SHOWING PRAISE IN

GREEK CHORAL LYRIC AND BEYOND

Alexander Nikolaev

u
For Gregory Nagy on his seventieth birthday

Abstract. In this article I examine several passages in Greek choral lyric where
the verb δείκνυμι is construed with a direct object meaning “song” or “hymn” and
show that this usage finds an exact parallel in the Rigveda, where the cognate root
dis;- is likewise employed with “song (of praise)” as its object. Greek δεῖξαι ὕμνον,
μέλος, etc., “to show forth song (of praise),” is thus argued to be an archaism of
the melic poetry that goes back to the Indo-European poetic language. The use
of Latin dı\co\ of reciting verse (dı\cere carmen) or singing praise (dı\cere laude\s)
in Augustan poets may continue the same inherited phraseology. Finally, based
on these results I argue that the long problematic epithet ἀριδείκετος contains
the root of δείκνυμι (and not of δέκομαι) and should be interpreted as “famous,
well worth singing of, well worth praising (in song).”

1. The purpose of this article is to offer an interpretation for

several poorly understood passages in Greek choral lyric by examining
them in the comparative context of Indo-European poetics. This is rarely
done for lyric poetry (as opposed to archaic epic), simply because these
texts are not as old, but this method is a priori worthwhile: according
to a widely held belief, the traditions of Greek lyric preserve metrical
structures of higher antiquity than the epic hexameter1 and one would
therefore expect to find comparable poetic archaisms in these traditions.
In fact, as this article will seek to show, there are still cases in the study
of Greek literature where Karl Lehrs’ sixth commandment for classi-
cal philologists, “thou shalt not grab around for Sanskrit roots,” can be
violated with profit.2
The crux in question is a peculiar use of the verb δείκνυμι “to show,”
found in the following passages.

1
 See, e.g., Nagy 1974; Berg 1978.
2
 Lehrs 1902: “Du sollst nicht Sanskritwurzeln klauben.”

American Journal of Philology 133 (2012) 543–572 © 2012 by The Johns Hopkins University Press
544 alexander nikolaev

1.1. Alcman 59 (b) 3 Davies (= 149 Calame):

τοῦτο αδειᾶν ἔδειξε Μωσᾶν

δῶρον μάκαιρα παρσένων
ἁ ξανθὰ Μεγαλοστράτα3
The yellow haired Megalostrata,
blessed among girls,
ἔδειξε (Campbell: displayed) this gift of the sweet Muses4

Megalostrata, only known from this fragment, was in all likelihood the
chore\gos in a partheneion from which these verses are quoted by Ath-
enaeus (13.601a). Since the expression δῶρον Μωσᾶν is a usual kenning
for “music,” “song,” or “poetry,”5 we have to ask ourselves what exactly
ἔδειξε Μωσᾶν δῶρον means in the present context.6 One possibility
would be to interpret these lines as reflecting the pedagogical function
of the lyric chorus: Megalostrata could be both leading the procession
and instructing the younger members of the chorus, such that she could
“show” or “reveal” to the choreuts the gift of the Muses.7 Another way
to understand the fragment would be to assume that the verb δείκνυμι
was chosen in order to emphasize Megalostrata’s role as a performer or
presenter, different from that of the poet.8 But Archytas9, the source of

3
 Transmitted via Ath. 13.601a, where cod. A has τοῦθ’ ἁδειᾶν Μουσᾶν ἔδειξε; the word
order adopted in modern editions was first suggested by Wilamowitz who sought to eliminate
a sequence of six heavy syllables and restore a catalectic iambic trimeter.
4
 Loeb translations have been used here and below, where available. Otherwise,
translators are noted.
5
 Cf. Archil. 1.2: καὶ Μουσέων ἐρατὸν δῶρον ἐπιστάμενος (“and skilled in the lovely gift
of the Muses”); Hes. Th. 103: ταχέως δὲ παρέτραπε δῶρα θεάων (“for quickly the gifts of the
goddesses have turned it (scil. κήδεα) aside”); Sol. 13.51 West: ἄλλος Ὀλυμπιάδων Μουσέων
πάρα δῶρα διδαχθείς (“and another man is taught the gifts of the Olympian Muses”) etc.;
see Nünlist 1998, 327. It should be noted, however, that to my knowledge we do not find
“the gift of the Muses” used of a song composed or performed.
6
 An unlikely interpretation on the fragment is offered by Ritoók 1983, 37, according
to whom Megalostrata played the role of the poet’s personal muse and as such contributed
to his creative process.
7
 E.g., Aloni 1994, 88, n. 120 (trans.: “insegnò”). For this use of δείκνυμι, cf. h. Cer.
475–77, δεῖξε . . . δρησμοσύνην θ’ ἱερῶν καὶ ἐπέφραδεν ὄργια πᾶσι (“showed them her ritual
service and taught her mysteries to all”). On the pedagogical function of chore\gos and/or
the poet, see Calame 2001, 221–44.
8
 E.g., Marzullo 1964, who argues that Alcman specifically refers to Megalostrata as
an “esecutrice” and not as a fellow poet (followed by Janni 1965, 110, n. 38).
9
 Either Archytas of Tarentum, the famous Pythagorean philosopher, or Archytas of
Mytilene, a musician known from D. S. 8.83.
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 545

Athenaeus for this passage, explicitly says that Megalostrata was a poet
(and apparently an excellent conversationalist, namely, a master of the
spoken word) (13.600f):

Λέγει δὲ καὶ ὡς τῆς Μεγαλοστράτης οὐ μετρίως ἐρασθείς ποιητρίας μὲν οὔσης,

δυναμένης δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν ὁμιλίαν τοὺς ἐραστὰς προσελκύσασθαι
He also says that he ( = Alcman) fell in passionate love with Megalostrata
who was a poetess capable of attracting lovers by her conversation

It is not immediately clear how much trust we should vest in this testimony.
On the one hand, the idea of Alcman’s fatal attraction to Megalostrata
is almost certainly either Archytas’ or Chamaeleon’s10 own invention
based on a misinterpretation of Alcm. 59 (a) Davies (= 148 Calame) as
a statement of personal involvement on the part of the poet himself.11
But on the other hand, it is far from clear why in the first place Archytas
would need to fabricate a story that Megalostrata, one of Alcman’s many
lovers according to his presentation, was a poet.
The possibility thus remains open that Megalostrata was described
by Alcman as a fellow poet who performed together with the chorus (Sap-
pho comes to mind). But even if ἔδειξε Μωσᾶν δῶρον should refer to her
performance (and not composition) of poetry and music, this would still
be a highly peculiar use of the verb δείκνυμι; and yet, there are parallels,
including in Alcman himself.
1.2. Alcman 4 fr. 1.4–8 Davies (= 57 Calame):

σαυ]μαστὰ δ’ ἀνθ[
γαρύματα μαλσακὰ ˘ [
νεόχμ’ ἔδειξαν τερπ ˘[
ποικίλα φ.[.]ρᾰ [˘ .].αι·[
θαυ]μαστὰ Lobel, σαυ]μαστὰ Page; ἀνθ[ρώποις dub. Lobel, Calame
ἔδιξαν P. Οxy 2388 fr.1 : ἔδειξαν Lobel : ἐδίδαξαν Calame12

10
 Fr. 25 Wehrli: Athenaeus quotes (or paraphrases) Archytas from Chamaeleon’s
biography of Alcman (ὥς φησι Χαμαιλέων). The peripatetic Chamaeleon seems to have had
a keen interest in anecdotes about the poets’ private lives, and there are reasons to believe
that in his writings he invented some of the biographical details based on his analysis of
the poets’ own work; see Podlecki 1969, 120–24; Momigliano 1971, 80.
11   
 Ἔρως με δηὖτε Κύπριδος έκατι / γλυκὺς κατείβων καρδίαν ἰαίνει (“at the command of
the Cyprian, Eros once again pours sweetly down and warms my heart,” Janni 1965, 107–10).
12
 For arguments against Calame’s emendation, see Davies 1986 and Maehler 1997,
317, n. 1.
546 alexander nikolaev

and wonderful soft utterances

they ἔδειξαν (Campbell: revealed) new to men
. . . delight . . . intricate

Lobel’s tentative reading θαυ]μαστὰ ἀνθ[ρώποις in l. 4 looks extremely

compelling and together with ποικίλα (l. 8) makes it virtually certain that
γαρύματα μαλσακά means here not “soft sounds,” but rather “soft songs.”13
Parallels for the use of μαλ(θ)ακός cited by Calame (1983, 423–24) lend
additional support to this interpretation; compare especially Pi. N. 9.48–49:

νεοθαλὴς δ’ αὔξεται
μαλθακᾷ νικαφορία σὺν ἀοιδᾷ
victory increases with new bloom
to the accompaniment of gentle song

It seems certain that Alcman’s passage contained some discussion of

poetic production; once again, the verb δεῖξαι refers to what a poet (or
poets) do with songs.14

13
 LSJ cites Aesch. Eum. 569 as the prima facie evidence for the meaning “sound,”
but γήρυμα might here just as well be translated “song (of the trumpet)”: (Τυρσηνικὴ  |
σάλπιγξ . . . ὑπέρτονον γήρυμα φαινέτω στρατῷ (“Let the Tyrrhenian trumpet send forth its
loud song to the crowd!”). Likewise, in Eur. fr. 627 Kannicht, “(oracular) verses” is the most
likely meaning (εἰσὶ<ν> γὰρ εἰσὶ διφθέραι μελαγγραφεῖς | πολλῶν γέμουσαι Λοξίου γηρυμάτων).
14
 It has been argued that the missing subject of ἔδειξαν are Alcman’s precedessors,
certain πρῶτοι εὑρεταί, and the verb means “revealed” (in the sense of διδάσκω, see above, n.
7); see Davies 1986; Segal 1985, 185; Bagordo 2000, 194. This idea is based on a restoration
of Terpander’s name in line 6 (τερπ ˘[), first proposed by Lobel 1957, 23, in the editio prima
and later approved by Treu 1964, 120; indeed, Terpander was credited with the invention
of the barbitos, the citharoedic nomos and with many other musical innovations. The plural
ἔδειξαν would seem to require a mention of at least one other famous citharode likewise
qualifiable as a πρῶτος εὑρετής and there is no shortage of possible candidates, for instance,
Thaletas or Xenodamus (the first to compose paeans and hyporchemata, [Plut.] De mus.
1134b–c), Clonas or Polymnestos (the inventors of the aulodic nomos, [Plut.] De mus.
1132c–d), or Xenocritus (the inventor of the “Locrian” mode, sch. Pi. Ol. 10 Drachmann).
Yet, two reasons render Lobel’s restoration (and with it Davies’ ingenious argument)
unlikely: first, assuming the meter of the verse is iambic (νεόχμ’ ἔδειξαν τερπ˘[), the syllable
following τερπ˘[ must have been light (which is why Lobel’s Τέρπ[ανδρος was declined in
PMG); note that the metrical structure of the remainder of this long verse, which under
Lobel–Davies’ theory must have mentioned a second poet’s name, remains wholly unclear
(even though some hypothetical supplements, e.g., τε καὶ (or: ἠδὲ) Θαλήτας—hypercatalectic
iambic trimeter?—would restore the iambic rhythm). Second, and perhaps more importantly,
it is unclear why Alcman, who floruit in the last decades of the seventh century (West 1965),
would use the language reserved for the gods or mythical figures from the dim past (such
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 547

1.3. This peculiar use of the verb recurs in Pindar (Pi. I. 8.47,
Snell–Maehler):

   καὶ νεαρὰν ἔδειξαν σοφῶν

στόματ’ ἀπείροισιν ἀρετὰν Ἀχιλέος
And the voices of the wise
ἔδειξαν (Race: made known, Farnell: revealed)
the youthful excellence of Achilles
to those who had been unaware of it

One tradition of interpreting this passage has been to assume a refer-

ence to a prophecy made by certain sages soon after Achilles’ birth
about his future excellence and concerning the fact that Troy could not
be taken without him.15 (The use of δείκνυμι in this case would not be
surprising.) But this interpretation is unlikely; describing someone who
expects to receive a prophecy as ignorant (ἄπειρος) about the content of
the forthcoming message would be strange, to say the least.16 Rather, as
was seen already by Dissen, we find here the familiar topos of Achilles’
κλέος preserved through the medium of song.17 Pindar’s σοφοί are poets
of earlier times (as elsewhere in Pindar),18 and ἄπειροι refers to their
audience. The question is what activity exactly is described by ἔδειξαν.
Did the poets merely “demonstrate” Achilles’ valor or did they praise it
in song?19 One way of interpreting the passage would be to assume that

as the “wizards of Ida” in a fragment from Phoronis 1.5–7 cited by Davies: ἔργον ἔδειξαν)
for poets who must have been active in his own lifetime: Terpander, it is true, was older (he
was victorious at the Carnea in 676/673 b.c.e.) and so probably was Clonas, but other early
lyricists mentioned above are said to have belonged into the generation after Terpander.
To sum up, there is little to recommend the supplement Τέρπ[ανδρος and with it the theory
that the verb ἔδειξαν in Alcm. 4 fr. 1 refers to πρῶτοι εὑρεταί; instead, one could restore a
form of the adjective τερπνός, potentially construed with γαρύματα above (cf. Sa. 160: τάδε
νῦν ἐταίραις ταὶς ἔμαις τέρπνα κάλως ἀείσω), or of the verb τέρπω.
15
 Farnell 1930, 230; Thummer 1968–69, vol. 2, 137.
16
 This problem was noticed by Radt 1972, 198: “bezieht Thummer σοφῶν στόματ’
auf “prophetisches Lob an der Wiege,” was schon durch ἀπείροισιν ausgeschlossen ist.”
17
 Dissen 1821, 547; Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1922, 199–200; Carey 1981, 200.
18
 Cf. P. 3.113 (σοφοί ἐπέων τέκτονες, “wise craftsmen of verses”), I. 5.28 (where the
poet is called σοφιστάς) or the much discussed O. 2.86–88, where the poet is praised as a
wise man who understands many things intuitively (σοφὸς ὁ πολλὰ εἰδὼς φυᾶι) and con-
trasted with those who have merely “learned” (μαθόντες). See Untersteiner 1956, 113–14,
for ample parallels (a propos of Xen. 1.12).
19
 Taccone 1934, 287: “laudarono”; Lattimore 1976, 157: “published”; Privitera 1982,
133: “mostrarono”; Burnett 2005, 116: “the songs men still sing about the deeds of the son.”
548 alexander nikolaev

ἀρετά stands here metonymically for “fame” (ἀρετᾶς κλέος).20 But even
without endorsing this solution we can see that the verb ἔδειξαν is, once
again, applied to poetic activity.
1.4. The second Pindaric passage we will examine comes from the
poem formerly known as “Hymn to Zeus,”21 which opened Pindar’s
Alexandrian edition (fr. 29–35 Snell–Maehler). The current orthodoxy
is that this hymn contained one (or several) embedded theocosmogoni-
cal songs, delivered by Apollo and the Muses at the wedding of Cadmus
and Harmonia. Our primary interest here is fragment 32 that may have
preceded the song-within-the-song; the primary source for the fragment
is Aelius Aristides (Aristid. Or. 3.620 Lenz–Behr):22

κἀν τοῖς ὕμνοις διεξιὼν περὶ τῶν ἐν ἅπαντι τῷ χρόνῳ συμβαινόντων παθημάτων
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ τῆς μεταβολῆς τὸν Κάδμον φησὶν ἀκοῦσαι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος
“μουσικὰν ὀρθὰν ἐπιδεικνυμένου”
but even in the Hymns when Pindar narrates the sufferings and change
befalling men throughout time, he says that Cadmus heard Apollo
“ἐπιδεικνύναι correct music”

We know from other fragments assigned to the hymn on the grounds of

content and meter that Apollo and the Muses sang about Themis and her
union with Zeus (fr. 30), Leto and the birth of Apollo (fr. 33 cd), birth of
Athena (fr. 34), and the release of the Titans (fr. 35). This rich program
would hardly leave the god any time to instruct Cadmus in the art of
music, which is the reason why Mommsen’s translation of ἐπιδεικνύναι here
as “lehren” lacks conviction.23 Unlikely, too, is Fontenrose’s suggestion
that the fragment contains a reference to the oracle Cadmus received at
Delphi.24 Even supposing that in this hymn Pindar told a portion of the

20
 As elsewhere in Pindar, e.g., O. 7.89; 8.6; N. 10.2, even though ἀρετά in these pas-
sages refers to athletic achievements.
21
 Snell’s classic account of the fragments (1946 [1953]) is now superseded by
D’Alessio 2005 and 2009, who has convincingly argued that the hymn was addressed to
Apollo rather than Zeus.
22
 Aristides’ testimony is backed up by Plutarch who quotes the Pindaric fragment
twice: once in a discussion of harmony (Mor. 1030A) and another time in order to compare
the Sibyl’s passionless utterances to the purity of Apollo’s “right music” (Mor. 397A).
23
 Mommsen 1846, 192. Mommsen’s translation is based on Boeckh’s edition in
which our fragment had already been joined with fr. 29 S.–M. where the mention is made
of Cadmus’ wedding; Boeckh 1821, 563, translates “Deum audivit Cadmus musicam rectam
proponentem.”
24
 Fontenrose 1978, 359.
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 549

Cadmean saga and that our fragment belongs to this part of the poem,
the choice of the word μουσική would remain wholly unclear. As to more
neutral translations such as “Cadmus heard Apollo giving a display of
correct music” (Hardie 2000), “making a display of” (Slater 1969), or
“giving a specimen of” (LSJ), their chief drawback, in my opinion, is
that they focalize ὀρθή as if Apollo was using the occasion of the wed-
ding to promulgate the correctness of his art, while the real focus of the
fragment is on μουσική; Cadmus was listening to Apollo (and the Muses)
singing the theogony.25
The argument just offered is tainted by the fact that we are deal-
ing with a text almost exclusively transmitted in quotations, and much
depends on the correctness of the attribution of our fragment to this
text and the details of its placement in the poem. Time will show if the
reconstruction of Pindar’s first hymn by Boeckh, Snell, D’Alessio, and
others is correct, but if it is, we get another example of (-)δείκνυμι mean-
ing “to perform, to sing poetry.”
1.5. The next passage illustrating the use of δείκνυμι that we are
interested in comes from Bacchylides (Bacch. fr. 15 Maehler):

Οὐχ ἕδρας ἔργον οὐδ’ ἀμβολᾶς,

   ἀλλὰ χρυσαίγιδος Ἰτωνίας
χρὴ παρ’ εὐδαίδαλον ναὸν ἐλ-
θόντας ἁβρόν τι δεῖξαι ∪ –
4   μέλος suppl. Blass
This is no time for sitting still or tarrying,
but we must go to the richly-built temple
of Itonia of the golden aegis
and δεῖξαι (Campbell: display; Jebb: show forth)
a delicate (song / dance)

The critical final iambus is missing from the passage as quoted by

Dion. Hal. Comp. 25.26 Even though ἁβρόν τι alone would not be totally

25
 ἐπιδεικνύναι in Aristides’ text was translated as “perform” by Behr 1986, 266. As
to ὀρθή, Hardie 2000, 30, may well be right in comparing Apolline μουσικὰν ὀρθάν with
ὀρθαί pillars that rose from the earth to support Delos and provide stable ground for the
birth of Apollo (fr. 33d.5); according to Hardie, ὀρθός here conveys the idea of stability
and harmony that overcomes chaos.
26
 A grammarian quotes the first line of the fragment to illustrate what he calls a “cretic
meter” (Analecta Gramm. Keil 7.21); the second and third line scan as – ∪ – – ∪ ∪ ∪ – ∪ –
(with a resolved cretic in the second foot: “first paeon”) and – ∪ – – ∪ – – ∪ –, respectively.
550 alexander nikolaev

a­ wkward as the object of the verb, the supplement will still likely have to
be governed by the verb, and Blass’ conjecture μέλος27 is very attractive.
We know from other sources that cite the beginning of this poem that it
was a hyporcheme,28 i.e., a dance-song (τὸ μετ’ ὀρχήσεως ᾁδόμενον μέλος
in Proclus’ definition; see Procl. Chr. 320b33). This is the reason why
Jebb’s (1905, 459) and Borthwick’s (1970, 324–27) concerns about the
use of ἁβρός to describe the movement of male dancers are unfounded:
the adjective applies here not only to dance, but also to song and music,
where it is entirely appropriate (cf. ἁβρῶς ψάλλω Anacr. 28.2; ὑμνεῖν ἁβρῶς
Stesich. 35.2).
The theme of the poem appears to be a ritual performance at
Athena’s altar, possibly accompanying a sacrifice. Despite the lacuna
at the end, this passage constitutes perhaps the most important piece
of evidence for a very special use of δείκνυμι in choral lyric where the
agent of the verb is a singer (or, rather, a group of performers) and the
object is a song.
1.6. The final text to which we now turn is the paean to Dionysus
composed by Philodamus of Scarphea and recorded on an inscription
found at Delphi on the sixth temple of Apollo; the inscription is dated to
340/339 b.c.e. by a subscription naming Etymondas as archon.29 This text
has an interesting purpose: it legitimizes a religious innovation, namely,
the introduction of year-round Dionysiac worship in Delphi, within an
Apolline context and in Apolline terms. Lines 110–14 form a part of
Apollo’s command to the Amphictyones:30

       (θεὸς κελεύει. . .)
δε[ῖξαι]31 δ’ ἐγ ξενίοις ἐτεί-
οις θεῶν ἱερῷ γένει συναίμῳ
τόνδ’ ὕμνον, θυσίαν δὲ φαί-
νει[ν] σὺν Ἑλλάδος ὀλβίας
πα[νδ]ήμοις ἱκετείαις.
The god commands to δεῖξαι (Furley–Bremer: present)
this hymn for his brother
to the family of gods,

27
 Blass 1899, 166, n. 15.
28
 Athen. 14.30 (3,393.8 Kaibel); Analecta Gramm. as above.
29
 On Philodamus and his poem, see Rainer 1975; Käppel 1992, 207–84; Furley and
Bremer 2001, vol. 1, 121–28; vol. 2, 53–84.
30
 Text and translation follow Furley and Bremer 2001, vol. 1, 122; vol. 2, 55.
31
 The supplement is due to Weil 1895, the first editor of the poem.
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 551

on the occasion of the annual feast of hospitality

and to make a public sacrifice
on the occasion of the panhellenic supplications of blessed Hellas

Weil (1895, 407) suggested that the phrase δεῖξαι . . . τόνδε ὕμνον meant
“saluer le dieu par une hymne” (~ δείκνυσθαι ὕμνῳ). This solution is not
very satisfactory, both for reasons of syntax and sense. A straightforward
translation, “sing this hymn” or “perform this hymn,” appears much
more appealing, especially in view of the passages discussed above.32
It is important to emphasize that while adapting a new poetic form for
praising Dionysus (paean instead of a dithyramb), Philodamus is using
traditional formulaic elements firmly embedded in the former genre. We
can therefore safely assume that δεῖξαι ὕμνον goes back to the traditional
stock of melic vocabulary and is quite possibly just as old as δεῖξαι γάρυμα
in Alcman.
1.7. We can now take stock: in six passages from Alcman, Pindar,
Bacchylides, and Philodamus, we find an unexpected use of the verb
δείκνυμι construed with a direct object meaning “song, music, song of
praise” (ὕμνον, γάρυμα, μέλος, ἀρετά (= ἀρετᾶς κλέος), δῶρον Μωσᾶν,
μουσικά).33 To my knowledge, despite sharing this common property, these

32
 Käppel 1992 translates “zeigen” on 221, but later writes “soll . . . dieses Lied gezeigt
(= aufgeführt) werden” (253).
33
 Other examples of δείκνυμι, δεῖξαι used in the meaning “praise, sing (a hymn)” are
either much later (e.g., πῶς χρὴ τεὰν ἰσχύν τε δεῖξαι καὶ κ ˘ρ˘ά˘ τ ˘[ος;] from a hymn to Tyche (P.
Berol. 9734, l. 3; 3d cent. c.e.), noted by Gonda 1929, 25) or too uncertain to use for our
purposes (e.g., the beginning of an epigram from the temple of Magna Mater in Phaistos
with its interesting and possibly archaic, but obscure use of προδίκνυτι: θαῦμα μέγ’ ἀνθρώποις
πάντων Μάτηρ προδίκνυτι· / τοῖς ὁσίοις κίνχρητι (2d cent. b.c.e.; IC 1.23.3 = OF 568); the
recent translation “performs [a marvel] by example” (Tzifopoulos 2011, 180) lacks conviction.
It is also unclear to me at the moment whether the interpretation of the much-discussed
passage Theog. 769–72 (ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν μῶσθαι, τὰ δὲ δεικνύναι, ἄλλα δὲ ποιεῖν) is affected by my
arguments; see the discussion and references in Ford 1985; Woodbury 1991; Bagordo 2000.
Finally, one more Greek text needs to be mentioned here, namely, the proem of
Herodotus’ Histories with its vexing ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις. Without treating this problem in any
detail, let it suffice to mention here just one point of view which makes the Herodotean
usage directly relevant for our purposes: according to Nagy 1990, 217–24, who sees the
Histories as “the product of conventions in an oral tradition of prose,” Herodotus is seeking
to achieve the same objective as an epic poet, namely, to confer a lasting fame, κλέος; under
this theory the term ἀπόδεξις, interpreted as denoting a public performance that proclaims
the glorious deeds of the past (cf. μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά . . . ἀκλεᾶ γένηται in the
proem), can be compared to the use of (-)δείκνυμι studied in the present article. But this
observation merely signals a possibility; on ἀπόδεξις, see also Bakker 2002, Thomas 1993,
and Zambrini 2007 with other, sometimes very different views.
552 alexander nikolaev

passages have never been studied in conjunction with one another, which
is all the more surprising seeing as they all belong to a single genre, the
choral lyric.34 As we have seen, different solutions have been offered for
individual passages, but most are ultimately not compelling for various
reasons. Other approaches can be taken, and in the end, with a fair amount
of good will, these passages could perhaps be interpreted starting with
some of the more familiar meanings of δείκνυμι (e.g., “to display,” “to
show,” “to reveal”).35 But there is an alternative: we can adopt a unitary
translation for the forms of δείκνυμι in all the passages, namely, “to sing
(a song),” assuming that this peculiar use is a lexical archaism from the
distant past preserved in choral lyric.
2. While this hypothesis may initially seem to defy belief, it appears
to be strongly supported by comparative data: in Vedic Sankrit the
cognate verbal root dis;‑ (which normally means “show, point out”) is
likewise found construed with nouns meaning “song of praise,” as can
be illustrated by the following three stanzas:

RV 5.43.9:
prá távyaso námaüktim˘ turásya ahám pu\s ˘n˘á utá va\yór adiksĭ
ya\´ ra\´dhasa\ codita\´ra\ matı\na\´m˘ ya\´ va\´jasya dravin˘oda\´ utá tmán //
I dis;-ed (aor.; Geldner: “habe bestimmt”; Renou: “j’ai ordonné”)
this homage to mightiest, victorious Pus ăn and to Vayu,
who by their generosity inspire hymns / thoughts,
and of themselves are givers of reward

34
 The use of “choral lyric” as a cover term for all pieces discussed in the present article
is hardly objectionable: while Alcman 4 fr. 1 γαρύματα ἔδειξαν is ambiguous in respect to
the action indicated by the verb, a choral performance is very likely in the case of ­Alcman
59(b)3, Bacch. fr. 15 (where we have a plural participle ἐλθόντας) and Philodamus. Pindar’s
στόματα σοφῶν ἔδειξαν ἀρετάν Ἀχιλέος can obviously refer to different genres, most likely
to epic, but at the same time there is no problem in assuming that the poet, whose own
epinicians and paeans were in all likelihood performed by small companies of singers (see,
e.g., Carey 1991), used a terminus technicus of the choral lyric to describe the proclamation
of Achilles’ valor.
35
 For instance, it could be argued that this use of δείκνυμι can be seen as a perfor-
mative effect, a gesture of “enactment into discourse” (Calame 2004, 415), not unexpected
in choral lyric poetry which often seeks to connect the poem with the hic et nunc of its
performance by a group of dancers; but, at least in my opinion, there is a huge difference
between using pronouns and adverbs in order to refer to the location in space and time
as well as the participants in a verbal act (well studied in recent work on deixis in choral
lyric) and a lexically encoded notion of “showing” that—hypothetically—is supposed to
merge the text of the poem with its reenactment in performance.
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 553

RV 10.92.9:
stómam˘ vo adyá rudra\´ya s;íkvase ksăyádvı\ra\ya námasa\ didist̆ ăna
͝ ˙ evaya\´vabhir diváh˘ sísăkti sváyas;a\ níka\mabhih˘ //
yébhih˘ s;iváh˘ sváva\m
Today you should dis;- (imper.; Geldner: “zeiget”; Renou: “assignez”)
with reverence your song of praise to skillful Rudra, the ruler of men,
and to those eager ones36 together with whom the auspicious one,
self-bright, providing protection, comes down from the sky,
to them, the devoted ones

RV 8.102.13 (= KS 40.14.149.20):
úpa tva\ ja\máyo gíro dédis;atı\r havisk̆r;≈tah˘
va\yór ánı\ke asthiran //
The sisters, who constantly dis;‑ the hymns
of him who prepares the oblation in front of Vayu, have come to you37

On the strength of these examples we may conclude that in the Rigveda

dis;- is one of the roots referring to the “symbiotic relationship” (West
2007, 30) between laudandus and laudator; it encoded the offering of
praise (in form of a song) by a poet to a god on behalf of his patron.38

36
 Literally: “to Rudra together with those eager ones.”
37
 The last passage, featuring a participle made from the intensive stem dédis;-, is
particularly difficult, and the translation given above differs from the standard one by
Geldner (“die immer wieder auf dich hinweisen”). A few notes on the proposed transla-
tion will be in order. First, úpa tva\ asthiran (“have come unto thee”) is unproblematic, cf.
RV úpa tva\ imasi, úpa tva\ yantu. As an alternative, úpa tva\ can be construed either with
gíro dédis;atı\h ˘ (“showing hymns forth to you”) or both with the verb and the participle
apo koinou: “the sisters, who constantly show hymns forth to you, have come to you”).
Second, the presence of Vayu, god of wind, in the passage from a hymn, the main addressee
of which is Agni, is not surprising: Vayu is the first god to taste any oblation as its smoke
rises up in the air. Third, ja\máyah˘ (“those of kin, sisters”), just as in RV 1.23.6, refers to the
waters which appear in the next verse. Last, the reader should be warned that havisk̆r≈;tah˘
(“oblation-bearer”) is problematic under any interpretation: in the translation above the
form is analyzed as gen. sg. construed with gírah˘ (“hymns”), but it could also be a genitive
construed with the ja\máyah˘ (“sisters”), a nominative plural agreeing with ja\máyah˘ or an
accusative plural agreeing with gírah.̆ I would like to thank Stephanie Jamison for a very
helpful discussion of this passage.
38
 It is interesting to note that in Indo-Iranian poetic language, the root *dai ÷c;- is also
used in the meaning “to offer reward / remuneration (to a poet).” For the Rigveda, cf. the
following stanzas praising the generosity of the poet’s patron (da\nastutis): RV 5.36.6ab,
yó róhitau va\jínau va\jínı\va\n . . . ádist̆ ă (“[S:rutáratha] who, rich in gifts, granted me two
victorious red horses”); RV 10.93.15, [maghávatsu] ádhı\◊n nv átra saptatím˘ ca saptá ca sadyó
didist̆ă ta\◊nvah˘ / sadyó didist̆ă pa\rthyáh˘ sadyó didist̆ă ma\yaváh˘ (“[generous patrons:] seven
554 alexander nikolaev

This usage of the verb dis;- in the Rigveda, possibly shared by Avestan,39
has not been noticed before, as far as I can tell.40
Vedic dis;- construed with a noun meaning “song of praise” (stómam˘ /
námaüktim˘ / gírah˘)41 corresponds rather neatly to Greek δεῖξαι μέλος  /
ὕμνον, and it appears very likely that these two poetic figures share a
common origin. The notion of praise is less evident in the Greek passages
discussed above, but the difference in genre does not preclude the identi-

and seventy horses Tanva granted on the same day, Parthya granted on the same day and
Mayava granted on the same day”). In fact, out of thirteen occurrences of uncompounded
dis◊- in the Rigveda, eleven can or must be translated either as “to sing (a hymn),” as in the
examples above in the main text, or as “to grant (reward for a hymn).” For Avestan, cf. Vd.
9.44 (= A. 3.7–12): disiia\˜t ahma\i naire auuat˜ miždəm (“the following reward shall be allot-
ted to this man”); see Hintze 2000, 325. This meaning of Indo-Iranian *dai ÷c;- is probably a
result of independent semantic development which can be envisaged in different ways: e.g.,
Renou 1967, 99, derives the meaning “donner” from “assigner à qq’un une chose favour-
able,” while according to Hintze 2000, 238, this meaning originated in the vocabulary of
chariot racing (the prize was displayed before the competition). But regardless of the exact
details of semantic development in this case, the fact remains that in Indo-Iranian poetics,
the root *dai ÷c;- apparently came to denote both aspects of the reciprocal gift-exchange-
based relationship between the poet-sacrificer and his patron, on which see Watkins 1995,
68–84; Hintze 2004.
39
 Avestan dae\saiia-, pass. disiia- normally means to “point out, show, appoint,” but
in the Bahra\m Yašt (arguably one of the most ancient parts of the Younger Avesta), the
form fradae\saiio\iš (2sg. opt. pres.) is constructed with maçϑrəm (“poetic formula, formulated
meditation”); the reference is to the magical formula to be used as a weapon against demons,
the ritual for which finds a close parallel in the Vedic manual on magic (Kaus;ika Su\tra
2.5–7; see Sadovski 2009) (Yt. 14.46): zaraϑuštra / ae\təm maçϑrəm ma\ fradae\saiio\iš (Yt. 4.9:
fradaxšaiio\, see Insler 1962) / ainiiat˜ / piϑre va\ puϑra\i / bra\ϑre va\ haδo\.za\ta\i / a\ϑrauuana\i
va\ ϑra\iiaone / ae\tae\ca te\ va\co\ / yo\i / uγra a\s dərəzra a\s / uγra a\s viia\xaine a\s / uγra a\s
vərəϑraγne a\s / uγra a\s bae\šaziia a\s / . . . uzgərəptəmcit˜ snaϑəm apašă apa.xvanuuain˘ti //
(O Zarathustra, do not dis- this mantra other than to father (for transmission) to son, or
to brother (for transmission) to sibling, or to priest (for transmission) to ϑra\iiauuan-. And
these words of yours, which were strong and solid, were strong and eloquent, were strong
and obstruction-smashing, were strong and healing, they drive off even a raised weapon.)
The standard translation of fradae\saiio\iš here is “teach,” and it is certainly not unthinkable
for the passage. However, one cannot fail to notice that the verbs usually construed with
maçϑra- are verbs of speaking: vac-, “speak” (Y. 31.6+); framru\-, “speak forth” (Yt. 4.4+);
drəjaiia-, “recite” (Yt. 4.4+); pərəs-, “ask, recite” (Vd. 9.2). It is therefore not out of the
question that the juncture maçϑrəm fradae\saiia- originally meant something like “pronounce
a formula.” Still, this interpretation must necessarily remain conjectural.
40
 It is not discussed by Schmitt 1967, Matasovic; 1996, or West 2007; dis;- is missing
from Schlerath’s (1985) list of verbs that belong to the semantic group “singen, preisen,
rufen, verkünden.”
41
 For *gwerh2‑ (> gír‑) as an inherited term denoting “song of praise”; cf. the formula
*gwr≈h2- *dheh1‑o‑ (“to make praise”) in Vedic gíras dha\‑, Avestan garo\ da\‑, but also Proto-
Celtic *bardo‑, Middle Irish bard; see Campanile 1970–73.
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 555

fication in a diachronic perspective. The only assumption that needs to be

made is that the precursor of the root δεικ-, used in Indo-European (and
hence Vedic) hymnic poetry with the meaning “to show forth praise (for
the gods),” became employable in Greek with a somewhat wider array
of terms (not necessarily related to praise) and spread to such choral
genres as partheneia and hyporchemata.42
A clinching argument in favor of viewing the correspondence
between Vedic dis;- (stómam˘, etc.) and Greek δεῖξαι (ὕμνον, etc.), as
based on common inheritance and not on a typological coincidence or
independent development, is the unusual meaning of the verb in both
traditions. Such synchronically inexplicable meaning is the hallmark of
inherited phraseology. The Vedic and Greek passages discussed above may
appear striking if these texts are studied in isolation, but things start to
make sense once the connection is made between the two traditions, and
the problematic junctures are analyzed not as products of the poets’ own
creative thought, but as fossilized expressions going back to an ancient
poetic tradition to which both Vedic r≈sĭs and Greek aoidoi were heirs. We
have thus reconstructed an element of Indo-European poetic diction.43
3. Having established a peculiar poetic use of the root *dei÷k;- in
Indo-European on the basis of Greek and Indo-Iranian material, we can
now take a look at Roman poetry. This part of the agenda may appear
surprising, since Italic is notoriously known as the wrong branch to
explore in the search of vestiges of Indo-European poetry; the influence
of Greek literature on Latin poetry was ubiquitous, and even South Picene
epigraphic poems have been denied continuity with the Indo-European
poetic tradition.44
However, in this particular case the situation is different: dı \co\ and
most other continuants of the root *dei÷k;- in Latin and other Italic lan-
guages have the meaning “to speak, to talk, to sing”; therefore, if we are

42
 On the diachronic continuity between the inherited hymnic tradition and different
genres of Greek choral poetry, see recently Trümpy 2004; Bremer 2008. I would like to
thank the anonymous referee for raising this matter.
43
 That an archaism of poetic language should be preserved in the choral lyric but be
absent from epic poetry should not surprise us; cf. West 2007, 37, on Pindar and Bachylides:
“these two fifth-century exponents of the Dorian tradition of choral song were heirs to a
repertory of Indo-European or at least Graeco-Aryan imagery that is hardly visible in the
Ionian epic and Lesbian lyric traditions.” On Indo-European echoes in Pindar, see further
Benveniste 1945, 5–12; Watkins 1995, 81–84, 537–39; 2002; on Alcman, see Barnes 2011.
44
 Eichner 1988–90, 198, et passim; for a more optimistic assessment, see Watkins
1995, 126–34, who argues for the preservation of an Indo-European tradition in the South
Picene texts.
556 alexander nikolaev

to find Latin dı \c‑ / dı̆c- used with “song” or “hymn” as a direct object and
we want to regard the expression as a calque from Greek, it will have to
be based on a Hellenic model featuring a verb of speaking / singing, but
there is nothing like φήμι ὕμνον, λέγε/ο‑ μέλος, εἰπέ/ό- γάρυμα uel sim. in
Greek. At the same time, as we have seen, there are reasons to believe that
the root *dei÷k; was already employed in Indo-European poetic language
with such direct objects as “song” or “hymn,” and therefore such use of
dı̆c\ - in Latin, still hypothetical at this point, would have to be viewed as
a lexical archaism directly continuing the same inherited poetic figure
Show (*dei÷k;) Song that is reflected in Vedic Sanskrit (adiksĭ stómam˘)
and Greek (δεῖξαι ὕμνον).
3.1. To begin with the most obvious cognate of Greek δείκνυμι in
Latin, we should note that the verb dı \co\ is not quite synonymous with
loquor (“to speak, to talk”), while dı\co\ can also be used in a neutral
sense and replace loquor, the converse never happens, and the speakers
were aware of the difference, as the following passage from Cicero makes
clear (Cic. Orat. 32):

quamquam aliud videtur oratio esse aliud disputatio, nec idem loqui esse
quod dicere, ac tamen utrumque in disserendo est: disputandi ratio et loquendi
dialecticorum sit, oratorum autem dicendi et ornandi.
Although a speech is one thing and a debate another, and disputing is not
the same as speaking, and yet both are concerned with discourse—debate
and dispute are the function of the logicians; the orator’s function is to
speak ornately.

Rather, dı \co\ belongs to the solemn language of poetry and oratory where
it becomes closely allied with cano\; for instance, these two verbs are both
used by Catullus of a wedding song in one and the same poem (Catul.
62.4–5, 9–10):

iam veniet virgo, iam dicetur hymenaeus.

   Hymen o Hymenaee, Hymen ades o Hymenaee!  [. . .]
non temere exsiluere: canent quod vincere par est.
   Hymen o Hymenaee, Hymen ades o Hymenaee!
now will come the bride, now will be sung the Hymenaeus.
   Hymen O Hymenaeus, Hymen come O Hymenaeus!
nor without intent have they leapt forth;
  what they will sing, it is our task to surpass.
   Hymen O Hymenaeus, Hymen come O Hymenaeus!
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 557

This aspect of the semantics of dı \cere has been noticed before, but not its
implications.45 It becomes particularly important for the line of reason-
ing pursued in the present chapter, as we find that dı\co\ is in fact found
in the meaning “celebrate in song or poetry” (OLD 7b). Consider the
following selection of passages:

Virg. G. 2.95–96:
purpureae preciaeque, et quo te carmine dicam
Rhaetica? nec cellis ideo contende Falernis
The purple and the precian? and you, Rhaetic—how shall I sing you?
yet even so, vie not with Falernian vaults!

Hor. Carm. 4.9.19–21:

      non pugnavit ingens
Idomeneus Sthenelusve solus
dicenda Musis proelia
Great Idomeneus and Sthenelus
were not the only men to fight battles
that the Muses should extol46

Prop. 1.7.1–2:
Dum tibi Cadmeae dicuntur, Pontice, Thebae
armaque fraternae tristia militiae
Ponticus, while you sing of Cadmean Thebes,
and the bitter warfare of fraternal strife

Ov. Ars am. 1.208–10:

O desint animis ne mea verba tuis!
Tergaque Parthorum Romanaque pectora dicam
telaque, ab averso quae iacit hostis equo.
Grant that my song be not unworthy of the prowess that it
 celebrates!
I will sing of the Parthian turning to flee,
and of the Roman facing the arrows aimed at him by the flying foe.

45
 It was noted by Ernout–Meillet 1959 (s.v. dıc\ o\); see also Newman 1965, 86–89;
Habinek 2005, 75–83.
46
 Horace’s use of dı \co\ has been studied by Jahn 1867, 419–20, who cites several
additional passages.
558 alexander nikolaev

Even more significant is the fact that dı\cere is also often used of reciting
or performing verse, as in the example from Catullus cited above (62.4:
dicetur hymenaeus):

Virg. Ecl. 6.4–5:

    pastorem, Tityre, pinguis
pascere oportet ovis, deductum dicere carmen
Tityrus, a shepherd should pasture fat sheep,
but sing a slender song

Virg. Ecl. 10.2–3:

pauca meo Gallo, sed quae legat ipsa Lycoris,
carmina sunt dicenda: neget quis carmina Gallo?
A few verses I must sing for my Gallus, yet such
as Lycoris herself may read! Who would refuse verses to Gallus?

Hor. Carm. saec. 5–8:

quo Sibyllini monuere versus
virgines lectas puerosque castos
dis, quibus septem placuere colles,
   dicere carmen
when the words of the Sybil have commanded
a choir of chosen virgins and chaste young boys
to chant a hymn to the gods
who are gladdened by the seven hills

Hor. Carm. 4.12.9–10:

dicunt in tenero gramine pinguium
custodes ovium carmina fistula
they are singing as they lie on the yielding grass
keeping their fattening sheep and playing their pipes

The expression dicere carmen in the examples above, strikingly remi-

niscent of the Greek and Vedic versions of the inherited formula Show
(*dei÷k;-) Song, can be complemented by dı\cere laude\s, found in religious,
hymnic contexts:
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 559

Tib. 1.3.31–32:
bisque die resoluta comas tibi dicere laudes
insignis turba debeat in Pharia
and chant your praises twice a day, with loosened hair,
pre-eminent among the Pharian throng

Virg. Ecl. 6.6–7:

namque super tibi erunt qui dicere laudes,
Vare, tuas cupiant et tristia condere bella
since there are more than enough who desire to sing
your praises, Varus, and write about grim war

Hor. Carm. Saec. 74–76:

spem bonam certamque domum reporto,
doctus et Phoebi chorus et Dianae
dicere laudes
such is the good and certain hope I carry home
as chorus trained to sing the praises
of Phoebus and Diana

In view of the Greek and Sanskrit parallels in sections 1 and 2 above it

becomes entirely plausible to suppose that these uses of dı \cere actually
continue something very old, and I think they do. However, proving that
this is indeed the case will be a daunting task, since a meaning such as
“to celebrate in song” would be easily deducible from the meaning “to
speak,” which has to be postulated for Proto-Italic in any event. In order
to become truly compelling, any such argument based on Latin will in
addition have to appeal to material that is more or less isolated, thus
with a chance of preserving something old.
3.2. With this in mind, we may turn our attention to the verb (-)dı̆ca\re
which, of course, goes back to the same root as dı \cere. The verb normally
means “to dedicate,” but in early Latin it still has the meaning “to praise”
(Lucil. 1080 (Marx)):

                 sicubi ad auris
fama tuam pugnam <prae>claram adlata dicasset
(claram cdd. : praeclaram Marx : clarans Warmington)
wheresoever rumor that was brought to my ears
praised your splendid fight
560 alexander nikolaev

The stem formation of the verb dı̆ca\re is hard to explain unless one
assumes that the verb was secondarily extracted from compounds such
as praedica\re and indeed, the latter verb has the right meaning “to praise,
to extol” (Ter. Eun. 565–66):

Quid ego eius tibi nunc faciem praedicem aut laudem Antipho,
Cum ipsum me noris quam elegans formarum spectator siem?
Why now should I extol or commend her beauty to you, Antipho,
since you yourself know how nice a judge of beauty I am?

An interesting feature of praedı̆ca\re is that it is the only Latin verb of

speaking compounded with prae- where the prefix has a locative and
not a temporal meaning (viz. “recite in front of someone,” not “precede
someone in reciting a poem, etc.”). Francis (1973, 38, n. 84) rightly observes
that this feature (that separates praedı̆ca\re from praefarı\ or praeloquı\) is
likely to be old. We will thus do well by looking closer at praedı̆ca\re in
search of other signs of antiquity, including an inherited usage.
The verb praedica\re in all probability belongs together with the
so-called “a\-intensives” of the type occupa\re (←capere), consterna\re
(←sternere) and, just as these verbs, is ultimately based on a prepositional
compound *prae-dic- (*prai÷-dik-). This nominal stem, in fact, lives on in
the word praeco\, -o\nis “crier, herald, auctioneer.”47 This time the relevant
usage is not attested until Classical Latin, but the word itself must be quite
old: praeco\ goes back to *prai ÷-dik-o\n- with a syncope of the medial short
vowel that guarantees a certain antiquity of this compound.48 Since Italic
*prai ÷- and Sanskrit pra go back to the same etymon,49 the reconstructed

47
 On the profession, see Schneider 1953; Hinard 1976; Rauh 1989. Cf. Rauh 1989,
452: “they summoned the Roman senate and assemblies to meetings; they called for
silence at the beginning of these meetings; they read aloud legislation to be voted upon at
assemblies; they called the order of centuries and tribes to vote; they announced the results
and brought these meetings to a close. In a more dreaded aspect, they might also expel
foreigners from the city, or summon defendants to appear before magisterial tribunals and
keep order at the same. . . . praecones appear to have performed other tasks for a fee: they
silenced the audience at the beginning of performances in the theater and expelled slaves
from the same, they called out in the streets for lost persons or property, they announced
the demise of prominent citizens.”
48
 The verb praedico\ shows the effect of recomposition, while in the case of the noun
praeco\ the Romans were apparently less concerned about maintaining synchronic links to
the base verb dı\cere.
49
 Indo-European (directional) *pro and (locatival) *preh2i, respectively; on Latin
prae and Sanskrit pra, see García Ramón 1997.
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 561

nominal *prai÷-dik- becomes comparable to Vedic Sanskrit prá-dis;- “sing

(praise)” in section 2 above.
The duties of praeco\nes have been well studied and we know that
this was essentially a job of low social esteem.50 Moreover, thanks to such
aspects of their job as selling debtors’ property or officiating at funerals,
praeco\nes in the Roman world enjoyed a somewhat nefarious reputation.
It is therefore surprising to see Cicero applying this word to Homer, as
he relates the words spoken by Alexander at Achilles’ tomb in Sigeum:
O fortunate adulescens, qui tuae virtutis Homerum praeconem inveneris
(“Fortunate youth, to have found Homer as a herald of your valor,” Arch.
24; no source is known for the quotation).51 The Ciceronian use of praeco\
has apparently caught on: in Augustan poets, the derivative ­prae­co\nium
(that otherwise usually means “auctioneer’s cry”) is often used with
reference to the publicity and fame provided by poetry.52
Now praeco\ virtu\tis in Cicero is in all likelihood directly dependent
on a Greek source, namely an epigram by Antipater of Sidon praising
Homer as Ἡρώων κάρυκ’ ἀρετᾶς (9.1 Gow–Page = Anth. Pal. 7.6.1). This text
may have been widely known in Rome;53 Cicero read Antipater and spoke
highly of him (Orat. 3.194; Fat. 2), and since Cicero was generally taken
to Greek models, the possibility of a calque is very high. Nonetheless, we
should not forget that Latin praeco\ was not an equivalent of Greek κῆρυξ
for all intents and purposes. For instance, while reworking a passage from
Polybius where, after the battle of Cynoscephalae, the herald declares the
freedom of Greek states that once were under Macedonian domination

50
 The low status of praeco\nes is clear from Cic. Sest. 57, where Cicero is indignant at
the fact that the king of Cyprus “should be placed at the mercy of a public crier” (praeconi
publico subiceretur) and Mart. 6.8 where praetors, tribunes, lawyers and poets are passed
over as potential grooms in favor of a praeco\.
51
 Six years later these words are echoed in a letter from Lucceius: ut mihi non solum
praeconium, quod, cum in Sigeum venisset, Alexander ab Homero Achilli tributum esse dixit
. . . videatur (Fam. 5.12.7).
52
 Ov. Pont. 4.8.45 (carmina vestrarum peragunt praeconia laudum); Tr. 1.6.35–36
(quantumcumque tamen praeconia nostra valebunt / carminibus vives tempus in omne meis;
to his wife); Tr. 2.65 (invenies vestri praeconia nominis illic; to Augustus); Tr. 4.9.19 (nostra
per inmensas ibunt praeconia gentes); Ov. Met. 12.773 (praeconia rebus Herculis); Ars 3.535
(nos facimus placitae late praeconia formae); Her. 17.207 (non ita contemno volucris prae-
conia famae); [Tib.] 3.7.178 (non ego sum satis ad tantae praeconia laudis), etc. It is hard
to exclude that this usage of praeco\nium is independent of Cicero (in which case these
examples would add to the argument put forth in the main text below), but the unmarked
assumption would be that the Augustan poets simply perpetuated Ciceronian coinage.
53
 Claudius Aelianus inscribed these verses on a double herm of Homer and Menander
he placed in his garden (IG 14.1188).
562 alexander nikolaev

(Polyb. 33.32.4), Livy uses praeco\ to render κῆρυξ but feels the need to
explain for his Roman audience the Greek practice of commencing the
games with a traditional formula pronounced by the herald (κῆρυξ) from
the center of the arena.54 The question, therefore, remains: what made
Cicero, with his extremely sensitive ear for language, identify the praeconis
vox garrula (Apul. Fl. 9) with a vehicle of praise? A simple answer would
be his creative genius. But given that in the first century b.c.e. the word
was not synchronically analyzable as a derivative of dı\cere / dica\re, and
given that the meaning “song of praise” does not seem to be compatible
with the profession of praeco\ “crier” as it was known in Cicero’s times,
the possibility has to be considered seriously that the reason Cicero felt
comfortable using the word praeco\ in such a high-poetic context is that
he was in fact familiar with an archaic tradition in which the word was
used in such a way.55
To sum up the results gained in this section: (1) in view of the
Greek-Indo-Iranian deployment of the reflexes of *dei÷k;-, the striking use
of Latin dı\co\ in the meaning “celebrate in song,” as well as such puzzling
constructions as dı\cere laude\s and dı\cere carmen, have now become easily
explainable as inherited archaisms; (2) the usage of praedica\re (with its
archaic meaning of prae), decompositional dica\re, and the noun praeco\
(< *prai÷‑dik-o\n-) allows reconstructing a pre-Latin juncture *prai ÷-dik- +
Praise (laudem, etc.), more or less directly comparable to Vedic prá-dis;-
(námaüktim˘, etc.).
4. The reconstruction of a poetic figure Show (*dei÷k;-) + Song (of
praise) is now supported by evidence coming from three traditions: Greek,
Indo-Iranian, and Italic. This result does not invalidate the common
wisdom concerning the meaning of the root *dei ÷k;-: the poetic figure in
question must have belonged to the poetic register of the protolanguage

54
 praeco cum tubicine, ut mos est, in mediam aream, unde sollemni carmine ­ludicrum
indici solet, processit (Liv. 18.46.4). The Romans may have expected a term like circi nuntius
(AE (1971) 44).
55
 This formulation does not necessarily imply a written tradition. My own understand-
ing of the processes involved in the survival of inherited lore of this kind comes very close
to the following formulation by Bakhtin: “Cultural and literary traditions (including the
most ancient) are preserved and continue to live not in the individual subjective memory
of a single individual and not in some form of collective “psyche,” but rather in the objec-
tive forms that culture itself assumes (including the forms of language and spoken speech),
and in this sense they are inter-subjective and inter-individual (and consequently social);
from here they enter literary works, sometimes almost completely bypassing the subjective
individual memory of their creators” (1981 [1975], 249, n. 17).
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 563

(the Dik;ter-sprache, so to speak), while in everyday spoken language the

root was used in its familiar meaning “to show, to point out.”56
How did this poetic phraseology originate? At the end of the day it
is impossible to tell, and we can only engage in speculation. One way of
deriving the “poetic” meaning of *dei÷k;- from the colloquial “to show, to
point out” would be along the lines of “directing” or “assigning” a song
of praise to a deity, perhaps as a part of a reciprocal relationship between
poet-sacrificer and his patron or a deity (do ut des).57 But there is another
potentially promising approach: *dei ÷k;- *gwr≈h2m≈ “to show forth (viz., sing,
perform) a song of praise”58 could have originally meant something like
“to reveal a song of praise.”
A parallel to this scenario can be seen in the Indo-European root
*bheh2- that meant “to shine” (Vedic bha\´ ti, Greek φάντα· λάμποντα Hsch.)59
but also “to be visible, to appear” with a common semantic shift.60 Its
present stem with a nasal infix *bh-n≈-h2- would be expected to take on a
transitive meaning “make visible, reveal” which is indeed found in Arme-
nian banam “open.”61 The same stem *bh-n≈-h2- is continued by Greek
φαίνω act. “bring to light,” mid. “to appear” (*bhn≈h2‑i ÷e/o-);62 importantly,
φαίνω is used of singing (“revealing”) a song, as the following examples
make clear:63

Od. 8.499:
ὣς φάθ’, ὁ δ’ ὁρμηθεὶς θεοῦ ἤρχετο, φαῖνε δ’ ἀοιδήν
So he said, and, inspired by the god, Demodocus began and sang the song

Emped. B 131.3–4 DK:

εὐχομένῳ νῦν αὖτε παρίστασο, Καλλιόπεια,
ἀμφὶ θεῶν μακάρων ἀγαθὸν λόγον ἐμφαίνοντι

56
 In the formulation of Tichy 1979: “to bring something that one sees oneself to the
optical notice of another through verbal or nonverbal means.”
57
 See above n. 38.
58
 On this exempli gratia reconstruction, see above n. 41.
59
 Cf. also Vedic bha\◊s-, Greek φάος “light.”
60
 Cf. Indo-Iranian *kait÷ - “perceive, see, know, appear” vs. citrá- “resplendent,” ketú‑
“brightness, ray of light,” or Greek λεύσσω “to see” that cannot be separated from IE *leu÷k-
(whatever solution is adopted for Arcadian λεύτε/ο‑, problematic as ever). See Roesler 1997.
61
 See Klingenschmitt 1982, 112–13, and recently García Ramón 2006.
62
 A stem φαν‑ not extended by *-i÷e/o- and thus directly comparable to Armenian
banam, may lurk behind Homeric παμφανόων; see Tichy 1983, 326–28.
63
 See Nünlist 1998, 163–65.
564 alexander nikolaev

Stand by me, Calliope, in my prayer,

as I reveal a worthy account of the blessed gods

The idea of performance as revelation, encoded by φαίνω and its deriva-

tives,64 is not limited to Archaic Greece: the Vedic counterpart of the
Greek verb is bhánati (*bh-n≈-h2-e/o-) which in the oldest texts similarly
means “to sing a song [of praise],”65 (RV 6.11.3):

dhánya\ cid dhí tvé dhisᢠn˘a\ vást̆ ĭ prá deva\;ñ jánma gr≈n˘até yájadhyai /
vépist̆ h̆o ánÆgirasa\m˘ yád dha vípro mádhu chandó bhánati rebhá ist̆ăú //
For even the enriching Dhisănă wishes to sacrifice in thee
to the kin of gods for the singer,
when the most inspired sage of Angirases, the poet,
sings a sweet song searching [for the gods]

This correspondence between the two traditions shows that the verbal
stem *bh‑n(e)-h2- (“to reveal”) could be used in Indo-European poetic
language with objects such as “song,” just as *dei ÷k;- in the examples stud-
ied above.66 The parallel between *bheh2- and *dei÷k;- adds plausibility to
the proposed semantic interpretation of the formula *dei ÷k;- *gwr≈h2m≈ as
grounded in the notion of revelation.67

64
 Cf. further Pi. O. 13.97–98, Ἰσϑμοῖ τά τ᾽ ἐν Νεμέᾳ παύρῳ ἔπει / θήσω φανέρ᾽ ἀθρό᾽
(“as for their victories at the Isthmos and Nemea, in a brief word I shall reveal their
sum”); Bacch. 13.223–24, ὕμνων <μίτραν> φαίνω (but Maehler’s supplement is not beyond
doubt); Aesch. Eum. 569, ὑπέρτονον γήρυμα φαινέτω στρατῷ. Vollgraff 1925, 126, n. 2, has
already compared Bacchylides’ use of φαίνω to δεῖξαι in Alcm. 59(b), albeit with hesitation
(“δεικνύναι, aussi, se prend peut être dans le même sens”).
65
 In other passages, bhánati means “(solemnly) speak, declare” (e.g., RV 4.18.7ab
asmai nivído bhananta . . . a\◊pah˘, “the waters speak eulogies to him”), and this is the mean-
ing of the verb in the later language.
66
 The comparison between *dei ÷k;‑ and *bheh2- appears particularly intriguing in
the light of the Germanic reflexes of the latter root: Old English bannan “to summon,”
Old High German bannan “to order.” If Germanic *banna- developed a meaning “to
speak solemnly” from “to reveal,” “to make visible” (< *bhh2-nu÷-), it is not unreasonable
to assume that the root *dei ÷k;‑ could similarly develop a meaning “to speak” based on an
earlier meaning “to reveal” (perhaps limited to the poetic register). This would explain
nicely the semantics not only of Latin dı c\ ere and its Italic cognates, but also of Germanic
*teihan (“to accuse”), Phrygian τετικμενος (“cursed”), and Hittite tekri- (“slander”), as I
am planning to argue elsewhere.
67
 Some uncertainties about the root *bheh2- remain, including the unexpected root
present *bheh2- (“to speak”; Greek φημί, Armenian bam, Latin fa\ri, and Sanskrit bha\s‑˘ ),
but space limitations prevent a discussion of these problems here.
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 565

5. After this detour in Sanskrit, Latin, and Indo-European, we can

now return to Greek and revisit a longstanding problem in the epic lan-
guage, namely, the epithet ἀριδείκετος. Here are the attestations:

Il. 11.248:
Τὸν δ’ ὡς οὖν ἐνόησε Κόων ἀριδείκετος ἀνδρῶν
When Koön, ἀριδείκετος among men, saw this

Il. 14.320:
ἣ τέκε Περσῆα πάντων ἀριδείκετον ἀνδρῶν·
who bore Perseus, ἀριδείκετος among all heroes

Od. 8.382+ (6x):

Ἀλκίνοε κρεῖον, πάντων ἀριδείκετε λαῶν,
King Alcinoos, ἀριδείκετος among hosts of men

Od. 11.540:
γηθοσύνη, ὅ οἱ υἱὸν ἔφην ἀριδείκετον εἶναι
exulting over what I had said about his son (i.e. Neoptolemus)
 being ἀριδείκετος

Hes. Th. 385:

καὶ Κράτος ἠδὲ Βίην ἀριδείκετα γείνατο τέκνα
and she gave birth to Kratos and Bia, ἀριδείκετοι children

Hes. Th. 532:

ταῦτ’ ἄρα ἁζόμενος τίμα ἀριδείκετον υἱόν
in this way, he respectfully honored his ἀριδείκετος son (i.e. Heracles)

Hes. Th. 543:

Ἰαπετιονίδη, πάντων ἀριδείκετ’ ἀνάκτων
Son of Iapetus, ἀριδείκετος among all rulers!

Hes. fr. 196 MW ( = 154 Most):

[ ]ης πάντων ἀριδε[ίκετ]ος ἀνδρῶν·
. . . ἀριδείκετος among all heroes
566 alexander nikolaev

The metrical distribution alone suggests that we are likely dealing with an
archaic element of the epic diction: the word is mostly located after the
hephthemimeral caesura and the verse-final sequence πάντων ἀριδείκετε /
‑oν λαῶν / ἀνδρῶν matches the general profile of frequent Homeric for-
mulae πάντων—Superlative—Gen.Pl.#68
Both the formal similarity to the root of δείκνυμι and the meaning
“very renowned, very famous” 69 have been clear to scholars ever since
the beginning of Homeric studies; the problem has been the apparent
incompatibility of this meaning with the usual set of meanings assumed
for δείκνυμι.70 Therefore, Schulze’s suggestion to view ἀριδείκετος as a
metrically lengthened form of *ἀριδέκετος (“sehr gegrüsst”: to δέκομαι,
“receive kindly”; Latin decus, “dignity”) has won wide acceptance.71 (It
does not seem to have been noticed that the Doric proper name Ἀριδείκης,
found in epichoric prose inscriptions (12x), effectively speaks against an
explanation based on metrical lengthening.)
Now, the observations on the poetic use of the verbal root *dei ÷k;-
made in this article allow for a simple solution for this old conundrum:
(ἀρι)δείκετος (“famous”) goes back to *dei÷k;-eto- which had the meaning
“well worth singing of,” “well worth praising (in song).”72

68
 Discussed by Watkins 1976, 438 (= 1994, 238).
69
 On the intensifying prefix ἀρι-, see Willi 1999.
70
 See the discussion and references in Vine 1998, 20–21 (I would like to thank Brent
Vine for a very useful discussion of this word).
71
 See Schulze 1892, 242. To my knowledge only four scholars in the modern era have
opted for a comparison with *dei÷k;‑: (1) Sittl 1880, 52, argued that the epithet ἀριδείκετος
(“much-shown”) originally referred to people pointing at a “celebrity” with their fingers;
(2) somewhat similarly, Thieme 1938, 162, interpreted ἀριδείκετος as “wer verdient dass man
ihn dem Fremden zeigt”; he notoriously argued for translating ἀρι- not as an intensifying
prefix, but as “stranger’ (connecting the word to Vedic arí-), a point of view that has been
widely and deservedly criticized; (3) Tichy 1979, 175, likewise assigned to ἀριδείκετος a
meaning “sehr zeigenswert,” which fails to persuade: why would an illustrious hero (or a
deity) be qualified as someone worthy of being put on display—and what sort of “display”
is intended? (4) finally, Forssman 1978, 20, argued that beside the well-known meaning “to
show,” the root *dei ÷k;‑ also had a meaning “to greet” (δεικνύμενος, δεικανάομαι, etc.), which
according to him is found in ἀριδείκετος (“sehr gegrüsst”). This solution is not particularly
compelling from the semantic point of view, but more importantly, it is not assured that the
Greek verbal forms with the meaning “greet” belong to the root *dei÷k;‑ at all: the prevailing
opinion on δειδέχαται, δεικανάομαι, etc. connects these forms to the root *dek;- (“receive,
accept”), whence “receive [a guest]” and “greet.”
72
 Such a meaning would be entirely expectable in an *-eto- derivative; compare
Vine’s 1998 remarks on the meaning of (ἀγα)κλειτός: “celebrated” (“well worth hearing
about”); (πολυ)εύχετος: “much wished-for” (“well worth being asked for”); Vedic dars;atá-:
“good to look at” (“worthy of being seen”).
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 567

6. In conclusion I would like to emphasize that the proposed com-

parison between δεῖξαι ὕμνον in Greek choral lyric, dı\cere carmen in Latin,
and adiks˘i stómam˘ in Vedic Sanskrit is not an exercise in mechanically
pushing back to the level of the protolanguage anything that looks similar
in Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, certainly not purposive on its own. Rather,
this article aspires to offer a more modest and at the same time more
focused result, namely a novel way of understanding the Greek texts at
hand. It is hoped that the comparative data elucidate the Greek passages
in section 1 regardless of whether the further arguments concerning the
root *dei÷k;- offered in section 4 hold water. To return to where this article
began, there are still cases in the study of archaic Greek poetry where
a violation of Karl Lehrs’ sixth commandment for classical philologists
is worth one’s while.73

Harvard University
e-mail: nikolaev@fas.harvard.edu

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviations of journals from L’annee philologique, plus MSS =

Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft

Aloni, Antonio. 1994. Lirici Greci. Alcmane e Stesicoro, in appendice Simonide,

Elegia per la battaglia di Platea. Milan: Mondadori.
Bagordo, Andreas. 2000. “Teognide 769–772 e il lessico metaletterario arcaico.”
SemRom 3:183–203.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovic=. 1981. “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in
the Novel: Notes toward a Historical Poetics.” In The Dialogic Imagination,
trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, 84–258. Austin: University of
Texas Press. (Trans. of: “Формы времени и хронотопа в романе. Очерки
по исторической поэтике.” In Вопросы литературы и эстетики, 234–407.
Moscow: Fiction Publishing, 1975).
Bakker, Egbert. 2002. “The Making of History: Herodotus’ Histories\ Apodexis.”
In Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, ed. Egbert J. Bakker, Irene J. F. de Jong,
and Hans van Wees, 3–32. Leiden: Brill.

73
 It is my pleasure to thank Stephanie Jamison, Jay Jasanoff, Gregory Nagy, Martin
Peters, Jeremy Rau, Brent Vine, Martin West, and the audiences at Harvard, Oxford, and
UCLA for much useful discussion, as well as AJP’s anonymous referees for their detailed
remarks. I would also like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Research
Council of the President of the Russian Federation (grant nr. МК-389.2011.6).
568 alexander nikolaev

Barnes, Timothy. 2011. “Alcmanica.” Paper Presented at the 30th East Coast
Indo-European Conference at Harvard University.
Behr, Charles Allison. 1986. The Complete Works of P. Aelius Aristides. Vol. 1:
Orations I–XVI. Leiden: Brill.
Benveniste, Emile. 1945. “La doctrine médicale des Indo-Européens.” RHR
130:5–12.
Berg, Nils. 1978. “Parergon metricum: der Ursprung des griechischen Hexameters.”
MSS 37:11–36.
Blass, Friedrich. 1899. Bacchylidis carmina cum fragmentis. 2d ed. Leipzig: Teubner.
Boeckh, August. 1821. Pindari opera quae supersunt. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Weigel.
Borthwick, E. Kerr. 1970. “P. Oxy. 2738: Athena and the Pyrrhic Dance.” Hermes
98:318–31.
Bremer, Jan Maarten. 2008. “Traces of the Hymn in the Epinikion.” Mnemosyne
61:1–17.
Burnett, Anne Pippin. 2005. Pindar’s Songs for Young Athletes of Aigina. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Calame, Claude. 1983. Alcman. Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo.
———. 2001. Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece: Their Morphology,
Religious Role, and Social Functions, rev. ed. Trans. Derek Collins and
Janice Orion. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.
———. 2004. “Deictic Ambiguity and Auto-Referentiality: Some Examples from
Greek Poetics.” Arethusa 37:415–43.
Campanile, Enrico. 1970–1973. “L’étymologie du celtique *bard(h)os.” Ogam:
Tradition Celtique 22–25:235–36.
Carey, Christopher. 1981. A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar: Pythian 2,
Pythian 9, Nemean 1, Nemean 7, Isthmian 8. New York: Arno Press.
———. 1991. “The Victory Ode in Performance.” CPh 86:192–200.
D’Alessio, Giovan Battista. 2005. “Il primo Inno di Pindaro.” In Lirica e Teatro in
Grecia. Il testo e la sua ricezione, ed. Simonetta Grandolini, 113–49. Naples:
Edizioni scientifiche italiane.
———. 2009. “Re-Constructing Pindar’s First Hymn: The Theban ‘Theogony’ and
the Birth of Apollo.” In Apolline Politics and Poetics: International Sym-
posium, Delphi 4–11 July 2003, ed. Lucia Athanassaki, Richard P. Martin
et al., 128–47. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture.
Davies, Malcolm. 1986. “The Motif of the πρῶτος εὑρετής in Alcman.” ZPE
65:25–27.
Dissen, Ludolph Georg. 1821. “Explicationes ad Isthmia.” In Pindari opera quae
supersunt, ed. August Boeckh. Vol. 2, 481–548. Leipzig: Weigel.
Eichner, Heiner. 1988–1990. “Ein Heldendenkmal der Sabiner mit trochäischem
Epigramm eines pikenischen Plautus des fünften Jahrhunderts v. Chr.” Die
Sprache 34:198–206.
Ernout, Alfred, and Antoine Meillet. 1959. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue
latine. Histoire des mots. 4th ed. Paris: Klincksieck.
Farnell, Lewis Richard. 1930. The Works of Pindar. Vol. 2: Critical Commentary.
London: MacMillan.
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 569

Fontenrose, Joseph Eddy. 1978. The Delphic Oracle, Its Responses and Operations,
with a Catalogue of Responses. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ford, Andrew. 1985. “The Seal of Theognis: The Politics of Authorship in Archaic
Greece.” In Theognis of Megara: Poetry and the Polis, ed. Thomas J. Figueira
and Gregory Nagy, 82–95. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Forssman, Bernhard. 1978. “Homerisch δειδέχαται und Verwandtes.” Die Sprache
24:3–24.
Francis, Eric D. 1973. “Particularum quarundam varietas: prae and pro.” YCS
23:1–60.
Furley, William, and Jan Maarten Bremer. 2001. Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs
from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
García Ramón, José Luis. 1997. “Lat. prae, gr. παραί, -ά und Verwandtes: idg.
*pr≈h2- und *pr≈- ‘vorn daneben, vor’ gegenüber *pro(h1) ‘vor(n), vorwärts’.”
In Sound Law and Analogy: Papers in Honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the
Occasion of His 60th Birthday, ed. Alexander Lubotsky, 47–72. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
———. 2006. “Expresión del estado y tipos de lexema en griego homérico.” In
Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek: Proceedings of the
Conference on Greek Syntax and Word Classes (Madrid, 18–21 June 2003),
ed. Emilio Crespo et al., 193–217. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Geldner, Karl Friedrich. 1951–1957. Der Rig-Veda: aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche
übersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen. Harvard Oriental
Series 33–36. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Gonda, Jan. 1929. Δείκνυμι. Semantische Studie over den Indo-Germanische Wortel
DEIK‑. Amsterdam: H.J. Paris.
Habinek, Thomas. 2005. The World of Roman Song: From Ritualized Speech to
Social Order. Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins University Press.
Hardie, Alex. 2000. “Pindar’s ‘Theban’ Cosmogony (the First Hymn).” BICS
44:19–40.
Hinard, François. 1976. “Remarques sur les praecones et le praeconium dans la
Rome de la fin de la République.” Latomus 35:730–46.
Hintze, Almut. 2000. Lohn im Indoiranischen: eine semantische Studie des Rigveda
und Avesta. Wiesbaden: Reichelt.
———. 2004. “‘Do ut des’: Patterns of exchange in Zoroastrianism.” JAS 14:27–45.
Insler, Stanley. 1962. “Avestan daxs-.” Indogermanische Forschungen 67:53–68.
Jahn, Otto. 1867. “Wie wurden die Oden des Horatius vorgetragen?” Hermes
2:418–33.
Janni, Pietro. 1965. La cultura di Sparta arcaica. Ricerche. Vol. 1. Rome: Edizioni
dell’ Ateneo.
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse. 1905. Bacchylides: The Poems and Fragments. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Käppel, Lutz. 1992. Paian, Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1982. Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Lattimore, Richmond. 1976. The Odes of Pindar. 2d ed. Chicago, Ill.: University
of Chicago Press.
570 alexander nikolaev

Lehrs, Karl. 1902. “Zehngebote für klassische Philologen.” In Kleine Schriften,

ed. Arthur Ludwich, 476. Königsberg: Hartung.
Lobel, Edgar. 1957. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 24. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.
Maehler, Herwig. 1997. Die Lieder des Bakchylides. Vol. 2: Die Dithyramben und
Fragmente. Leiden: Brill.
Marzullo, Benedetto. 1964. “Alcman fr. 59 P.” Helikon 4:297–302.
Matasovic;, Ranko. 1996. A Theory of Textual Reconstruction in Indo-European
Linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Momigliano, Arnaldo. 1971. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Mommsen, Tycho. 1846. Des Pindaros Werke in die Versmaasse des Originals
uebersetzt. Leipzig: Fleischer.
Nagy, Gregory. 1974. Comparative Studies in Greek and Indic Meter. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
———. 1990. Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore,
Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Newman, John Kevin. 1965. “De verbis canere et dicere eorumque apud poetas
latinos ab Ennio usque ad aetatem Augusti usu.” Latinitas 13:86–106.
Nünlist, Rene. 1998. Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung.
Stuttgart: Teubner.
Podlecki, Anthony J. 1969. “The Peripatetics as Literary Critics.” Phoenix 23:114–37.
Privitera, G. Aurelio. 1982. Pindaro. Le Istmiche. Milan: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla.
Radt, Stefan L. 1972. “Review of Thummer 1968–1969.” Mnemosyne 25:194–200.
Rainer, Brian Lee. 1975. Philodamus’ Paean to Dionysus: A Literary Expression
of Delphic Propaganda. Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois.
Rauh, Nicholas. 1989. “Auctioneers and the Roman Economy.” Historia 38:451–71.
Renou, Louis. 1967. Études védiques et pa\n˘inéennes. Vol. 16. Paris: Boccard.
Ritoók, Zsigmond. 1983. “Zu zwei Alkman-Fragmenten (PMG 30 und 59b).”
Eirene 20:33–38.
Roesler, Ulrike. 1997. Licht und Leuchten im Rgveda: Untersuchungen zum Wort-
feld des Leuchtens und zur Bedeutung des Lichts. Swisttal: Indica et Tibetica.
Sadovski, Velizar. 2009. “Ritual Formulae and Ritual Pragmatics in Veda and
Avesta.” Die Sprache 48 (= *h2 nr: Festschrift für Heiner Eichner, ed. Robert
Nedoma and David Stifter):156–66.
Schlerath, Bernfried. 1985. “Beobachtungen zum Wortfeld ‘singen, preisen, rufen,
verkünden’ im Rigveda.” MSS 44:191–214.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1967. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit.
Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Schneider, Karl. 1953. “praeco.” RE 22:1193–99.
Schulze, Wilhelm. 1892. Quaestiones epicae. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.
Segal, Charles. 1985. “Archaic Choral Lyric.” In The Cambridge History of Clas-
sical Literature, ed. P. E. Easterling and E. J. Kenney, 165–201. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sittl, Carl. 1880. Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer. Leipzig: Teubner.
 showing praise in greek choral lyric 571

Slater, William J. 1969. Lexicon to Pindar. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Snell, Bruno. 1946. “Pindars Hymnus auf Zeus.” A&A 2:80–92 (trans. as “Pin-
dar’s Hymn to Zeus.” In The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins
of European Thought. Trans. Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, 71–89. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953).
Taccone, Angelo. 1934. “L’Isthmia VIII di Pindaro.” Il Mondo Classico 4:285–89.
Thieme, Paul. 1938. Der Fremdling im R˘gveda: eine Studie über die Bedeutung
der Worte ari, arya, aryaman und a\rya. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Thomas, Richard. 1993. “Performance and Written Publication in Herodotus
and the Sophistic Generation.” In Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen
in der griechischen Kultur, ed. Wolfgang Kullmann and Jochen Althoff,
225–44. Tübingen: Narr.
Thummer, Erich. 1968–1969. Pindar. Die Isthmischen Gedichte. Bd. 1–2. Heidel-
berg: Winter.
Tichy, Eva. 1979. “Semantische Studien zu idg. 1. *deik- ‘zeigen’ und 2. *deik-
‘werfen’.” MSS 38:171–228.
———. 1983. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen. Vienna: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Treu, Max. 1964. Review of Denys Page, Poetae Melici Graeci. GGA 216:114–20.
Trümpy, Catherine. 2004. “Wohlklingende Feste: Neues zu Pindars erster Pyth-
ischen Ode.” In Studia humanitatis ac litterarum trifolio Heidelbergensi
dedicata: Festschrift für Eckhard Christmann, Wilfried Edelmaier und Rudolf
Kettemann, ed. Angela Hornung et al., 343–58. Bern: Lang.
Tzifopoulos, Yannis Z. 2011. “Center, Periphery, or Peripheral Center: A Cretan
Connection for the Gold Lamellae of Crete.” In The “Orphic” Gold Tablets
and Greek Religion: Further Along the Path, ed. Radcliffe G. Edmonds,
165–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Untersteiner, Mario. 1956. Senofane. Testimonianze e frammenti. Florence: La
Nuova Italia.
Vine, Brent. 1998. Aeolic ὄρπετον and Deverbative *-éto- in Greek and Indo-­
European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Innsbruck.
Vollgraff, Wilhelm. 1925. “Le péan delphique à Dionysos.” BCH 49:104–42.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich. 1922. Pindaros. Berlin: Weidmann.
Watkins, Calvert. 1976. “Syntax and Metrics in the Dipylon Vase Inscription.” In
Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European Linguistics Offered to ­Leonard
R. Palmer, ed. Anna Morpurgo Davies and Wolfgang Meid, 431–41. Inns-
bruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck (= Selected
Writings, ed. Lisi Oliver, Vol. 1, 231–41. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwis-
senschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1994).
———. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
———. 2002. “Pindar’s Rigveda.” JAOS 122:432–35.
Weil, Henri. 1895. “Un péan delphique à Dionysos.” BCH 19:393–418.
572 alexander nikolaev

West, Martin Litchfield. 1965. “Alcmanica.” CQ 15:188–202.

———. 2007. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willi, Andreas. 1999. “Zur Verwendung und Etymologie von griechisch ἐρι-.”
Historische Sprachforschung 112:86–100.
Woodbury, Leonard E. 1991. “Poetry and Publication: Theognis 769–772.” In Col-
lected Writings of Leonard E. Woodbury, ed. Christopher G. Brown et al.,
483–90. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.
Zambrini, Andrea. 2007. “ἀπόδειξις.” In Lexicon historiographicum Graecum et
Latinum, ed. C armine Ampolo and Ugo Fantasia. Fasc. 2: αλ–αφ, 65–73.
Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.