The Semantics of Aoidos

The Semantics of άοιδός and Related Compounds: Towards a Historical Poetics of SoloPerformance in Archaic GreeceAuthor(s): Boris MaslovSource: Classical Antiquity, Vol. 28, No. 1 (April 2009), pp. 1-38Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/CA.2009.28.1.1 .Accessed: 05/05/2011 10:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ClassicalAntiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/CA.2009.28.1.1?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

BORIS MASLOV

Classical Antiquity. Vol. 28, Issue 1, pp. 1–38. ISSN 0278-6656(p); 1067-8344 (e).Copyright © 2009 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Pleasedirect all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University ofCalifornia Press’s Rights and Permissions website at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.DOI:10.1525/CA.2009.28.1.1.

The Semantics of οιδς and RelatedCompounds: Towards a Historical Poeticsof Solo Performance in Archaic Greece

The article shows that in the Archaic period the Greeks did not possess a term equivalent toClassical ποιητς “poet-composer.” The principal meaning of the word οιδς, often claimedto correspond to ποιητς and modern English poet, was “tuneful” (adj.) or “singer” (subst.).The secondary meaning “poet working in the hexameter medium” is limited to the post-Iliadichexameter corpus. It is furthermore possible to show that the simplex οιδς was backderivedfrom a compound. More specifically, following Hermann Koller, I propose that the secondarymeaning, being an epic innovation, developed from the compound *θεσπιαοιδς “singer ofthings divine,” whereas the primary meaning “singer” may go back to παοιδς, which lateracquired the specialized meaning “singer of incantations.”

Annae Morpurgo Davies septuagenariae

Based on the linguistic evidence of the archaic and classical periods, it ispossible to show that, contrary to received wisdom, οιδς was not used as thegeneral term for poet-composer.” Instead, the primary meaning of the word was“member of the chorus” or “professional (solo) performer.” This term was neverapplied to the melic or elegiac poets, but it is common, both as a self-referentialterm and (arguably) as a marker of professional self-consciousness, in the corpusof Greek hexameter poetry. Here we find a secondary meaning, “poet workingin the hexameter medium,” which must be explained as an epic innovation.

I am grateful to Andrew Ford, David Goldstein, Mark Griffith, Leslie Kurke, and two anonymousreferees for their astute and engaged comments on drafts of this paper. The greatest debt of gratitudeI owe to Anna Morpurgo Davies, who saw this project through from its inception, and whose sharpcriticism saved me from many lapses. Whatever errors of fact or judgment remain, they are my own.

All dates are unless otherwise indicated.

Volume 28/No. 1 /April 20092

This conclusion is confirmed by the derivational status of οιδς, whichmost likely represents a backformation from a compound of the type X-οιδς.Hermann Koller has interpreted the Homeric phrase θσπις οιδς (metricallyequivalent to θεος οιδς “divine singer”) as a result of reanalysis of the com-pound *θεσπιαοιδς “performer of hexameter poetry.” While this reconstructionmakes it possible to explain why the meaning “poet” was restricted to the hexam-eter corpus, it may not be sufficient to account for all occurrences of οιδς. Itseems likely that οιδς had already been created (as the result of a different back-formation) at the time when *θεσπιαοιδς was segmented, and that the originalmeaning of the simplex οιδς corresponded to its primary meaning in the attestedrecord of the language (“singer, performer”). With regard to the derivation of thesimplex noun, I point to the forms παεδω, πωδς and assume a semantic splitbetween “song, singer,” and “incantation, singer of incantations.”

It is possible to conclude that in the archaic period the Greeks had noterm that was equivalent to classical ποιητς “poet-composer.” This questionsthe applicability to the Greek evidence of the hypothesis of a hermetic poetictradition going back to the Proto-Indo-European period. Instead, a concept ofpoetic professionalism had to be formulated anew within the distinctive poeticsof individual archaic Greek poets.

I. FROM HISTORICAL SEMANTICS TO HISTORICAL POETICS:A NOTE ON METHOD

Historical semantics, or the study of how words change meaning over time,is not unfamiliar terrain for classical philologists, who are used to viewing thelexicon of ancient languages as a point of access to the thought-world of theirspeakers. Yet such an access is far from being methodologically unproblematic.In scholarly practice, one can distinguish two approaches to the problem of lexicalmeaning, which are ill at ease. A “word study” approach, whose telos and methodare principally lexicological, seeks to define the meaning of a word throughexamination of its usage, usually (but not always) with attention to its historicaldevelopment. Within this approach the word is treated in isolation, rather than aspart of a system, or a subsystem, of the lexicon; as a result, the aim of such a studyis largely descriptive, rather than analytical. More structural rigor, and attentionto the complex system of oppositions operative within the lexicon, came with thestudy of lexical (or semantic) fields. The privileged domain for such systematicstudies, however, remains the corpus of a single author. Inasmuch as it is rarelyextended beyond a particular corpus, this approach invites a synchronistic, reifiedview of the language.

Within both these approaches, Indo-European etymology is often a startingpoint, occasionally perfunctorily so, and it is often called upon as a testimonyto the particular semantic valence that the study illuminates. Yet the emphasison semantic continuity, which necessarily underlies any cultural reconstructions

: The Semantics of οιδς and Related Compounds 3

that are based on etymological evidence, is inimical to serious inquiry into thevariation of usage both in time and in different linguistic/stylistic registers. Thishas contributed to the current neglect of linguistic evidence, which, in part dueto its association with the Benvenistean project of reconstructing a Proto-Indo-European culture (as well as the increasing level of complexity of historicalphonological analysis), has come to be viewed by nonlinguists as largely irrelevantto understanding attested Greek (or Latin) usage. On the other hand, modernlinguists have come to view historical semantics, tainted by its association withthe once-popular discipline of semasiology, as an inherently unscientific field ofinquiry. As a result, current theoretical linguistics provides almost no incentivefor serious engagement with issues of semantic change.1

There are then two serious impediments to the development of historicalsemantics of the classical languages: the divide between lexicographical andcorpus-based studies, and between historical inquiry into the attested usage of aword and reconstruction of its meaning based on etymology. While the approachtaken in this study builds on all of the above-mentioned methods (crudely defined),it also deviates from them in a number of ways. In contrast to the “word-study”approach, I regard a word not as a self-sufficient carrier of meaning, but as afunction of a certain register of language, which in archaic and classical Greece istied to literary genre; in the case of culturally charged vocabulary, the connotative(ideological) aspect of a word’s meaning can override the denotative (referential)component. The connotations of a word can only be uncovered by a structuralstudy of the lexicon, which would take stock of available synonyms and seek toexplain why a word is avoided (in addition to why it is used) in a particular text orcontext; needless to say, such an approach often needs to be extended beyonda given author’s corpus. Furthermore, in contrast to the largely author-centeredapproaches, I view the usage (e.g.) in Homer and in Pindar as representativeof subsystems of lexicon (that of hexameter poetry and that of choral lyric),which, despite ongoing interaction, maintain their distinctness, and should notbe subsumed under a single rubric of “poetic” usage.

From these two aspects of my approach (emphasis on the connotative com-ponent of meaning and the assumption of distinctness of usage within differentgenres) stems my understanding of the continuity of lexical meaning, which Iascribe to a continuity of usage within a particular register or genre;2 in the do-

1. As an example of the dismissal of older approaches to meaning change one could citeFortson 2003, whose arguments (but not conclusions) are already anticipated by Leumann 1927.The rise, fall, and modern resuscitation of historical semantics are charted in Fritz 2006. Currentinterest in historical semantics is inspired by conceptual history, particularly Begriffsgeschichte asit was practiced by Reinhart Koselleck (on whose impact see Reichardt 1998, Bodeker 2002), notby current linguistic theory; a notable exception is the work on “grammaticalization”: the emergenceof markers of particular grammatical categories from conceptual elements expressed in the lexicon(see, e.g., Heine and Kuteva 2002).

2. The importance of the boundaries between linguistic registers and sociolects for processes ofsemantic change is emphasized in the seminal article of Antoine Meillet (1906); some of his insights


main of culturally significant vocabulary, we therefore need to be cautious ofprojecting semantic continuity back in time. Yet, however skeptical one may beabout the possibility of reconstructing certain elements of Proto-Indo-Europeanculture, we still need to turn to linguistic evidence to attempt to complete the all-too fragmentary picture of archaic Greek culture painted for us by the survivingsources, as well as to understand its immediate prehistory. Instead of assigningexcessive weight to particular etymologies grounded in phonological rules (whichcannot guarantee semantic continuity of a word), in this study I use the patterns ofword formation as a resource for what one might call internal reconstruction ofconceptual vocabulary of a preexistent, undocumented stage of Greek.

The domain of conceptual vocabulary that is the focus of this study ismetapoetics, that is, conceptual categories that poetic texts use to speak about theirown constitution, operation, and claims to truth and authority. Literary scholarstend to forget that these claims are often dictated by the tasks of the ongoingconstruction of poetic authority, rather than reflecting this authority as an age-oldcultural given. Indeed, historical semantics provides an essential methodologicaltool, which makes it possible to uncover the historical and generic specificity ofdifferent elements of archaic Greek metapoetics. The following study investigatesdifferent inflections of the concept—and the corresponding practices—of soloperformance, as it is reflected in the history of the word οιδς and relatedcompound formations.

While the methodological assumptions of this study are those of historicalsemantics, its conclusions belong to the sphere of historical poetics—a field ofinquiry which I would define as the study of the evolution of constitutive formsof creative (ritual, poetic, literary) uses of language. The project of historicalpoetics, as it was formulated by Alexander Veselovsky in the late nineteenthcentury, is closely linked to comparative Indo-European grammar.3 Yet perhapsmost importantly, Veselovsky’s historical poetics, viewed as a methodologicalexperiment, reminds us that the study of literature, even when inspired by the studyof language, demands something more than the mere importation of a linguisticmethodological apparatus. In particular, Veselovsky called for an “inductive”theoretical poetics to be constructed on the basis of patterns of literary historyproper, rather than subordinated to ideas stemming from other fields of knowledge.

are applied to the evidence of Greek and Latin in a very informative, yet little-known monograph byStruck (1954). In his late work, Koselleck has called for the study of “types of word usage” (asopposed to the history of individual concepts: 2002: 40; cf. Bodeker 2002: 14).

3. “There is a long-felt need to replace current ‘theories of poetry’ with something newer andmore coherent, that would be in keeping with the demand for knowledge that in our days called to lifecomparative-historical grammar and comparative mythology” (Veselovsky 2006: 83). Veselovsky’sbasic methodological assumptions were shared by the Russian Formalists and Mikhail Bakhtin, andmore recently, by Viktor Zhirmunsky, Lidiia Ginzburg, Sergei Averintsev, and Vladimir Toporov.Some reflections on the Russian school of historical poetics can be found in Shaitanov 2001.


Recent studies have revealed the numerous ideological, social, and religioustasks performed by poetic texts and genres in archaic Greece.4 They serve as areminder that, in contrast to the grammar of a language, literature, being muchmore directly engaged with the social world, is open to constant ideologicalappropriation and re-adaptation. However informative the insights providedby linguistic evidence and linguistic methodologies, to arrive at an adequateunderstanding of archaic Greek poetics we need to take into account other typesof evidence (historical, sociological, metrical, literary-historical) and allow thesedata to inform our approach to the topic at hand.

II. SINGERS OF HEXAMETERS?THE EVOLUTION OF THE ‘‘AEDIC IDEOLOGY’’

How did archaic Greek poets refer to themselves? In the address to theDelian maidens at the end of the Delian section of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo,“the blind man from Chios”—a Homerid posing as his legendary progenitor—describes himself as “the sweetest of singers” (νρ διστος οιδν, line 169).5

It is no doubt in part due to this famous passage that the word οιδς has beenuniversally viewed as the proper term for the performer-composer of epic and, byextension, of lyric poetry.6 It has thus been regarded as an equivalent of the laterποιητς (lit. “maker,” first attested in Herodotus), which in the classical periodbecame the general term for composer of works in verse (including drama). Thepoet’s self-description as an οιδς is also implied in the Hesiodic corpus inTheog. 95, 99; Op. 26 (also Ps.-Hes. fr. 357 M.-W., on which see West 1999:376). In the text of the two Homeric epics, however, the narrator never refersto himself in this way.

Moreover, in the Iliad the word occurs only once.7 In 24.720–1, οιδο arethe professional singers who begin the dirges (θρνοι) over Hector’s body; their

4. I have in mind the work of Walter Burkert, Eveline Krummen, Leslie Kurke, Richard Martin,Ian Morris, among other scholars. As a particularly important precedent for historically informedinquiry into the conceptual vocabulary of the archaic poets, I point to Kurke’s study of the politics ofβροσνη (1992).

5. For a discussion of this difficult passage, with bibliography, see Burkert 1987: 54–56; cf.West 1999: 370.

6. E.g., Diehl 1940: 81–82, Davison 1968: xix, Gentili 1988: 3 (“the regular word for poet was,in the archaic period, aoidos [singer]”), Calame 1995: 33, Nagy 1990a: 56 (“aoidos correspondsto our notion of poet”), 1979b, 1990b passim.

7. Lines 18.604–5, which mention “the divine singer playing his lyre and singing (µλπετο)in the midst of a chorus” on the Shield of Achilles, are not found in the manuscript tradition, butare supplemented by some editors on the authority of Athenaeus (5.180c-d, 181a-d); they seem tobe more at home in the Odyssey than in the Iliad (they are identical to Od. 4.17–18; cf. also Od.13.27) and are to be rejected (see Revermann 1998 for detailed discussion; in favor of keeping it,Davison 1968: 10–11).


activity is further described as an οιδ “song.”8 This passage stands out in thecorpus of hexameter poetry as the only use of the word with reference to (1)a plurality of singers performing at the same time, and (2) singers performing(apparently) without musical accompaniment. The reader encounters here a typeof οιδς that is markedly different from that of the epic bard. The οιδο at 24.720are treated “like rather inconspicuous craftsmen at hand” (Revermann 1998: 35).

This prototypical οιδς—the figure that entered the Western imaginationas the image of Homer himself—is a common figure in the Odyssey (thirty-six overall occurrences); he is a solo professional who performs poetry to theaccompaniment of a stringed instrument (φρµιγ!, κθαρις).9 Scholars havewarned repeatedly against straightforward identification of these figures with theperformers of hexameter poetry who, at least by the fifth century , recited theverses without musical accompaniment.10 In this period (at the latest), the singingοιδς represents an imaginary projection of the reciting #αψωδς. A possible

8. Il. 24.718–22: %Ως 'φαθ(, ο) δ* διστησαν κα+ ε-!αν πνη.. / ο) δ( πε+ ε/σ0γαγον κλυτ2δ3µατα, τ4ν µ*ν 'πειτα / τρητος ν λεχεσσι θσαν, παρ2 δ( ε6σαν οιδο7ς / θρνων !0ρχους, ο8τε στονεσσαν οιδν / ο) µ*ν 9ρ( θρνεον, π+ δ* στεν0χοντο γυνακες. The absence of musicalaccompaniment is expected with dirges in the archaic period, as seen from contemporary depictionsof choral activities (Revermann 1998: 31). Pagliaro’s (1953: 10, 28–32) suggestion that the womenfrom Hector’s family form a χορς, whereas the οιδο act as soloists, is hardly convincing; fora different reconstruction, see Davison 1968: 10. On the numerous textual difficulties in this passagesee Diehl 1940: 112–13 who, following the majority of MSS, reads οιδο7ς θρνους, taking thelatter to mean “singer of dirges” (in this case οιδο7ς would be used adjectivally, and we wouldhave no evidence for use of οιδς as a substantive before the Odyssey); Pagliaro 1953: 28–30,who reads θρνους !0ρχουσ ( ο8 τε στονεσσαν οιδν in line 721; Richardson 1993: 351–52 foradditional considerations and bibliography.

9. For a brief and very perceptive overview of the Homeric evidence, see Grimm 1969; moreextended discussions in Pagliaro 1953 and Wathelet 2004. Useful summaries of musical terminologyin the Iliad and the Homeric Hymns can be found in Garcıa Lopez 1997 and Sanchez 1997.

10. Nagy 1974: 10–11 with bibliography, 1990b: 20–24. Koller 1956 was in favor of residual“singing” of Homer: “sicher sind mit der Zeit die homerischen Verse nur noch gesungen, nichtmehr begleitet worden” (166). West (1981; with 1988: 165) views the introduction of a seven-stringlyre in the seventh century as a moment of schism, which led to the abandonment of the obsoletefour-string φρµιγ! by the performers of hexameter poetry and to the eventual approximation ofthe epic “singing” to recitative. For the pre-seventh-century period, West postulates a peculiar modeof singing of dactylic hexameters, limited to four notes, which correspond to the four strings ofthe φρµιγ!; the melody is determined by the accentual pattern of the line (cf. West 1986; these ideaswere developed—and implemented—by Stefan Hagel: see www.oeaw.ac.at/kal/sh/ for bibliographyand audio clips). A different scenario for the rise of rhapsodic recitation was proposed by WalterBurkert (1987), who places it in the context of competition, in the course of the sixth century,between the Homerids and the new poetic medium associated with Stesichorus (whereas the latterput emphasis on the musical aspect of the performance, the rhapsodes chose to capitalize on thenarrative potential of declamatory verse). In favor of continued performance of epic with musicalaccompaniment: Thalmann 1984: 121.

Strictly metrical evidence, namely the fundamental significance in the hexameter of theequivalence between one heavy and two light syllables, suggests that hexameter poetry was fromits origin closer to natural speech patterns than sung poetry; this has already been pointed out byAntoine Meillet (1923: 45), who speaks of “une metrique ou la declamation non chantee tenait unelarge place, mais ou, en meme temps, cette declamation avait un caractere solennel. . .et ou, par suite,


explanation for this kind of self-presentation has been most recently elaborated byGregory Nagy, who interprets the allusions to song and singing as instances of“diachronic skewing,” that is, of the preservation in the text of a trace of an earlierperformance type/context. In reconstructing the “lyric” background of Greekepic, Nagy builds on Hermann Koller’s analysis of the kitharodic prooimion asa pre-epic hexameter form (Nagy 1990b: 359–60).11

To summarize Koller’s study of 1956, dactylic hexameter—a meter whosestichic nature allowed for oral improvisation—was first used for poetic purposesin solo prooimia to choral performances, sung by the κιθαρωδο to the accom-paniment of a stringed instrument. The formal properties of these prooimia arepreserved in the shorter Homeric Hymns. The large-scale epic poems, whicheventually dispense with musical accompaniment, represent later elaborations ofthis improvised poetic medium. The Hesiodic poems and the longer HomericHymns can be viewed—from the viewpoint of the history of literary form, notchronology—as an intermediate stage in this development. The pattern of metapo-etic reference we observed above, whereby οιδς is used for self-description inthe Homeric Hymns and (more obliquely) in Hesiod, but not in the Homeric epics,appears to be in keeping with this reconstruction.

While overlooked by the majority of modern scholars of epic,12 Koller’sremains the only cogent attempt at explaining the development of the varioustypes of hexameter poetry from lyric. Such an explanation is clearly a desideratumin view of the fact that the dactylic hexameter, in contrast to the lyric colawhich continue Proto-Indo-European (PIE) metrical patterns, represents a Greekinnovation.13 It may be objected that it is difficult to reconcile Koller’s derivation

il y avait une technique du rythme, distincte de la technique musicale, mais comportant des reglesstrictes.”

11. Bruno Gentili had earlier suggested that the origin of the Greek epic is to be sought in thekitharodic genres (1977, 1988: 14ff.). Frohder (1994) proposes to derive the solo Homeric Hymnsfrom choral cultic hymns via the figure of the “Vorsanger” (posited “als konstitutives Element desChorhymnus” [20]), yet he does not mention Koller’s work.

12. Scholarly reactions to Koller’s work are discussed in nn. 50, 51.13. Meillet, in his foundational work on Greek and Vedic comparative metrics (1923), surmised

that the hexameter was borrowed by the Greeks from the “Aegean” substrate population (specificallyrejecting its derivation from the juncture of two smaller units [66]). West (1973a: 169 n. 10,1973b: 185–86) postulated the origin of dactylic hexameter from hemiepes (variously explained)and paroemiac (derived from reizianum by dactylic expansion). Nagy (1974) independently proposedto derive it from pherecratean with triple dactylic expansion; this reconstruction was revisited inNagy 1979a, which attributes a significant role to the prosodiac (see also West 1974 discussing hisdisagreements with Nagy 1974). Among numerous studies devoted to the derivation of hexameterfrom lyric meters note especially Gentili 1977, a study prompted by the publication of the LilleStesichorus in 1976, and Berg 1978, containing a sensible critique of West’s and Nagy’s derivationsand an alternative theory (on which see Berg and Haug 2000, who propose an eighth-century datefor the invention of hexameter, and Haug and Welo 2001). Other scholars, however, have resistedattempts to derive hexameter from lyric cola (e.g., Hoekstra 1981: 33–53; Ruijgh 1995: 8, 76, 88).Koller sought to relate dactylic hexameter to the sung meters of the surviving kitharodic prooimia(1956: 171–73), but did not make an attempt at rigorous metrical analysis.


of the literary forms of Greek hexameter poetry with the lengthy gestation ofGreek heroic epic as part of oral tradition. Crucially, Koller’s argument is builton the assumption of the purely literary nature of Greek epic, which has becomeuntenable since the groundbreaking work of Parry on South Slavic epic tradition.In particular, linguistic evidence points to the antiquity of the narrative epiccomposed in a meter which made use of formulas—a meter which was analogousto the dactylic hexameter, if not identical with it.14 Yet whereas Koller’s viewthat epic narrative is an elaboration of hymnic aretology cannot be maintained,it is still possible to claim validity for his argument, once we reframe it as anargument about an Archaic (Ionian?) poetic culture of kitharodes, who undertooka literary appropriation of a preexistent oral epic tradition. The incorporation ofNear Eastern elements, which are prominent in the Homeric epics and in Hesiodand are probably to be dated to the eighth century (West 1988: 169–72), may havetaken place as part of the same literary reshaping of Greek epic.

It is also possible to reframe Koller’s (and Nagy’s) analysis in synchronicterms. For the period when hexameter poetry was performed without musicalaccompaniment, we may well redescribe its association with song as an instanceof generic appropriation. In other words, the insufficiency of the rhapsodic stance,and a desire for a more positively charged notion of recitation (as opposedto singing), may have motivated the conjuring up (or the preservation) of afictional “lyric” background.15 Furthermore, scholars have pointed to instancesof excessive valorization of the οιδς figure, which may add up to an aedicideology/aetiology that is peculiar to the Odyssey (in contrast to the Iliad) andcan be said to be shared by Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns (cf. Grimm 1969:982–83; Ford 1981: 53–61).16 This synchronic explanation need not exclude thediachronic account sketched above: the absence of bard figures in the Iliad and

14. West 1988, Ruijgh 1995, Horrocks 1997 (although the notion of a pre-Mycenaean hexameterepic is probably to be rejected; see Berg and Haug 2000 and literature cited therein). Note alsoMeillet’s suggestion, based on the frequency of metrical irregularities in Homeric formulas, that “ala date ou se sont fixees les formules, la liberte etait plus grande qu’a la date ou l’Iliade et l’Odysseeont ete composees” (1923: 70; cf. Berg 1978: 26–27).

15. If we accept Ford’s (1988) well-argued view that #αψωδα was a technical term for poeticperformance that did not involve musical accompaniment (the use of µλος), it is easy to see that theuse of the term would go against the lyrical ideology that Homeric epic projects.

16. Od. 3.263–72 mentions an οιδ4ς νρ, whom Agamemnon leaves behind to guardClytemnestra and whom Aegisthus sends off to die on a deserted island. This role of the οιδςis unparalleled. Panchenko (1996), citing vase depictions of Aegisthus holding a lyre (for the linkswith Orpheus and Linos iconography, see Prag 1985: 93ff.), suggests that it may be a Homericinnovation intended to counter a different story line in which Aegisthus himself was the οιδ4ς νρwho seduced Clytemnestra by his lyre playing. Another example of an “aedic ideology” is furnishedby the linking of οιδς with ε/δναι at Od. 1.336–40 (an etymology taken up by later authors),whereby the Homeric discourse asserts that “οιδς is, of his very nature, he who ‘knows’” (Hardie2000: 164; on other etymological puns involving οιδς see Kaesser 2004). In this context, it shouldbe noted that the Sirens, more usually represented as hideous, predatory creatures, in Book 12 ofthe Odyssey are humanized precisely qua singers and even assimilated to the Muses (as discussedin Ford 1981: 23ff.).


their abundance in the Odyssey suggests that the “kitharodic” takeover of the epictradition is taking place, so to speak, right before our eyes.

The possibility that “the terms οιδ and οιδς are relative latecomers to theepic tradition” suggests that the rise of aedic self-consciousness is a historicalphenomenon that separates the composition of our texts of the Iliad and theOdyssey (this question is pursued in sections V-VI).17 Rather than being a linguistictrace of an abandoned practice, the Homeric vocabulary of singing may be arelatively recent invention intended to conjure up an ideal of “epic singers” whohad never existed. Notice that the synchronic explanation for the prominence ofthis vocabulary holds even if we allow for a mode of delivery poised betweenspeaking and singing (along the lines of West 1981), provided that it was perceivedas “sub-melic.”

III. HISTORICAL SEMANTICS OF ;ΑΟΙ∆ΟΣ IN ARCHAIC ANDCLASSICAL GREECE

So far, our analysis would predict that the term οιδς is the expected self-designation of lyric (melic) poets, particularly given that its cognates εδω “tosing” and οιδ “song” are in fact used as proper terms for their activity. Thisprediction is not, however, borne out by the evidence, which, while admittedlyfragmentary for pre-fifth-century poets, seems compelling in the case of Pindarand Bacchylides. Apart from the adjectival use of οιδς in Alcman 14a,18 theword occurs in a one-line Sappho fragment (106), which describes the excellenceof the “Lesbian singer” (masc.) in the view of foreigners and most likely refersto professional performers, rather than to poet-composers (but possibly to both),19

and in Stesichorus’s use of the phrase 9ριστος οιδς “the best singer” in an

Some readers of this paper have proposed to explain the absence of bard figures from theIliad by their inappropriateness in a war epic. Apart from the fact that there are numerous mentionsof other kinds of musical activities in the Iliad (see section IV), I cannot see why an epic aboutan individual’s marine adventures would be a more appropriate context for aedic figures than anepic about an army laying protracted siege to a city.

17. Quote from Ford 1981: 60. This was first suggested by Nilsson (1933: 208). Ritook (1968:92) concludes that “early epic probably did not mention minstrels,” based on avoidance of the wordin the Iliad and the apparent lack of inherited formulas for referring to singers in the Odyssey (whereοιδς replaces other nouns in older noun-epithet combinations). Note, further, that generic plurals(e.g., “race of singers” φAλον οιδν, Od. 8.481) are common in the Odyssey, Homeric Hymns,and Hesiod, implying the existence of a self-conscious professional group. In the Iliad, by contrast,we find the hubristic figure of Thamyris, incapacitated by the Muses (2.595–600); note also Hector’snegative characterization of Paris by his fondness for the κθαρις (3.54). Finally, one should notethat an interest in legendary “singers” is conspicuously absent from the melic corpus (contrast theprominence of seers in Pindar’s myths).

18. Whether we should read a hapax ιεναοιδ or two words ι*ν οιδ, we seem to be dealingwith an adjectival usage (“tuneful”), on which see below.

19. πρροχος, Bς Cτ( 9οιδος D Λσβιος λλοδ0ποισιν. See below for a discussion of thispassage.


overtly Homeric context in Eriphyle.20 In any case, the term is never applied tothe poets themselves.

In Pindar’s Pythian 1, line 3, the members of the chorus, οιδο, obey thesigns issuing from the φρµιγ!. In a more ambiguous passage in the same poem,the λγιοι and οιδο are the vehicles of preservation of the life of men of the past(line 94). The exact distinction between λγιοι and οιδο in Pindar is not clear;in Nem. 6.45—“broad are the avenues for λγιοι to adorn the glorious island ofAegina”—λγιοι appears to include the poet.21 In the light of the evidence fromAttic drama,22 I would interpret οιδο in Pyth. 1.94 as “members of choruses.”In any case, we must question the view, represented by Nagy (1990b: 221, 325)and crucially dependant on Pyth. 1.94, that οιδς is the proper term for a Greekpoet (whether choral or solo). Given the frequency of metapoetic descriptionsin the Pindaric and Bacchylidean corpus, which include numerous occurrencesof εδω and its derivatives, we should rather point to avoidance of οιδς asa self-referential term.

To conclude our survey of the Pindaric usage, in Nem. 2.2 the Homeridaiare called #απτν πων. . .οιδο “singers of stitched verses.” This passage,paradoxically, provides early evidence confirming that the performers of epicwere in fact not “singers” but #αψωδο “reciters.” Why then would Pindar use theword οιδο in this context? I can see three possible explanations for this. First,οιδο here means nothing more specific than “performer of poetry,” without anyconnotation of poetic creativity; this explanation is thwarted by the prominence ofthe idea of singing (conveyed by the noun οιδο), which goes against the commonperception of the rhapsodes in the fifth century. Second, the use can be explained bythe influence of the epic “aedic ideology”: due to the association of contemporaryrhapsodes with the οιδο of the heroic past, the meaning of the word οιδςwas extended to contemporary performers of hexameter poetry. Yet this extensionwould be quite unparalleled in archaic or classical texts outside of the hexametercorpus, and indeed particularly unexpected in Pindar (see below on his occasional

20. S148 col.1.4: Fδε ποτνεπε κ[ ] / GΑδρασ]τος ρωςH GΑλκµαον, πσε δαι- /τυµν]αIς τελιπJν κα+ 9ριστον οιδ4ν /[ ] νστας; Cf. Hom. Od. 9.7–8 δαιτυµνες δ( ν2 δ3µατ( κου0ζωνταιοιδοA / µενοι L!εης.

21. Regarding the semantics of λγιος Luraghi (2001: 157–59; 2007) remarks, contra Nagy,that λγιοι is not a technical term for prose storyteller, but, in keeping with Jacoby’s views, aterm for “those whose knowledge and wisdom confer authority to their utterance” (2007: 8). If thisinterpretation is correct, it would explain why at Nem. 6.45 only λγιοι are mentioned as those whocontrol the domain of discourse, whereas at Pyth. 1.94 the mention of choral performers (οιδο),in addition to λγιοι, implies that only very few men among those remembered by λγιοι are alsopraised in choral songs. One might also mention the possibility of explaining the double occurrenceof οιδο in Pythian 1, which is exceptional in the Pindaric corpus, by the fact that in a tyrant ode weare likely to be dealing with professional performers, not citizens; but there is no direct evidenceto confirm this.

22. Particularly Aesch. Supp. 695 (with Friis Johansen and Whittle 1980 ad loc.): εMφηµονδ( π+ βωµος / µοAσαν θεατ( οιδο, / γνν τ( κ στοµ0των φερσθω φµα φιλοφρµιγ!. Fullevidence of the classical usage is summarized in Table 1 and discussed below.


criticism of Homer). A third possibility, and the one I believe is most likely, is thatοιδο in this line should be viewed not as a freestanding word, but as part ofthe poetic periphrasis for the technical compound #αψωδς.23 There are parallelsfor poetic periphrasis of this kind in Euripides Heracl. 403 and 488 (χρησµνδ( οιδος and χρησµν γ2ρ Bδος for χρησµωδο), and avoidance of thiscompound in Nem. 2.2 seems especially likely in view of the disparaging air withwhich rhapsodes are commonly treated in the fifth-century sources (Else 1957:31–32), but which is absent from the Pindaric passage. In another positively valuedreference to Homer (Isthm. 4.37b-39), Pindar periphrastically points to a different(and, as we now know, linguistically unwarranted) etymology of #αψωδς through#0βδος (the wand used by rhapsodes in performance).

On the whole, the evidence of the melic corpus suggests that the proper mean-ing of οιδς was “(professional) performer who sings,” not “poet-composer.”I would explain the avoidance of the term as a designation of the poet-composer(who may have also been the singer) as due, in part, to this limiting connotation(“singer only”). There is, however, one more reason why the melic poets donot seem eager to enroll themselves into the privileged “race of singers” praisedin Od. 8.479ff. As we saw in section II, the word οιδς was claimed by therhapsodes as a designation of the famed solo singers of the heroic age (and,by extension, of themselves). The coexistence of these two usages is confirmedby the evidence of later authors (up to Aristotle), summarized in Table 1 (onfollowing page).24

The principal meaning of οιδς (contracted form Bδς, preferred by Atticprose writers) in the classical period was “member of the chorus.” The word wasalso used for other animate beings or inanimate entities that could be described as“singing” or “tuneful” (e.g., the Sphinx, birds, shuttle, the Muse). Notice that inboth these meanings, which account for the majority of the occurrences of theword, οιδς can often be interpreted as either an adjective (of common animategender) or a noun. There are only a few uses that refer to the poet. These, Isuggest, can be understood as extensions of the Homeric usage, as in the caseof Stesichorus S148: the word was reserved for poet figures from the mythicalpast.25 The meaning of the Sappho fragment remains murky, but it is probablyto be linked to the proverb µετ2 Λσβιον Bδν, which is explained by laterauthors as a reference to the invitation of Terpander to Sparta.26 Another reference

23. Cf. Frankel 1925: 6 n. 1: “nichts wie eine richtige Auflosung des Terminus #αψωδο”; West1999: 367: “clearly a paraphrase for #αψωδο.”

24. Based principally on the online version of Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (May 2007).25. This connotation remained in force in later Greek. Cf. Ap. Rhod. 1.18 (Να µ*ν οOν

οP πρσθεν πικλεουσιν οιδο) cited by H. Stephanus (1831–1856: 1.1109 s.v. οιδς) for themeaning antiqui poetae, superiorum temporum poetae.

26. Voigt 1971: 120. Terpander is called Q Λσβιος by Pind. fr. 125, also Timotheos Persai225–8; cf. Hooker 1977: 59–60. Evidence for this proverb, apparently referred to by Aristotle inthe Constitution of the Spartans (fr. 545), is collected in Rose 1886: 335–36.

Tabl

e1.

The

noun

οιδς

outs

ide

ofth

eco

rpus

ofhe

xam

eter

poet

ry27

Cor

pus

Num

ber

ofIn

depe

nden

tus

esQ

uota

tion

s(s

ubco

rpus

)in

stan

ces

chor

alsi

nger

“poe

t”N

onhu

man

agen

tsO

ther

Alc

man

1Μσα

fr.1

4

Sap

pho

1fr

.106

Ste

s.1

fr.S

148

Sol

on1

fr.2

9

Pin

d.3

P.1

.3;

?P.1

.94

?N.2

.2(=

#αψω

δς)

Aes

ch.

(lyr

.)1

Supp

.695

Sop

h.(l

yr.)

1=παω

δς

Trac

h.10

00

(iam

b.)

2Σφγ!

OT

36;

?bir

dfr

.852

Eur

.(l

yr.)

10A

lc.4

54;

HF

110,

678,

692 ;

SΕσπερδες

Hip

p.74

3;?f

r.95

5g

?Med

.421

κερκς

fr.5

23(a

pud

Ar.

Ran

.131

6);

Σφγ!

Pho

en.1

507 ;

ΜοAσα

Rhe

s.38

6

(iam

b.)

5H

F13

15,1

346

µοAσα

Tro.

38528

=χρησµω

δο

Her

acl.

403,

488

Ion

1fr

.22.

2

Cra

tin.

1?f

r.99

Pla

toC

om.

1λεκτρυ3

νfr

.14

Hdt

.1

1.24

Pla

to(L

ogoi

)5

Leg

.670

c9,

800e

2,81

2b10

τττιγες

Ph

aedr

.262

d421

5c(q

uoti

ngH

es.O

p.26

)

(spu

ria)

3(πολλ2

ψεδονται

οιδο)

374b

(bis

);37

5d

(Epi

g.)

1β0τραχος

Ep.

22

Ari

st.

5P

robl

.922

a98

3a(πολλ2

ψεδονται

οιδο

);13

38a

(bis

)(q

uoti

ngO

d.9.

7,1.

338

[gar

bled

],17

.385

);fr

.545

(µετ2Λσβιον

Bδν)

Tota

ls44

12(?

3)6(

?2)

9(?1

)3

8

27D

oubt

ful

inst

ance

sm

arke

dby

ques

tion

mar

k.F

orm

sw

ith

cont

ract

ion

“-ωδς”

inbo

ld;

pote

ntia

lly

adje

ctiv

alus

esun

derl

ined

—A

lcm

an1.

97;

Pin

d.fr

.70

.1,

Eur

.Hel

.110

9aar

ece

rtai

nly

adje

ctiv

al(a

lso

Hom

.Hym

nH

erm

.2,H

es.O

p.20

).28

Cas

sand

rare

fers

tohe

rpro

phet

icab

ilit

ies

byus

ing

the

expr

essi

onµοAσαοιδς

;sus

pect

edon

styl

isti

cgr

ound

s(B

arlo

w19

86ad

loc.

)an

dbr

acke

ted

byD

iggl

ein

his

OC

Tte

xt.


to a mythic κιθαρωδς, this time Arion, described as Q 9ριστος νθρ3πωνοιδς, is found in Herodotus 1.24.29 Notably, however, Herodotus introducesArion by the technical term κιθαρωδς (1.23), and the description of Arionperforming in his outfit (ν τ. σκευ. π0ση.) may have reminded Herodotus’sreaders of contemporary kitharodic competitions.30 We can then explain thisunique Herodotean usage as either an extension of the Homeric/Hesiodic imageof the legendary poets of the past, or as a way of focusing attention on Arion’sexceptional abilities as a performer. (Note that these two explanations are notmutually exclusive.)

The evidence points to a pattern of use that demands explanation. In thesurviving texts neither lyric nor elegiac poets speak of themselves—or are spokenof—as οιδο. This avoidance of the term is bound to be significant provided thatwe know that some elegiac poets, such as Solon, delivered their verses in public(Bowie 1986, Ford 1988) and that many of the surviving lyric poems (includingencomia of Pindar and Bacchylides) were likely to have been performed by thepoets themselves. The performers of hexameter poetry seem to have been ableto claim the title of “singer” as a property of their genre. It is in this context that Iinterpret the proverb πολλ2 ψεδονται οιδο, whose early attestation, accordingto a scholiast to [Plato] On Justice 374a, is in Solon (fr. 29).

Who are these lying οιδο, among whom Solon does not (we imagine)include himself? The most likely hypothesis is that the proverb represents ahostile reaction to the aedic ideology promoted by the rhapsodes. The proverbpoints to the view of dactylic hexameter poetry as innovative and potentiallyimpious (rather than traditional and divinely sanctioned). In addition to Solonquoting this particular proverb, we find evidence for a similar reaction in non-epic poets, principally Pindar, who accused Homer of exaggerations (Nem. 7.21)and described supposedly traditional µAθοι as impious and “untrue” (Ol. 1.28ff.).Xenophanes leveled similar criticisms at Homer and Hesiod (DK B11, 12).31

The representations of poetry as deceitful, as noted by Louise H. Pratt, “aredirected broadly against traditional poetic sophia, and represent attempts to claimsuperior sophia for one’s own poetry or genre” (1993: 131; cf. Maehler 1963:33). I propose, more specifically, that at least initially the saying targeted the

29. Note that Stesichorus also uses the word οιδς with a superlative 9ριστος (see n. 20). Iwould suggest that this qualification points to the narrower meaning “singer” (rather than “poet”).

30. Arion stands ν τοσι Lδωλοισι (LSJ: “a raised quarter-deck at the stern”), at a certainremove from the audience of malicious sailors; this may have called to mind the βµα, smallpodium, on which the citharode stood while performing at the Panathenaic Games. (For a discussionof the imagery of rhapsodic competitions, see Shapiro 1993.) I owe this observation to Leslie Kurke.

31. Cf. the phrase πλ0σµατα τν προτρων in Xenophanes (fr.1.22 West). Hesiod and Xeno-phanes were both criticized by Heraclitus (DK B40), who also “deemed Homer worthy of beingthrown out of the contests” (τν τε UΟµηρον 'φασκε 9!ιον κ τν γ3νων κβ0λλεσθαι B42).The formulation, which equates contemporary rhapsodes with the mythical author of their texts,corroborates Burkert’s reading of the σφραγς of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo as an instance ofimpersonation of Homer by a sixth-century Homerid (see n. 5).


self-fashioned οιδο of hexameter poetry.32 Echoing Pindar, Plato in Book 2 ofthe Republic deems the works of Homer and Hesiod µAθοι ψευδες (377d; cf.Fuchs 1993: 197). Finally, note a remarkable gloss in Hesychius: QµηρδδενHψεδεσθαι.33

It is significant, in the light of this evidence, that in all three occurrencesof οιδο in the meaning of “poets” in the corpus of Euripides, the word hasnegative connotations—the poets are described as potentially lying (οιδν εVπεροW ψευδες λγοι HF 1315), wretched (οιδν ο8δε δστηνοι λγοι HF 1346),or biased (Med. 421–234). It is conceivable that Euripidean usage is influencedby the same tradition that is antagonistic to the monopoly on truth claimed byepic poetry. If we are right in taking our cue from the scholiast to [Plato] OnJustice 374a, Philochorus in Atthis linked the proverb πολλ2 ψεδονται οιδο toperforming poets who practice deceit for the sake of entertainment when com-peting for prizes.35 It seems probable that Philochorus was alluding to rhap-sodic competitions. As in the case of Herodotus’s Arion, the signification ofοιδς seems to hover between that of the poets of the past, and contempo-rary solo performers in their capacity as “singers” of supposedly inherited po-etic lore. It is nevertheless worth emphasizing that the evidence of the Archaicand classical periods, outside of the corpus of hexameter poetry, does not fur-nish a single clear instance of the use of οιδς in reference to nonmythicalpoets.

Based on both the epic usage and the later evidence, I suggest the followingstages in the semantic development of the word οιδς (cf. Table 1; Trach. 1000cited in the “Other” category will be taken up later on).

32. Note, however, that Aristotle equates the οιδο in the proverb πολλ2 ψεδονται οιδο withποιητα (Metaph. 983a2). He cites the proverb to reject the view that “the divine is envious” (τ4 θεονφθονερν), which clearly belonged to traditional Greek sophia, rather than specifically to hexameterpoetry (e.g., Pind. Pyth. 10.20, Aesch. Pers. 362, PV 859, Eur. Alc. 1135, Supp. 348, Hdt. 1.32, 7.46;cf. Od. 5.118; on this topos see Fraenkel 1950 ad Aesch. Ag. 904). This view was already rejected byPlato (Phaedr. 247a, Tim. 29e), and Plato’s stance was taken up by the later philosophical tradition(Phaedr. 247a, alluded to in Dion. Hal. Dem.7; Philo De spec. leg. 2.249; Plut. Quaest. conv. 679e1;Orig. Contra Celsum 8.21; cf. Plot. Enn. 2.9.17, Greg. Naz. De theol. 11.10). In this light, I interpretAristotle’s equation of ποιητα with proverbial οιδο as a disparaging reference to the unreliabilityof the archaic wisdom tradition associated with musical paideia. In other words, Aristotle seemsto be extending the traditional criticism of the epic “lies” to the entirety of the Greek poetic tradition.The same philosophical stance informs the use of the proverb in [Plato] On Justice 374b, 375d.

33. Discussed in Bohme 1953: 17, who explains the dialect form by a putative confrontationof (conservative) Aeolo-Dorian and (innovative) Ionian cultural strands.

34. Chorus of women: µοAσαι δ* παλαιγενων λ!ουσ ( οιδν/ τ2ν µ2ν XµνεAσαι πιστοσ-ναν. The reference, if at all meant to be specific, may be to Homer’s Iliad or Stesichorus’s Oresteia.Note that the line could be read (following LSJ): “the strains of the songs of old will stop hymningmy faithlessness.”

35. To quote the passage in full (Greene 1938: 402 = FGrH 328 F1): παροιµα, Zτι πολλ2ψεδονται οιδο, π+ τν κρδους [νεκα κα+ ψυχαγωγας ψευδ λεγντων. φασ+ γ2ρ το7ς ποιητ2ςπ0λαι λγοντας τληθ, 9θλων \στερον αWτος ν τος γσι τιθεµνων, ψευδ κα+ πεπλασµναλγειν αPρεσθαι, 8να δι2 τοτων ψυχαγωγοAντες το7ς κροωµνους τν 9θλων τυγχ0νωσιν.µνσθη τατης κα+ Φιλχορος ν ;Ατθδος α′ κα+ Σλων ;Ελεγεαις κα+ Πλ0των νταAθα.


(1) οιδς, either as an adjective or a substantive, refers to anything thatcan be described as “singing” (nine or ten out of thirty-six independent uses);in particular,

(2) οιδς (commonly in the plural) refers to members of the chorus; they maysing to musical accompaniment, but they do not themselves play any instrument36

(twelve to fifteen out of thirty-six independent uses);(3) in the corpus of hexameter poetry, οιδς refers to a solo professional

performer singing to the accompaniment of a stringed instrument; this use wastransferred to mythical κιθαρωδο Terpander and Arion or “poets of the past” ingeneral (six to eight uses).

IV. NAMES OF THE POET IN ARCHAIC GREEKAND PIE METAPOETICS

Let us consider some of the larger implications of this reconstruction of thesemantics of οιδς. We concluded that the meaning “solo singer, poet” should belimited to the mythical κιθαρωδο who are particularly prominent in the Odysseyand, by extension, to the “singers” of hexameter poetry. This suggests that weare dealing with a metapoetic conceit that is not shared by other genres of archaicGreek poetry and can therefore be regarded as an innovation (in much the sameway as the hexameter itself should be viewed as an innovation with respect to lyricmeters). What seems remarkable is that no generic term for “poet” existed untilthe emergence of the concept of ποιητς, probably in the second half of the fifthcentury. Nor do we have any evidence of the existence of genre-specific terms thatwould be alternative to the epic οιδς.37 Thus, while the technical designationfor the melic poets in the classical period was µελοποιο (post-classical λυρικο),they themselves did not use that word—nor indeed any one particular word—torefer to themselves.38

36. Ion fr. 22.2 is an exception as it refers to female Lydian harp players (λλ( ε-α, Λυδα+ψ0λτριαι, παλαιθτων \µνων οιδο, τ4ν !νον κοσµσατε).

37. Cf. West’s intuition that οιδο is “a term that refers to performers, not creation. . . . Evidentlythere was not, to begin with, the same concept of an author in the case of epic poems as in lyricand elegy” (1999: 365).

38. In addition to numerous metaphorical expressions for the notion of poetic activity (thor-oughly investigated in Nunlist 1998), we may note ν µοισοπλων ο/κα` “at the house of the servantsof the Muses” in Sappho fr. 150 LP. The pattern of avoidance of οιδς that we traced in the precedingsection is particularly noteworthy in view of the fact that in several different genres of Greek poetrythe poet describes himself as a nightingale (Hes. Op. 208, Theog. 939, Bacch. 3.98; see Nunlist1998: 44–45, Steiner 2007: 179–80), and ηδ3ν was certainly associated by the Greeks with thenotion of singing (Democritus DK B154); it may also be cognate with εδω, although details ofetymology are disputed (in addition to Frisk 1960, Chantraine 1999 s.v., and Rix 2001: 288, seeSgarbi 1996: 19). The same root was used in compounds in references to poets, e.g., τραγωδς“tragic playwright” (= τραγωδοποις), inasmuch as originally the tragic playwright was the prin-cipal performing actor; similarly κωµωδς “comic playwright”; for discussion see Else 1957: 20ff.,who argues that τραγωδς (lit. “goat-singer,” i.e., “singer who competes for the prize of a goat”) was


Should we consider the lack of an established category of “poet-composer”that would be available to Sappho or Pindar paradoxical, in view of the putativediachronic primacy of lyric poetry over epic? One could attempt a tentativeexplanation for the lack of an explicit authorial metapoetics in the melic corpus.If we disregard folk genres that presuppose a particular identity of the performer(such as lullaby or bride’s lament), it is possible to hypothesize, on typologicalgrounds, that traditional song is always potentially communal. It is worth pointingout that our earliest evidence, Homer’s Iliad, contains numerous referencesto different types of musical performance, such as the paeans (1.473, 22.391),marriage songs (18.493–5), songs performed by herdsmen (18.525–6) or soldiersin camp (10.13) (cf. Davison 1968: xviii), all of which are a property of the people,not the poet. Indeed, even the “lays of men” (κλα νδρν), so authoritativelyappropriated by professional bards in the Odyssey, in the Iliad are sung by Achillesin the time of his self-imposed leisure (9.186–9). This strongly suggests that weneed to recognize early Greek poetic tradition as a folk medium, which simplydoes not provide for a distinction between the performer (“singer,” “member ofthe singing group”) and the composer.

Furthermore, there is no reason to expect that in an inclusive song culture(in which everybody is a potential “singer”) the performer would claim the self-description “singer” as his or her unique title. The fact that this developmenttook place in archaic Greece therefore calls for a historical explanation. Onceagain, the evidence of the Iliad seems to confirm our (admittedly hypothetical)reconstruction. A notion of “singer” was likely to have emerged as a proper termfor self-conscious, possibly professional performers of the type represented bythe “singers of laments” in Il. 24.720 (the only passage in which the word οιδςoccurs in the Iliad); similarly, οιδο should have provided a natural designationfor choral groups that performed in a cult setting, such as the Delian maidens.Given the availability of the words χορς and χορευτ0ς (the latter first attestedin Pindar), it seems nevertheless likely that this proper meaning of οιδς wasoriginally claimed by a specialized solo performer (I attempt to define the contoursof his identity in the last section of this paper).

As for the epic, post-Iliadic use of οιδς, there are two paths of developmentone could imagine. First, the professional singer of heroic epic (κλα νδρν)develops an aedic self-consciousness in a non-cultic context, e.g., as an entertainerin aristocratic households:39 he claims the title οιδς precisely as a musical

modeled on #αψωδς when these two kinds of performers were viewed as analogues in the sixthcentury (on the etymology of #αψωδς see n. 44). Note also µελωδς = µελοποις in Plato Leg.723d. In sections V and VI, I discuss the reasons for the special treatment of compounds of εδω.

39. This is the framework of West 1988, which, unfortunately, is not integrated with the story ofhexameter’s derivation from lyric as charted, e.g., in West 1973b. See also Svenbro 1976: 193ff. Forthe opposition of feast and χορς as performance contexts: Hes. fr. 305.3 ν ε/λαπναις τε χορος τε,Hom. Hymn Herm. 480–1 (with the addition of κµος) ς δατα θ0λειαν / κα+ χορ4ν Pµερεντακα+ ς φιλοκδεα κµον.


specialist, thus primarily a “performer.” Another possibility is provided byKoller’s argument about the kitharodic prooimion. According to Koller, themusician, κιθαριστς, steps out of the chorus to sing a prelude to the choralsong; the substance of these prooimia, as Koller guessed on the basis of theHomeric Hymns, was essentially cultic.40 We might imagine that it is in thispre-epic development that the poet assumed the name οιδς; I postpone thediscussion of why such a name could have appeared appropriate for an epic barduntil section IV, where I discuss Koller’s 1965 analysis of the Homeric phraseθσπις οιδς.

Once we accept the secondary nature of the epic οιδο, it is not difficultto explain why composers of melic (or elegiac) verse do not call themselves“singers.” For solo genres, we should posit the genesis of authorial, occasionallyric directly out of traditional song which fuses the poet and the performer.41

The notion of poet as οιδς is similarly alien to choral lyric, albeit for adifferent reason: the position of the performer was occupied by the chorus. InAlcman, the earliest surviving author of choral poetry, the composer provides themusical accompaniment, but does not sing: he is a κιθαριστς, not a κιθαρωδς.Accordingly, the title οιδς is reserved for members of the chorus; we haveample evidence for this usage in Attic tragedy (see Table 1). In the choral odes ofPindar and Bacchylides, the poet’s voice is heard distinctly, but, for the reasonjust cited, he never claims the name of οιδς. Instead, these poets developedcomplex strategies for combining, in the grammar of their poems, the notionalego of the poet and that of the actual (choral) enunciator (D’Alessio 1994 withfurther bibliography).

The history of the term οιδς in archaic Greek metapoetics is represented inTable 2; the three phases are not intended to convey any chronological correspon-dences (e.g., the emergence of authorial lyric may have postdated the proto-epicdevelopment).

If we keep in mind that all lyric and elegiac poets whose texts survive postdatethe origins of the Greek epic tradition and were engaged in an active dialoguewith it, the fact that they resisted “contamination” (in stemmatic terms) in the

40. External testimonial evidence for the performance context of the Homeric Hymns is lacking;see Garcıa 2002 for bibliography as well as for an argument for a cultic (cletic) function served bythe narrative of (mis)recognition of the god (experienced as “symbolic action” by the audience),which is most prominent in the Hymns to Dionysus, Apollo, and Aphrodite.

41. It is this fusion that, in spite of prominent marks (σφραγδες) of authorial presence, allowedthe reuse of the authorial persona by later performers (as in the case of Theognis and Anacreon). Hereand elsewhere I use the terms “choral lyric” and “monodic lyric” as shortcuts for “choral genres”(i.e., genres intended primarily for choral performance: partheneia, paeans, epinikia) and “monodicgenres” (which are more difficult to classify due to the lack of a clear performance context, as is thecase with Sappho and Alcaeus). It is a likely hypothesis that many poets composed both monodic andchoral lyric (cf. Davies 1988 for a summary of evidence, although I disagree with some of his views,such as the presumption that the use of epic language signals monody in the case of Stesichorus,or his acceptance of M. Lefkowitz’s theory of the solo performance of the Pindaric epinikia).


Table 2. The history of οιδς in Archaic Greek metapoetics

I * Traditional (folk) song (composer and performer not distinguished)οιδς not used

......................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................

IIOccasional, authoriallyric; not intended forprofessional performers.The fusion of composerand performeris preserved.οιδς not used

Specialized performances by self-conscious/professional performersοιδς I: “performer, not composer”

.......

........

.......

.......

.......

.......

........

.......

.......

.......

........

........

.......

.......

.......

.......

........

.......

....... ..........................................................................................................................................................................................

III

Prominent egoof the poet-com-poser limited bygeneric conven-tions οιδς I:“performer,not composer”

Kitharodic and epicpoetry associatedwith the hexameterοιδς II: “profes-sional solo perfor-mer” (<thespiaoidos?)

Monodic Choral Dactylic Hexameter

domain of metapoetics points to a considerable autonomy of these traditions inthe Archaic period.

Even though the conclusion that Pindar or Anacreon did not regard themselvesas “singers” seems counterintuitive, we should remember that our intuitionsregarding the Greek notion of “poet” are greatly influenced by “the blind manfrom Chios” and his colleagues in the Odyssey. In fact, the use of the wordµελοποις (and later ποιητς), foregrounding the role of the author as a “maker”of the poem, is quite in keeping with the typology of the words for “poet” inIndo-European languages. In contrast, it appears that the development of theword “poet” from the root “to sing” is rather unusual.42

For PIE, no word for “poet” can be reconstructed with any degree of certainty(this means, in particular, that the specialized meanings of οιδς represent a

42. Buck 1949: 1298–390 contains one possible exception: Serbo-Croatian pjesnik. But noteRuss. pesennik, derived from pesnia “song” and meaning “one who is good at singing songs, earnshis living by singing songs,” never “one who composes songs” (vs. pevets “singer,” derived from theverb pet’ “sing”).


Greek innovation).43 More generally, the comparative evidence for designationsof poetic activity in PIE (Schmitt 1967: 301ff., West 2007: 27–40) points to theuse of metaphors of construction (arguably reflected in τκτονες σοφο in Pind.Pyth. 3.113; cf. Watkins 1995: 75–76 on the early Irish cerd), or possibly ofwords of religious provenance (Lat. vates; on the Greek evidence for the linkbetween poetry and prophecy see below). An interesting case is provided bySkt. karu-, deriving from the root meaning “to praise” and cognate with Gr.κbρυ!; whatever the original meaning of the root was, the type of vocal utteranceit signified was not limited to singing. The overall reason why “singer” is anunlikely designation for a poetic specialist has already been mentioned: in aculture in which everybody was or could be involved in singing, the professionalpoet had to be distinguished on some other ground, be it religious expertise, aspecial gift of authoritative utterance (as possibly in the case of Skt. karu-), oran ability to “make” or construct artifacts (τκτων, ποιητς, #αψωδς44 ). In thecontext of archaic Greek culture, all three kinds of activity can be subsumed underthe category of σοφα. Notably, if an unmarked term for “poet” exists in Pindar, itis σοφς (see Slater 1969 s.v.).

We can conclude that the Greeks in the Archaic period did not have a generalterm that would correspond to classical ποιητς (modern “poet,” “Dichter,” etc.)This suggests that it may be futile to try to reconstruct such a single term forPIE. More importantly, the fusion of the performer and the composer, whichseems to be largely characteristic of archaic Greek poetics, points toward folkloreas the domain in which elements of PIE poetics were preserved. This conclusionquestions the notion of a continuous hermetic tradition of poet-priests who guardedcommon Indo-European Kulturgut (a notion upheld, inter alios, by Toporov 1981,

43. “Although there are regionally attested words for the ‘poet,’ there is no single well-attestedform for Proto-Indo-European” (Mallory and Adams 2006: 358). Regarding the etymology of εδω:it is generally taken to derive from PIE *h2wed- “to speak” (cf. Sanskrit vadati, with a variant form ofthe root yielding αWδ). For a concise summary of the linguistic history of the cognates and synonymsof εδω, see Meier-Brugger 2000, who follows Wackernagel’s prevailing explanation of the form ofthe verb as reduplicated aorist (later reinterpreted as present). Other scholars find fault with thisexplanation and posit a separate root *h2weid- (Beekes 1969: 56, Watkins 2000: 95, Rix 2001: 288).Bader 1989: 20–21 links, on dubious semantic grounds, εδω to the root *h2eu- “to shine”, “tosee”; Sgarbi 1996 argues for the secondary nature of /i/ (ειδω < *εδιω) in order to explain thederivation from *h2wed-. Some further references in Wathelet 2000: 2–3.

44. H. Frankel (1925: 3ff.) sought the etymology of this compound in the Homeric epic itself,arguing that #0πτω οιδν should be understood as a metonymy from the domain of manual labor(comparing ρτνειν, Xφανειν, τεκτανεσθαι). H. Patzer (1952: 323), noting that a more concretemeaning is required to explain why the lyric poets never call themselves rhapsodes, emphasized“stitching” as a description of monostichic composition. Ford suggests, based mostly on post-classical evidence, that #αψωδα included any unsung poetry; his treatment of the semantics ofthe compound is close to Patzer’s, but also meant to include elegiacs: “‘stitching’ could signify aclearly audible difference between poetry that is sung and poetry that is not” (1988: 306). A differentexplanation is adopted by G. F. Else (1957: 32–33) who argues that “stitching a song” refers tocollective effort of rhapsodes performing one after another in an agonistic context, specifically atthe Panathenaia.


Bader 1989, Watkins 1995: 68ff., West 2007: 27–31). At the very least, we needto be cautious when using Greek evidence to parallel Sanskrit and Irish poetictraditions which do display such hermetic features. While it cannot be excludedthat some Indo-European communities preserved a type of poetic tradition thatthe Greeks had lost by the eighth century, it appears altogether more likely thatconcepts of literary profession have a shorter lifetime, and a greater cultural-historical specificity, than is commonly assumed.

As we saw, the rise—or perhaps, the invention—of the Greek professionalοιδς is epiphenomenal to a particular type of poetic production, that associ-ated with the dactylic hexameter. Scholars have, of course, recognized that thepreservation of elements of PIE poetic language cannot be tied to this meter(which is purely Greek).45 It is conceivable that there was a Greek tradition ofnarrative heroic poems (initially using lyric meters), whose performance contextmany scholars would envisage along the lines of the feast scenes described in theOdyssey. An alternative approach would be to assume that the “heroic” themat-ics was essentially cultic in origin, as heroes were subjects of cult similarly togods.46 In the following two sections, I review some additional evidence, providedby the hypothetical early compound forms of οιδς, that can contribute to ourunderstanding of the cultural ambience of the dactylic hexameter in the earlyArchaic period.

V. *ΘΕΣΠΙΑΟΙ∆ΟΣ AND THE LIMITS OF ARCHAIC GREEKMANTIC POETICS

The preceding analysis allowed us to establish that the word οιδς originallymeant “singing,” “singer,” and hence “(choral) performer,” and that the secondarymeaning “poet performing solo” developed in the domain of hexameter poetry andremained generally restricted to the epic corpus; later sources consistently prefercompounds κιθαρωδς or #αψωδς. We can further conclude from the evidencecollected in Table 1 that the word οιδς/Bδς, even in its primary meaning, wasnot common (more specific terms like τραγωδς, κωµωδς, as well as χορευτ0ς(Ionic χορευτς) were available). Its rarity in Greek classical prose and absencein the orators suggests that this word was perceived as poetic (or more narrowly,“Homeric”).

45. West 1973b; Nagy 1974, 1979b; Gentili 1988: 15ff.; the semantic domain of some ancientformulas seems to point to their origin in hymns, not in heroic epic (Koller 1956: 204; 1963: 74,194–97 building on Autran 1938, Bohme 1953).

46. So Koller 1956; the link between hero cult and heroic epic, which represents the PanhellenicAufhebung of the former, was developed in Nagy 1979b. Cf. a recent discussion of the Homeric Hymnto the Dioscouroi, a poem that seems to preserve archaisms lacking in Homeric epic (Jackson 2006:101–103). The mythical sections of the Pindaric epinikia appear to continue local, cult-groundedtraditions, which are independent of the Homeric treatment of the heroic age (although it is difficultto assess the influence of lost epic poems, on whose significance see Burgess 2001).


The general preference for compound forms of οιδς is confirmed by itsaberrant derivational status. It is normally assumed that simplex nomina agentisin -ς of the type τροχς and οιδς represent backformations from compounds.47

To give a hypothetical example, *ποις in the meaning “ποιητς,” had it existed,would only be explicable as a backformation from, e.g., µελοποις. However,all the (numerous) compounds of εδω are only attested in the post-Homericperiod.48 Nevertheless, any reconstruction of the prehistory of the word οιδςthat is based on its analysis as a backformation must clearly remain hypothetical.

Hermann Koller, in an article published in 1965, suggested an elegant versionof such a hypothesis. He argued that the Homeric phrase θσπις οιδς is a resultof reanalysis of the compound *θεσπιαοιδς, thereby offering an explanationfor the enigmatic adjective θσπις (only used with οιδς and οιδ in Homer);θσπις οιδς is metrically equivalent to θεος οιδς “divine singer,” so thelatter collocation can be explained as an internal epic development.49 Koller linked*θεσπιαοιδς with the contracted forms θεσπιωδς, θεσπιωδω, first attested in

47. Thus Chantraine 1933: 8–9, Risch 1974: 198–207. An alternative explanation, presentedin Debrunner 1917: 48, assumes that, while most simplicia in -ς were backformed (e.g., βοσκς< Pπποβοσκς etc.), some nouns which have nontrivial semantics represent early simplex formations(e.g., τροχς “runner” > “wheel” and τροπς “turner” > “thong for oars”; on τροχς “wheel,”however, see Lamberterie and Letoublon 1983: 15–16, who argue that the noun was derived fromτρχω when it still meant “to turn,” not “to run”); for the PIE evidence on nomina agentis in -ςsee Krasukhin 2004.

In any case, even on Debrunner’s analysis, οιδς would belong to the class of retrogradeformations within Greek, as its semantics is fully predictable. An additional confirmation of thederivation of οιδς from a compound is found in its common animate gender. This archaic featureof PIE morphology was preserved by compounds in Greek, but is rarely attested for simplex adjectives(or nouns, as 8ππος, θες, etc., but οιδς is best classified as originally an adjective, in light of bothits formation and usage). Given that compound forms of οιδς are preferred in the classical period,the backderived simplex form would be especially likely to retain common gender (cf. Kastner 1967:45–52 for this reasoning applied to simplex verbal adjectives in -τος; another possible hypothesisis that substantivization results in the lack of a feminine form [106–10]). This explanation wouldrender unnecessary the argument that the derivation of the feminine form *οιδ0/ “songstress”was blocked by the existence of nomen actionis “song,” “singing” (Nagy 1970: 61–63, buildingon Kuryłowicz 1964: 216).

48. Xµνωδω (first in Aesch. Ag. 990 [lyr.]); µελωδω (first in Ar.; cf. Call. fr. 462 Pf.: µελωδαd τραγωδα τ4 παλαι4ν λγετο); κιθαρωδς (first in Hdt. 1.23). In verbal compounds of οιδς, thefirst position can also be taken by a prefix (πωδς “out of tune,” πωδς, περιαοιδς [Hesych.:d γκκλιος Bδ]). φιλ0οιδος (Sappho 58.12; “song-loving” lyre, cf. φιλµολπος of the Muse inStesich. 193) belongs to a different type of compound formation, with the second member construednominally. The same holds for #αψωδς (“devising the song” [Frankel 1925: 3–6]; first in Hdt. 5.67,but Hes. fr. 265 and Pind. Nem. 2.2 suggest that the word existed earlier), which seems to belong tothe τερψµβροτος type, so one would expect the accent to be regressive (Debrunner 1917: 77); Patzer1952: 320–21 explains the position of the accent by the influence of compounds with verbal -Bδς.

49. Ruijgh (1995: 81–82) suggests that θεος οιδς cannot represent an old formula, sincetheios < thehiyos (attested in Mycenaean) would have yielded a sequence of three light syllables,which is impossible in the hexameter (as well as in the Aeolic cola); cf. the avoidance in Homer ofthe nominative θεος ;Αχιλλες, θεος ;Οδυσσες, for which δος ;Αχιλλες, etc., are used, althoughthe gen. ;Οδυσσος θεοιο is common. (Note that this pattern could have been preserved in a stichicmeter based on Aeolic cola and different from the dactylic hexameter.)


Aeschylus (Ag. 1134, 1161) in the meaning “singer of oracles.” The etymologyof θσπι(ς) (traditionally explained as a “Kurzform” of θεσπσιος) is uncertain,but a connection with θες and ν(ν)πω (thus, “spoken by god”?) is commonlyassumed.

According to Koller, the original meaning of *θεσπιαοιδς was “singingthe things divine,” and it was used as a technical term for the performers ofpoetry in dactylic hexameters. A link with oracular discourse helps explain theemployment of this meter, otherwise associated with oracles (cf. Koller 1972 for'πος as “oracular saying”). This broad conceptualization of θεσπι- allows Kollerto make sense of Theogony 31–2 νπνευσαν δ µοι αWδν / θσπιν, 8να κλεοιµιτ0 τ( σσµενα πρ τ( ντα (the same formulation is applied to Kalchas inthe Iliad 1.70), where Hesiod appears to claim mantic authority. Notably, thisline occurs in near proximity to the phrase θσπις οιδ, describing the Muses’gift to Hesiod (cf. Il. 2.599–600 for a link between cithara playing and οιδθεσπεση in the case of Thamyris). Later scholars tend to cite Koller 1965 onlyfor the general conclusion regarding the close alignment of poetry and prophecyin Archaic Greece.50

To the best of my knowledge, Koller’s theory has never been countered onlinguistic grounds.51 The main reason why it is shunned by students of Greek epic

In later texts (Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 214, 309, 338; Ar. Ran. 1034), we encountera further modification of this formula: θεος UΟµηρος (Burkert 1987: 44). Another possible reflexof *θεσπιαοιδς is found in Hes. fr. 310: Μουσ0ων, α8 τ( 9νδρα πολυφραδοντα τιθεσι / θσπιοναWδεντα.

50. Tigerstedt 1970: 171–72 leaves the details of Koller’s argumentation “to the etymologists,”but deems it “very unconvincing” overall, citing a dismissive two-page review (Winnington-Ingram1965) which does not mention the reconstruction of θεσπιαοιδς. Thalmann’s important book on theformal conventions of early Greek epic poetry only refers to Koller 1965 and 1972 in passing for “therelation between poetry and prophecy” (1984: 225); similarly Ford 1992: 181 n. 26. Ford 1981:51 mentions Koller’s hypothesis but opts for a more general conclusion that οιδς and οιδ inHomer “usually had a very special force.” Finally, Koller’s article on θσπις οιδς is present inthe bibliography of Nagy 1974 but (apparently) not mentioned in the text.

Generally, two reasons for the relative neglect of Koller’s work may be cited: a preferencefor synchronic analysis of literary texts (either as self-contained artifacts or through their immediatesocial/cultural contexts), and a belief that our evidence is not sufficient for reconstructing literaryprehistory. Arguably, this resignation is in part due to the parting of ways of historical linguistsand classicists in the last decades.

51. In the second edition of Homerische Wortbildung Risch cites Koller’s article with a note“nicht restlos uberzeugend” (1974: 165); the precise reason for doubt is left unexplained. Chantrainerefers to Koller’s article in his discussion of θεσπσιος (1999 s.v.) but offers no comment. Nordheider(1989) lists Koller’s derivation of θσπις as one of three available explanations. Koller’s evidencefor the use of the shortened form in iota for compounds (1965: 281–83) is not entirely satisfying,as perceived by Durante, who rejects Koller’s explanation, arguing that *θεσπιαοιδς would itselfpresuppose a set phrase θσπια εδειν vel sim. (1971: 103–104). Yet θσπις as a freestanding wordrepresents an even greater puzzle. More recently, Hamp 1984: 50–51, without citing Koller, followedhis line of argument suggesting that θσπις represents a decompound (from θεσπι-δας, et sim.).Koller’s contribution is similarly ignored in Ruijgh 1995: 82, Vine 1998: 17, and Meier-Brugger1991: 183–84 (who, in line with tradition, deems θσπις “le terme apparente” of θεσπσιος, which heproposes to derive from PIE *speh1 and translates “rendu prospere par un dieu”).


poetry is Koller’s failure to pursue the full implications of his insight. As theystand, some of Koller’s conclusions appear to undermine the heuristic potential ofhis analysis.

One such conclusion is the overt link, apparently implied by the use of θεσπι-,between poetry and prophecy; such a link seems alien to Homeric epic and indeedto Greek poetic tradition in general. In this regard the criticisms of Tigerstedt(1970), directed at readings that seem to take the primeval kinship of poet andprophet for granted, are well placed.52 The stumbling block for Tigerstedt is,however, precisely Theogony 32, which he interprets as “an old formula expressingdivine omniscience,” borrowed by Hesiod from Homer, and then “inadvertentlyapplied to himself” (the latter formulation is rightly questioned by Thalmann 1984:225). There is no doubt that Theogony 32 contains a traditional formula, but ourtask is precisely to reconstruct a broader usage in which it would make sense, ratherthan to explain it away as an individual author’s idiosyncrasy. Koller suggests thatthis usage is restricted to a particular historical moment when hexameter poetsdefined themselves as “speaking things divine.”

But why did such a mantic poetics arise in the first place? The association ofthe dactylic hexameter with both oracles and epic verse should not necessarilyentail the derivation of the latter from the former. We clearly do not have enoughevidence to document such a development (as it is charted in Koller 1972; seeFord 1981: 136ff. for a detailed critique of this article). Yet the adoption ofhexameter for oracular speech is a culturally significant fact; it may suggestthat at some point in the Dark Ages or early Archaic period, to which wemight date the establishment of Panhellenic institutions (“Homeric” epic, theDelphic oracle), there emerged a special category of discourse, which includedboth these phenomena. Hexameter was the proper form for this discourse: astichic meter that was meant to be improvised and hence was associated withspontaneous (that is, “divinely inspired”) utterance; in terms of content, thisdiscourse laid claim to the knowledge of divine matters whose specificity clearlywent beyond whatever cultic choral poetry, which traded in common culturalknowledge, allowed for. Furthermore, the association of this category of discoursewith one solo singer/reciter would have necessitated the formation of a commontechnical term. In the course of its development, the poetry composed in dactylichexameter abandoned this designation. This marked a moment of disintegrationof the category of sacred discourse; precisely the perception of θεσπιαοιδς asan inadequate term led to its reanalysis as θσπις οιδς. Along with it went

52. The argument for the syncretism of poet and prophet in archaic Greece has been mosteloquently made in Detienne 1996 [1967]. Nagy 1990a argues that µ0ντις “seer” and κbρυ! “herald”“had once been appropriate designations for an undifferentiated poet-prophet” (57); the crucial pieceof evidence for the former, namely the possibility of deriving both µ0ντις andΜοAσα from the highlyprolific PIE root of intellectual activity *men, seems tenuous. A similar argument for a syncretisticpoet/prophet figure in Proto-Indo-European is advanced in Watkins 1995: 88, based on the cognatesof Skt. kavı-.


the narrowing of the semantics of the term, which only survived in the meaning“singer of oracles” as we see in classical θεσπιωδς. In the fifth century, it wasa poetic word roughly synonymous with χρησµωδς.53

It is noteworthy that all the occurrences of the compound in texts andinscriptions have the contraction characteristic of Attic. In this light, anotherpiece of evidence, for some reason omitted by Koller in his 1965 article, speaksstrongly in favor of his reconstruction: Hesychius preserves the form θεσπιαοιδς,glossed as ποιητς (!). The use of an uncontracted form, which fits into dactylichexameter, suggests that it may have belonged to a lost epic poem, where—ifwe can trust Hesychius—it referred to the poet.54 I conclude that the cumulativeevidence allows us to posit the early form θεσπιαοιδς “singer of things divine”which was modernized in our text of Homer to θσπις οιδς.

Besides the hasty appeal to the putative fusion of poetry and prophecy, it isnecessary to question another conclusion of Koller 1965, which is particularlyrelevant to the present inquiry. In the tradition of Manu Leumann’s HomerischeWorter, Koller insists that not only the word θσπις but also the word οιδς isa creation of the epic language. This conclusion should be reconsidered basedon the usage of οιδς in the Archaic and classical periods. As discussedin sections II and III, the primary significations of the word were (potentiallyadjectival) “singing,” “tuneful,” and, in particular, “professional (choral) singer(not composer)”; the earliest attestation of the latter meaning is at Il. 24.720. This,in my view, strongly suggests that positing a compound θεσπιαοιδς does not giveus a sufficient provenance for οιδς. It does, however, provide a neat explanationfor the emergence of the secondary meaning of οιδς, which generally remainedrestricted to epic and could indeed have emerged within the epic language. Morespecifically, the formation of the category θεσπιαοιδς as well as its reanalysis

53. Interestingly, θεσπιωδς does not seem to carry the negative connotation “oracle-monger”found for χρησµωδς (Ar. Eq. 818) and χρησµολγος (Thuc. 2.8, Ar. Av. 960, etc.). χρησµολγοιcollected and delivered oracles, but did not improvise, yet the same need not have applied toχρησµωδο: Plato links χρησµωδα and νθουσιασµς in Ap. 22c, Crat. 396d, Ion 534b-d. In anycase, θεσπιωδω and θεσπιωδς (used of Cassandra in Aesch. Ag. 1161, 1134) do imply spontaneousprophecy.

In inscriptions from the temple of Apollo at Claros (mostly second century CE), θεσπιωδωis used as a technical term, possibly for inspired divination (Robert and Robert 1989: 3, contra LSJs.v.: “versifier of oracles”; see further Robert and Robert 1992: 286–87 on the mantic terminologyused at Claros); Parke 1985: 220ff. argues, in accord with the traditional interpretation, that theθεσπιωδς was a poet (“a versatile performer of high professional ability” [151]), present at theoracular procedure, who reproduced the prophet’s response in verse. In a recent article, Busine 2006suspends judgment on the exact role of θεσπιωδο, but notes that their absence from the earlierepigraphical record may well be due to a change in recording habits (290); she also shows that thisposition, which appears to have been lifelong, was assumed by members of elite families. In anycase, it is conceivable that this use of θεσπιωδς represents a survival of an old technical term forµ0ντεις who delivered their oracles in improvised poetic form.

54. We cannot exclude its use in a late poetic source, where the lack of contraction could beexplained by metrical convenience or archaizing intent. What makes it unlikely is the semantic leap:in the surviving sources we have no evidence for the use of θεσπιωδς meaning ποιητς.


as θσπις οιδς and then θεος οιδς probably postdated the compositionof the Iliad, where these forms do not occur; the use of the word οιδς inthis context could have provided the impetus for the development of an “aedicideology” discussed in section I. If this is correct, we now have the full history ofθεος οιδς as an epic creation (in Table 2, οιδς II would be explained bya reanalysis of θεσπιαοιδς), but not the genesis of the word οιδς itself.

In fact, Koller does not ask the question why the compound θεσπιαοιδς,which must have existed throughout the Archaic period in the meaning “chantingthings divinely ordained,” was reanalyzed within epic language in such a way asto yield two words that had not existed before. It seems reasonable to suppose thatthis compound disintegrated when the noun οιδς already existed in its primarymeaning and could therefore be regarded by the epic performers as (for one reasonor another) a more adequate designation of their activity. But the question of howthe simplex noun came into being remains unanswered. In the last section of thepaper, I attempt to provide a tentative answer to this question.

VI. THE ORIGINS OF THE GREEK CONCEPT OFSOLO PERFORMANCE: A HYPOTHESIS

First of all, positing θεσπιαοιδς for the proto-epic language raises the pos-sibility that other compounds attested only from the fifth century had alreadyexisted at that early stage of the history of Greek. In fact, the avoidance of uncon-tracted #αψαfοιδς and κιθαραfοιδς (both attested in Boeotian inscriptions) inthe dactylic hexameter can be explained by their metrical shape.55 If we imag-ine the existence of several compounds of the type X-οιδς, they would havegiven a sufficient basis for the simplex οιδς to have been generalized (on themodel of existing backformations from compounds in -ς, such as τροφς andτροχς).56 Yet the Homeric evidence itself suggests a different explanation, whichis presented below in full cognizance of its hypothetical nature.

While the text of Homer as we have it contains no compounds of the formx-οιδς, it does contain, in addition to οιδ, a nomen actionis derived fromεδω with the prefix πι-: παοιδ “incantation” (Od. 19.457).57 The verb εδω

55. The combination 9νδρες οιδο+ 'ασιν π+ χθον+ κα+ κιθαριστα (Hymn to the Muses andApollo 3 = Hes. Theog. 95, cf. Hes. fr. 305.2) may be due to the need to bypass the use of thecompound. Similar examples of poetic rephrasing of οιδς compounds: Pind. Nem. 2.2, Eur.Heracl. 403, 488 (discussed above).

56. To give an analogous example: the derivation of βοσκς in the historical period was based noton one compound, but on the generalization from γηροβοσκς, προβοσκς, Pπποβοσκς, Xοβοσκς(Debrunner 1917: 48). Yet note that #αψαfοιδς, if originally parsed as a compound of οιδ0, notεδω, would not have been useful for yielding οιδς.

57. I disagree with Koller (1965: 283) who regards θεσπιαοιδς as an older compound thanπαοιδ based on the preservation of iota. There are strong reasons to believe that the final iotain compounds with πι- was less protected than in compounds of the type κυδι0νειρα (Lejeune 1972:318). We already have examples of elision in Mycenaean, as discussed in Morpurgo Davies 1983:


in Homer is also capable of forming compounds such as διαεδεται (Il. 13.277),Xπ4 + 9ειδε (in tmesis: Il.18.570; cf. Hom. Hymn Herm. 54); παραεδειν (Od.22.348). The verb παεδω is first attested in Herodotus; its meaning is “to singan incantation, to sing in a religiously marked manner.” The nomen agentisπωδς is first attested in the tragedians in the meaning “enchanter, singer ofincantations.” Given that (i) παοιδ is attested in the Odyssey and (ii) παοιδςis a straightforward nomen agentis from εδω, it is conceivable that the latterexisted at the time of the establishment of the text of the Homeric poems. Wewould then have a period in the development of Greek in which the nouns παοιδand οιδ, and the verb (π)αεδω, coexisted with the (derivationally illicit) nounοιδς and (unattested, but licit) παοιδς. Within this system, the derivation ofοιδς can be explained as an analogical development: παοιδ is performed byan παοιδς, οιδ is performed by an οιδς.

What lends some further credibility to this reconstruction is the likely semanticdevelopment of these terms. There is internal Greek evidence for use of the wordsfor “song,” “singer” in place of “incantation,” “performer of incantations.” Themost patent example is Soph. Trach. 1000, where οιδς stands for πωδς.58

This association is not unexpected on typological grounds. In some languages, thewords for song and for magical incantation are related or indeed homonymous,like Lat. carmen, Irish canaid, Old Norse lioð (West 2007: 326–27; cf. Buck 1949:1494–96; Pfister 1924: 324). This suggests that one can posit a stage where themeanings of παεδω and εδω (παοιδ and οιδ) were not fully distinguished;both could convey the meaning “to sing in a particular way,” with the unprefixedform representing a more general concept (which could be substituted for themore narrow form with πι-).59 We have evidence for the use of πι- in Homerwithout any apparent semantic import.60 Furthermore, the backformation of

295–98: e-po-mi-jo = π3µιος “shoulder pieces or guards,” as well as (assuming opi = epi) o-po-qo“blinkers,” o-pa-wo-ta (cf. Gr. ερω “which is hung opi”?).

58. τς γ2ρ οιδς, τς Q χειροτχνας / /ατορας, gς τ0νδ( 9ταν / χωρ+ς Ζην4ς κατακηλσει;Similarly, οιδα for παοιδα in Ap. Rhod. 4.42, 59. The association of the Greek vocabulary of songand incantation was first discussed by Welcker (1850: 77–78, also adducing Longus 2.7.7; his readingof Hesychius’s gloss on πb`σαι depends on a misplaced comma). More recently, Uwe Dubielzighas made a convincing argument for construing Τελχνες πιτρζουσιν οιδ. in Callimachus fr. 1.1and φAλον [οιδν (which he conjectures for line 7) as references to magical, not poetic, pursuit;see his discussion for further examples of lexical links between these two domains (1995: 340ff.).Note also the possibility, suggested in Diehl 1940: 92, that οιδι0ω (used twice of Circe and Calypsoin the Odyssey) = παεδω.

59. It is possible to point to the common Indo-European pattern of dropping the preverb withrepeated use of a compound verb (Greek evidence is collected in Renehan 1976: 11–27). One ofthe anonymous referees suggests in this regard that “confusion between εδω and παεδω/π0`δωcould have arisen in professional jargon” of the performers of epic verse. Yet this explanation isnot necessary in the case of the (semantically trivial) substitution of εδω for παεδω, and, sincethere is no evidence for the omission of prefix with deverbal nouns, it probably cannot be extended tothe (morphologically nontrivial) substitution of οιδς for παοιδς.

60. πικλεω / κλεω, πιβουκλος / βουκλος, πιβ3τωρ / β3τωρ, πουρος / οOρος, πιποιµν/ ποιµν (cf. Cunliffe 1963 s.vv.).


οιδς from παοιδςwould be exactly analogous to the formation of the simpliciaµοιβς from πηµοιβς (!ηµοιβς also attested in Homer), ρωγς fromπαρωγς, σκοπς from πσκοπος (9σκοπος, εMσκοπος), as proposed in Risch1974: 198ff. Similarly, λοιπς is naturally regarded as a backformation from theword represented by the Mycenaean o-pi-ro-qo (= πλοιπος; but pe-ri-ro-qo =περλοιπος is also attested; neither is attested in the Homeric poems), where “wemay wonder about the specific force of opi”—as indeed in the case of πι- in Gr.πιλεπω vs. simplex λεπω (Morpurgo Davies 1983: 298).

If this hypothesis is correct, the semantic development of παεδω and παοιδ(from a subcategory of εδω/οιδ to a wholly distinct notion) is a later devel-opment, which, as we saw, has not been fully completed by the fifth century.This may explain the pattern of semantic confusion in the classical period: whileunprefixed forms can occasionally be used to refer to incantation, forms withπαεδω/παοιδ are only used with reference to magical practices.61

Table 3. The derivation of οιδς as a backformation from παοιδς

Verbum Nomen agentis Nomen actionis

(X-)fεδω ———– fοιδ*Pre-Hom.

παfοιδς παfοιδ

(X-)εδω οιδς οιδHom.

[παοιδς] παοιδ

9δω οιδς / Bδς οιδ / BδClass. period

π0δω πωδς πωδ

One may discern a parallel development in the semantic shift of γης from“wailer,” a particular kind of verbal performer, to “magician.”62

61. In Eur. El. 864–5, παεδειν is used without any connotations of magic. Confusion inmanuscripts with Xπαεδειν is likely (cf. Fraenkel 1950 ad Aesch. Ag. 69), so emending the textmay be justified, as proposed by Diggle 1981: 39–40. Contrast later metaphorical uses of παοιδα ofpoetry, common in Plato’s Laws and elsewhere (Welcker 1850: 67–68, Pfister 1924: 329).

62. Note that γης is often associated with πωδς (Burkert 1962: 40, Pfister 1924: 324,Dubielzig 1995: 340, citing Eur. Bacch. 234, Hipp. 1038, Gorgias Hel. 10, Pl. Gorg. 483e-484a,Men. 80a, Symp. 202e, Leg. 909b), implying a strong link between singing and magic.


Given the evidence linking the mythical poets Orpheus, Musaeus, and Eumol-pus with magical practices,63 it is tempting to point to a primordial unity of poeticand medical professionalism. Yet such a conclusion may be overhasty. In thecorpus of surviving Archaic poetry, singing is indeed often described as havingsoothing or enchanting qualities, which points, on the synchronic level, to a broadassociation of magic, healing, and poetry.64 This association may itself have moti-vated the mythical projection of a syncretistic image of the poet-healer-magician.The actual historical reason for this association may have been different: a newclass of professional singers, whose activity was not related to magic or heal-ing, nevertheless inherited, or drew on, the rhetoric of efficacious speech whichtraditionally belonged to professional solo performance, including (or primarily)that of incantations.

In this light, it is of course significant that dactylic hexameter was the mostcommon meter for the πωδα; two hexameters from Aristophanes’ Amphiaraushave been interpreted as both an oracular pronouncement and an incantation(Faraone 1992). This suggests the possibility of including incantations in thecategory of discourse that also included proto-epic and oracular poetry (butwhether or not “singers of incantations” were also called θεσπιαοιδο we willprobably never know). Christopher Faraone points to fluidity between “literaryforms” and “ritual forms” of hexameters (including likely cases of quotations ofhexameter charms in Od. 4.220–26 and Hom. Hymn Dem. 227–30) and suggeststhat “in the eighth century we must try to imagine a time when, outside of thegenre of epic, poets composed hexameters orally for a number of non-narrativegenres, including hymns, oracles and magical incantations—all of which wereembedded in ritual contexts” (1996: 86).65 I stress that this constellation of

63. Burkert 1962: 40; on the tradition linking πωδα with Orpheus, see Entralgo 1970: 43ff.64. Hes. Theog. 98–103; Od. 1.337: Φµιε, πολλ2 γ2ρ 9λλα βροτν θελκτρια ο-δας; Od.

12.44 (of Sirens’ song; cf. [Hes.] fr. 28); Od. 17.518–21. On the language of magic in the twoHomeric poems, see Wathelet 2000. Note also a consistent association of κηλω “to bewitch” withsong (LSJ s.v.), starting with κηληθµς in Od. 11.334, 13.2, and the mythical Κηληδνες at Pind.Pae. 8. In the Pindaric corpus, one further notes Nem. 4.2–3: αP δ* σοφα / Μοισbν θγατρες οιδα+θλ!αν νιν πτµενοι (part of an extended metaphor; Machemer’s [1993] argument for the presenceof technical medical vocabulary in this passage is not conclusive); Nem. 3.17–18: καµατωδωνδ* πλαγbν / 9κος Xγιηρ4ν ν βαθυπεδω Νεµα` / τ4 καλλνικον φρει; Pyth. 3.73; the song isdescribed as a charm (φλτρον) in Ol. 13.68, Pyth. 3.64 (I have benefited from Athena Kirk’s paperon the healing imagery in the epinikia, presented in Spring 2006 in Prof. Kurke’s Pindar seminar atBerkeley). Some further (mostly late) testimonies linking music and healing are collected in Welcker1850: 82–86; perhaps the most interesting is the reference in Iamblichus’s Life of Pythagoras (111,164) to the practice of using texts of lyric poetry, as well as (possibly) selected sayings (λ!εσι!ειλεγµναις) of Homer and Hesiod, for specific healing purposes. In a recent article Tell 2007:260–66 suggests that the language of enchantment was generally used of the practitioners of verbalσοφα in archaic and classical Greece; it was also inherited by the rhetorical tradition.

65. There are more specific hints at the linkage of hexameter poetry and incantations. Note thecollocation παεδειν θεογοναν in Hdt. 1.131 in the description of the Persian Magi performingthe sacrifice (it may be significant that Herodotus often views Persian cultural practices as archaicversions of contemporary Greek practices) and Pfister 1924: 327 on the link of incantations and


properties associated with the hexameter at the dawn of the Archaic period shouldbe distinguished from the putative syncretism of the poetic and magical-healingfunction in PIE culture (e.g., Watkins 1995: 525ff.). Rather, our evidence seemsto suggest that a continuous folk tradition of incantations informed, at differentmoments of the history of Indo-European peoples, a properly poetic tradition.66

Finally, let us briefly consider the original meaning of the compound παοιδ,which contributed to the development of the semantics of “incantation.” A pos-sible hypothesis is that it referred to the lines that were repeated over and overagain (“after” or perhaps “in addition” to the actual text); in other words, despitebeing clearly distinct from the later πωδ (=epode), it may have had the sameoriginal meaning of “refrain.” Since it is repeated without semantic links withits immediate context, the refrain tends to have reduced or no meaning, and cantherefore come to be viewed as having magical potency.67 A more specific spatialmeaning “sing at” (e.g., the body of the sick person) is also conceivable.68 Yetthe internal evidence speaks in favor of a more general meaning “associated with”(cf. Morpurgo Davies 1983: 301: “the common denominator [in the semanticsof the prefix πι-] is a relationship of close proximity”).This “associated” singingcould have conceivably referred to a song performed on a particular occasion (aswith Hom. πευφηµεν “to shout approval on a particular point”) or addressed to aparticular individual (as with πικαλω “to invoke [a god]”).69 In sum, it is likelythat a variety of construals for an πι- compound were available (cf. classicalφυµνω “sing at, sing over, sing of”).

“epische Erzahlung” and his hypothesis that Hesiod’s Theogony “ihr Material zum Teil aus solchenGesangen genommen hat.” On the use of incantations in literary texts from the classical period,esp. in paeans, see Furley 1993: 100–104.

66. Incantation is a remarkably conservative speech genre; it is also the only Indo-Europeangenre whose specimens have been persuasively reconstructed: Toporov (2006 [1969]), by addingSlavic and Baltic parallels, effectively confirmed A. Kuhn’s original juxtaposition of Germanic andIndic evidence. Toporov also presents a case for a quasi-epic narrative development within the text ofincantations. See also Burkert 1992: 124ff. (“magical incantations tend to use mythical stories”),Furley 1993: 91–100, West 2007: 336–39.

67. Cf. Theocr. 2. An analogous formation is furnished by Russ. pri-pesnia (also pri-pev),explained by Dal’ 1912: 3.1145 as follows: “In Russian folk choral songs it follows each stanza,sometimes each verse, and is sung according to its own peculiar melody; its words have little meaningby themselves but they add weight to the words of the song.” Furley 1993: 91–92 points out thatGreek incantations tend to be quite short; this is unusual from the comparative perspective andsuggests that these texts were repeated over and over again. For πωδ as something one repeats,cf. Plato Rep. 608a. For the type of formation, cf. πρρηµα.

68. Note that in Chrm. 155e-156e Plato takes πωδ to mean “song that comes as an addition tothe drug”; cf. πιλγω “to utter a charm” (Dubielzig 1995: 341) and late πιλαλω.

69. An interesting parallel, which shows a different semantic specialization of an analogouscompound, is provided by East Slavic pri-pevka (πι-αοιδ) “song (of praise or blame)” performedby a bard. This noun is attested in the Lay of Igor’s Campaign (twelfth century CE) and was preservedin some dialects of modern Russian (Dal’ 1912: 3.1144).


VII. CONCLUSIONS

To summarize the conclusions reached in section VI, πιαοιδς seems toprovide a more likely source of οιδς “singer” than θεσπιαοιδς (from whichone instead could derive οιδς “singer of hexameter poetry”—see Table 2). Thishypothesis also has the advantage of shedding light on the occasional use ofunprefixed forms where one would expect π0δω/πωδς in the classical period.This broad semantics of οιδς is in keeping with our earlier conclusion thatthe principal meaning of the word is “one who sings,” not “one who composespoetry.”

More generally, the historical semantics of the word οιδς suggests thata proper understanding of the genres of hexameter poetry demands that wego beyond literary history proper. I suggested tentatively that the rhetoric ofenchantment was inherited by properly poetic professionals from a preexistent(and possibly continuing) subliterary tradition of professional performers ofπωδα. Koller’s finding that behind the “divine singers” of the Odyssey therehides a θεσπιαοιδς “singer of things divine” should also find its place in ahistory of discursive (rather than narrowly literary) forms. But is it possible toreconcile our reconstruction of a broad concept of πιαοιδς “solo performer”with Koller’s argument about θεσπιαοιδς?

It is possible to imagine a particular conceptualization of the poetic professionsometime at the dawn of the archaic period, when dactylic hexameter cameto be used for genres other than heroic epic, such as theogonies and oracularpronouncements. It may be significant in this context that the introduction intoGreece of both of these genres was apparently due to Near Eastern influence.70

It is conceivable that sometime in the eighth or seventh century the term “singer ofthings divine” did indeed provide an appropriate designation for performers ofhexameter poetry. Moreover, the proliferation of “divine singers” in the Odysseysuggests that the deployment of this notion in Greek narrative epic postdates thecomposition of the Iliad. Conversely, the only occurrence of the word οιδς inthe Iliad (24.720–1) can be explained as a testimony for a different type of soloperformers, whose professional (or historical) ties with singers of incantations arestill apparent.

While from the viewpoint of morphological derivation the emergence ofοιδς from παοιδς must have preceded the development discussed in sectionIV (θεσπιαοιδς > οιδς), there is a reason to suspect that the specializationof πιαοιδς “singer of incantations” occurred at the same time as specializationof θεσπιαοιδς “singer of oracles.” Both semantic developments may be linked

70. On Near Eastern influence on archaic Greece see Burkert 1992, West 1997; on oracularpractice in Delphi in this context: Latte 1940, Dietrich 1978. Scholars have also noted that the divineapparatus of the Homeric epics has important antecedents in Near Eastern literature (particularlyAtrahasis, Gilgamesh), while being generally alien to Greek cult practice (Burkert 1992: 88–106;West 1997: 177–90).


to the dissolution of a common metapoetics of solo performance, which alsocreated the specialized meaning οιδς “epic bard.” Very tentatively, one coulddistinguish three consecutive stages in the evolution of archaic Greek metapoeticsof solo performance:

παοιδς/οιδς: “solo performer,” not necessarily in hexameter medium;

παοιδς/οιδς “solo performer” vs. θεσπιαοιδς “chanting things di-vine (in hexameter medium);”

παοιδς “singer of incantations” vs. οιδς “performer” (also in newmeaning: “poet working in hexameter medium”) vs. θεσπιαοιδς “singerof oracles.”

Once again, it is worth emphasizing the speculative nature of this reconstruction.A more certain conclusion of this study is that throughout the Archaic period

Greek vocabulary did not include a term equivalent to modern English “poet.”Indeed, if οιδς had an established meaning “poet” in the fifth century, theemergence of a new word, ποιητς, would be difficult to motivate.71 As it is,ποιητς can be regarded as a generalization of the numerous compounds of thetype of µελοποις, τραγωδοποις, ποποις (Hdt. 2.120), µουσοποις (Hdt.2.135), etc.72 The fact that a general category—or cultural notion—of “poet” didnot exist before the fifth century has significant implications for our understandingof archaic Greek poetics. The professional composers of verses who were laterincluded in the canon of the nine lyric poets could not have grounded their claimto poetic authority in a pre-given collective self-consciousness. If their voice

71. Svenbro 1976: 193ff. (developed by Bouvier 2003) proposes an opposition between twoconcepts of the poet, that of an inspired bard (οιδς) and an artisan (ποιητς); in this reading, theshift toward the artisan paradigm would have a broad social motivation in the new social order of thepolis. In my view, the rhetoric of craftsmanship (ποησις), which Svenbro finds in choral poets, butnot in epic, is due to the constraints of the choral medium (primarily, to the need to distinguishbetween composer and performer) and the social tasks peculiar to particular genres (e.g., the onesPindar faced in the epinikia), rather than to any cultural paradigm change. Moreover, the diachronicopposition between οιδς and ποιητς needs to be qualified, if the former term was limited to epic. Itis also difficult to uphold in view of the common use of the metonymies of crafting for poetic activityin Indo-European languages (see section IV). Note also the criticism of Svenbro’s interpretationof Pindar’s artisan metaphors, which Svenbro treats very selectively and out of context, in Auger1987: 43–44.

72. On this productive model cf. Arist. Poet. 1447b. It is also conceivable that this semanticdevelopment was related to the devaluation of musical paideia by the new participants in the contestof σοφα (on this concept see Martin 1993; cf. also Tell 2007 with bibliography), Greek sophists andphilosophers; from their viewpoint, Pindar was not a σοφς, but a mere “maker of songs.” Thisis borne out by the fact that tragic and melic poets of the fifth century seem to have avoided thisterm (Ford 1981: 322–30). An alternative, less compelling, approach (adopted by Machemer 1993:119) explains Pindar’s use of the vocabulary of σοφα as itself privy to a new “epistemologicalconception” common to Aeschylus, Theognis, and the Presocratics. We may note that the negativeview of professional craftsmanship implied by the use of ποιητς was reversed in the Renaissancewhen the Greek name of the poet was taken to refer to a Creator acting on a par with God: as aποιητς, the poet is superior to the philosopher (Curtius 1953: 397–401).


was framed as that of a professional, this had to be asserted ad hoc, within theirindividual poetics.

University of California, [email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Auger, D. 1987. “De l’artisan a l’athlete: les metaphores de la creation poetique dansl’epinicie et chez Pindare.” In Le texte et ses representations, 39–56. Paris.

Autran, C. 1938. Homere et les origines sacerdotales de l’epopee grecque. 2 vols. Paris.Bader, F. 1989. La langue des dieux, ou l’hermetisme des poetes indo-europeens. Testi

linguistici 14. Pisa.Barlow, S. 1986. Euripides. Trojan Women. Warminster.Beekes, R.S.P. 1969. The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Greek.

The Hague.Berg, N. 1978. “Parergon metricum: der Ursprung des griechischen Hexameters.” MSS

37.11–36.Berg, N. and D. Haug. 2000. “Innovation and Tradition in Homer—an Overlooked Piece

of Evidence.” SO 75: 5–23.Bodeker, H. E. 2002. “Auspragungen der historischen Semantik in den historischen

Kulturwissenschaften.” In H. E. Bodeker, ed. Begriffsgeschichte, Diskursgeschichte,Metapherngeschichte, 9–27. Gottingen.

Bohme, R. 1953. Orpheus: Das Alter des Kitharoden. Berlin.Bowie, E. L. 1986. “Early Greek Elegy, Symposium and Public Festival.” JHS 106:

13–35.Bouvier, D. 2003. “Quand le poete etait encore un charpentier. . . : aux origines du

concept de ‘poesie’.” EL 3: 85–105.Buck, C. D. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European

Languages. Chicago.Burgess, J. S. 2001. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle.

Baltimore.Burkert, W. 1962. “ΓΟΗΣ. Zum griechischen ‘Schamanismus’.” RhM 105.1: 36–55.

. 1987. “The Making of Homer in the Sixth Century B.C.: Rhapsodes vs. Stesi-chorus.” In M. True, et al., eds. Papers on the Amasis Painter and His World, 43–62.Malibu.

. 1992. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culturein the Early Archaic Age. Cambridge MA.

Busine, A. 2006. “The Officials of Oracular Sanctuaries in Roman Asia Minor.” ARG8: 275–316.

Calame, C. 1995. The Craft of Poetic Speech in Ancient Greece. Ithaca and London.[French ed. 1986]

Chantraine, P. 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris.. 1999. Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots.

Nouv. ed. avec un Supplement. Paris.Cunliffe, R. J. 1963. Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect. Norman OK.


Curtius, E. R. 1953. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Trans. by W. R.Trask. Princeton.

D’Alessio, G. B. 1994. “First-Person Problems in Pindar.” BICS 39: 117–34.Dal’, V. 1912–1914. Tolkovyi slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskago iazyka, ed. I. Baudouin

de Courtenay, 4 vols. St. Petersburg.Davies, M. 1988. “Monody, Choral Lyric, and the Tyranny of the Hand-Book.” CQ 38.1:

52–64.Davison, J. A. 1968. From Archilochus to Pindar: Papers on Greek Literature of the

Archaic Period. London.Debrunner, A. 1917. Griechische Wortbildung. Heidelberg.Detienne, M. 1996. The Masters of Truth in Archaic Greece. 2nd ed.New York. [1st

French ed. 1967]Diehl, E. 1940. “. . . Fuerunt ante Homerum poetae.” RhM 89: 81–114.Dietrich, B. C. 1978. “Reflections on the Origins of the Oracular Apollo.” BICS 25:

1–18.Diggle, J. 1981. Studies on the Text of Euripides: Supplices, Electra, Heracles, Troades,

Iphigenia in Tauris, Ion. Oxford.Dubielzig, U. 1995. “Wie Kallimachos seine Gegner bezeichnet hat (Call. fr. 1, 7

Pfeiffer).” RhM 138.3–4: 337–46.Durante, M. 1971. Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca. Vol. 1. Rome.Else, G. F. 1957. “The Origin of ΤΡΑΓΩΙ∆ΙΑ.” Hermes 85: 17–46.Entralgo, P. L. 1970. The Therapy of the Word in Classical Antiquity. New Haven and

London.Faraone, C. A. 1992. “Aristophanes, Amphiaraus Fr. 29 (Kassel-Austin): Oracular

Response or Erotic Incantation?” CQ 42.2: 320–27.. 1996. “Taking the ‘Nestor’s Cup Inscription’ Seriously: Erotic Magic and

Conditional Curses in the Earliest Inscribed Hexameters.” CA 15.1: 77–112.Ford, A. 1981. A Study of Early Greek Terms for Poetry: Aoide, Epos and Poiesis. Ph.D.

diss. Yale.. 1988. “The Classical Definition of ΡΑΨΩΙ∆ΙΑ.”CP 83.4: 300–307.. 1992. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca.

Fortson, B. W. 2003. “An Approach to Semantic Change.” In B. D. Joseph and R. D.Janda, eds. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 648–66. Malden.

Fraenkel, E. 1950. Aeschylus. Agamemnon. Oxford.Frankel, H. 1925. “Griechische Worter.” Glotta 14: 1–13.Friis Johansen, H. and E. W. Whittle. 1980. Aeschylus. The Suppliants. Copenhagen.Frisk, H. 1960–1972. Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch. 3 vols. Heidelberg.Fritz, G. 2006. Historische Semantik. 2nd ed. Stuttgart.Frohder, D. 1994. Die dichterische Form der Homerischen Hymnen untersucht am Typus

der mittelgrossen Preislieder. Spudasmata 53. Hildesheim.Fuchs, E. 1993. PSEUDOLOGIA: Formen und Funktionen fiktionaler Trugrede in der

griechischen Literatur der Antike. Heidelberg.Furley, W. D. 1993. “Besprechung und Behandlung. Zur Form und Funktion von ΕΠ-

ΩΙ∆ΑΙ in der griechischen Zaubermedizin.” In G. W. Most, H. Petersmann, andA. M. Ritter, eds. Philanthropia kai Eusebeia. Festschift fur Albrecht Dihle zum 70.Geburtstag, 80–104. Gottingen.

Garcıa, J. F. 2002. “Symbolic Action in the Homeric Hymns: The Theme of Recogni-tion.” CA 21.1: 5–39.


Garcıa Lopez, J. 1997. “La mousike tekhne en la ‘Ilıada’ homerica: molpe, aoide kaikhoros.” In F. R. Adrados and A. M. Dıez, eds. IX congreso espanol de estudiosclasicos. Vol. 2, 103–107. Madrid.

Gentili, B. 1977. “Preistoria e formazione dell’esametro.” QUCC 26: 7–37.. 1988. Poetry and Its Public in Ancient Greece: From Homer to the Fifth

Century. Baltimore and London. [Italian ed. 1985]Greene, G. C. 1938. Scholia Platonica. Haverford.Grimm, J. 1969. “οιδς.” Lexikon des fruhgriechischen Epos. Vol. 1, 980–83.

Gottingen.Hamp, E. P. 1984. “Notes on Greek Noun Formation.” MSS 43: 49–53.Haug, D. and E. Welo. 2001. “The Proto-Hexameter Hypothesis: Perspectives for Further

Research.” SO 76: 130–36.Hardie, A. 2000. “The Ancient ‘Etymology’ of οιδς.” Philologus 144.2: 163–75.Heine, B., and T. Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge.Hoekstra, A. 1981. Epic Verse before Homer. Amsterdam.Hooker, J. T. 1977. The Language and Text of the Lesbian Poets. Innsbruck.Horrocks, G. 1997. “Homer’s Dialect.” In I. Morris and B. Powell, eds. A New Com-

panion to Homer, 193–217. Leiden.Jackson, P. 2006. The Transformations of Helen: Indo-European Myth and the Roots

of the Trojan Cycle. Dettelbach.Kaesser, Chr. 2004. “Callimachus, Fr. 1Pf. on the Meaning of Song.” ZPE 150: 39–42.Kastner, W. 1967. Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -ΟΣ. Heidelberg.Koller, H. 1956. “Das kitharodische Prooimion. Eine formgeschichtliche Untersuchung.”

Philologus 100: 159–206.. 1963. Musik und Dichtung im Alten Griechenland. Bern.. 1965. “ΘΕΣΠΙΣ ΑΟΙ∆ΟΣ.” Glotta 43: 277–85.. 1972. “ΕΠΟΣ.” Glotta 50: 16–24.

Koselleck R. 2002. “Hinweise auf die temporalen Strukturen begriffsgeschichtlichenWandels.” In H. E. Bodeker, ed. Begriffsgeschichte, Diskursgeschichte, Meta-pherngeschichte, 31–47. Gottingen.

Krasukhin, K. 2004. “Archaic Features of Indo-European Word Formation: The Greekand Old Indic type -τµος - τοµς in a PIE perspective.” In J. Clackson and B. AnetteOlsen, eds. Indo-European Word Formation: Proceedings of the Conference Heldat the University of Copenhagen, October 20th-22nd 2000, 119–38. Copenhagen.

Kurke, L. 1992. “The Politics of βροσνη in Archaic Greece.” CA 11: 91–120.Kuryłowicz, J. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg.Lamberterie, C. de and F. Letoublon. 1983. “Deux points de vocabulaire homerique:

eclairage comparatif.” LALIES 2: 13–16.Latte, K. 1940. “The Coming of the Pythia.” HThR 33: 9–18.Lejeune, M. 1972. Phonetique historique du mycenien et du grec ancien. Paris.Leumann, M. 1927. “Zum Mechanismus des Bedeutungswandels.” Indogermanische

Forschungen 45: 105–18. Reprinted in Kleine Schiften (Zurich, 1959) 286–96.Luraghi, N. 2001. “Local Knowledge in Herodotus’ Histories.” In N. Luraghi, ed. The

Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, 138–60. Oxford.. 2007. “The Importance of Being logios.” Paper read at the conference “Hero-

dotus Now: The Personal and the Political,” March 2007, New York.Machemer, G. A. 1993. “Medicine, Music, and Magic: The Healing Grace of Pindar’s

Fourth Nemean.” HSCP 95: 113–41.


Maehler, H. 1963. Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im fruhen Griechentums bis zurZeit Pindars. Gottingen.

Mallory, J. P. and D. Q. Adams, eds. 2006. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford.

Martin, R. P. 1993. “The Seven Sages as Performers of Wisdom.” In C. Dougherty andL. Kurke, eds. Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics,108–28. Cambridge.

Meillet A. 1906. “Comment les mots changent de sens.” L’Annee sociologique 9 (1905–1906). Reprinted in Linguistique historique et linguistique generale. Vol. I, 230–71.Paris, 1958.

. 1923. Les origines indo-europeennes des metres grecs. Paris.Meier-Brugger, M. 1991. “Autour de grec σπος.” RPh 65.1: 179–84.

. 2000. “Das episch-homerische Wortfeld ‘singen, Sanger’ und seine Vorge-schichte.” ZAnt 50.1–2: 31–36.

Morpurgo Davies, A. 1983. “Mycenaean and Greek Prepositions: o-pi, e-pi etc.” In A.Heubeck and G. Neumann, eds. Res Mycenaeae. Akten des VII. Internationalen Myke-nologischen Colloquiums in Nurnberg vom 6.-10. April 1981, 287–309. Gottingen.

Nagy, G. 1970. Greek Dialects and the Transformation of an Indo-European Process.Cambridge MA.

. 1974. Comparative Studies in Greek and Indic Meter. Cambridge MA.

. 1979a. “On the Origins of Greek Hexameter.” In B. Brognyanyi, ed. FestschiftOswald Szemerenyi, 611–31. Amsterdam.

. 1979b. The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore and London. (Rev. ed. 1999)

. 1990a. “Ancient Greek Poetry, Prophecy, and the Concepts of Theory.” In J. L.Kugel, ed. Poetry and Prophecy: the Beginnings of a Literary Tradition, 56–64.Ithaca.

. 1990b. Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore andLondon.

Nilsson, M. P. 1933. Homer and Mycenae. London.Nordheider, H. W. 1989. “θσπις, θσπιος.” Lexikon des fruhgriechischen Epos. Vol.

2, 1025. Gottingen.Nunlist, R. 1998. Poetologische Bildersprache in der fruhgriechischen Dichtung. Stutt-

gart and Leipzig.Pagliaro, A. 1953. “Aedi e Rapsodi.” Saggi di Critica Semantica, 3–62. Messina and

Florence.Panchenko, D. V. 1996. “;Αοιδ4ς νρ, Aegisthus and Clytemnestra (Od. 3.263–272).”

Hyperboreus 2 (2): 178–82.Parke, H. W. 1985. The Oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor. London.Patzer, H. 1952. “ΡΑΨΩΙ∆ΟΣ.” Hermes 80: 314–25.Pfister, F. 1924. “Epode.” Paulys RE. Supplementband IV, cols. 323–44. Stuttgart.Prag, A. J. N. W. 1985. The Oresteia: Iconographic and Narrative Traditions. Warmin-

ster.Pratt, L. H. 1993. Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar: Falsehood and Deception

in Archaic Greek Poetics. Ann Arbor.Reichardt, R. 1998. “Historische Semantik zwischen lexicometrie und New Cultural

History. Einfuhrende Bemerkungen zur Standortbestimmung.” In R. Reichardt,ed. Aufklarung und Historische Semantik. Interdisziplinare Beitrage zur westeu-


ropaischen Kulturgeschichte, 7–28. Zeitschrift fur Historische Forschung; Beiheft21. Berlin.

Renehan, R. 1976. Studies in Greek Texts: Critical Observations to Homer, Plato,Euripides, Aristophanes and other Authors. Hypomnemata Heft 43. Gottingen.

Revermann, M. 1998. “The text of Iliad 18.603–6 and the Presence of an aoidos on theShield of Achilles.” CQ 48.1: 29–38.

Richardson, N. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. VI: Books 21–24. Cambridge.Risch, E. 1974. Wortbildung der griechischen Sprache. Zweite Aufl. Berlin.Ritook, Zs. 1968. “The Epithets for Minstrels in the Odyssey.” Acta Antiqua Academiae

Scientiarum Hungaricae 16: 89–92.Rix, H. 2001. Lexicon der indogermanischen Verben. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden.Robert, J. and L. Robert. 1989. Claros I. Decrets Hellenistiques. Fasc. I. Paris.

. 1992. “Decret de Colophon pour un chresmologue de Smyrne appele a dirigerl’oracle de Claros.” BCH 116: 279–91.

Rose, V. 1886. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Leipzig. [Reprint:Stuttgart, 1967]

Ruijgh, C. J. 1995. “D’Homere aux origines proto-myceniennes de la tradition epique:analyse dialectologique du langage homerique, avec un excursus sur la creation del’alphabet grec.” In J. P. Crielaard, ed. Homeric Questions: Essays in Philology,Ancient History and Archaeology, Including the Papers of a Conference Organizedby the Netherlands Institute at Athens (15 May 1993), 1–92. Amsterdam.

Sanchez, M. V. 1997. “El lexico musical en los himnos homericos.” In F. R. Adrados andA. M. Dıez, eds. IX congreso espanol de estudios clasicos. Vol. 2, 259–64. Madrid.

Schmitt, R. 1967. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden.Sgarbi, R. 1996. “Per un’interpretazione unitaria del campo lessicale di aeido.” Aevum

70.1: 17–19.Shaitanov, I. 2001. “Alexander Veselovsky’s Historical Poetics: Genre in Historical

Poetics.” New Literary History 32: 429–43.Shapiro, H. A. 1993. “Hipparchos and the Rhapsodes.” In C. Dougherty and L. Kurke,

eds. Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics, 92–107.Cambridge.

Slater, W. J. 1969. Lexicon to Pindar. Berlin.Steiner, D. 2007. “Feathers Flying: Avian Poetics in Hesiod, Pindar, and Callimachus.”

AJPh 128.2: 177–209.Stephanus, H. 1831–1856. Thesaurus linguae graecae ab Henrico Stephano constructus.

Paris.Struck, E. 1954. Bedeutungslehre. Grundzuge einer lateinischen und griechischen Sema-

siologie mit deutschen, franzosischen und englischen Parallelen. 2nd ed. Stuttgart.Svenbro, Jr. 1976. La parole et le marbre. Aux origines de la poetique grecque. Lund.Tell, H. 2007. “Sages at the Games: Intellectual Displays and Dissemination of Wisdom

in Ancient Greece.” CA 26.2: 249–75.Thalmann, W. G. 1984. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry.

Baltimore and London.Tigerstedt, E. N. 1970. “Furor Poeticus: Poetic Inspiration in Greek Literature before

Democritus and Plato.” JHI 31.2: 163–78.Toporov, V. N. 1981. “Die Ursprunge der indoeuropaischen Poetik.” Poetica 13.3–4:

189–251.


. 2006. “K rekonstruktsii indoevropeiskogo rituala i ritual’no-poeticheskikh for-mul (na materiale zagovorov).” In Issledovaniia po etimologii i semantike. T. 2. Indo-evropeiskie iazyki i indoevropeistika. Kn. 1, 405–38. Moscow. Originally publishedin Σηµειωτικ: Trudy po znakovym sistemam 4. Tartu, 1969, 9–43.

Veselovsky, A. N. 2006. Izbrannoe: Istoricheskaia poetika. Ed. I. O. Shaitanov. Moscow.Vine, B. 1998. Aeolic Cρπετον and Deverbative *-eto- in Greek and Indo-European.

Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachw. Vortr. und Klein. Schriften 74. Innsbruck.Voigt, E.-M. 1971. Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta. Amsterdam.Wathelet, P. 2000. “Dieux et enchantements dans l’epopee homerique.” In A. Moreau

and J.-C. Turpin, eds. La Magie, Actes du colloque international de Montpellier25–27 Mars 1999. Vol. 2, 169–84. Montpellier.

. 2004. “;Αεδω, οιδς et leurs derives dans l’epopee homerique.” In J. A. LopezFerez, ed. La lengua cientıfica griega: orıgenes, desarrollo e influencia en las lenguasmodernas europeas 3, 1–18. Madrid.

Watkins, C. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford.. 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. 2nd ed.

Boston.Welcker, F. G. 1850. “Epoden oder das Besprechen.” In Kleine Schriften. Dritter Teil,

64–88. Bonn.West, M. L. 1973a. “Indo-European Meter.” Glotta 51: 161–87.

. 1973b. “Greek Poetry 2000–700 B.C.” CQ 23: 179–92.

. 1974. Review of Nagy 1974. Phoenix 28: 457–59.

. 1981. “The Singing of Homer and the Modes of Early Greek Music.” JHS 101:113–29.

. 1986. “The Singing of Hexameters: Evidence from Epidauros.” ZPE 63: 39–46.

. 1988. “The Rise of the Greek Epic.” JHS 108: 151–72.

. 1997. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry andMyth. Oxford.

. 1999. “The Invention of Homer.” CQ 49.2 364–82.

. 2007. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford.Winnington-Ingram, R. P. 1965. Review of H. Koller, Musik und Dichtung im alten

Griechenland. CR 15.2: 193–95.

The Semantics of Aoidos

Documents

Transcript of The Semantics of Aoidos