The origin of Latin prosapia

The origin of Latin prōsāpia* By ALEXANDER NIKOLAEV, Boston Abstract: it is argued that Latin prōs pia ‘lineage, stock’ together with sōpiō, -ōnis ‘penis’ (§ 1) goes back to the verbal root found in Vedic s páyati ‘to strike’ (§ 2), Ossetic safyn (I.), isafun (D.) ‘to destroy’ (§ 3), Hittite šap(p)‘to hit’ (§ 4), Greek ἰ π ‘to hurt’ (§ 5) and Lithuanian sopti ‘hurts’. The root can be reconstructed as *seh2p- (aor. *seh2p- > Hittite šapp-, pres. *seseh2p- > Greek ἰάπτω). This root with the basic meaning ‘to hit, to strike’ was also employed metaphorically in the meaning ‘to have sexual intercourse’ which survives in Latin and Iranian (e.g. Balochi š pag ‘to mount ewe’). 1. Latin prōs pia denotes a group of persons related by blood, together with their ancestors, and is usually translated as ‘lineage’, ‘kin’, or ‘family’. No etymology for this word is on the books; in fact, prōs pia is not even listed in the most recent Latin etymological dictionary.1 In this paper I will discuss the semantic and morphological history of this word and then attempt to trace its origin to a hitherto unrecognized PIE verbal root evidence for which is found in four different Indo-European languages. 1.1 Prōs pia is an archaic Latin word that had become obsolete by Cicero’s time (Cic. Tim. 39: “ut utamur veteri verbo…”)2 and was censured by Quintilian who deprecated it as tasteless and antiquated.3 The meaning ‘parentage’ is clear from the two passages in which prōs pia is used by Plautus:4 ____________ * I am pleased to thank J. Jasanoff, A. Manaster Ramer, C. Melchert, M. Peters, J. Rau, M. Schwartz, A. Sidel’tsev, and B. Vine for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies. 1 De Vaan 2008. 2 Cicero used prōs pia as an equivalent of Greek . On Cicero’s use of archaisms in his translation of Plato see Puelma Piwonka 1980: 169. 3 Inst. orat. 1.6.40; 8.3.26. 4 Havet (1901: 298) conjectured a form of prōs pia at Ter. Phorm. 395 where the mss. have progeniem vostram usque ab avo atque atavo proferens (so printed in the OCT text by Kauer-Lindsay-Skutsch); Havet pointed out that prōgeniēs is unlikely to be used in the meaning ‘descent, ancestry’ (as opposed to ‘offspring, progeny’), but his concern is perhaps unwarranted in view of Lucil. 849‒50 (Marx) progeniem antiquam qua est Maximus Quintus and other citations assembled in the OLD s.u. prōgeniēs 2. Glotta 91, 226–249, ISSN (Printausgabe): 0017–1298, ISSN (online): 2196–9043 © Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2015 The origin of Latin prōs pia 227 Merc. 634 rogitares quis esset aut unde esset, qua prosapia You should have asked who he was or where he was from, from what family. Curc. 393 de Coculitum prosapia te esse arbitror, nam ei sunt unoculi Coclitum mss., Varr. Ling. Lat. 7.71.3: Coculitum de Melo post Ribbeck I take it you come from the lineage of Cyclopes; they are one-eyed. In Roman historiography prōs pia is often used in descriptions of distinguished parentage; in particular, the phrase vetus prosapia, found already in Cato (Orig. 1.29 Peter),5 seems to have enjoyed certain popularity: it recurs in Sallust (Iug. 85.10), who, as was observed already in antiquity, frequently adopted Catonian vocabulary,6 as well as in Suetonius (Galba 2) and Justin (14.6.11). The phrase mea vetus prosapia is also found in the prologue of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (1.1.3 Helm), where the identity of the speaker unfortunately remains a much debated question.7 Apuleius, with his penchant for archaisms, was in fact so fond of the word prōs pia that he used it on another seven occasions.8 Finally, there is one epigraphic at____________ 5 The exact quotation as transmitted via Nonius Marcellus (p. 94, 25 Lindsay) is veteres prosapia ‘ancient by their lineage’. This wording was accepted by some editors (Chassignet, fr. 27: “vieux par la lignee”, Cugusi, fr. 32: “antichi per stirpe”), while others emended the phrase in different ways, e.g. gen. sg. veteris prosapiae (Jordan 1860: 9) or abl. sg. vetere prosapia (Schröder 1971: 197), see Scarsi 1978: 246 for a full report. Other changes that have been proposed presuppose a fifth declension prōs piēs, probably prompted by the fact that in the mss. of Nonius the lemma that contains the fragment from Cato begins with prosapies generis longitudo, which, however, Onions plausibly emended into prosapia est (printed by Lindsay); it should be noted that the evidence for prōs piēs is otherwise virtually absent (abl. prosapie Prob. app. gramm. iv.194.26), even though an analogical formation triggered by the nearly synonymous prōgeniēs could of course have been created at any time. (Till’s work on Cato’s language (1935: 4) is rather unhelpful in regard to prōs pia). 6 Quint. 8.3.29. That Sallust imitated Cato specifically in the use of prōs pia is assumed e.g. by Skard 1956: 81. 7 This is the only instance of prōs pia referring to place of origin rather than parentage: “Attic Hymettus and the Corinthian Isthmus and Spartan Taenarus are my origin of old”. However, the geographical references here are surely not literal and should probably be understood as the author’s desire to emphasize his literary pedigree and his indebtedness to the Greek writers of the past (see Innes 2001; for an even more figurative reading (the Metamorphoses themselves claim an origin in a Greek book) see Harrison 1990). 8 Consistently about family background: Met. 3.11; 6.23; 8.2; 9.35; 10.18; De Deo Socr. 23.23; Ap. 18.12. I have found Scobie 1975: 73 and Keulen 2007: 79 to be the most helpful on Apuleius’ use of prōs pia; on Apuleius’ archaizing bent see especially Callebat 1964: 348; 1994: 1643‒49 (esp. 1644 n. 153 on prōs pia). Alexander Nikolaev 228 testation of prōs pia from near Metaponto in Lucania: Occius hic situs est Mani prosapia Festus (CLE 370 = CIL 10.8089). 1.2 Latinists have long compared prōs pia to the rare word sōpiō, -ōnis ‘penis’, likewise neglected in the etymological literature.9 This word is only known from a few sources and in view of its obscurity it may be helpful to review them all.10 Our first source is Catullus: in the poem “Salax taberna”, replete with obscene vocabulary,11 the lyric hero threatens to mark the bar as a brothel by covering it with obscene phallic drawings:12 Cat. 37.9–10 Kroll Atqui putate: namque totius vobis Frontem tabernae sopionibus scribam 10 sopionibus mss. : scorpionibus Ellis : ropionibus Hertz, alii alia Go on ‒ keep thinking it: for I’ll draw up the front of the whole shop with pricks. Next, 3rd cent. AD grammarian Marius Sacerdos quotes an anonymous verse containing an insult leveled at Pompey (possibly, from a military song or some other carmen populare) and proceeds to explain sōpiō as ‘penis’:13 GL 6.461.30–462.3 Keil illud de Pompeio, qui coloris erat rubei, sed animi inuerecundi, “quem non pudet et rubet non est homo sed sopio.” Sopio autem est aut minium aut piscis robeus aut penis.14 This is about Pompey who had red complexion and a shameless character: “who does not feel shame or blush, he is not a person, but a prick” Sopio means either red pigment or red fish or penis. Next come two graffiti from Pompeii that together form an amusing if cryptic semiliterate exchange that is best left untranslated:15 ____________ 9 Osthoff apud Schöll 1880: 496. See also Adams 1982: 62–64; André 1991: 171. 11 mentulas ‘penises’ (v. 3), confutuere ‘have sex’ (v. 5), irrumare ‘perform oral sex’ (v.7), etc. 12 For a slightly different interpretation see Syndikus (1984: 1, 210, 213), who argues that Catullus applies the word taberna meaning ‘brothel’ to a private house (Lesbia’s?). 13 The best and most complete discussion can be found in Lunelli 1969: 125–42. 14 The mss. have ropio (the scribal mistake was probably caused by the resemblance of Insular r and s, see Schmeling 2011: 65). 15 The inscription was first signaled by Sonny (1898); see Väänänen 1937: 97. 10 The origin of Latin prōs pia 229 CIL 4.1700 diced nobis Sineros et sopio <est?> where a second hand has added ut merdas edatis qui scripseras sopionis. Lastly, there is a passage in Petronius where F. Schöll (1880: 488 n.30) conjectured sopionibus for †sopitionibus of the mss.: Petron. Sat. 22 Müller Cum Ascyltos gravatus tot malis in somnum laberetur, illa quae iniuria depulsa fuerat ancilla totam faciem eius fuligine longa perfricuit, et non sentientis labra umerosque sopi<ti>onibus pinxit. Ascyltos was so worn out with all he had gone through he could not keep his eyes open a moment longer, and the waiting-maid, whom he had scorned and slighted, now proceeded to daub his face all over with streaks of soot, and bepaint his lips and shoulders with pricks? as he lay unconscious. Schöll’s conjecture has been widely accepted, e.g. by K. Müller, and recently by G. Schmeling (2011: 65) who translates sopionibus by ‘phallic symbols’.16 This exhausts the evidence for sōpiō, -ōnis ‘penis’: each of the three passages above (leaving aside the conjectured reading in Petronius) is beset with philological problems of its own, but it will be hard to sweep all three attestations under the carpet. One is left with the firm impression that the word existed; its meager attestation should be explained solely by its vulgar character. 1.3 There is little to suggest that prōs pia was felt relatable to sōpiō at some synchronic level,17 but it is certainly possible to connect these ____________ 16 Perhaps some sort of sexual stimulation magic is involved. Two arguments have been advanced in favor of the view that prōs pia was perceived as a vulgar word, but neither is quite compelling. First, E. Kraut (1881: 3) suggested that Sallust’s choice of the word prōs pia (Iug. 85.10) was due to the fact that the speaker is the ill-educated Marius; however, this may well be a matter of irony rather than anything else, as already surmised by Fighiera (1896: 36): Marius is speaking about some other hypothetical candidate, “a man of ancient lineage and many ancestral portraits, but no campaigns”, whom the senate might choose instead of him to conduct the war against Jugurtha (Lebek (1970: 311) points out the artful antithesis between veteris prosapiae ac multarum imaginum and nullius stipendi at the end of the description). Secondly, it has recently been suggested by A. Richlin (2005: 102 n. 393) that “from the lineage of Coclites” (viz. Cyclopes) at Pl. Curc. 393 contains a sexual double entendre: Lyco addresses Curculio as “one-eyed” which was one of the Roman ways of describing a penis. (Cf. Mart. 2.33 cur non basio te, Philaeni? Iusca es. / Haec qui basiat, o Philaeni, fellat “why don’t I kiss you, 17 230 Alexander Nikolaev two words with each other etymologically. H. Osthoff, who was the first to argue that sōpiō is related to prōs pia, assumed that both words were derived from a root meaning ‘to beget’. Semantic parallels are ubiquitous: for instance, the root *ĝenh1- (Latin gignere) is ultimately the source of Latin prōgeniēs and English kin, on the one hand, and Class. Sanskrit prajanana- ‘penis’, on the other hand. But there is another possibility: kinship at Rome being patrilineal, it is easy to conceive of prōs pia as a term that represented a specifically male-to-male line of descent, the semantics of male semen being central to its meaning.18 Here, too, parallels are easy to find, e.g. Old Persian ciça- ‘lineage’, Avestan ciθra- ‘origin’, ‘semen’19 (from ‘white stuff’)20 or Italian semenza meaning both ‘seed, semen’ and ‘stock, lineage’.21 It is therefore plausible to assume that prōs pia and sōpiō go back to a root the meaning of which was related not to birth, but rather to sexual intercourse, witness Old English fæsl and OHG fasel ‘progeny, offspring’ (Proto-Germanic *fasula-) that eventually continue PIE *pes- ‘futuere’.22 1.4 From the formal point of view prōs pia and sōpiō can be easily collapsed under a common root *s ̆ p- (which in view of the rare ablaut * / *ō is best rewritten as *seh2p-). The likeliest derivational analysis of prōs pia would be to assume that the word is originally a deverbal abstract, derived from a prefixed verb such as *pro-s p re (cf. invidia ‘ill-will’ from invideō ‘feel hostility’),23 where the preverb ____________ Philaenis? You’re one-eyed. A man who kisses these things, Philaenis, sucks”). This is not implausible, but one would perhaps go too far by assuming that this pun was precisely the reason why Plautus chose prōs pia over other words for ‘kin, lineage’ such as stirps or genus. 18 Compare Beltrami’s (1998: 17–18) remark on the semantics of prōs pia: “esso sembra perciò specificamente indicare la stirpe in quanto linea agnatizia, che si riproduce di generazione in generazione, sempre contraddistinta dal fatto di costituire la materializzazione di un medesimo sangue maschile (cioè, seme) che si perpetua”. 19 E.g. d tarə kuua.ciθra zī həṇti iristanąm uruuanō “O creator, of what origin then are the souls of the dead?” (H doxt Nask = Yt. 22.39), see Hintze 2009. 20 Cf. Greek υ . 21 Cf. Dante’s famous considerate la vostra semenza (Inf. 26.118). 22 Osthoff had originally compared Gothic frasts ‘child’, but a host of other etymologies is available for this word (see Orel 2003: 112 for references). 23 Other options are less likely: (1) prepositional governing compound, substantivized as a feminine (after familia) would require positing a nominal phrase *prō s p- ‘in (front of) *s p-’ which is difficult semantically and morphologically; (2) a deadjectival abstract of the type concordia ‘harmony’ from concors ‘harmonious’ is excluded by the absence of pro as an adjectival prefix; (3) a denominal formation (cf. mīlitia ‘military service’ from mīles ‘soldier’) is possible, but the further analysis of nominal *s p- is uncertain. The origin of Latin prōs pia 231 had the most basic meaning ‘forth’, and the verbal stem meant either ‘gignere’ or ‘futuere’, ‘semen emittere’. As far as the morphological analysis of sōpiō goes, there are several possibilities,24 out of which three main scenarios have to be considered: 1. sōpiōn- is a Catō-type derivative made from adj. *soh2pii̯ o- itself derived from an o-stem nomen agentis *soh2pó-, cf. *pou̯ gó‘piercer’ → *pou̯ gii̯ o- → pūgiō ‘dagger’. 2. sōpiōn- is a possessive denominal derivative with the suffix *-h1on(“Hoffmann’s suffix”) *soh2pi-h1on-, cf. restiō ‘dealer in rope’ (Plaut. +) from restis ‘rope’;25 this analysis presupposes i-stem *soh2pi- as the starting point of the derivation.26 3. sōpiōn- is a concreticized verbal abstract27 *soh2pih1-(o)n-, derived from an adnominal participle-like form *soh2pih1, itself originally instr.sg. of subst. verbal abstract *soh2pi-, cf. regiō, legiō, Umbrian legin- ‘troop’.28 The choice between these options is not easy: in particular, it has to be borne in mind that several other Latin names for body parts show the same n-stem suffix, cf. mentō ‘chin’, t lō ‘ankle’ and especially testō ‘testicle’ and culiō ‘testicle’. This said, the first option (with an agent noun *soh2pó- as the starting point) in my opinion provides the most satisfactory explanation. ____________ 24 On this class of nouns see the useful monograph Gaide 1988. This option was chosen by Osthoff apud Schöll 1880: 496, citing cūria ‘one of 30 divisions of Roman citizens’: cūriō ‘priest, presiding over a cūria’. 26 This scenario may in theory also involve a thematic stem *soh2pii̯ o-m, but while there is just as little evidence for an i-stem *soh2pi-, as there is for *soh2pii̯ o-, the o-apophony would make a reconstruction of an acrostatic i-stem somewhat likelier. 27 There are ample parallels for a scenario under which a word for genitalia is a secondarily concretized verbal abstract made from the root denoting a certain physical (and by extension, sexual) activity, e.g. Vedic *sardi- (in sárdigr̥ di- lit. ‘vagina-penis’) derived from the root *serd- ‘futuere’ (Hittite šart- ‘rub’, see Melchert 2002) or Latin pēnis, if it continues an abstract *pes-ni- made to the root *pes-, reflected in Hittite peš(š)- ‘to rub’ (so J. Schindler apud Pinault 1979: 32; but see also de Vaan 2008: 458 who views the meaning ‘tail’ (Naev.+) as original and prefers a derivation from *petsni-). In fact, PIE *peses- ‘penis’ (Greek π , Vedic pásas-) may have originally been a verbal noun made from the root of Hittite peš(š)‘to rub’ (so Oettinger 1979: 327; for alternative derivations of peš(š)- see Kloekhorst 2008: 669–70). 28 Nussbaum 2006, cited by Weiss 2009: 311; see also García Ramón 2007: 291 et passim on Latin cortumiō ‘slice of land’. This type of -iōn-stems would be expected to have feminine gender in Latin, but for the word with the meaning ‘penis’ it is easy to imagine a change of gender (cf. Venus, f., originally a neuter s-stem). 25 Alexander Nikolaev 232 1.5 However, there is no root *s ̆ p- or *seh2p- on the books that would provide a suitable meaning (viz. either ‘gignere’ or ‘futuere’). And yet the evidence for precisely such a root is available in no less than four Indo-European languages. The rest of this paper will be concerned with this evidence. 2. The only etymological proposal connecting prōs pia and sōpiō to material outside Latin is due to H. Osthoff, who compared the Latin words to Sanskrit noun sápa- ‘penis’ and the verbal stem s páyati ‘futuere’.29 But Osthoff did not re-examine the passage in which the Vedic hapax s páyati is attested; it turns out that the gloss ‘futuere’ which Osthoff took over from the St.Petersburg Dictionary is not beyond doubt. The participle s páyant- is attested in the Taittirīya Br hmaṇa, in a y jy to Indra Vaimr̥ dha, remarkable for featuring one of the few Vedic occurrences of the verb yábhati ‘to have sexual intercourse’: TB 2.4.6.4.9–5.5 (~ S 2.10.14) sákūtim indra sácyutiṁ 10 sácyutiṁ jaghánacyutim kan ́ tk bh ́ ṃ na ́ bhara 2 prayapsyánn iva sakthyàu ví na indra mŕ̥dho jahi kánīkhunad iva sāpáyan abhí naḥ súṣṭutiṃ naya praj ́ patiḥ striy ́ ṃ yáśaḥ muṣkáyor adadh t sápam 4 6 1 kan ́ tk bh ́ ṃ TB : pran kaph 4 kánīkhunad TB : canīkhudad Hoffmann 1976: 572 Bring us, o Indra, a lustful (woman), moving, moving, shaking her butt, shining like gold. Like someone who is going to bring the penis into the two thighs, smash aside our enemies, o Indra, s.-ing as if k.-ing. Lead us to good praise. Praj pati put the penis in the vagina,30 the glory in the women. S : +kanak bh ́ ṃ Hoffmann apud Sharma 1959/1960: 92 S : +sápam S : +kánīkhudad; s páyan TB : sapham kánīkhunad in line 4 (connected by S yaṇa’s commentary with khan- ‘dig’) is a nonce-form. It is usually emended to kánīkhudad on the basis of the parallel text in the S that has canīkhudad yath ____________ 29 Osthoff was initially approached by his Heidelberg colleague F. Schöll, confronted with the reading sōpiōnibus in Catullus 37, who wanted to know if the word could be real. Osthoff’s idea was first published apud Schöll 1880: 496 and then as Osthoff 1895. 30 lit.: between the two labia. The origin of Latin prōs pia 233 sapham;31 the form would then be an intensive participle made from the root khud- which means to ‘insert (a penis)’.32 The TB passage, however, is still far from being absolutely clear.33 K. Hoffmann restored the original text as kánīkhudad yáth sápam ‘wie einer, der immer wieder das Glied stößt’, assuming that the entire p da 4 in TB transmission is corrupt (1976: 572). Note, however, that + sápam (sapham in the S) is a lectio facilior, since sápa- is mentioned in the lines immediately following those under discussion, and s páyant- must have been sufficiently unclear to be exposed to supersession.34 It behoves us therefore to try to make some sense of the transmitted TB text +kánīkhudad iva s páyan. The entire passage is replete with sex talk and in particular, the main clause ví na indra mŕ̥dho jahi is preceded by yet another ivaphrase (prayapsyánn iva sakthyàu); it is therefore no wonder that the universally accepted meaning of s páyant- is ‘futuens’.35 This translation has clearly been influenced by the remarkable similarity between s páyati and the noun sápa- ‘penis’. But this interpretation of s páyati creates more questions than answers:  if iva is used here as a comparative particle (‘as if, like’), two syntactic approaches are theoretically possible:  a complex simile kánīkhudad iva s páyan could stand in apposition to ví … jahi (in this case s páyan [iva] kánīkhunat would have to be viewed as a sequence of two asyndetically conjoined participles); however, there already is another simile adjoined to the verb in the main clause, namely, prayapsyánn iva sakthyàu;  kánīkhudad iva could be a one-word simile in apposition to s pá-yan – but if kánīkhudat- and s páyant- are essentially synonymous, what would be the rationale behind the comparison? ____________ 31 See Mylius 1972: 132 n. 559, Hoffmann 1976: 572. The form kánīkhudad is of course still not “ideal”: one would expect *c/kávīkhudad. 32 RV 10.101.12ab: kápr̥ n naraḥ kapr̥ thám úd dadh tana / codáyata khudáta v ́ jas taye ‘The penis, o men, erect the penis, thrust it, insert it for the winning of booty!’ Mark Hale pointed out to me that this root may also be contained in the first member of Avestan kū.n irī- ‘prostitute’ (V. 8.31; 32). 33 “unintelligible stuff” (Bloomfield–Edgerton 1930: 150). 34 Note also the alliteration between yapsyán and s páyan. 35 Böhtlingk and Roth list the form under a separate entry sap-2 (P.W. 7.656); S. Jamison, too, thinks that s páyant-, albeit “obscure”, is unrelated to the causative of sap-1 ‘handle, caress’ (1981: 219 n. 3). Ch. Werba, however, lists s páyant- under the forms of the more frequent root sap- (1997: 251–52). 234 Alexander Nikolaev  if iva is used here as an attenuating particle (‘as it were’, ‘in some way’), as commonly in the Br hmaṇas, we still do not get a satisfactory reading of the passage: assuming that kánīkhudad is not intended to be understood in its strict sense, it is unclear what the purpose would be of putting the form next to its synonym s páyan, there being nothing imprecise about the verbal notion conveyed by khud-. It appears that kánīkhudad iva s páyan can hardly be given a satisfactory syntactic and semantic interpretation under the assumption that the participle s páyant- means ‘futuere’. But what if it does not? Let us start with what is certain about the passage. The meaning of prayapsyánn iva sakthyàu and kánīkhudad iva is beyond doubt: both similes are expressly sexual. The main clause ví na indra mŕ̥dho jahi “smash aside our enemies, o Indra” is also clear. If s páyan is unlikely to convey the same idea as prayapsyán and kánīkhudat, then maybe it means the same thing as vi ... jahi? In fact, once this hypothesis is adopted, the structure of the sentence becomes transparent: the verb in the main clause (vi ... jahi ‘smash aside!’) is modified by a participial form with approximately the same meaning (‘striking’? ‘hitting’?), and both verbal forms are provided with sexual similes: matrix clause: [ví na indra mŕ̥dho jahi o Indra, smash our enemies, [prayapsyánn iva sakthyàu]] like someone who is going to yabh- in the two thighs subordinate [s páyan clause: striking [them], [kánīkhudad iva]] like someone who is inserting the penis over and over again. If this interpretation of the intricate poetic syntax is correct, Vedic s páya-ti has nothing to do with the noun sápa- ‘penis’. Separating one from the other may seem to violate the law of parsimony, but in fact a closer look at the attestations of sápa- reveals the somewhat dubious status of this word: in Vedic mantras, sápa- is only attested in two adjacent TB stanzas (2.4.6.5.7; 6.1) which happen to be right after the verse where s páyant- is used. The remaining attestations are in the Br hmaṇa-glosses on a mantra used in the Pravargya ceremony: the mantra goes tváṣṭṛmantas tv sapema “possessing Tvaṣṭṛ, we wish to dedicate ourselves (sapema) to you” and the Br hmaṇa “explains” this as sáp d dhi praj ́ ḥ pr ́ j yante “because from the penis progeny The origin of Latin prōs pia 235 is produced” (MS 3.7.7).36 The word sápa- is not found in the later language, nor is it continued in any of the Modern Indo-Aryan languages. It seems that sápa- ‘penis’ is an inner-Vedic creation. It could be a product of brahmanic creativity, owing its existence to the erotic meanings of sap-1 ‘handle, caress’;37 but more likely sápa- is a tabuistic metathesis of *pása- (~ PIE *peses-), as Y ska had thought (Nirukta 5.16). To sum up, Vedic may provide evidence for a verbal stem s páya-ti denoting a violent action of some sort (‘strike, hit, destroy’). The link to Latin prōs pia and sōpiō can still be maintained: formally, Vedic s páya-ti is compatible with the reconstruction *seh2p-, proposed above for the Latin material. As for the semantics, only one additional step is required, namely, an assumption of a trivial development from ‘hit’, ‘strike’, ‘bang’ to ‘futuere’. However, since the Vedic evidence is limited to a single form found in a very difficult passage, the reconstruction *seh2p- ‘strike, hit’ remains without sufficient foundation, unless other cognates can be identified. 3. One such cognate is found in Iranian: this is the Ossetic verb safyn (Iron.), isafun (Digor) ‘destroy, ruin, kill; NT π υ ’. For this verb Abaev (1979: 10–11) proposed a reconstruction *u̯ i-š p- which is formally unassailable: (1) Proto-Iranian initial *u̯ is lost in Ossetic before *i; (2) initial *i- is lost in Iron (but not in Digor);38 (3) the root vowel must have been long, since a short *ă before a single consonant would have been reflected as -æ-.39 Abaev further posited a connection to Sanskrit kṣap- ‘destroy’, assuming a “thorn”-type correspondence between the Sanskrit kṣ- and Iranian *š-. This cannot be right: Sanskrit kṣ ̆ páyati is the causative of kṣi- ‘destroy’ with a secondary ____________ 36 Similarly KS 24.4 and Kaṭh 2.115: áto hīm ́ ḥ praj ́ ḥ pr ́ j yante: prajánan ya “from here progeny is produced: this serves to produce progeny” (see Oertel 1942: 43; Witzel 2004: lvii). 37 sápa- is connected to sap-1 by Houben 1991: 120 n. 81 and EWAia 699. 38 Compare D. igosun vs. I. qusyn ‘to hear’ < *u̯ i-gauš-. 39 Similar conclusions were independently reached by I. Gershevitch, who in a paper from 1977 reconstructed Proto-Iranian *sap- ‘sweep, wipe’. Central to Gershevitch’s contribution was the idea that the same root was contained in Younger Avestan viš pa-, an epithet (or a name) of a snake in N. 30, known also from Armenian (višap) and Georgian (vešaṗ-), see Gippert 1993: 317–29 with references. Whether or not this epithet should really be analyzed as ‘wiping away’ (Gershevitch) or ‘smashing aside’ (according to the reconstruction of the root *seh2p- put forth in the present paper), rather than ‘having venom for water’ (*u̯ iša- p-), ‘achieving through venom’ (*u̯ iša- p-) or ‘having venomous sap’ (*u̯ iš-s p-) is impossible to prove. 236 Alexander Nikolaev “hiatus-filling” -p- (cf. d páyati ‘makes give’, h páyati ‘makes open’, etc.) and thus surely an Indic innovation. Compromised by Abaev’s implausible etymology, Ossetic safyn / isafun has nearly escaped the attention of etymologists.40 Now the sin the Ossetic verb can also go back to *š-, a reflex of Indo-Iranian *s, “rukified” in the position after *i. Under this hypothesis safyn / isafun ‘destroy, kill’ may continue *u̯ i-š pa- or *u̯ i-š pai̯ a- made from PIE *seh2p- ‘to hit’, thus possibly an exact correspondence to Vedic s páya-ti ‘strike, slay, hit’ discussed above.41 The only problem spot in this analysis is the root-final -f which cannot go back to Indo-Iranian *p.42 However, following Gershevitch (1977: 66), we can explain -f as a result of paradigmatic leveling to the passive-intransitive stem *u̯ i-šaf-i̯ a- (sæfyn (I.), isæfun (D.) ‘to die, to perish’) where f from preconsonantal *p would be lautgesetzlich. One parallel case of precisely such levelling can be seen in the descendants of Iranian *Hap- (YAvestan apaiia-, pass. fiia-) that in Ossetic come out as afun (D.), æjafyn (I.) ‘reach’.43 Two other Iranian cognates of this verb offer an interesting twist on the present discussion. Gershevitch (1977) has argued that the Ossetic verb was related to Balochi š pag44 ‘to mount a ewe’, and Filippone 2006: 20 added Min bi š fidan ‘futuere’. These forms indeed look surprisingly similar to the Ossetic material, even though an aphaeresis of *i- is out of the question in this case, and the initial “rukified” š____________ 40 The verb is not found in the LIV or EWAia; Cheung 2007: 335 lists safyn / isafun with a question mark as a possible cognate of Chr. Sogdian psyp ‘slander’ and Sanskrit śap- ‘slander’, but the semantic development is hard to substantiate, as Cheung himself concedes. 41 I forego the question of the morphological status of *sVh2p-ei̯ e/o- (o-grade iterative? lengthened-grade intensive? an inner-Indic replacement of *s pati?). Note that the transmitted accent is irrelevant as it could have been retracted at any time: a verb with the meaning ‘futuere’ would have to be transitive and as such would have been attracted by the robust group of -áya- transitives. 42 *p would have given -b- > -v- in intervocalic position, cf. tavyn / tavun ‘to warm up’ < *t pái̯ a-, Avestan .tapaiia-. 43 Under the reconstruction *seh2p- the stem *u̯ i-šaf-i̯ a- would itself need to be secondary. One possible explanation is as follows: passive *(u̯ i-)š p-i̯ á- ( > *(u̯ i-) š f-i̯ á-) ‘to perish’ was analogically built to inherited *(u̯ i-)š p-a(i̯ a)- ‘to destroy’, perhaps matching synonymous *mr̥ -i̯ á- ‘to die’. Later in the history of Iranian the vowel quantity was adjusted through a four-part proportion *m rai̯ a- ‘to kill’ : *mari̯ a- ‘to die’ (Ossetic (I.) maryn : mælyn) = *(u̯ i-)š f-ai̯ a- ‘to destroy’ : X, X = *(u̯ i-)šaf-i̯ a- ‘to perish’. (The -a- / -æ- ablaut is highly characteristic of the verbal system of Ossetic and other Modern Iranian languages where the historically short vowel is found in intransitive or passive forms, while -a- from * marks transitive verbs; at the origin of this productive system are the Indo-Iranian causatives in *-ai̯ a- with a long vowel in the root). 44 Eastern Balochi š faγ with fricatives in place of stops may reflect the influence of Modern Persian (see Korn 2005: 250 with references). The origin of Latin prōs pia 237 must have spread to the simplex from the compounded form.45 As for the semantics of š pag and š fidan, it is easy to maintain the etymological relationship between these forms and *seh2p- ‘hit’, since the assumption of a semantic development from ‘strike’, etc. to ‘futuere’ comes at no cost. What makes these forms particularly interesting for our purposes is that they provide a neat parallel to Latin prōs pia and sōpiō: despite the fact that Vedic s páya- does not seem to have been an obscene term after all, other descendants of the root *seh2p- provide the necessary aischrological sense. 4. The next ingredient of the proposed reconstruction is the Hittite verb šapzi, šappanzi. The exact meaning of this verb is unclear, and it might be useful to briefly summarize the research situation regarding this verb. J. Friedrich’s widely accepted translation of šap(p)- is ‘scrape, peel, wash’.46 This analysis is based on the Luvianism μšappatta which demonstrably means ‘peeled off (the bark)’. While there is no reason to doubt this interpretation of the Luvoid form, it has given rise to conclusions more far-reaching than it can justify: in particular, N. Oettinger has argued that Hittite šap(p)- is likewise a Luvianism with the same meaning ‘scrape’ or ‘peel’ as μšappatta.47 H. Güterbock, however, argued that šap(p)- rather means ‘hit, slap’.48 If Güterbock could be shown to be right, Hittite šapzi, šappanzi ‘hit’ could be compared to Ossetic safyn / isafun ‘destroy’ and Vedic s páya-ti ‘strike’?. 4.1 In view of the uncertainty of the meaning, a reassessment of the evidence seems in order. To start with the least helpful context, šappdescribes the actions performed by the priest on the king’s hands in the ritual of the festival of Nerik (CTH 645.6): ____________ 45 J. Cheung’s (2007: 175) ingenious derivation of š pag from *fra-(H)i̯ ab- (PIE *h3i̯ ebh-) lacks conviction in view of the phonological problem of -p- in the place of expectable -b-. 46 Friedrich 1968: 38; Tischler 2001: 143 ‘schälen’; Puhvel 2004: 20: ‘strip, peel’. 47 Oettinger 1979: 383. 48 Güterbock 1967: 141–42. See the excellent presentation of the evidence in CHD–S 201–3 with ample references (to which Kassian, Korolëv and Sideltsev 2002: 638–39 should now be added). The editors of the CHD have wisely adopted an agnostic position regarding the meaning of the verb. Alexander Nikolaev 238 KUB 25.36 i 12’–13’ ( = v 11–13 = 24–25); OH?/MS? [m n LÚGUDU12 ma]lduwar [zinnizzi nu L]UGAL-un QA-TEMEŠ-ŠU šapzi when the GUDU-priest finishes reciting, he šapzi the king’s hands. The translation ‘purifies’ (e.g. Haas 1970: 200) is essentially a fallback option in the absence of any clues as to the meaning of the verb šap(p)-.49 4.2 šapp- also describes the actions of the “Old Woman” in the Hittite-Hurrian Allaitura i ritual (CTH 780): KUB 27.29 i 9 [(n=an MUNUSŠU.G)]I xšapzi50 nu I-NA É I.ÚS.SA The ‘Old Woman’ šapzi him, and <she goes> to the bathhouse. Here again ‘purifies’51 is the translation of least resistance since the text is peppered with parkunu- and other such terms (e.g. šuppiyaḫḫ-). However, insufficient notice seems to have been taken of the fact that the description of the ritual continues with a mention of GIŠalkištanuš, viz. ‘boughs’ or ‘branches’: [MUNUS]ŠU.GI GIŠalkištanuš ANA ALAMMEŠ GAM-an d i The ‘Old Woman’ puts down branches beside the statues/images. If the GIŠalkištanuš ‘branches’ are to be understood as the instrument that executes the action described by the verb šapzi, one is reminded of other passages where participants in the ritual are subjected to beating, for instance, in the description of the (ḫ)išuwas-festival: KBo 15.37 v 1–5 (CTH 628; NH) L Ú [( SANG)]A GIŠGIDRU. I.A DINGIR-LIM anda ḫūlal[i]yanda=pat d i nu LUGAL-uš ANA DINGIR-LIM 3-ŠU UŠKEN LÚSANGA=ya=an IŠTU GIŠGIDRU. I.A DINGIR-LIM iškiša 3-ŠU walḫzi The priest takes the wrapped-together staffs of the deity. The king bows three times to the deity. And the priest strikes him on the back with the staffs of the deity three times.52 ____________ 49 Taggar-Cohen 2006: 249 and Görke 2010: 252 n.296 follow Güterbock and translate ‘slaps’. 50 šanzi corrected to šapzi by the duplicates: KBo 23.23:56, KUB 27.29, KUB 59.73:6–7 (ed. Haas and Wegner 1988, nr. 2 rev. 74’, nr. 19 i 38 and nr. 20 6’). 51 ‘reinigt’ (Haas and Thiel 1978: 135). 52 Haas (1994: 216 n.196) thinks of this procedure as an instance of a Stärkungsritus; for Strauss (2006: 309) ritual striking “liesse sich als Exorzismus böser Geister und Dämonen deuten”. The origin of Latin prōs pia 239 4.3 This interpretation of n=an šapzi as an act of ritual beating is supported by another text where the verb šapp- is found construed with the noun meaning ‘stick’, namely, in the ritual for a royal prince (CTH 647.14): HFAC 49.3’; NH […DUMU.]LUGAL GIŠPA-it šapzi ((s)he) šapzi the [pri]nce with a stick (Güterbock (1967: 141): ‘hits’). 4.4 A different use of šapp- is found in the funerary ritual (CTH 450 II 2): KUB 39.45 obv. 10–11 (= KUB 39.6 i 9–10) INA UD.9.KAM GA š[appa]nzi makkuya[n] šappuwaš GIŠ-r[u AŠR]A IŠTU KÙ.BABBAR ḫali[ššiyan] On the ninth day they šappanzi milk. The churning vessel and the šappuwaš wood are inlaid in [x] places with silver. As Güterbock has argued, here the verb can, too, be translated as ‘hit, beat’, viz. ‘churn milk’ (šappuwaš t ru thus means ‘churner’). This technical meaning can further be illustrated by the use of the stem šappešk- in the instructions for temple officials (CTH 264): KUB 13.4 iv 41–43 (= KUB 13.17 iv 4’–6’) našma m n DINGIR-LIM-ni kuedani EZEN4 GA ēšzi GA kuwapi šappeškanzi n=an=kan lē šakuwantariyanutteni n=an=ši iyattin or if for some god there is a milk festival, when they šappeškanzi the milk, do not neglect it (Güterbock 1967: 141: let it be idle), prepare it for him! Summing up, one can see that the meaning ‘hit, strike’ posited for the verb šap(p)- by Güterbock is essentially unavoidable for the contexts cited under 4.3 and 4.4 above, while it works for the examples in 4.1 and 4.2 at least just as well as Friedrich’s ‘scrape, wash’. 4.5 We can return to the purported Luvian origin of šapp-.53 There is no doubt that μšappatta (= Akkadian ikpurma), attested in the Hittite ____________ 53 Oettinger 1979: 383: “keil.-luw. Prät. Sg. 3 šappatta (Gl.) ‘schälte ab” zu einem heth. Stamm šapp-mi führte”. Despite several dissenting voices (Goetze 1947: 319 n. 71; Melchert 1993: 187), Oettinger’s view seems to have been widely adopted; in particular, it must have been the reason why A. Kloekhorst did not include Hittite šap(p)- (qua Luvianism) in his 2008 Lexicon. In a paper from 1998 Oettinger reiterated the translation ‘abschälen’ in a discussion of nouns šap(p) (a)ra- and šipart(a)-, the meaning of which he tentatively defined as ‘knife’ (CHD-S 206–7 prefers ‘(a part of) garment’). 240 Alexander Nikolaev version of the epic of Gilgamesh, means ‘peeled off (the bark)’.54 However, there is a morphological difference between the athematic Hittite šapzi and the Luvian form: the -a- in the medial syllable of μšap-pa-at-ta (which must be real) excludes an original athematic inflection. Rather, šapp - is a factitive stem the suffix of which goes back to *-eh2 (“newaḫḫi-type”).55 Since the meaning ‘to hit’ is demonstrable for Hittite šap(p)- on the ground of Hittite contexts, the Luvian form does not seem to constitute a sufficiently compelling argument in favor of revising the semantics of the Hittite verb to ‘peel, scrub’, as Friedrich had wanted. Luvian šapp - is not isolated in Anatolian: as C. Melchert has observed (1993: 187), there are two Hittite verbs very similar to šapp in shape and meaning. One of them is šippai-, attested in the ritual of Šamu a (CTH 480), where the object of šippanun is šuppiwašḫar ‘onion’ or ‘garlic’.56 Hittite šippai- ‘peel’ may go back to a ProtoAnatolian verbal stem *sep ́ i̯ a-/e- ‘to peel’ with the development of pretonic *e to -i-.57 The other verb is šapp izzi found in a medical text (CTH 461) where it is construed with gapanu (part of a tree).58 This form is best seen as a Hittite adaptation of either Luvian (*)šappatti59 (inferable from šappatta) or, less likely, Luvian *šap-pa(i)ti, identical to Hittite šippai-.60 We thus have evidence for two stems with the meaning ‘to peel’, both of which are morphologically and semantically different from the Hittite stem šap(p)-. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Hittite šap(p)- should be kept separate from šapp -, šippai- and other similarlooking Anatolian forms.61 ____________ 54 KUB 8.50 iii 13’–16’. The Luvian provenance of the form is vouchsafed by both the Glossenkeil and the 3 sg. pret. ending -atta. 55 The unlenited ending seems to exclude an origin in *-eh2i̯ e/o- (Melchert 1997: 132). The stem šappa- can in theory also continue a plain oxytone thematic stem (with a full grade in the root), but this interpretation does not seem to lead anywhere. 56 KUB 29.7 rev. 30–32. 57 Melchert 1994: 139. 58 KUB 44.63 ii 10’–11’. 59 Proto-Luvic *-eh2- factitives secondarily adopted mi-conjugation, while Hittite (where these forms follow ḫi-conjugation) has preserved the original situation (see Melchert 2007: 2–3). 60 In Luvian a development of unaccented *e to a remains a possibility, the fate of pretonic short *e being completely uncertain (compare Melchert’s reservations, 1994: 262), thus *šapp (i)- < *sep ́ i̯ a-/e-. 61 On Luvian šapiya- (with a lenis consonant) see Melchert 2003: 149, who argues for a meaning ‘to cleanse’. Palaic ša-pa-ú-i-na-i, ša-pa-a-ma-an were glossed by Carruba 1970: 14, 69 as ‘reinigen, Reinigung’ precisely on the basis of a comparison to Hittite and Luvian forms (see also Wallace 1983: 166; Eichner 2010: 44), but the meaning of these forms remains a matter of guesswork. The lenis consonant makes The origin of Latin prōs pia 241 4.6 A novel etymological proposal for Hittite šap(p)- is therefore not unwarranted, and given the meaning of the verb, nothing stands in the way of comparing it with Ossetic safyn / isafun ‘destroy’ and Vedic s páya-ti ‘strike’?, and tracing all three verbal stems back to a common root *seh2p-.62 It remains to place the findings made in this section in the context of a morphological reconstruction. An athematic verb šapzi in Hittite does not have to continue a PIE present *seh2p-ti directly, just as tēzzi ‘speaks’ does not need to be traced back to a putative present *dheh1-ti, coexisting with familiar reduplicated *dhe-dheh1-ti. Rather, the root present šap(p)- was back-formed to the preterit, continuing the root aorist *seh2p-t (cf. *dheh1-t → pres. (transponate) *dheh1-ti > tēzzi). Next to a root aorist in Proto-Indo-European one would expect to find a characterized present stem for which, it seems, there is evidence in Greek. 5. There are two verbs ἰ π in Greek which are listed separately in the LSJ, but are not always kept distinct in other works of reference. Neither verb has an accepted etymology and opinions are still divided as to whether or not they go back to the same root. One of the verbs is the better known (π )ἰ π ‘send forth’, ‘shoot (arrows)’, ‘rush (oneself)’, familiar from the proem of the Iliad: π ’ ἰφ υ υ Ἄ π ̈α ‘hurled strong souls in their multitudes to the house of Hades’ (Il. 1.3). The other verb is less frequent ( α α)ἰ π ‘hurt’, first attested in the Odyssey. This verb will be the object of our inquiry in this section of the paper. 5.1 ( α α)ἰ π is found in the Odyssey twice, in a versus iteratus: in book 2 Telemachus speaks to his nurse, Eurycleia, who later retells this conversation to Penelope. ____________ a comparison to Luvian šapiya- possible (unless an argument can be made that *p was lenited between two unaccented vowels in the precursor of Palaic *šapa-wai-). As for the root etymology, it is not unlikely that *sep-eh2i̯ e/o-ti and *sep-eh2-e could belong to the root *sep- (Vedic sápati, Greek π , Latin sepeliō), the meaning of which Vine (1988: 60–61) established as ‘handle (skillfully), hold (reverently)’. Having carefully distinguished between the different Anatolian forms discussed above, Vine concluded that “the Anatolian data are in fact quite consonantal with […] the meaning of IE *sep- […], although it would be premature to insist on the etymology at this time”. It appears that some abstract physical meaning such as ‘to handle’ may indeed elicit a variety of designations for ritual actions, including ‘purify’ or ‘wash’. 62 The fortis consonant in the plural stem of the Hittite verb (*sapantsi, not *sabantsi < *seh2p-V-) must be analogical after the singular (*sap-C- < *seh2p-C-) under the chronology of lenition proposed by Melchert 2007. 242 Alexander Nikolaev Od. 2.376 (~ 4.749) ’ φ ῃ υ α α, π ’ ’ υ α, ἢ αὐ π α α φ α ὡ α υ α ατ ρ α α ἰ πτῃ But swear to not tell these things to my dear mother at least until the eleventh or the twelfth day comes or she misses me and hears that I’ve departed so she (= Penelope) won’t mar her fair flesh with weeping. The ancient commentators understood the verb as ‘hurt, spoil, damage’: thus scholia D provide a gloss αφ ῃ ‘ruin’ for Od. 2.376 and in schol. min. (P. Mich. 1588) ἰ π is glossed as ἢ α ἢ φ ; in Hesychius we find ἰ π · π and ἰαφ α · π α ῖ .63 The verb ἰ π in the meaning ‘hurt’ is also probably attested in a processional song by Bacchylides where the verb has ‘heart’ as its direct object, contrasting with earlier π υ ‘having spirit free from grief’. Bacch. fr. 11.6: , α ῖ ὐ υ α , υ π ύ α α α ῖ · υα φπ ῖφ , πα ’ < α> ύ α αἰ ἰ πτετα έαρ, α π π There is one guideline, one path to happiness for mortals: to be able to keep an ungrieving spirit throughout life. The man who busies his mind with a thousand cares, whose heart is hurt day and night for the sake of the future, has fruitless toil. The form (αἰ ) ἰ π α in this passage is Boeckh’s palmary emendation of the meaningless π α in the mss. of Stobaeus (Flor. 4.44.16). Estienne’s alternative conjecture π α ‘devours’ is quite elegant, but ἰ π α α commands acceptance in view of a late Alexandrine imitation ἰ π α ἦ ([Mosch.] Meg. 39).64 ____________ 63 The understanding of the Homeric verse current in the late Antiquity is nicely illustrated by Quintus of Smyrna who adapted the Odyssean verse in a martial context, with ἰ π referring to piercing by spear: Ἔ α ’ Αἰ α α ’ π /Τ υ · ’ ὐ ρ α α ν ἴα εν (Q. S. 6.546). 64 The epyllion “Megara” is ascribed by the manuscript tradition to Moschus; while the authorship is uncertain, its author must have been a poeta doctus, steeped in the knowledge of archaic and classical poetry. The poem is replete with Homeric The origin of Latin prōs pia 243 5.2 This exhausts the evidence for ἰ π 2 ‘hurt’ in archaic Greek poetry.65 The verb is not found until post-classical times when it reemerges in Hellenistic bucolic and epic poetry. For instance, in Apollonius’ Argonautica ἰ π refers to hypothetical damage that might be done by an unskilled helmsman: Ap. Rh. 2.874–6: ὧ α α α , απ ύ π , ὔ ἰ ε ναυτ ην. And so there are here other men of skill, of whom none will harm our voyaging, whomsoever we set at the helm.66 In Nicander ἰ π likewise means ‘hurt, strike, infliction’: α α ἰ π “this is the time when disaster strikes a man” (Th. 116); ῖ π α α φ ἰ π “this drink (viz. hemlock) assuredly looses disaster upon the head” (Al. 187).67 In its literal meaning, the verb refers to insects’ and snakes’ bites: υ υπ α ἰ π “(scorpion) deals an incurable stroke upon the groin” (Th. 784); ’ α ... υπ υ ῃ ἰ π ____________ and lyric reminiscences, including, as is the custom of the genre, most obscure and rare words and expressions (for a useful collection see Breitenstein 1966: 70–93). 65 W. Schulze (1892: 168 n. 3) cited Aesch. Septem 525 π πυ ᾶ φα ἰ ‘he (= Hippomedon) will ἰ π his head before the gates’ (Sommerstein: ‘lose’) as one more example of ἰ π in the meaning ‘to hurt’. But while any increase in the documentation of ἰ π 2 would be salutary, Schulze’s suggestion is doubtful, since Aeschylus’ juncture φα ἰ is hard to separate from Il.11.55 π ἰφ υ φα Ἄ π “hurl down a multitude of strong heads to the house of Hades”. The Iliadic phrase referring to the slaying of men may have engendered a considerable confusion in the usage of ἰ π 1 and ἰ π 2 already in the antiquity; it is entirely possible that Aeschylus reanalyzed the Homeric phrase as applicable to one’s own head. Cf. “ἰ π war schon den Tragikern eine Glosse, die sie für ganz Verschiedenes verwendeten” (Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1907: 35, a propos of [Hes.] fr. 204.118–19 (M.–W.) α π] Ἀ ῃ φα π α ἰ [ ] ). 66 Here one may wonder which of the two verbs ἰ π is used, since the meaning ‘to hurl’ would not be altogether unfathomable in the description of a ship thrown off course. However, αυ means ‘sea voyage’ or ‘seamanship’; in the Argonautica the word is used 16 times in the former meaning and once in the latter, but never in the meaning ‘ship’. Therefore the most likely translation of ἰ αυ is ‘will do harm to the sea voyage’ which is in fact how the line was understood in the antiquity: ὐ αφ ῖ π (Schol. Lm Wendel). Cf. Vian–Delage 1974: 218: “compromettra la navigation”; Green 2007: 101: “mess up our voyage”; Matteo 2007: 575: “danneggera”. 67 On the interpretation of the verse see Gow 1951: 109. 244 Alexander Nikolaev “[the viper] imparts the affliction of thirst with its feeble blows” (Th. 357–58).68 The “Bacchylidean” way of using ἰ π with reference to the state of emotional turmoil (ἰ π α α ) is also continued in Hellenistic poetry: Theocritus uses the verb twice about being consumed by the fire of love: πυ υ ἰ φ ‘my heart was aflame’ (2.82) and α α ύ α ἰ π ‘(Eros), who tortures me by burning me up to the very bones’ (3.17). 5.3 As a result of this cursory review of relevant passages, we see that the difference in meaning between (π )ἰ π ‘send forth’ and ( α α)ἰ π ‘hurt’ is beyond doubt. The question now becomes whether ἰ π 1 and ἰ π 2 go back to two different verbal roots or they are the same verb in origin.69 But while one could imagine how ἰ π 1 ‘send forth’ could have developed the meaning ‘kill’ based on such usages as Il. 1.3 ( υ Ἄ π ̈α ), it is still quite hard to conceive of a further development to ‘hurt the skin’ (Od. 2.376) or ‘bite into the groin’ (Nic. Th. 784).70 Assuming that ἰ π ‘hurt’ is indeed distinct from ἰ π ‘send forth, hurl’, whatever the etymology of the latter,71 a new ety____________ 68 Translations from Nicander follow Gow-Scholfield 1953. It should be said that the etymology to be proposed presently does not infact depend on the separation of the two verbs. The widely held belief is that the verbs continue the same root, e.g. GEW 705; Peters 1980: 101 n. 44; Tichy 1983: 230; St. West 1988: 153; Maehler 1997: 313; Beekes 2010: 574. 70 Τhe use of α with verba delendi is well documented, but I cannot agree with Lindblad 1922: 111 that the preverb itself should be held responsible for the meaning ‘to hurt’ in our case (i.e.: it was the addition of α α- ‘zer-’ to ἰ π ‘send forth’ that resulted in the meaning that α ἰ π ῃ has in the Odyssey). The development of α α- must have been from ‘down, downward’ to ‘completely’; its “destructive” meaning in compounds must have been brought about by its use with verbal roots already denoting violent physical actions (cf. α α ύ ‘wear out’, α απ ‘devour’, α απ ‘bite into pieces’, α απ ‘grind to powder’, etc.). I am unable to find any examples of α α- added to a verbal root whose meaning had nothing to do with any harm whatsoever and the resulting compound denoting some kind of destructive action. 71 The old connection between (π )ἰ π ‘to send forth, to hurl’ and Latin iaciō (e.g. Monro 1891: 46) is excluded by the *h1 in the root of the latter, clearly related to Greek . The only somewhat plausible etymology known to me connects ἰ π 1 with the passive aorist φ , attested twice in the Iliad in battle scenes, with π ‘shield’ as the subject: Il. 13.543 ~ 14.419 π’ (αὐ ) ’ π φ . The form was obscure already in the antiquity: Aristarchus wrote φ , thinking of π α , while Herodian recommended a derivation from π ; both etymologies can still be found in modern works. H. Ebel (1855: 167) was the first to compare φ to ἰ π ; he was followed by K. Meister (1921: 110 n.2). There have been several ingenious attempts to find a plausible cognate of φ outside Greek: thus F. Froehde (1879: 24) proposed Sanskrit vápati ‘scatter, throw’ as the cognate, and M. Meier69 The origin of Latin prōs pia 245 mological account of the former verb can now be proposed.72 ἰ π / is best analyzed as a reduplicated present stem extended with suffixal *-i̯ e/o-.73 Such extended reduplicated present stems are not unknown, e.g. ἰ ‘send forth’ (< *si-sl̥ -i̯ e/o-), α ‘stretch’ (< *ti-tn̥ -i̯ e/ o-), 74 ἰαύ ‘spend the night’ (< *h2i-h2us-i̯ e/o-), or (Aeolic) α α ‘long, desire’ (< *li-las-i̯ e/o-).75 As for the beginning of the root, it is important to note that the absence of a spiritus asper in ἰ π / - is not diagnostic for our purposes: as a poetic verb, ἰ π probably comes from either East Ionian or Aeolian poetic tradition and is therefore likely to show psilosis. The facts fit together as though dovetailed: ἰ π / - ‘hurt’ can be traced back to a reduplicated present stem from the root *seh2p- ‘strike, hit’, viz. *se-seh2p- / *se-sh2p-, remade as *si-sh2p-i̯ e/o-76 on the way to Greek.77 ____________ Brügger (1989: 91–92) suggested a comparison with φ ‘song’ and Germanic *singwan ‘to sing’, assuming that the verb described the clang of weapons. The most plausible etymology, in my opinion, was offered by J. Schmidt (1881: 131; 1895: 63) who compared φ and ἰ π ‘hurl’ to Germanic *sinkwan ‘to fall’ and Armenian ankanim ‘id.’: PIE *sengw- must therefore have had an original meaning ‘to shove down’ (trans.), ‘to fall down’ (intr.). (On π see Peters 1980: 101 n. 44). 72 In fact it was the view of scholars no less than W. Schulze (1892: 168 n. 3) and F. Bechtel (1914: 180) that ἰ π ‘ π ’ is a separate verb, although neither authority ventured an etymology for either of the two verbs ἰ π . 73 E. Tichy (1983: 230) surmised that the reduplication in ἰ π was analogical to “semantisch nicht allzu fernstehende[m]” ἰ , but the semantic points of contact are between (π )ἰ π 1 and (π )ἰ (both ‘to send forth’), not between ( α α)ἰ π 2 and ἰ . 74 On the phonology of ἰαύ < *h2i-h2us-i̯ e/o- see Peters 1980: 34–39. 75 As an alternative one could set up a stem with a rare verbal suffix *-te/o- (type *peḱ-te/o- ‘to comb’, *pleḱ-te/o- ‘to weave’), but this reconstruction has much less to recommend itself: so far as can be inferred from extremely scanty data, the suffix *-te/o- does not occur in reduplicated stems and is virtually absent from Greek.The only (highly uncertain) example is ύ / ύ , the Attic equivalent of ύ ‘accomplish’ (Thuc., Pl.); π ‘shear’ (Ar. Av. 714; Lys. 685) is almost certainly a denominative. The other thinkable possibility is that the suffix was *-dhe/o-, assuming that the expected *ἰ φ / - was reshaped into *ἰ π / - after other tense allomorphs that had (ἰ) π-; however, all Greek stems in - / - are intransitive ( α ‘be vexed’, α ‘sprout’, π ‘be full’, φ ύ ‘wane’, etc.). 76 All Greek reduplicated present stems have -i- as the reduplication vowel: granted our reduplicated present is old enough, in the protolanguage it could have been reduplicated with an -i- or an -e- (the latter is my preference). 77 There is another form in Greek that may belong with the pres. ἰ π , namely, the medium tantum π α ‘hurt, strike’ (only fut. / - and aor. α- are actually attested), known from the Iliad onwards. The comparison between ἰ π and π α is not new: W. Schulze thought that π / - was a contraction of ἰ π (1892: 168 n.3); F. Bechtel, too, compared the two verbs to each other (1914: 179– 80), positing for π / - a zero grade of a root *i̯ kw- (*i̯ eh2kw-?), no further evidence for which is known. Lastly, F. Kuiper (1933: 282) compared the Greek forms to Indo-Iranian *aka- ‘bad’ (Avestan akō, Vedic áka-m ‘pain’) from IE *akw- (but a root 246 Alexander Nikolaev 6. It is time to take stock. The evidence from Indo-Iranian, Hittite and Greek discussed on the previous pages makes the reconstruction of a root *seh2p- ‘strike, hit’ very plausible. The Averbo of this root included a present *se-seh2p/sh2p- (> Greek ἰ π ), a root aorist *seh2p(Hittite šap(p)-) and possibly an iterative (?) *soh2pei̯ e/o-, the source of Vedic s páya-ti ‘strike’ and Ossetic safyn (Iron.), isafun (Digor) ‘destroy’. In Iranian we find reflexes of the root used in the meaning ‘to have sexual intercourse’ (Balochi š pag ‘to mount ewe’, Min bi š fidan ‘futuere’). A similar metaphor underlies Latin *(pro)s p re ‘futuere’ (whence prōs pia ‘kin, lineage’) and sōpiō, -ōnis ‘penis’.78 Bibliography Abaev, V. I. (1979): И че е я . Vol. 3: S–T’. Leningrad: Nauka. Adams, J. N. (1982): The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. London: Duckworth. André, J. (1991): Le vocabulaire latin de l’anatomie. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Baldwin, B. (2008): “Sopi-opera”, Petronian Society Newsletter 38: 27–30. Bechtel, F. (1914): Lexilogus zu Homer. Halle: M. Niemeyer. Beltrami, L. (1998): Il sangue degli antenati. Bari: Edipugli. Bloomfield, M. and Edgerton, F. (1930): Vedic Variants: A Study of the Variant Readings in the Repeated Mantras of the Veda. Vol. 1: The Verb. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Breitenstein, T. (1966): Recherches sur le poème Megara. Copenhague: Munksgaard. Callebat, L. (1964): “L’archaïsme dans les Métamorphoses d’Apulée”, Revues des Études Latines 42: 346–361. – (1994): “Formes et modes d’expression dans les oeuvres d’Apulée”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II, 34/2: 1600–1664. Carruba, O. (1970): Das Palaische. Texte, Grammatik, Lexikon. (StBoT 10). Wiesbaden: O. Harrasowitz. ____________ of such adjectival meaning is hardly expected to form a reduplicated present stem). It appears that π / -, too, can be derived from the root *seh2p-. Let us suppose that the active reduplicated stem *si-seh2p- (> ἰ π ) coexisted with a middle stem *(si-)sh2p-i̯ é/ó-. After the loss of the laryngeal in a heavy consonant cluster, the latter stem would come out as *hi-sp-i̯ e/o-, fut. *hisp-se/o-, aor. *hisp-sa-, and one could assume a dissimilatory loss of -s-, comparable to the one observed in fut. < *eni-skw-se/o- (see Waack-Erdmann 1982: 201). The result is the actually attested fut. / - and aor. α- with East Ionic / Aeolic psilosis, just as in ἰ π . The future stem / - may also be continued in a “de-desiderative” -stem * ᾱ(cf. Greek αὔ α ‘increase’ → αὔ ‘growth’, Vedic jígīṣa- ‘want to win’ → jigīṣ ́ ‘desire for victory’), from which the adj. ᾱ - ‘unhurt’ (or: ‘whom one does not want to hurt’?), quoted from Stesichorus in the grammatical literature (fr. 249 PMGF), was derived as a secondary lo-derivative of the type π ‘stretched’. 78 M. Villanueva Svensson and M. Majer have pointed out to me that etymologically isolated family of Lithuanian sópė, Latvian sâpe ‘wound, pain’, Lithuanian sop©ti ‘to hurt’ (intr.) is another strong candidate for connection with the root *seh2p-, established in this paper. The origin of Latin prōs pia 247 Cheung, J. (2007): Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. (LIEDD 2). Leiden-Boston: E. J. Brill. CLE = Bücheler, F. (1895): Carmina Latina Epigraphica. Vol. I. Lipsiae. Ebel, H. (1855): “Die scheinbaren unregelmässigkeiten des griechischen augments”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 4: 161–172. Eichner, H. (2010): “Laudatio hostiae und laudatio victimae im Palaischen”, Hethitica 16 (= Studia Anatolica in memoriam Erich Neu dicata, ed. by R. Lebrun and J. de Vos): 39–58. Fighiera, S. L. (1896): La lingua e la grammatica di C. Crispo Sallustio. Savona: D. Bertolotto. Filippone, E. (2006): “Ilya Gershevitch and New Western Iranian”, The Scholarly Contribution of Ilya Gershevitch to the Development of Iranian Studies, ed. by A. Panaino, 11–24. Milan: Mimesis Edizioni. Friedrich, J. (1968): “Zu einigen hethitischen Wortbedeutungen”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 88: 37–39. Froehde, F. (1879): “Zur homerischen Wortforschung”, Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 3: 1–25. Gaide, F. (1988): Les substantifs masculins latins en …(i)ō, …(i)ōnis. LouvainParis: Peeters. Gershevitch, I. (1977): “Viš pa”, В ще ф , 62–69. Tbilisi (reprinted in: Philologia Iranica, ed. N. Sims-Williams, 142–148. Wiesbaden 1985). Gippert, J. (1993): Iranica Armeno-Iberica: Studien zu den iranischen Lehnwörtern im Armenischen und Georgischen. (SbÖAW, phil.-hist. Kl. 606). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Goetze, A. (1947): “Contributions to Hittite Lexicography”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 1: 307–320. Güterbock, H. G. (1967): “Lexicographical notes III”, Revue hittite et asianique 25/81: 141–150. Haas, V. (1970): Der Kult von Nerik. Rome. – (1994): Geschichte der hethitischen Religion. (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1. Abt., Bd. 15). Leiden-New York-Köln: E. J. Brill. Haas, V. and Thiel, H. J. (1978): Die Beschwörungsrituale der Allaituraḫ(ḫ)i und verwandte Texte. Hurritologische Studien II. (Alte Orient und Altes Testament 31). Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker. Haas, V. and Wegner, I. (1988): Die Rituale der Beschwörerinnen SALŠU.GI. (ChS I/5). Rome: Multigrafica editrice. Hackstein, O. (2002): “Uridg. *CH.CC > *C.CC”. Historische Sprachforschung 115: 1–22. Harrison, S. J. (1990): “The Speaking Book: The Prologue to Apuleius’ Metamorphoses”, Classical Quarterly 40: 507–513. Havet, L. (1901): “Terentius, ‘Phormio’”, Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 25/4: 295–310. Hintze, A. (2005 [2009]): “The Cow That Came From The Moon: The Avestan Expression m h- gaociθra-”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute 19 = Iranian and Zoroastrian Studies in Honor of Prods Oktor Skjærvø): 57–66. Hoffmann, K. (1976): “Ved. yabh”, Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, ed. by J. Narten, vol. 2, 570–574. Wiesbaden: L. Reichelt. Houben, J. E. M. (1991): The Pravargya Br hmaṇa of the Taittirīya raṇyaka: An Ancient Commentary on the Pravargya ritual. Delhi: Motilal Baharsidass. Innes, D. (2001): “Why Isthmos Ephyrea?” A Companion to the Prologue of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, ed. by A. Kahane and A. Laird, 111–122. Oxford University Press. 248 Alexander Nikolaev Jamison, S. (1981): Function and Form in the -áya-Formations of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Jordan, H. (1860): M. Catonis praeter librum De re rustica quae extant. Leipzig: Teubner. Josephson, F. (1979): “Assibilation in Anatolian”, Hethitisch und Indogermanisch: Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens, ed. by E. Neu and W. Meid, 91–104. (IBS 25). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Kassian, A., Korolëv, A. and Sidel’tsev, A. (2002): Hittite Funerary Ritual: šalliš waštaiš. (AOAT 288). Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Keulen, W. H. (2007): Apuleius Madaurensis Metamorphoses. Book I: Text, Introduction and Commentary. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Kloekhorst, A. (2008): Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden-Boston: Brill. Kraut, E. K. (1881): Ueber das vulgäre Element in der Sprache des Sallustius. (Programm des königlich-württembergischen evangelisch-theologischen seminars). Blaubeuren: Fr. Mangold. Kuiper, F. (1933): “Beiträge zur griechischen Etymologie und Grammatik”, Glotta 21: 267–294. Lebek, W. D. (1970): Verba Prisca. Göttingen. Lunelli, A. (1969): Aerius. Storia di una parla poetica. (Varia neoterica). Roma: Edizione dell’Ateneo. Meier-Brügger, M. (1989): “Griechisch φ , φ , απ und α”, MSS 50: 90–96. Meister, K. (1921): Die homerische Kunstsprache. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner. Melchert, H. C. (2002): “Sanskrit sárdigr̥ di-”, Journal of American Oriental Society 122: 325–328. – (2003): “PIE “thorn” in Cuneiform Luvian?”, Proceedings of the 14th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, ed. K. Jones-Bley et al., 145–161. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man. – (2007): “Luvian evidence for PIE *H3eit- ‘take along; fetch’”, Indo-European Studies Bulletin 12: 1–3. – (1993): Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon. Chapel Hill: self-published. – (1994): Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi. Mylius, K. (1972): “Der zweite Adhyaya des valayana rautasūtra”, Acta Orientalia 36: 95–162. Nussbaum, A. (2006): “The Latin nouns in -(t)iō, -(t)iōn-”, handout of the talk given at the 25th East Coast Indo-European Conference (Ohio State University). Oettinger, N. (1979): Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg: H. Carl. – (1998): “Hethitisch sappara- und siparta- ‘Messer(?)’”, MSS 58: 95–100. Orel, V. (2003): A Handbook of Germanic Etymology. Leiden-Boston: E. J. Brill. Osthoff, H. (1895): “Etymologica II”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Litteratur 20: 89–97. Peters, M. (1980): Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. (SbÖAW, phil.-hist. Kl. 377). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. – (2004): “Zur Herkunft des griechischen -thē-Aoristes”, Analecta homini universali dicata. Arbeiten zur Indogermanistik, Linguistik, Philologie, Politik, Musik und Dichtung: Festschrift für Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Th. Krisch, Th. Lindner and U. Müller, Vol. 1, 171–185. Stuttgart: Heinz. Pinault, G.-J. (1979): “Instrumental et adverbe predicatif”, LALIES 1: 31–33. Puelma Piwonka, M. (1980): “Cicero als Platon-Übersetzer”, Museum Helveticum 37: 13–178 ( = Labor et Lima, Kleine Schriften und Nachträge, ed. I. Fasel, 316– 359. Basel 1995). The origin of Latin prōs pia 249 Puhvel, J. (2004): Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 6: Words beginning with M. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Richlin, A. (2005): Rome and the Mysterious Orient: Three Plays by Plautus. London: University of California Press. Scarsi, M. (1978): “Le ‘Origines’ di Catone e Nonio”, Studi Noniani 5: 237–297. Schmeling, G. (2011): A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius. Oxford University Press. Schmidt, J. (1881): “Zwei arische a-laute und die palatalen”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 25: 1–179. Schmidt, J. (1895): Kritik der Sonantentheorie. Berlin: H. Böhlau. Schöll, F. (1880): “Zu Catullus”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 26: 471–496. Schröder, W. A. (1971): M. Porcius Cato, das erste Buch der Origines. Ausgabe und Erklärung der Fragmente. (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 41). Meisenheim am Glan: A. Hain. Scobie, A. (1975): Apuleius Metamorphoses (Asinus Aureus) I. Meisenheim am Glan: A. Hain. Sharma, A. (1959/1960): Beiträge zur vedischen Lexikographie: Neue Wörter in M. Bloomfields Vedic Concordance. (= ΡΗΜΑ 5/6). Munich. Skard, E. (1956): Sallust und seine Vorgänger: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchung. (Symbolae Osloensis supp. 15). Oslo. Sonny, A. (1898): “Sopio, -onis bei Catull”, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 10: 528. – (1900): “Nachträgliches zu sopio, -onis”, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 11: 275–276. Strauss, R. (2006): Reinigungsrituale aus Kizzuwatna. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung hethitischer Ritualtradition und Kulturgeschichte. Berlin-New York: W. de Gruyter. Taggar-Cohen, A. (2006): Hittite Priesthood. (THeth 26). Heidelberg: C. Winter. Tichy, E. (1983): Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen. (SbÖAW, phil.-hist. Kl. 409). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Till, R. (1935): Die Sprache Catos. (Philologus supp. 28.2). Leipzig. Tischler, J. (2001): Hethitisches Handwörterbuch. (IBS 102). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Vaan, M. de (2008): Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill. Väänänen, V. (1959): Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes. (Abh. d. DAW, Kl. f. Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst 1958, nr. 3). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Vine, B. (1988): “Greek π and Indo-European *sep-”, Indogermanische Forschungen 93: 52–61. – (1999): “Greek α ‘root’ and ‘schwa secundum’”, UCLA Indo-European Studies 1: 5–30. Waack-Erdmann, K. (1982): “Das Futur des Verbums π ”, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 41: 199–204. Wallace, R. (1983): “The development of PIE *ē in Palaic”, Die Sprache 29: 159–173. Werba, Ch. (1997): Verba Indoarica: die primären und sekundären Wurzeln der Sanskrit-Sprache. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. de (1907): “Hesiodos”, Berliner Klassikertexte. Heft V: Griechische Dichterfragmente. 1. Hälfte: epische und elegische Fragmente, 21–46. Berlin: Weidmann. Willi, A. (2008): Sikelismos. Sprache, Literatur und Gesellschaft im griechischen Sizilien (8.-5. Jh. v. Chr.) Basel: Schwabe.