Use the following persistent identifier: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_MuellnerL.The_Meaning_of_Homeric_eukhomai.1976.
Epilogue. The etymology of εὔχομαι
Λ 288 δὲ μέγ᾿ | εὖχος ἔδωκε #
Φ 297 δέ τοι | εὖχος ἀρέσθαι #
Λ 290 || ὑπέρτερον | εὖχος ἄρησθε #
Ο 462 || Τελαμώνιον | εὖχος ἀπηύρα #
Χ 130 || Ὀλύμπιος | εὖχος ὀρέξῃ #
[Doublet: Μ 328 = Ν 327 # – ⏑ ⏑ ἠέ τῳ εὖχος || ὀρέξομεν ἠέ τις ἡμῖν #]
Σ 456, T414 Ἕκτορι | κῦδος ἔδωκε #
Μ 407 || ἐέλπετο | κῦδος ἀρέσθαι #
Υ 502 ἵετο | κῦδος ἀρέσθαι #
Θ 237 μέγα | κῦδος ἀπηύρας #
Ε 225 || Διομήδεϊ | κῦδος ὀρέξῃ #
Ε 33 Ζεὺς | κῦδος ὀρέξῃ #
[For the doublet Μ 328 = Ν 327, cp.:
Ο 491 # ἠμὲν ὁτέοισιν κῦδος || ὑπέρτερον ἐγγυαλίξῃ #]
or
Ο 595 κῦδος || ἀπαίνυτο …]
[Τ2/Ρ2 variant [4] : χ 7 || πόρῃ δέ μοι εὖχος Ἀπόλλων ≠
[Doublet: Λ 445 = Ε 654 = Π 625 [5] {108|109}
[Τ2/Ρ2 variant: Ε 33]
[For the doublet, cp. line-initial transformations:
Σ 294 # κῦδος ἀρέσθ’ …
Π 88 # δώῃ κῦδος ἀρέσθαι …]
These lists match all the attestations of εὖχος with representative κῦδος attestations. From a comparison of I and Ia, it is clear that εὖχος and κῦδος are simply prosodical variants which are never metrically interchangeable. In II vs. IIa, the situation is less clear. The formula systems are functionally complementary, and κῦδος could not substitute for εὖχος in II., but εὖχος could substitute for κῦδος without violation of meter in IIa. In fact, εὖχος in IIa would improve the rhythm by alleviating the overlengthening in Ζεὺ̅̅ς̲ | κ̲ῦδος. [6] But the situation is exactly paralleled elsewhere in the Homeric corpus, cp. ποδάρκη̅ς̲̅ | δΐος Ἀχιλλεύς # (vs. ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς), or πολύτλᾱ̅ς̲̅ | δ̲ῖος Ὀδυσσεύς (vs. ἐσθλὸς Οδυσσεύς). These cases of ‘uncorrected’ overlengthening are probably prosodic and phraseological archaisms embedded in the poetic repertoire. It is possible to rationalize them by considering εὖχος, ἐσθλός, and ὠκύς as metrical and functional alternatives to κῦδος and δῖος but not vice versa. Consider the large statistical predominance of κῦδος (64 x) vs. εὖχος (19 x). But the real point is that Ζεὺς κῦδος ἔδωκεν # was an immutable phrase to the traditional poet, and the substitution of εὖχος for κῦδος never occurred to him even in spite of the rhythmic anomaly. Neither does it prove that εὖχος and κῦδος differed from each other in meaning. As the formulaic analysis suggests, the two words occur in plainly identical contexts. [7] Moreover, the phraseology surrounding εὖχος and κῦδος is paralleled in only one other epic word, κλέος.
γ 380 ἀλλά, ἄνασσ’, ἵληθι, δίδωθι δέ μοι κλέος ἐσθλόν
Ρ 16 τῶ με ἔα κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἐνὶ Τρώεσσιν ἀρέσθαι
Φ 297 ἂψ ἐπὶ νῆας ἴμεν· δίδομεν δέ τοι εὖχος ἀρέσθαι
Formally speaking, this line has the characteristics of doublet composition (sic, in spite of its three attestations), namely improvisational x-sector phraseology and two (E 654, Λ 445) repetitions in a fixed context of three lines. [9] The poet’s choice of εὖχος instead of κῦδος has been motivated by thematic and secondary dictional associations in the context. First, it cannot be a coincidence that all three attestations occur as the last line in the challenge speech of one hero to another, speeches which commonly contain statements of a hero’s γένος or γενεή introduced by secular εὔχομαι. [10] Moreover, one of the attestations of this line (Λ 445) is followed four lines later (Λ 449) by secular εὔχομαι introducing a speech of death exultation. [11] One might well be tempted to translate εὖχος in this line, with LSJ9, ‘boast, vaunt of superiority’, or, with Perpillou, to consider it ‘le nom institutionnel de l’avantage recherché [en combat]’. [12] However, it is also clear that this line is associated in the poet’s mind with another line which uses sacral εὔχομαι: {110|111}
# εὖχος ἐμοὶ δώσειν, ψυχὴν δ’ Αϊδι κλυτοπώλῳ #
The parallelism in compositional technique, [13] diction, and arrangement (# εὖχεο … κλυτοτόξῳ # vs. # εὖχος … κλυτοπώλῳ #) cannot be coincidental, especially in view of the fact that κλυτόπωλος is attested only here in all Greek literature. It is now tempting to translate εὖχος in this line, again with LSJ9, ‘object of prayer, thing prayed for’. But this translation leaves aside the word’s associations with secular εὔχομαι as well as the most immediate associations of all, those with κῦδος and κλέος, which imply a meaning ‘fame, glory’. For # εὖχος ἐμοὶ δώσειν |, compare | κῦδος ἔδωκεν #, || δίδωθι δέ μοι κλέος, etc. as cited above, and for meaning and context compare:
vs.
Πηλεΐδῃ, αὐτὸς δὲ φίλης αἰῶνος ἀμερθῇς.
a line in which a form of εὔχομαι occurs with reciprocating ἔκλυε (cp. secular εὖχος vs. κλέος) and parallel ἔφατ’ (cp. legal and secular εὔχομαι … φημί). The same collocation of εὔχομαι and κλύω is attested elsewhere in transformations. [18] Nor are typological parallels lacking. The development ‘say’ => ‘pray’ is a contextual specialization of the same order as ‘say’ => ‘boast, ‘speech’ => ‘fame’, etc. A word often connected with εὔχομαι in sacral contexts reveals the pattern again: ῥέζω (root *werg-/wreg– ‘do’), ‘do’ => ‘sacrifice’ (both meanings Homeric).
occurs elsewhere with the following verbs: [20]
4x μεγάλ’ ἔκτυπε ‘thundered loudly’
Δ 425 μεγάλα βρέμει ‘roars loudly’
Ν 282 μεγάλα . . . πατάσσει ‘pounds loudly’
4 x μεγάλα στενάχουσι ‘groan loudly’ {113|114}
Π 429 μεγάλα κλάζοντε ‘crowing loudly’
ι 399 μεγάλ’ ἤπυεν ‘shrieked loudly’
υ 113 μεγάλ’ ἐβρόντησας ‘thundered loudly’
Evidently, prayer is not only functionally but also physically marked speech in Homer.
8.5.39 (Anuṣṭubh): anyó nét sūrír óhate
8.7.31 (Gāyatrī): kó vaḥ sakhitvá ohate
8.80.9 (Gāyatrī): ā́d ít pátir na ohase
8.3.14 (Pragātha): ŕ̥ṣiḥ kó vípra ohate
8.40.11 (Mahāpaṅkti): utó nú cid yá óhata
8.5.3 (Gāyatrī): vā́caṃ dūtó yáth ohiṣe
II. In dodecasyllables (Jagatī):
8.59.2 yáyoḥ śátrur nákir ā́deva óhate {114|115}
III. In hendecasyllables (Triṣṭubh):
5.3.9 putró yás te sahasaḥ sūna ūhé
5.30.6 áhim ohānám apá āśáyānam
6.52.5 devā́m̐ óhāno ávasā́gamiṣṭhaḥ
6.17.9 áhiṃ yád índro abhí óhasānaṃ
7.16.11 (Pragātha): ā́d íd vo devá ohate (transitive óhate)
8.59.2 (Jagatī): … nákir ā́deva óhate
- γένος εὔχομαι εἶναι and its transformations
- εὔχομαι εἶναι + comparative/superlative
- εὔχομαι εἶναι + social relationships
- Secular εὔχομαι introducing, concluding, and reporting speech.
The attestations of intransitive ūh- in the Rig-Veda are faithful to this classification in detail, though they are not susceptible to such rigorous formulaic analysis. For εὔχομαι specifying γένος [26] compare this genealogy of the Aśvins:
divó anyáḥ subhágah ̣ putrá ūhé
This passage corresponds in etiquette to the Greek γένος εὔχομαι εἶναι passages, in which a personage specifies the name of his father but omits {116|117} his own. Furthermore, the second genealogy, divás putrá ‘son of Dyaus’ (divás = Διός) is attested in Greek with εὔχομαι [28] :
Greek πά(ϝ)ϊς and Sanskrit putráḥ are cognate (Frisk 1960 s.v. παῖς, Ernout-Meillet 1959 s.v. puer, Pokorny 1959: p. 843) and for possible thematic relationships between Paris, Hector, the Dioscuri, and their Vedic equivalents, the Aśvins, see D. Frame, The Myth of Return in Early Greek Epic (forthcoming).
A priest is here speaking of himself as Agni’s son, qua seeker of his protection. [30] Two other Vedic attestations seem to preserve the genealogical context for óhate:
In the first, the poet addresses a pregnant compliment to his patron. The second refers to Indra. The syntactic parallelism between these attestations and such Homeric lines as
Α 91 ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι
cannot be coincidental. From a semantic point of view, it suggests that the contentiousness and pride associated with secular εὔχομαι in Greek were associated with its ancestor in Indo-European (as well as Indic). On the other hand the absence of a form of the verb ‘to be’ in the Vedic attestations, [33] coupled with the unqualified comparative in 8.5.39 [34] suggests that the accuracy and objectivity associated with Greek εὔχομαι has weakened slightly in favor of more emotive and subjective connotations, or, alternatively, that the Greek poetic tradition developed and strengthened the word’s objective connotations. Actually both processes may have occurred. {118|119}
yád índram ájahātana
kó vaḥ sakhitvá ohate
ŕ̥ṣiḥ kó vípra ohate
A further parallel to Homeric θυοσκόος εὔχεαι εἶναι (χ 321) exists in the thrice attested collocation sūrí-/–óhate. Two instances have already been cited, 1.181.4, where the mortal Aśvin is called sūrír and 8.5.39, concerning the poet’s generous sūrír. In the third, Indra is being invoked to crush an enemy, a man who does not extract Soma:
daddhí sūríś cid ohate
The bard is aiming his hostility at a niggardly patron, for the word sūrí- is elsewhere applied either to gods [37] or men in their role as wealth-giving patrons of Vedic hymn and ritual. [38] Its semantic sphere is consistent with ṛ́ṣi- and θυοσκόος, a word attested alongside μάντις and ἱερεύς at Ω 221. Finally, there are these verses, again addressed to Indra: {119|120}
yadā́ káras tád uśmasi
ā́d ít pátir na ohase
An exact formal parallel to the expression pátir … ohase. exists in one of the attestations of εὔχομαι, specifying a social function. Hector, in the prayer to his horses, [39] speaks of himself in relation to Andromache:
Vedic páti– and Greek πόσις are exact formal cognates, [40] but their functions in these attestations diverge: πόσις only survives in the sense ‘lord, husband’ in Greek, and it is applied in Homer to Zeus (H 411 et passim) and an assortment of heroes whose spouses, goddesses and heroines, are always specified. [41] Vedic páti– can also have this sense, [42] but here, as often, it is a hieratic term, restricted to divinities, with the sense ‘lord, master’. However, the social connotations of their common root *pot– are well established for Indo-European, [43] particularly Indo-Iranian, so that the hieratic applications of Vedic páti– are to be understood as an instance of the archaic use of prestige social words and concepts for divinities, such as Ζεῦ πάτερ/dyáuḥ pitár-/Juppiter, etc. or ἄναξ Διὸς υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων, Ζεῦ ἄνα. The situation in Greek represents a later development. Though the specialization of *potis to ‘lord, husband’ must be old, the broader social and hieratic sense ‘lord, master’ is older still. In Greek only the former has survived (contrast the less restricted and hieratic use of the feminine form πότνια ‘lady, mistress’ in Homer and Mycenaean [44] while the older meaning ‘lord, {120|121} master’ has been displaced by such words as ἄναξ. [45] Given the survival of πόσις only in the sense ‘lord, husband’, it remains possible that Homeric πόσις εὔχομαι/Vedic pátir … ohase reflect the combination of these words in the poetic language of Indo-European, and that the traditional phrase was preserved in the Greek epic tradition even though its meaning had altered. We are, then, postulating the preservation—only in connection with Hector—of a phrase which might once have been hieratic, and this can be paralleled by other still hieratic expressions we have found associated with him. [46] Note that the prosody of πόσις εὔχομαι, which is the same as that of γένος εὔχομαι and κλέος ἄφθιτον, is compatible with its Indo-European origin in terms of Nagy’s metrical hypotheses. [47]
āṇḍā́ śúṣṇasya bhédaty
{121|122} Moreover the participial form of ūh– is twice applied to Indra’s chief enemy, the Vṛtra, though without any syntactic complement:
prá māyā́bhir māyínaṃ sakṣad índraḥ
ní cid viśvā́yuḥ śayáthe jaghā́na
To introduce contrasting claims about victory and genealogy, Homeric heroes constantly use the verb εὔχομαι, as we have seen. Just such claims, we can suppose, did the Vṛtra utter before his slaughter by the heroic Indra.
yavat̰ ašā tavācā isāicā
“So will ich mich euren Lobsänger nennen und es sein, ο Kundiger,
soweit ich es mit Hilfe der Wahrhaftigkeit kann und vermag.” [50]
{122|123} In grammatical form and usage we rejoin in this passage secular εὔχομαι εἷναι and Vedic intransitive ūh-. The verb aojāi (1st sing. pres. conj.) occurs with a predicate nominative və̄ staotā “eure Lobsänger” and is coordinate with a finite form of the verb ‘to be’, aŋhā (1st sing. pres. conj.) “ich will es sein., which is cognate with εἰμί [51] ). Compare:
R. V. 8.3.14 ŕ̥ṣiḥ kó vípra ohate
This inheritance of a secular usage for *ə 1 ewg w h- is as expected. [52] Again, in Yasna 43, Zarathuštra meditates before the fire-altar, Ahura Mazdā’s mystical dwelling. He sees himself encounter, for the first time, Ahura Mazdā himself, who greets and questions him:
hyat̰ mā vohū pairī.jasat̰ manaŋhā
pərəsat̰cā mā ciš ahī kahyā ahī
kaθā ayarə̄ daxšārā fərasayāi dīšā
aibī θwāhū gaēθāhū tanušicā
Als heilvoll erkenne ich dich, ο Kundiger Lebensherr,
wenn mich einer mit gutem Gedanken begrüsst
und mich fragt: “Wer bist du ? Wem gehörst du an?
Wie möchtest du dir, ο Entfacher der Flamme, den Tag zur Befragung
über deine lebenden Besitztümer und dich selbst bestimmen?” [53]
The first two questions which Ahura Mazdā asks Zarathuštra are ciš ahī kahyā ahī “Wer bist du? Wem gehörst du an?” As Geldner [54] long ago pointed out, this combination of questions has precise etymological correspondences in both Greek and Indic epic:
Mahābh. 1.122.19: ko ̕si kasyāsi
‘Who are you, whose (son) are you?’ [55] )
Mahābh. 1.160.34: kāsi kasyāsi
‘Who are you, whose (daughter) are you?’
Greek:
O 247 τίς δὲ σύ ἐσσι φέριστε θεῶν ὅς μ᾿ εἴρεαι ἄντην;
Ω 387 τίς δὲ σύ ἐσσι, φέριστε, τέων δ’ ἔξεσσι τοκήων; {123|124}
α 170, etc. τίς πόθεν εἰς ἀνδρῶν;
‘Who of men are you, and whose ?’ [56]
(In Ο 247 Hector is asking Apollo his identity, in Ω 387 Priam is asking Hermes’, and in α 170 Telemachus is asking Athena/Mentes’s.) The Indo-European pedigree of this anaphoric combination of questions has thus been established. But the correspondence between the answers to these questions by a man to a god and vice versa in Greek and Avestan has not been noticed before. Zarathuštra answers Ahura Mazdā as follows:
And Athena/Mentes thus answers Telemachus:
We have, then, a piece of Indo-European poetic conversation, a question and its answer. [59] While a precisely parallel answer or naming attestation [60] of Vedic intransitive ūh- does not actually occur, the comparison just made confirms in general the Indo-European archaism of secular εὔχομαι and Vedic intransitive ūh -, and it strengthens the possibility that specific usages can be inherited phenomena rather than the result of common innovation. Such parallelism between form, function, and formal and functional context, cannot be considered a coincidence, especially in view of other evidence to be given for parallel phraseological inheritances by εὔχομαι and its cognates.
Geldner’s translation of ohiṣe in this passage as a transitive verb with the meaning ‘empfehle’/‘praise, commend’ is initially dissatisfying. To our {125|126} way of thinking, at least, messengers do not so much ‘commend’ their speeches as speak them. There is evidence within the Rig-Veda itself to sustain this objection. Comparison to a messenger is conventional elsewhere in the hymns for the most powerful of all speech, the hymn (vā́c-·, stóma-, etc.) itself, as, for example, [65]
stómo dūtó huvan narā
dūtó ná gantv aśvínā huvádhyai
To reconcile the persistent speech associations of this simile with our passage is not difficult. Formally, it is just as possible that ohiṣe is an intransitive verb and that vā́cam is its ‘cognate’ accusative, i. e. that the syntax of 8.5.3c is a figura etymologica instead of transitive verb + direct object. Given that Vedic ūh- as an intransitive verb has the meaning of secular εὔχομαι, ‘say (proudly, contentiously, accurately)’, we can translate as follows:
As such, the line embodies a transference of the messenger simile from the hymn to its poet, and there is a close parallel to this transference elsewhere in the Rig-Veda:
Here again, the hymn (vā́cam) is like a messenger (dūtám iva), but the poet also sends (iṣya) it, as though, paradoxically, he were a messenger and the hymn his message. This, precisely, is the image in 8.5.3c if it is construed as a figura etymologica.
“la parole comme un messager je prononce.”
Yt. 13.90 yō paoiryō … vācim aoxta
“celui qui le premier la parole a prononcé.”
{126|127} Y. Av. aoxta is a cognate of εὔχομαι and Vedic ūh-, while vā́cam and vācim are also cognates. [67] The grammatical construction in Yt. 13.90 is doubtless a figura etymologica, since aoxta is an intransitive verb only. The grammatical construction in the Vedic line should be the same. That is to say, it was probably inherited as the same, since the attestation of these cognate phrases in both Indic and Iranian poetic texts constitutes evidence for a hypothesis that their prototype existed in the common Indo-Iranian poetic tradition. [68] The grammatical construction of such a prototype could only have been a figura etymologica, since transitive ūh- is a secondary development proper to Vedic alone. At this point, then, there is both synchronic and diachronic evidence to show that ohiṣe is still an intransitive verb in R. V. 8.5.3c.
which occurs seven times (Λ 379, Ν 619, Ρ 537, Φ 183, Ξ 500, Υ 424, and Κ461). [69] The accusative noun with εὐχόμενος is none other than (ϝ)έπος (<*əwek w-), functionally equivalent and related to Vedic vā́cam and Avestan vācim (<*əwοk w-). [70] However, the exact cognates of Greek (ϝ)έπος ‘word’ are Vedic vácaḥ, Avestan vacah- ‘id.’, while the formal but not functional equivalent of Vedic vā́cam, Avestan vācim, is Homeric (ϝ)όπ- ‘voice’. [71] The formal difference is slight, and the comparison of these three etymological figures, as evidence for the existence of their prototype in the poetic tradition of Indo-European [72] is prima facie justifiable:
Indic: vā́cam . . . ohiṣe
Greek: εὐχόμενος ἔπος
{127|128}Yet it is tempting to ask the reason for this variation between reflexes of *əwek w– and reflexes of *əwok w-. It is a fact which supports our comparison that two other Indo-European poetic phrases have been found which feature the comparison of Homeric (ϝ)έπος and the Indo-Iranian reflexes of *əwek w– and *əwok w-. Here are the texts cited in a comparison made by Bartholomae: [73]
(vax– < *əwok w –)
Indic: (R. V. 2.21.6) dhehi. . . svā dmā́naṃ vācáḥ̣
(vācáḥ < *əwok w-)
(R. V. 1.114.6) vácaḥ svādóḥ
(vácaḥ < *əwek w -)
Greek: (HHymn 21.3f) ἀοιδὸς … ἡδυεπής
(-επης < *əwekw-)
Here are those in Darmesteter’s comparison: [74]
(vacas– < *əwek w-)
Indic: (R. V. 1.130.6) imā́ṃ te vā́caṃ vasūyánta āyávo
ráthaṃ ná dhī́raḥ svápā atakṣiṣuḥ
(vā́caṃ < *əwok w-)
(R. V. 6.32.1) vácāṃsy āsā́ sthávirāya takṣam
(vácāṃsi < *əwek w -)
Greek: (Pindar, Pyth. 3, 112–114) ἐπέων … τέκτονες
(ἐπέων < *əwek w-)
It is clear from the attestations of svādmā́naṃ vācáḥ/vácaḥ svādóḥ and vā́cam … atakṣiṣuḥ/vácā ṃsi … takṣam that vā́c– (<*əwok w-) and vácaḥ (<*əwek w-) are functional alternates in Indic. I cite here the remarks of Meillet on the meaning of vā́c– (n. sing, vā́k): [75]
We can use the Vedic line 8.5.3c, which is the focus of our discussion, as an example of this. It is a variation on lines which consistently compare the poetic vā́cam, the sacral hymn itself, to a messenger. Although it transfers {128|129} this simile to the poet, the line directly attests to the religious value of vā́c- (= hymn) and, by latent allusion to the other application of its simile, it calls to mind the animate force of vā́c-:
‘As a messenger I speak the word’.
We can now see that this simile, which may appear banal enough to us, is instead a bold instance of the poet identifying himself with his hymn’s affective power.
“Diese Rede von uns weißt du gewiß zu würdigen.”
Here vácas (<*əwek w-) is the direct object of ohase, [80] but in spite of the functional innovation in this transitive usage of ohase, the collocation of vácas and ohase is formally equivalent to Homeric εὐχόμενος ἔπος. If this collocation were not actually attested in Vedic, it would have been reasonable to hypothesize its existence on the basis of comparative evidence from other Indo-European poetic phrases.
we invoked the fact that intransitive ūh– had inherited and preserved the same meaning as secular εὔχομαι, ‘say (proudly, accurately, contentiously)’. It is important that this synchronic meaning provides a satisfactory sense in context, but this should not obscure us to another fact, that the context of ohiṣe in 8.5.3c has nothing to do with any other contexts of intransitive ūh -. It specifies neither genealogy nor superiority nor social function nor victory in battle. Instead, the context of ohiṣe recalls us to the beginning of our study, to the use of sacral εὔχομαι to introduce or conclude speech by a man to a god: [81]
aruṇápsur áśiśvitat
ví bhānúṃ viśvádhātanat
nr̥vád dasrā manoyújā
ráthena pr̥thupā́jasā
sácethe aśvinoṣásam
yuvā́bhyāṃ vājinīvasū
práti stómā adr̥kṣata
vā́caṃ dūtó yáthohiṣe {130|131}
- Sobald die rötlichscheinende (Uṣas) von fern her, als ob sie hier wäre, aufschimmert, so hat sie allenthalben ihren Glanz ausgebreitet.
- Auf dem männerfahrenden, gedankengeschirrten, breitgestaltigen Wagen folget ihr Meister Aśvin der Uṣas.
- Euch, ihr Gewinnreichen, haben sich die Loblieder vorgestellt. Wie ein Abgesandter, usw.
The relationship between artistic and religious values in the Rig-Veda is the subject of some scholarly disagreement, but not to the extent of making it doctrinaire to say that the hymns are fundamentally religious. [82] As its messenger simile makes clear, then, vā́caṃ dūtó yáthohiṣe refers to the utterance of sacral speech as formal, affective communication by a man with a god. They are hymns evolved from prayers, meant to accompany sacrifices, containing invocations to divinities and making requests of them. I reiterate that this context for ohiṣe is not predictable from the other contexts of intransitive ūh– in the Rig-Veda.
vācim aoxta vīdōyum ahurō.t̰kaēšəm
yō paoiryō stōiš astvaιθyå
vācim framraot̰ vīdōyum ahurō.t̰kaēšəm.
The antecedent of yō and subject of aoxta is Zarathuštra himself, and vācim refers to the Gāthās, his prayer hymns. [84] The vācim which Zarathuštra {131|132} aoxta ‘aufsagte’ contrasts with the miθaoxtəm vācim ‘falschgesprochene Wort’ mentioned elsewhere in Younger Avestan, as Y. 60.5: vainīt̰ … aršuxdδō vāxš miθaoxtəm vācim “überwinden soll … das wahrgesprochene Wort das falschgesprochene Wort.” [85] The latter are the liturgical hymns of inimical religious sects, presumably resembling the Vedic hymns in style. [86]
ὑψόσ’ ἀνέσχεθε χειρὶ καὶ εὐχόμενος ἔπος ηὔδα·
“χαῖρε, θεά, τοῖσδεσσι· σὲ γὰρ πρώτην ἐν Ὀλύμπῳ
πάντων ἀθανάτων ἐπιδωσόμεθ’· ἀλλὰ καὶ αὖτις
πέμψον ἐπὶ Θρῃκῶν ἀνδρῶν ἵππους τε καὶ εὐνάς.”
Here εὐχόμενος ἔπος occurs in a line with two finite verbs (ἀνέσχεθε … ηὔδα), as is typical of the language of ritual narrative. [91] It introduces a prayer of the regular tripartite structure: 1. invocation (χαῖρε, θεά) 2. grant of favor (σέ . . . ἐπιδώσομεθ’) [92] 3. request of favor (ἀλλὰ καὶ {133|134} αὖτις . . . εὐνάς). I conclude that εὐχόμενος ἔπος in Κ 461 means ‘speaking the word (of prayer)’, as do its Indo-European cognates vācim, aoxta “das (heilige) Wort aufsagte” and vā́cam . . . ohiṣe ‘I speak the word (of the hymn)’. In previous discussion of Κ 461 [93] we left open the possibilities that its breaking of the sacral-secular split in the formulas of εὔχομαι, was an archaism predating the rigorous implementation of that split or a slip of the tongue. But this line constitutes the only one of five instances of cross-over between the sacral and secular formulas of εὔχομαι which has neither a textual variant nor a simple explanation of the presence of εὔχομαι as filling a variable slot in an otherwise fixed expression. [94] In view of its textual security and the simple explanation for its presence offered by comparative evidence, I view this attestation of εὐχόμενος ἔπος as a contextual and formal archaism.
sá dhatte ákṣiti śrávaḥ
tásmā íḷāṃ suvī́rām ā́ yajāmahe
suprátūrtim anehásam
It is the poet who traditionally expects material reward from his patron, to whom he gives in return ákṣiti śrávah “unvergänglichen Ruhm.” [101] The first person plural yajāmahe ‘wir erbitten’ in the following stanza makes plain the reference of vāgháte. Plainer still is the following:
spārháṃ yád rékṇaḥ paramáṃ vanóṣi tát
Here Agni is conceived of as the winner of the wealth which the poet’s patron bestows. Other attestations support the definition ‘Sänger’. [102] And it is worthy of special note that the vāghát- is twice attested as complementary to the hótṛ (< juhóti ‘pour (a libation)’, = Gk. χέ(ϝ)ω), [103] who is the most important official in Vedic rites: {136|137}
dhiyā́ ráthaṃ ná kúliśaḥ sám r̥ṇvati
yáṃ vāgháto vr̥ṇáte adhvaréṣu
Perhaps these passages attest to an Indic reflex of the pairing of σπένδω and εὔχομαι in ritual contexts of Greek epic. [105] Citron has already suggested such an inheritance on the basis of the functions and etymologies of hótṛ and vāghát-, and he explains the prominence in Vedic of hótṛ at the expense of vāghát- as due to the great importance of the Soma offering in Vedic ritual. [106] In any case, there is good evidence to show that vāghát– refers to a human speaker of sacral language to divinities, to the man who vā́cam óhate.
ἆξον δὴ ἔγχος Διομήδεος, ἠδὲ καὶ αὐτὸν
πρηνέα δὸς πεσέειν Σκαιῶν προπάροιθε πυλάων,
ὄφρά τοι αὐτίκα νῦν δυοκαίδεκα βοῦς ἐνὶ νηῷ
ἤνις ἠκέστας ἱερεύσομεν, αἴ κ’ ἐλεήσῃς
ἄστυ τε καὶ Τρώων ἀλόχους καὶ νήπια τέκνα. .”
Ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχομένη, ἀνένευε δὲ Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη.
To this passage and others [115] we may compare a Plautine attestation of voveō. Jupiter himself is speaking, disguised as Amphitruo, to Alcumena:
ut quae apud legionem vota vovi si domum
rediissem salvos, ea ego exsolvam omnia,
vōta here refers to sacral pledges made in battle whose fulfillment was contingent upon the fulfillment of a wish or request. The structural elements are the same as those in a Homeric prayer, but they have been arranged in a tightened temporal hierarchy, and voveō ‘pledge’ has become specialized {138|139} and also abstract, in that it no longer refers overtly to speech. [116] Specialization to the other element of prayer, the wish or request, also occurs for voveō and vōtum:
qui sapere et fari possit quae sentiat …?
Hor. Carm. 4.13.1 audivere, Lyce, di mea vota, di
audivere, Lyce: fis anus, …
In this usage voveō has almost returned to the meaning ‘pray’, but its specialization to the wish or request element of prayer is clear from numerous attestations, [117] and it is not to be confused with the sacral usage of εὔχομαι, in Homer, where the verb refers to the totality of a prayer’s structural elements. [118] Nevertheless, the existence of such a meaning may have perpetuated the existence of archaic sacral phraseology to which the old, concrete sense of voveō was appropriate. A possible example is the collocation vōtīs vocāre, attested in sacral contexts no less than seven times [119] in the corpus of Virgil, as in the concluding line of a prayer to the deified Caesar Augustus in the Georgics (I. 40ff.):
ignarosque viae mecum miseratus agrestis
ingredere et votis iam nunc adsuesce vocari.
This fixed phrase may be the reflex in Latin of the Indo-European etymological figure *əwek w -/*əwok w– + *ə 1 ewg w h-, for vocāre is cognate with Ved. vā́c-, Av. vaxš, and voveō with εὔχομαι, Ved. ūh-, Av. aoj-.
Footnotes