Brøns 2016.
[ back ] 67. See also Bettini 2013:263–264nn21–22, including additional bibliography.
[ back ] 68. Epigrams 6.200 (Leonidas), 270 (Nicias), and 274 (Perses). See also 6.146 (Callimachus), in which no votive textile is specified.
[ back ] 69. Epigrams 6.201 (Marcus Argentarius), 202 (Leonidas of Tarentum), 271 (Phaedimus), and 272 (Perses). See also 6.273 (in the style of Nossis), in which no votive textile is specified.
[ back ] 70. See Nakassis 2013:130, 275 for discussion.
[ back ] 71. See, inter alia, Bresson 2015:354, with bibliography.
[ back ] 72. In the case of Mycenaean, a few Linear B lexemes of uncertain sense match the formal pattern. For example, Knossos tablet Fp 363 records olive oil offerings to a cult site and, seemingly, to female religious officiants (ki-ri-te-wi-ja): in the first line of the tablet there appears the obscure term te-re-no (on the tablet see Olsen 2014:192). Compare the root of teras (τέρας) ‘sign, portent’, of uncertain etymology.
[ back ] 73. See, inter alia, Boisacq 1950:472; Chantraine 1968:544; LIV 348n1.
[ back ] 74. See, inter alia, Chantraine 1968:442–443; Ventris and Chadwick 1973:586–587; Aura Jorro 1993:362, 366; Watkins 2011:19.
[ back ] 75. See, inter alia, Chantraine 1968:1277–1278. Bader (1969:35) declares the Greek suffix -ono- to be “bizarre en lui-même”: comparative evidence makes this an untenable, and rather odd, statement, one that seems only, and necessarily, consequent to Bader’s claim that the initial o-vowel of κλόνος, θρόνος, and χρόνος is a reflex of a syllabic liquid. It is not a persuasive claim: such reflexes are dialectally restricted and not operative in the Attic-Ionic lexicon in which these words must reside. In the remaining examples of Greek expressions of primitive Indo-European *-ono- cited above there is of course no such syllabic liquid involvement.
[ back ] 76. See Frisk 1963–1970:1016. Compare Greek phthinō (φθίνω) ‘to destroy’, Sanskrit kṣayati, kṣiṇoti ‘to destroy’, Avestan jināiti ‘destroyed’, from Proto-Indo-European *dhgwhei- ‘to destroy’. On this form see, inter alia, Chantraine 1968:1200–1201; Mallory and Adams 197:158; LIV 150–152.
[ back ] 77. See, inter alia, Brugmann 1892:143–144; Walde and Pokorny 1927:516; Chantraine 1968:871; Watkins 2011:90.
[ back ] 78. See, inter alia, Brugmann 1892:144; Chantraine 1968:406–407.
[ back ] 79. See, inter alia, Chantraine 1968:161–163.
[ back ] 80. See, inter alia, Brugmann 1892:144; Chantraine 1968:42–45; Watkins 2011:2. Comparison has been made to the n-stems of Sanskrit aśan- ‘stone’ and Avestan asan- ‘stone’. Also compare Sanskrit aś-ana- ‘reaching (across)’, from the verb root aś- ‘to reach; pierce’.
[ back ] 81. Burrow (1955:369) summarizes the conventional observation in this way: -ná- tends to be used “with roots in -r̥̄ … , roots in -d … and it is found in a number of roots in -j.” It also occurs in some roots in ; see Whitney 1960:343.
[ back ] 82. On Sanskrit past participle formations see, inter alia, Burrow 1955:150, 166–167, 369; Whitney 1960:340–344; Mayrhofer 1978:96–97.
[ back ] 83. See the discussion in Jackson 1892:196 and 223.
[ back ] 84. As reported by both Burrow (1955:150) and Whitney (1960:343).
[ back ] 85. For Avestan see Jackson 1892:195–196.
[ back ] 86. Buck and Petersen (1949:261) write: “Simple –νο- was decadent even in the earliest period, but some conglutinates displayed more or less life.”
[ back ] 87. A few Greek noun stems are formed in -no- as well. Mention was made of teknon (τέκνον) ‘child; animal young’ in an earlier note. Other examples include thunos (θῦνος), a ‘fight, assault’, from thuō (θύω) ‘to rush on’; compare Sanskrit dhūnoti ‘to shake’.
[ back ] 88. On the etymology see, inter alia, Walde and Pokorny 1930:194; Chantraine 1968:25–26; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:704n6; Mallory and Adams 1997:650; Watkins 2011:105.
[ back ] 89. The citations in this footnote and those that follow (i.e. those notes that accompany the discussion of the several lexemes derived by -no-) should be construed as exemplary and not necessarily exhaustive, though in some instances the cited texts are the only examples discovered prior to late antiquity. For Artemis see Homer Odyssey 5.123, 18.202, 20.71; Aeschylus Suppliants 144–145, 1030; Agamemnon 134; Aristophanes Thesmophoriazusae 971; Aristotle Problemata 894B.34.
[ back ] 90. Homeric Hymn to Demeter 439; Hesiod Works and Days 465; Archilochus fr. 322.1; Moschion fr. 6.24.
[ back ] 91. Homer Odyssey 11.386; Homeric Hymn to Demeter 337; Phlegon De mirabilibus 10.2a, 2b; Orphic Hymns 24.11, 29.5.
[ back ] 92. Pindar Pythian Odes 9.64; Aeschylus Suppliants 214; Plutarch De defectu oraculorum 421C. For the idea that the term Phoebus entails the quality denoted by hagnos (ἁγνός) see, inter alia, Plutarch De E apud Delphos 393C.
[ back ] 93. Aeschylus Suppliants 652; Orphic Hymns 20.1, 4–5.
[ back ] 94. Lamprocles fr. 1a.1; Simias Epigrams 15.22.9.
[ back ] 95. Simias fr. 9.
[ back ] 96. Pindar Olympian Odes 7.60.
[ back ] 97. Porphyry De philosophia ex oraculis 167.
[ back ] 98. Aristophanes Frogs 875-876; Crates fr. 1.10; Orphic Hymns P.17, 76.11.
[ back ] 99. Euripides Helen 1585.
[ back ] 100. Orphic Hymns 41.7, where the god is named as Chthonic Zeus.
[ back ] 101. Orphic Hymns 70.2.
[ back ] 102. The form can be found in a fragment attributed uncertainly to the sixth-century tragedian Thespis (4*.5).
[ back ] 103. Homeric Hymn to Demeter 1, 478, 486 and Homeric Hymn to Demeter (hymn 13) 1; Homeric Hymn to Hermes 552; Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 5; also Homeric Hymn to the Mother of the Gods 16; Stesichorus fr. S89.7 (Page 1974) and Sappho / Alcaeus fr. S 286 col. 2.5; also Solon fr. 4.14.
[ back ] 104. See, inter alia, Walde and Pokorny 1930:746; Chantraine 1968:992–993; Mallory and Adams 1997:650; LIV 643.
[ back ] 105. Compare the adjective tyajana- ‘leaving; expelling’, and also tyaktavya-, used in the Mahābhārata to denote a life that is ‘to be sacrificed’ (see;;;
[ back ] 106. Stesichorus fr. S89.7 (restored); Bacchylides Odes 13.158; Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 1090; Euripides Iphigenia Among the Taurians 1492; Aristophanes Wealth 772; Orphic Hymns 32.1.
[ back ] 107. Euripides Iphigenia Among the Taurians 1415, Fragmenta papyracea 65.93; Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 55; Aristophanes Thesmophoriazusae 322.
[ back ] 108. Euripides Iphigenia Among the Taurians 749; Bacchylides Odes 11.52; Philostratus Epistulae et dialexeis 1.16.
[ back ] 109. Homeric Hymn to Demeter (line 1 of both hymn 2 and hymn 13); Pausanias 1.37.2, 4.1.8.
[ back ] 110. Orphic Hymns 71.2–3.
[ back ] 111. Euripides Hippolytus 713; Lucites Laudatio sanctorum Eugenii, Valeriani, Canidii et Aquilae 318.
[ back ] 112. Aeschylus Seven Against Thebes 800-801; Phlegon De mirabilibus 10.2b.17; Anthologiae Graecae Appendix, Epigrammata dedicatoria 347.3.
[ back ] 113. Euripides Helen 241–242.
[ back ] 114. Orphic Hymns 55.1–2; Babrius Mythiambi Aesopici 1.32.
[ back ] 115. Orphic Hymns P.19.
[ back ] 116. Orphic Hymns 13.7.
[ back ] 117. Pindar Nemean Odes 5.25.
[ back ] 118. Euripides Helen 1341.
[ back ] 119. Orphic Hymns 41.7.
[ back ] 120. Sophocles Ajax 837, Electra 112; Hesychius Σ 408.
[ back ] 121. In this case the root is not unique to Greek and Indo-Iranian: thus, Armenian erknč‘im ‘to fear’; Luvian kuwaya- ‘to be afraid’; Tocharian A wiyo ‘frightened’. See, inter alia, Walde and Pokorny 1930:816–817; Benveniste 1954:254–255; Chantraine 1968:255–257; Mallory and Adams 1997:198; LIV 130.
[ back ] 122. Homer Iliad 17.210–211 (and see Aristonicus De signis Iliadis 17.211); Sibylline Oracles 11.268, 12.183; Quintus Smyrnaeus Posthomerica 8.276, 9.288, 11.413. See also Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 1065; Hesychius O 1758; Suda Θ 417; Anthologia Graeca 7.312.1.
[ back ] 123. Homer Odyssey 12.260, 430, 23.327; Euripides Trojan Women 436; Joannes Tzetzes Chiliades 10.361.
[ back ] 124. Hesiod Theogony 924–925.
[ back ] 125. Planudes Translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses 13.251–252, translating Latin saevae Dianae.
[ back ] 126. Scholia in Euripidem (scholia vetera [= Schwartz 1966]) Hippolytus 563; see also Euripides Hippolytus 555–564.
[ back ] 127. Homer Iliad 16.788–789.
[ back ] 128. Plato Cratylus 404C. See the remarks of Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 2.760.
[ back ] 129. Sophocles Oedipus Tyrannus 471–472; Euripides Electra 1253; Eudocia Homerocentones 5.683.
[ back ] 130. Hesiod Shield 148; Quintus Smyrnaeus Posthomerica 1.159.
[ back ] 131. Hesiod Theogony 776 (cf. Homer Iliad 2.755, for which see below).
[ back ] 132. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates Romanae 8.53.2.
[ back ] 133. Joannes Chortasmenus Orationes 6.61.
[ back ] 134. Sophocles Women of Trachis 1099.
[ back ] 135. Homer Iliad 5.839, 6.380, 6.385, Odyssey 7.41; Sophocles Ajax 952-953; Lamprocles fr. 1b.1; Chamaelon fr. 29a.6; Quintus Smyrnaeus Posthomerica 3.420 (see also Choniates Historia Man1,pt5.158).
[ back ] 136. Homer Odyssey 7.246, 7.255, 12.449.
[ back ] 137. Homer Odyssey 10.136, 11.8, 12.150; Planudes Translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses 14.369.
[ back ] 138. Homer Iliad 18.394; Matron Convivium Atticum 34.
[ back ] 139. Apollonius Argonautica 3.1213; Orphica Argonautica 909.
[ back ] 140. Euripides Phoenician Women 798; Quintus Smyrnaeus Posthomerica 10.65.
[ back ] 141. Theocritus Idylls 13.44.
[ back ] 142. Euripides Electra 1270.
[ back ] 143. Euripides Orestes 261.
[ back ] 144. Apollonius Argonautica 1.1102.
[ back ] 145. Anthologia Graeca 6.283.2.
[ back ] 146. Anthologia Graeca 9.382.4.
[ back ] 147. Homer Iliad 4.514; Hesiod Shield 71.
[ back ] 148. Scholia in Aeschylum (scholia recentiora [= Dindorf 1851]) Prometheus 77, where deinos (δεινός) is a predicate adjective conjoined with barus (βαρύς) ‘harsh’.
[ back ] 149. Euripides Bacchae 860–861 (superlative).
[ back ] 150. Homer Odyssey 12.322.
[ back ] 151. Hesiod Theogony 759.
[ back ] 152. Hesiod Theogony 933.
[ back ] 153. Manetho Apotelesmatica 1.177; Procopius Declamationes 6.
[ back ] 154. Euripides Orestes 399 (lupē [λύπη]).
[ back ] 155. Plutarch Life of Crassus 16.7.
[ back ] 156. The related neuter nominal deos (δέος) ‘fear, alarm’ is used in Modern Greek to denote the ‘fear’ of God (see Chantraine 1968:256). On deos (δέος) and deima (δεῖμα) as part of the archaic poetic language of combat terror, see Woodard forthcoming a.
[ back ] 157. See Benveniste 1969:2:179–207.
[ back ] 158. On the Gorgon as serpent see Watkins 1995:364; Ogden 2013:102–104.
[ back ] 159. The poet of the Iliad is here situating the Titaressus in Thessaly. Apollonius Rhodius (Argonautica 1.65) refers to the Thessalian seer Mopsus as ‘Titaresian Mopsus’ (Μόψος Τιταρήσιος). Strabo (7a.1.14–15; 9.5.19) equates the river with the Europus. Stephanus Byzantius Ethnica 19.142 identifies it as a river of Thessaly.
[ back ] 160. I am here using the translation of Palmer, i.e. Benveniste 1973:436.
[ back ] 161. On deinos horkos (δεινὸς ὅρκος) as the ‘terrible oath’ sworn see, inter alia, Sophocles Ajax 649; Herodotus 1.176; Plutarch Life of Publicola 4.1. Passim in Procopius De bellis, for example 1.5.15, 24; 1.25.27; 2.5.31; 4.4.25; on Christian usage see Suda Δ 351, K 728.
[ back ] 162. Knossos tablet Ap 639 preserves the form tu-ka-na (in both lines 10 and 11), a woman’s name (the Knossos Ap tablets constitute lists of women), and it likely also appears on tablet Ap 5864 (ṭụ-ka-na). Chadwick and Baumbach (1963:245) suggests a possible reading Stugnā and compare the man’s name tu-ke-ne-u on Pylos tablet Jn 310 + frr.
[ back ] 163. Compare Sophocles’ conjunction of the adjectives at Electra 850–853, in which lines Electra describes her existence as one πολλῶν δεινῶν στυγνῶν τε ‘of many terrible and horrible things’.
[ back ] 164. See, inter alia, Walde and Pokorny 1927:615–620; Jamison 1983:58; LIV 602; Watkins 2011:89.
[ back ] 165. Benveniste (1935:4546) adresesses the pair smerdaleos (σμερδαλέος), smerdnos (σμερδνός), noting also the equivalent alternation seen in iskhaleos (ἰσχαλέος), iskhnos (ἰσχνός) ‘dried, thin’, the latter being far more common; compare Sanskrit śuṣka- ‘dried’. Benveniste and subsequently Chantraine (1968:520–521, 1026–1027) call attention also to the pair kerkhaleos (κερχαλέος), kerkhnos (κερχνός) ‘rough, hoarse’. Both of these forms of the adjective are quite rare; only slightly more common is a noun κέρχνος ‘roughness, hoarseness’, though several derived forms are attested. The etymological origin of the forms is uncertain.
[ back ] 166. See, inter alia, Walde and Pokorny 1927:278; Chantraine 1968:1026–1027; Watkins 2011:56, 83. Old English smeortan ‘to smart’ and related Germanic forms probably belong here.
[ back ] 167. To the semantic set composed of deinos (δεινός), stugnos (στυγνός), smerdnos (σμερδνός), and phriknos (φρικνός) can be added the commonly occurring but etymologically – and hence morphologically – opaque adjective ainos (αἰνός) ‘dread, horrible’. Its use is similar to that of deinos (δεινός), being employed to modify attributively the name of a divine being. It provides no derivatives but several compounds (see Chantraine 1968:35). The Greek formant -no- is also to be seen in rhiknos (ῥικνός) ‘shriveled’ (earliest in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo 317; for the sense compare the above-mentioned iskhaleos [ἰσχαλέος], iskhnos [ἰσχνός] ‘dried, thin’) and sperkhnos (σπερχνός) ‘hurried’, from *sperǵh- ‘to move energetically’ (as in Hesiod Shield 454, Aeschylus Seven Against Thebes 285, and later). With the latter compare notionally the Proto-Indo-European etymon *(s)teu- ‘to move forcefully’, source of stugnos (στυγνός).
[ back ] 168. For discussion see Jamison and Brereton 2014:932–933.
[ back ] 169. See Staal 1989:407–408; Doniger 2005:35–36.
[ back ] 170. See, inter alia, Walde and Pokorny 1930:736–737; Mallory and Adams 1997:500; LIV 636.
[ back ] 171. The two forms stegnos (στεγνός) and steganos (στεγανός) are essentially synonymous and used often of a covering that protects from the elements. The neuter stegnon (στεγνόν) is used substantivally to denote a ‘covered dwelling’. On the morphological relationship of verbal adjectives in -anó- to those in -nó- see Brugmann and Thumb 1913:223; Buck and Petersen 1945:261.
[ back ] 172. On Proto-Indo-European *(s)teg- see, inter alia, Walde and Pokorny 1927:620–621; LIV 589; Watkins 2011:87–88.
[ back ] 173. For the metaphor, see Monier-Williams 1979:1261.
[ back ] 174. See too Euripides Electra 273 and Iphigenia at Aulis 872.
[ back ] 175. On Latin tegō and for discussion of the derivative tignum see Ernout and Meillet 1959:678–679 and 691.
[ back ] 176. The Greek neuter s-stem stegos (στέγος), or tegos (τέγος), as in Odyssey 1.333, 8.458, 10.559, 11.64, 16.415, 18.209, 21.64), can denote ‘roof’, but also ‘house’, as can feminine stegē (στέγη) – much as the neuter -no- adjective stegnon (στεγνόν) can denote a ‘roofed dwelling’.
[ back ] 177. For discussion see Woodard 2013:189–201, 234–236, 241, 250, 257.
[ back ] 178. Of those -no- adjectives mentioned herein only deinos (δεινός) occurs with greater frequency than semnos (σεμνός) and hagnos (ἁγνός), where frequency is determined grosso modo by lemma searches of the full TLG (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae) database (from the Archaic to the Byzantine eras). The number of occurrences of each form recovered, in decreasing order of frequency, is as follows: deinos (δεινός) 26,477; semnos (σεμνός) 8,389; hagnos (ἁγνός) 3,767; terpnos (τερπνός) 2,229; iskhnos (ἰσχνός) 1,519; stugnos (στυγνός) 742; steganos (στεγανός) 363; stegnos (στεγνός) 188; rhiknos (ῥικνός) 120; smerdnos (σμερδνός) 72; sperkhnos (σπερχνός) 34; kerkhnos (κερχνός) 2; phriknos (φρικνός) 2 (dual citations of the single instance).
[ back ] 179. Palaima 1999:455. See also Palaima 1996–1997:306.
[ back ] 180. Since at least Chadwick 1964:23. Compare Ruijgh 1967:115n79.
[ back ] 181. See Duhoux 1976:128, with note 38; 2008:331; Bartoněk 2003:377 (“Menschenopfer?”).
[ back ] 182. See Palmer 1965:326; 1969:447; Maurice 1988:128.
[ back ] 183. In addition to works cited and discussed in the treatment of po-re-no-zo-te-ri-ja above, see also, inter alia, Cole 1998:29–35; Dillon 2002:19–23, 28–31; Demand 2004:87–101; Budin 2016:92–114.