Loginov A. V. , Trofimov Artem A. Grecheskoye ἔπος μέγα i drevneindiyskoye vaco mahat ~ mahad vacaḥ [Greek ἔπος μέγα and Sanskrit vaco mahat ~ mahad vacaḥ].
Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2020. XVI(2): 544–564DOI: 10.30842/alp2306573716219
The aim of this paper is to research and compare the ancient Greek poetic formulaic expression μέγα ἔπος and Sanskrit vaco mahat ~ mahad vacaḥ which can be derived from one Indo-European poetic formula. The Greek one is found in this shape only in a Theognis’ fragment (Theogn. 159–160). Nevertheless, in the Iliad and the Odyssey the formulaic expression μέγα εἰπεῖν is found. The dictionaries translate it as ‘to speak big, and so provoke divine wrath’. In this paper, Homeric passages and their relation to Theognis’ context are studied. The use of the expression in the Homeric poems and later sources gives an opportunity to assume the following semantic development: ‘to say important things’ > ‘to speak big, and so provoke divine wrath’ (‘an important utterance’ > ‘an impertinent, arrogant word’).
It is not excluded that μέγα ἔπος represents a primary form not preserved in Homeric poems due to chance and transformed in expression μέγα εἰπεῖν.
This suggestion is additionally supported by the Old Indian parallel of Greek μέγα ἔπος, namely vaco mahat ~ mahad vacaḥ. Both words containing in these phrases are cognates and this fact allows to reconstruct the protoform *wekʷos meǵh2 ‘the great word’. The contexts in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana demonstrate that this formulaic expression usually refers to the important information, often in the form of prediction or command. The Homeric context Il. 17. 333–334 is close to those of Sanskrit epics. The further semantic development in Greek tradition is to be secondary.
Despite not the full agreement in form (the counterpart of Greek μέγα is more archaic and less frequent OInd. máhi) and instability in Greek tradition (the words μέγα and ἔπος can be placed distantly in Greek), these formulaic expressions reflect common conceptions and with a high probability represent remnants of the common PIE poetic heritage.
It is not excluded that μέγα ἔπος represents a primary form not preserved in Homeric poems due to chance and transformed in expression μέγα εἰπεῖν.
This suggestion is additionally supported by the Old Indian parallel of Greek μέγα ἔπος, namely vaco mahat ~ mahad vacaḥ. Both words containing in these phrases are cognates and this fact allows to reconstruct the protoform *wekʷos meǵh2 ‘the great word’. The contexts in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana demonstrate that this formulaic expression usually refers to the important information, often in the form of prediction or command. The Homeric context Il. 17. 333–334 is close to those of Sanskrit epics. The further semantic development in Greek tradition is to be secondary.
Despite not the full agreement in form (the counterpart of Greek μέγα is more archaic and less frequent OInd. máhi) and instability in Greek tradition (the words μέγα and ἔπος can be placed distantly in Greek), these formulaic expressions reflect common conceptions and with a high probability represent remnants of the common PIE poetic heritage.
Authors:
Loginov A. V.
avloginov@msal.ru
A. V. Loginov
Trofimov Artem A.
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
artemii.trofimov@gmail.com
Artem A. Trofimov
References:
G. Authenrieth. Wörterbuch zu den Homerischen Gedichten. Stuttgart und Leipzig: Teubner, 1999.
R. Beekes. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010.
O. Böhtlingk, R. Roth. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. 3 Theil. J — DH. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie des Wissenschaften, 1861.
J. P. Brereton, S. W. Jamison. The Rigveda. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
1980 — P. Chantraine. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. T. I—IV. Paris : Klincksieck, 1968, 1970, 1974, 1977, 1980.
M. W. Edwards. The Iliad. The commentary. Vol. 5: books 17—20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
H. Erbse (ed.). Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem. Vol. IV: Scholia ad libros O—T. Berolini: W. de Gruyter, 1975.
M. Fernandez-Galiano. Commentary on Book 21. J. Russo, M. Fernandez-Galiano, A. Heubeck (eds.). A commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. P. 148–206.
B. A. Groningen. Theognis. Le premier livre édité avec un commentaire. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1966.
A. Kuhn. Über die durch nasale erweiterten verbalstämme. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung. 1953. Bd. 2. P. 455—471.
W. Leaf. Commentary on the Iliad. London: Macmillan, 1900.
H. G. Liddell, R. Scott. A Greek-English lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
H. W. Nordheider. Mega. M. Meier-Brügger (red.). Lexikon der frügriechischen Epos. 15. Lief. Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck-Ruprecht, 1993. P. 66–79.
R. Schmitt. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967.
V. N. Toporov. Pindar i Rigveda. Gimny Pindara i vediyskie gimny kak osnova rekonstruktsii indoevropeyskoy gimnovoy traditsii. [Pindar and the Rig-Veda. Pindaric and Vedic hymns as a base for reconstructing Indo-European hymnic tradition]. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities Press, 2012.
C. Watkins. How to kill a dragon. Aspects of Indo-European poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
C. Watkins. Pindars Rig-Veda. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 122. No. 2. P. 432–435.
Issue
XVI (2020) 2
Документ