1 Methodological Premises
The myth of Pindarâs Pythian Twelve is isolated in the Greek literary panorama. Even though a number of literary sources connect Athena with the discovery of the aulos, the goddess is credited with the invention of the nomos polykephalos only by Pindar and Nonnus. However, Nonnusâ account relies upon the Pindaric model (cf. chapter 6). The question concerning Pindarâs source(s) is apparently unsolvable (cf. chapter 5, section 2, 7). In this section any supposed issue concerning Pindarâs historical source will be left unaddressed. The methodological premise of my comparative study is that, whether the case is that Pindar invented the myth himself or that he re-elaborated a lost, pre-existing tradition, his mythological digression is built with phraseological tools, which are an inheritance from a previous stage of poetic language. I should stress here that, given the fact that the main comparandum considered in my study is an Old Indic one, such a âprevious stageâ will not be called âProto-Indo-Europeanâ,1 but simply âIndo-Europeanâ or, to use even more specific terminology, âGraeco-Aryanâ. This label refers to a stage in which Greek and Indo-Iranian were joined together. Despite the fact that both Greek and Old Indic are IE languages of old attestation, it is commonly assumed that they branched off from the IE family tree at quite a late stage. For this reason, common traits evidenced at level of âGraeco-Aryanâ may be defined as descriptively Indo-European; they are actually reconstructions projected at the level of âLate (or Recent) Indo-Europeanâ.
As already touched upon (cf. âPrefaceâ), a variety of studies successfully showed that thematic structures, collocations, and fixed combinations of lexemes work as building blocks of narrative texts in Greek and other Indo-European traditions. Due to the highly conservative character of such devices, some Pindaric phraseological usages may be traced back to the poetic stock which the Greek poetic tradition as a whole inherited from a previous linguistic phase.2 For this reason, comparative investigations that examine a set of Greek texts and different but related comparanda in parallel may be legitimately undertaken.
2 Rigveda 10.67 as a Comparandum
The following section consists of a comparison between structures and content of Pindarâs Pythian Twelve and a hymn from the Rigveda Saá¹hitÄ (RV), the oldest collection of religious hymns written in Vedic Sanskrit.3 Specifically, my choice of my main Old Indic comparandum is conditioned by a striking phraseological match RV 10.67 shares with Pythian Twelve: the collocation [godâinventâ¯s (: findâ¯s)âmelody/songâmultiple-headsadj./gen.].
Although Pindarâs text does not preserve the collocation in this exact form, it can be reconstructed as such on the basis of 22â23 of Pythian Twleve (cf. chapter 4, sections 3â4, chapter 5, section 2, 22â23):
εá½Ïεν Î¸Îµá½¹Ï Î á¼Î»Î»á½± νιν εá½Ïοá¿Ï á¾½ á¼Î½Î´Ïá½±Ïι θναÏοá¿Ï á¼Ïειν ,ὠνύμαÏεν κεÏαλᾶν Ïολλᾶν νόμον
Here the creation of the nomos as a ânamed nomosâ, i.e. as a distinct and recognizable tune that can be referenced, is simultaneous with the creation of the nomos itself (cf.
RV 10.67.1abimÄÌá¹ dhÃyaá¹ saptáÅÄ«rá¹£á¹Ä«m pitÄÌ narÌ¥táprajÄtÄm brÌ¥hatÄ«Ìm avindat
This seven-headed poetic thought here, born of truth and lofty, did our father find.
The iunctura [(BrÌ¥haspati/)pitÄÌ naḥâvedâdhÄ«Ì-acc.âsaptáÅÄ«rá¹£an-fem.acc.sg.] is a phraseological structure, which consists of a relatively free combination of lexemes (i.e. a collocation) and makes reference to the main event of a certain myth. Henceforth I designate collocations of this description as base collocations. Before proceeding further, I need to give a brief clarification with respect to this terminological choice.
In this study, I intentionally avoid the expression âbasic formulaâ, coined by Renou (1934:110â111) and consecrated by Calvert Watkinsâ seminal book How to Kill a Dragon (= Watkins 1995). In this work, Watkins (1995:10, 308â311) identifies the expression [heroâkillâ¯sâserpent] as a âbasic formulaâ, i.e. a verbal expression, which summarizes the core-event of a myth. I do not concur with this terminology because it may create confusion with the notion of âformulaâ. A formula is âa group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential ideaâ (Parry 1930:80), therefore âa formula is a fixed phrase conditioned by the traditional themes of oral poetry. The formula is to the form as the theme is to the contentâ (Nagy 1996:18). As Watkinsâ definition makes evident (see above), a âbasic formulaâ is not recognizable as a formula: it can be employed to âexpress a given essential ideaâ, but it is not used âunder the same metrical conditionsâ. For this reason, I choose the label base collocation to refer to âa relatively free combination of lexemes, which sums up the main event of a certain mythâ. I should also make clear that my use of the term âbaseâ and my choice to present the collocations in small capitals between squared brackets does not intend to suggest that a base collocation automatically reflects an âoriginalâ or âproto-stageâ of something which is historically attested. On the contrary, a scheme [xâyâz etc.] provides a sort of model description of a phraseological complex, which summarizes the core-event of a narration found in two or more IE traditions where it is expressed by a set of nearly synonymous lexemes. Put simply, the aim of my terminology is to stress that base collocations allow considerable flexibiliy for the lexical renewal and the syntax of their elements and, unlike formulas, do not correlate in a fixed way with metrical patterns.
3 Similia inter dissimilia
The similarity between the base collocations of P. 12.22â23 and RVÂ 10.67.1ab is impressive: not only are divine figures of the Greek and the Vedic tradition connected with a musical/poetic discovery, but their newly invented work of art is associated with the notion of [head]. The Greek and Old Indic phraseological structures may be schematically presented as follows:
Chart 1
Collocation [godâinventâ¯s (: findâ¯s)âartistic creationacc.âmultiple-headsadj./gen.]
|
god |
invents (: finds) |
artistic creationacc. |
multiple-headsadj./gen. |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gk. |
( |
( |
|
âof many headsâ |
|
Ved. |
(BrÌ¥haspati/)pitÄÌ naḥ |
ved (avindat) |
dhÃyam |
saptáÅÄ«rá¹£á¹Ä«m âseven-headedâ |
At the same time, however, the two iuncturae occur in the framework of diverse mythological narratives: the myth in Pythian Twelve associates Athenaâs musical invention with Perseusâ killing of the Gorgon, whereas RV 10.67 connects BrÌ¥haspatiâs invention with the Vala-myth, a cattle-raid episode. The two myths greatly differ in content and cannot be directly traced back to a common Indo-European mythological antecedent.
In particular, it has long been noted that the Greek saga of Perseus is heterogeneous in nature. It includes a variety of folk-tale motifs4 as well as components of both IE and non-IE origin. In this connection, scholars almost unanimously agree upon the Near Eastern provenience of some distinctive elements of Perseusâ deed and equipment:
-
The word
κίβιÏÎ¹Ï âleather pouchâ, which commonly denotes a pouch or satchel carried by Perseus is interpreted by Hesychius (κ 2600 LC) as a Cypriot dialect word that was probably borrowed from Hebrew qbá¹£ âgatherâ (cf. Lewy 1895:91).5 -
Perseusâ sickle, Gk.
á¼ ÏÏη , has been compared by Hopkins (1934:348) to the royal weapon of kings in Byblos.6
Additionally, Hopkins (1934)7 convincingly explains how a variety of distinctive traits of the Gorgon ultimately derive from the Assyrian figure of Humbaba, the guardian of the cedar forests, whom Gilgamesh and Enkidu kill:8
-
Just like the Greek monster creature, Humbaba is always represented frontally, with a grinning face. His figurative portrayal matches the literary one, cf. Huwawa BÂ 90â95 âthe warrior whose face is a lionâs grimaceâ.9
-
The Assyrian representations of Humbabaâs death may also lie at the basis of the typical knielaufend pose of the Gorgon. Comparison between the Cyprian cylinder from Bode Museum Berlin, VAÂ 2145 (a hero with a sickle, looking backwards, i.e. resembling Perseus, kills a kneeling enemy) and the Assyrian cylinder from Bode Museum, Berlin, VAÂ 4215 (two heroes kill a kneeling enemy, probably a demon) suggests that the Greek iconographic pattern of the kneeling enemy who is about to die derives from a Near Eastern model.
-
In further support of Hopkinsâ (1934) hypothesis I would like to stress a remarkable parallel: Humbaba is said to possess a âdeadly gazeâ, cf. Huwawa AÂ 123 igi mu-ci-in-bar igi uc2-a-kam âwhen he looks at someone, it is the look of deathâ, a characteristic which perfectly parallels Medusaâs power. Gk.
ÎοÏγώ and the adjectiveγοÏÎ³á½¹Ï often combine with terms belonging to the semantic field of eyesight, cf. Il. 8.349, 11.36, Aeschl. Sept. 537+.10 -
Medusa and Humbaba die in similar ways: Enkidu beheads Humbaba and puts his head in a leather bag, cf. Huwawa AÂ 178â180.
-
Significantly, both Medusaâs and Humbabaâs heads later became apotropaic symbols within their respective cultural settings.11
The complex background of the mythological comparanda and the macroscopic differences the Pindaric and the Vedic texts display invite us to carefully investigate to what extent Pindarâs context and his phraseological usages truly resemble the Old Indic ones.
4 Comparative Plan
My comparative investigation proceeds as follows: In chapter 8 (âBrÌ¥haspati and the Poetic Vision of Seven Heads. Rigveda 10.67: Text and Commentaryâ), I introduce Rigveda 10.67 without taking into account non-Old Indic comparanda. The hymn, which is presented in translation, is accompanied by a short commentary referencing myths and expressions connected with the Vala-myth in Vedic.
In chapter 9 (âHow to Find a Song of Multiple Heads: Collocations in Contextâ), I concentrate on different aspects of the Gorgon myth, which are associated with the episode of Perseus and Medusa in Pindar and elsewhere, both in a direct and indirect way, since some distinctive mythological features merge or, in an opposite and complementary fashion, proliferate within interconnected narratives in contrast or in apposition. In my parallel examination of the Greek and the Vedic traditions, I focus on possible shared details for:
-
Features of the enemy and his/her abode (mytho-geography);
-
Association with the base collocation [heroâkillâ¯sâserpent];
-
Association with the collocation [heroâdriveâ¯s awayâgoods (cattle, women etc.)];
-
Acoustic dimensions of the narratives.
With my analysis I seek to show that the mythological accounts associated with the figures of Perseus and the Gorgons in Greece have a variety of traits in common with the proposed Old Indic texts recounting the myths of Vala and VrÌ¥tra (i.e. RV 10.67 and others). In my conclusions (chapter 10, âMidasâ
In this book I use the term Proto-Indo-European to designate what lies at the ârootsâ of the Indo-European family tree, i.e. a linguistic stage in which no Indo-European languages had stemmed from the others. This stage can be reconstructed by including the linguistic evidence from the Anatolian and the Tocharian branches, i.e. the first branches which split from the IE family tree. On the methodological problem connected with the label(s) â(Proto-)Indo-Europeanâ see the overview provided by West 2007:19â24.
On this topic see the methodological remarks made in the âPrefaceâ of this study. Cf. also the results of Massetti 2019, discussing the Pindaric collocations of [fame/glory], [excellence/achievements (
The collection (Skr. saá¹hitÄ) of Rigvedic hymns derives from an oral tradition. Different parts of the Saá¹hitÄ are dated to different ages. Since no Rigvedic hymn mentions iron, the latest parts of the collections are to be dated earlier than 1200â1000â¯BCE, i.e. the period to which the first archaeological record of iron in northwest India is dated and the Kuru hegemony emerged (cf. Lincoln 1981, Jamison 1993, Houben 2019). As for the composition of the earliest hymns, the second half of the second millennium BCE has been proposed as an approximate date (Witzel 1997, Dunkel 2021).
On folk-tale motifs in the story (atu 300 âDragon Slayerâ, atu 581 âMagic Object and the Trollsâ), cf. Nilsson 1932:40 (cf. also NilssonâVermeule 1983), who, following Hartland 1894â1896, judges Perseusâ account as âunusually crowded with folk-tale motifsâ. For a more recent analysis of these aspects cf. Hansen 2002:119â130 (esp. 122â123), 246â251.
On
The etymology of
Cf. also Helck 1979:214â215, Burkert 1987:26â34, 1992:85â87, West 1997:454â455, Bremmer 2008:337. Obviously, alternative hypotheses about the origin of the Gorgon and her iconography have been formulated: Six 1885:94 and Pettazzoni 1921â1922 propose Egyptian parallels for the Gorgonâs headâs iconography (namely: the god Bes, the goddess Hathor). Robbins Dexter (2010) claims that Medusaâs figure results from a merger between the Neolithic goddess of Old Europeans, non-IE (i.e. Near-Eastern) features, and IE elements.
As a recent reference cf. Graff 2012.
On the influence of the iconographic type of Humbabaâs head on the gorgoneion cf. Giuliano 1959â1960, Karaghiorga 1970.
The parallel is also noted by West 1997:454.
On Medusaâs head as an apotropaic symbol cf. Neira 2015. Humbabaâs head may have acquired an apotropaic value, since the demon is invoked in prayers for protection, cf. Thureau-Dangin 1925:26, Graff 2013.