Anda di halaman 1dari 20



PERHAPS no word is so much on the lips of men to-day, no idea so potent in remoulding our world, as justice, although to be sure we express the notion more colloquially by the word " fair " and still more frequently encounter its opposite " not fair ". This obsession is not without effect on classical studies. The circumstances of the German occupation of Denmark provoked the late Professor Prisch's book on "Might and Right in Antiquity ".l Prom Germany has come Professor Latte's scholarly essay on the Idea of ;Tustice in Archaic Greece '7.2 Mr. Gregory Vlastos has published essays on " Solonian Justice '' and " Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies ",4 and a book on the whole subject is expected from his hand. Remarks on justice are not absent from the works of Professor G. Thomson, who writes in his " Studies in Greek Society " (p. 134) that the meaning of S t q is " a path '7. I n this he is echoing Professor J. L. Myres i n his book '(The Political Ideas of the Greeks '),which is dominated by the conception of 6 1 ~ 7 as " the way things happen )'. Still earlier the same conception was expressed by I?. M. Cornford in " From Religion to Philosophy " (p. 1721, and I find a cautious restatement in Mr. Guthrie's recent book on '(The Greek Philosophers 7'.5 So we may regard it as a widely accepted view. But in this interpretation of 6 1 q as '' a path " we encounter a point of methodology which is of fundamental importance-the place of etymology in such studies of origin. Hirzel, for instance, in his well-known book on '( Themis, Dike und Verwandtes linked 6 1 ~ q with ~ L K E ~ Vto throw ", and he traced the word back to the symbolic throwing down


Copenhagen, 1950. " Der Rechtsgedanke im archaischen Griechentum," Abendland, I1 63 ff. Classical Philology 41 (1946), 66 ff. Ihid. 42 (1947), 166 ff. London (Methuen), 1950,

Antike und




of the kings aicijrrrpov in delivering judgement. In this he was followed by Dr. V. IChrenberg,l who also suggested that &pis originally meant a mound or heap, the seat of the oracular earth-goddess. Professor Latte, on the other hand, regards the judgement of the king fundamentally as a choice between ~ pronounccconflicting traditions, @pirrrEc ; the 6 1 is ~ the ment , which originally took the form of a directive, das Weisen einer Richtung , I n this way he links up 8 i q with ~EIKVV Such ~ L . attempts to penetrate to the origin of human ideas and institutions by the analysis of words have a long, if not always respectable, tradition, going back to ancient times. Some prevalent doctrines concerning fundamental notions of ancient religion, dynamism for instance, would seein to have little better foundation than the popular etymologies of the ancient grammarians. It is right, of course, to appeal to the evidence of words in such matters, for language is among the most persistent features of cultural heritage ; it is the fossilization of past thought and experience. On words as the source of truth we might quote Socrates in the Phado 99 E : 2So& 8 4 POL XpijvaL E ~ S706s hdyovs Kara4vydvra E)v EIKEIVOLS UKO~TE~ 7L;v V dvr~v ~7jv dh7jOaav. Rut the strictest methodology is required if conclusions drawn from linguistic evidence are to have any validity. A word has two aspects : sound and meaning. It is easy enough t o detect phonetic resemblances between words, but the semantic side must be established independently by rigorous and objective analysis of the contexts in which the words occur. In fact, the semantic leg is by far the more important of the two which support an etymology. But too often it is but the shadow of the phonetic one, for scholars, especially non-philologists, often approach the contexts they must analyse with preconceptions suggested by accidental phonetic resemblances. Moreover, it is seldom indeed that a word has a single meaning. Most often (and almost any dictionary article will serve as an illustration) we find that a word exhibits varieties of meaning which exist
D i e Rechtaidee im frllhen Qriechentum 1921 (but Dr. Ehrenberg subsequently moditled his views; see Gnomon V (1929), 4).




contemporaneously, although perhaps they originated a t different periods. We find what may be called a semantic field. An adequate explanation of a word must account for all the components of the semantic field in question, which must be considered as a single pattern or structure. Not seldom philological interpretations are distorted by the arbitrary selection and over-emphasis of certain constituents of the semantic field to the neglect of others. The derivation of G ~ K T from &KE% is a case in point. The present study may claim innocence of this methodological fault, for it is an accidental by-product of an investigation which began in what was apparently a remote field. In Glotta vol. 19, 5ff,, Max Niedermann noted that a number of words in Latin and other languages meaning boundary originally meant rope . This paper suggested a more general investigation into the semantic fields of words denoting boundary . To-days lecture is the log-book of a part of this exploration. We may most usefully begin a t that point where the quest reached the English word mark. This goes back to an Old English word mearc, for which the meanings recorded are (mark, sign, landmark, boundary . I n other Germanic languages the cognates mean field, ground, territory . The word is cognate with the Latin word margo and Celtic *mrogi country . For our purposes to-day we should note also the meanings (mark or characteristic and mark in the sense of (aim, goal, or target , what I shall refer to as the marksmanship part of the semantic field. In this sphere the word can denote the post or other object placed to indicate the terminal point of a race. The word mark enters, further, into words of pointing out , indicating , (remarking , (bemerken , etc. (For further details see NED, and for the Germanic relatives Falk-Torp 312.l) For another limit or boundary word we may draw on Latin, where the word modzcs has some interesting relatives. The
(( ((

There would appear to be no compelling grounds to follow Falk-Torp in positing two separate Germanic word-families (1) mark, mark0 Grenze, Grenxland and (2) marlea, marlco Zeichen, Kennzeichen ,




meaning limit is apparent in expressions such as Jinern et d u r n tramire, in the derivatives modero and modestus and in the adverbial mod0 meaning merely, only . The predominant meaning in Latin is, of course, measure. But it is in the Italic dialects that we find the most interesting developments. I n Umbrian the word w d s is equivalent to the Latin i u s , while in Oscan mn,eddiss is equivalent to iudex ; an Oscan magistrate is recorded by Livy as the wceddix tuticus. This legal use of the cognates of modus is found also in Irish, where m,idiur bears the meaning I judge and mess = judgement . On the other hand, Welsh shows another divergent in medd = he says , In Germanic, too (Palk-Torp 304 f,), we find the meanings measure, mode, or manner. Most interesting for our purposes are derivatives meaning (fate, what is meted out, e.g. OE rnetod. Now we are back in Germanic again the German word Mal deserves our attention. With a primary meaning spot or mark , it is recorded by G r i m in the aenses boundary mark (beide gerichte . . . sollen nach ihren altelz mahlen und grenzen . . . gescheiden sein ; besqtes pfarrguth in stein und rein, ziehlen und mahden halten) ; this is also applied to temporal relations, point or limit of time, as exemplified in such compounds as einmal, zweimal, etc. ; aim or goal, especially in combination with Ziel (e.g. sie setzen das mahl und ziel a% einem berg) ; mark or designation, monument. The Germanic cognates show a similar range of meaning. Our own word meal goes back to OE rnB1 mark, sign ; measure ; fixed time ; meal ; Swedish ma1 mark ; goal, aim, purpose ; measure; meal; court case (note the juridical component of the field, cf. rnidiur, rneddix, above ; the temporal application, too, is paralleled by the Latin adverb modo). This Germanic noun *mila is linked up with other nominal forms, such as OE ma$ measure, Gk. ~ ~ T L sSkt. - , mGti!t measure , all from IE m&, from which Latin rnEtior is derived (Meillet-Ernout 681). The Slavonio cognates, in particular, are worth attention. Trautmann (p. 183) lists m,eta- I time, year (e.g. Lithuanian rngtas) and distinguishes




it from meta- throw (but note that in Russian meta means ( target, aim, object and wetiti mark, aim a t , etc. The verb met6 throw (Lithuanian mhsti, OCS mesti, etc.) Trautmann links up with words for measure such as Lithuanian m%tas,matboti. Here, too, then in Balto-Slavonic we find a similar semantic constellation : mark, (timelimit, (measure, (throw. A cognate is found in the Albanian mot (year (from ;>mi!to) and in view of the numerous semantic parallels it would now be difficult to exclude the Latin mzta goal, turning point . If we now turn to Greek, a glance at the article Gpos in Liddell & Scott reveals the following pattern : boundary, landmark (this is used also in a temporal sense interval ) magistrates decision, (memorial stone or pillar ( cf. Mal), standard or measure. I n OCS 0pos is translated by rolcii, a word belonging to a Balto-Slavonic group of noteworthy semantic scatter : S.-Cr. rdk time-limit , Pol. rok year , Ru. POX: year, time-limit, fate . Trautmann (p. 243) links these words up with rek6 say (e.g. OCS reSti c t m i v ) . But before proceeding further it will clarify our minds for the attack on the central problem of this paper if I plot the possible semantic ramifications of these boundary words. Mark indication ; point out, say. characteristic. aim, goal, winning post ; throw. Boundary mark (of space) limit ; measure ; territory. (of time) opportune moment, appointed time, season, year. (metaphorical) dividing line, decision, judgement. Outline shape, form, mode, manner.

We still seem remote from the Indo-European Origins of Greek Justice , and I must confess that a t this point of the inquiry I had no notion where it would lead me. But the word Ma1 has a cogQate in Gothic md, and this word is used in




Mark i. 15 to translate the Greek word Kaipds in the phrase xmhrjpwrac d Kaipds. At this point we break throughinto the familiar and congenial surroundings of the classical world, which we shall not leave again until towards the end of this paper. The equivalence of Ma1 and Kacpds prompts us to look ah the Greek word more closely. We detect a t once two prominent features of the semantic field we are exploring, for measure and time limit , opportune moment , are among the most farniliar meanings of Kaipds. But these occupy the fringes of the field. What of the more focal meanings mark or boundary mark ? Every Greek scholar will immediately recall two passages in the Agarnemnon of Aeschyliis.

Ala roc &&ov pkyav atSoijpai r d v rd8a npol.$aw an Ak&iv8pq>

r d v o v r a xdXa6 ~ d f o v , 6 x 0 ~ s Ilv

prjw npd KaLpoC p76 Sx$p dorpwv

p h o s 7jxielov uKrj+lEV

3G5 ff.

I honour mighty Zeus, the watcher over host and guest, who has done this work, long stretching his bow against Alexander that neither short of the mark nor beyond the stars he might shoot his bolt to no purpose. For the expression xpd K a i p o C , short of the mark, Thomson compares Euripides Suppl. 744: J KaipoO x i p a r d rd.$ov ~ V ~ E ~ O V ~ E S . The use of Kaipds for hitting the mark in speech is frequent in Sophocles : xpds Kacpdv EIvulneiv Trach. 59 ; /IXEx 2 Kaipia q W y y g Phil. 862 ; EL 62 p4 7 6 n p d s uaipdv X y w v K V P B n&ravpaL , Phil. 1279 ; o; 61 d&iav &7jv roTs 2paG Xdyo~s&80&, E L prj T L KaLpoG rvypivvw, p&ippooov El. 29f. But it is Aeschylus who makes the shooting metaphor most explicit :K a t yhBooa ro.$&aua p$ r d L ualpca . . . Suppl. 446 (cf. ualpLa X i y w Septem 1). Noh, too, that a blow (nhqy+) which is Kaipia is one which hits the mark. These examples of mark or aim will perhaps suffice to establish this constituent of the semantic field of Kacpds and



we may now be encouraged to look for the sense boundary mark, limit, dividing line . This I find clearly in two passages of Euripides. In Hippolytus 385 ff., Phaedra, speaking of a/6&, says that there are two kinds :Giuual 6 ~ t u l v ,4 p2v 06 K a w j 4 6 6x80s O ~ K W V . EL 6 d Kaipds $v aa$+ O ~ K $v 6v ijarqv ra& ZxovrE y p b p p a r a . if the dividing line were plain (ie. if there were a clear
dejnition) there would not be two having the same name

The meaning of limit , (definition , appears also in Phosnissne 469 ff. Polyneices pleads his cause and begins :-

&XO~% 0 p a h rijs 6Xq0das EY$u KOZ; n-oitciXWv 8 ~ r6v6ix i <ppqvEvpdrwv.

ZXEL y d p

a&& icaipdv.

Just things (note <v&Ka, to which we shall return later) do not need subtle expositions. For they have Kaipds, i.e. they are clearly dejned. How aware the Greek was of this fundamental meaning of uaipds as the limit is shown by a phrase of Pindar in the first Pythian. The point Pindar is making is : do not praise too much, otherwise you wilI sicken the hearer, who is soon surfeited by another mans praises. The poet expresses this by saying Kaipdv el @+faio if you limit your utterance , and then he makes explicit his conception of tcaipds by adding the phrase : nohXBv nelpara avvravduais E)v /3paXcT pulling the boundary ropes together in a brief space (for m i p a p , another boundary word, see below). This insistence on the proper limit even of praise recurs in Pindar: in the 10th Pythian, for instance, r1 ~opn-bwn-apd Kaipdv . . . , where it would be rendered more appropriately as why do I boast beyond the proper limit, immoderately , rather than as out of season . Democritus, too, in his insistence on the proper limits rings the changes on Kaipds, p&pov, and 6pos :46oval aKaipo6 &-ouuiv &76las f r . 7 1 ; nailids O ~ K 6 v 8 p k r13&phpws i?ri8vpriv fr. 70 ; x p 7 p d r w v oprfcs, 4v 1 . 4 dplcyrai ~ d p y m , d y s &axdrys ~ o h h d v axahen-wrkpy fr. 219 ;




and a similar variation is apparent in the 4rro#&ypara of the Seven Sages : p h p o v gprurov is attributed to Cleoboulus, p~62v Zyav to Solon, p & p y x p B to Thales, and Karpdv yvB9i to Pittacus. This close association of Kaipdc, pgrpov, Gpos, etc., is seen in yet another pre-Bocratic, Anarxarchos : nohvpa el7 Kcipra p & Bqkhc;, Kcipra i 3 h c i r r E r r d v 2 p v r a . B+eh~-i pZv r6v 6cfrdv d d p a , flhcinr~r 62 rdv tjyi61ws (bwvECvv7a n8v %nos K+ navrl 8rjpy. xp;7 62 Kaipov p&pa el6ivai. oo#lys y i p o171-o~ :pas. fr. 1. We may compare further the exchanges of the chorus (the distribution of the lines is disputed) in the exodus of Aeschylus Supplices 1059 f. A. p&piov vCv Znos ~ 6 x 0 ~ use 1 moderation in your prayers . B. &a tcalpdv ~ U ~E C ~ ~ U K ; E L what S limit do you enjoin on me 1 C. r& 9eGv pyS& C&<E~V do not be excessive in your demands on the gods. This usage is so widespread that I need do 110 more than quote the familiar proverb : plrpa +vhcioadai* Kaipds 6 E ) d~6ioiv c?p~orosHesiod W D 694, of. pq62v Zyav amv6eiv. KarpAs 6 2nl T ~ U L V ;pimas Theogn. 401 f.l We have now established for the semantic field of Kabpds most of the fundamental components of Ma1 and the rest.2 But in pursuing this study I was struck by the number of times in which Karpds was coupled with 6 1 ~ ~ Theognis, . for
On ~ a i p d s see Wilamowitz Kleine 8chifterh 1. 43 ff. With the etymology of Kaipds we are not here ooneerncd, but n possible solution is suggested by the number of boundary words which arc derivrtl Trautmann (130) quotes under kert6 from word8 meaning cut, Rplit and kid6 schneide, sohlagc skr. Eita Link , ru. herti Strich, Linie, Grenze with the temporal sense MuZ in li. ku7taa and le. - h r t , while le. kdrtu has the meanings Reihe, Schicht ; Ordnung, Stand ; Weise Art . (Cf. Sanskrit dakft once.) Under snad Falk-Torp 520 quotes mnd. s n i t (Linie), Grenze, Grenzzeichen and again (p. 522) under anaid6 mnd. e d e Grenzlinie ; under 8keZ (p. 468) mnd. dchele Unterschied Mangel, Grenze , All this strongly supports a connection with K c i p (see J. B. Hofmann, Etymobgidches Wbuterbuch drs GriechiacAen).



instance, writes : 2 6' G X K W S nap& K a L p d v &v3p + I o ~ d p S ~ i ' OupG KT<UETUL 1. 199. In Aeschylus again, S i K a l w s is used as the opposite of C ~ K U ~ ~ :WS
yvc;uy 6: x p d v y

T d V TE 8 L K U i W S K a l TdV
T d h L V O l K O V p O f i V T U %'OhLT&V


Agamemnon 807 R.
With this we may compare Clmphoroe 624 ff., where, as Headlam points out, '' the OZ;K E ) V ~ ~ K W S of 1. 636 is synonymous with the &alpus of 1. 622 ". A similar equivalence is found in two lines of the Proinetheus V'inctus :-p p O T O k T L TLp&S ;TUUUS T d p U 6 1 K T S 1. 30 cf. p< vuv /3por06s p2v &#AEL K U L ~ O C rrlpa 1. 507.

Similar, too, is Hesiod's use of m p a K a l p L a in W D 329, where he speaks of the man who mounts his brother's bed, a secret adulterer, as napaicalpba ;E'<WV. Liddell & Scott translates this passage as " unseasonable, ill-timed ", but Hesiod hardly seems to be rebuking the timing of this deed. In fact he sums U 334). It is this up these r r a p a K a l p i a Zpya as Zpya ~ " ~ L K(1. which finally brings us close association of K a i p d s and 6 1 ~ 7 by a circuitous and unpremeditated route to the problem suggested by the title of this lecture. In view of the meanings of K a L p d s which we have established the thought irresistibly obtrudes itself that 6 1 ~ 7 may have a similar origin. We recall immediately that 6 1 is ~ a derivative ~ from the root "deild, to which it bears the same relationship as 4uy.j to 4 ~ t y . l There is little doubt about the basic meaning of this root *deik, which is exemplified in the verb G E ~ K V V ~'' L I show, point out ". The root is widespread in inany languages : for instance the German word Zeichen = " sign, mark '' is cognatc with our token. I n Latin, too, the original significance " show, point out " is present in such derivatives as index, indieare. The most common sense of the verb dTco is, of course, the
Scc Scliwyzer Griech. Cram. 1469.




secondary one, (to say, a development for which we have seen many para1lels.l But the original significance ( to point out , is present in such phrases as iis istarvb viarib &GO. Examples from many languages show that the semantic field of this root bears a striking resemblance to that of modus, rmrk, and the rest.2 But we should note that Greek shows no trace of the development (to say ,3 and 80 61~7cannot mean pronouncement of the judge. Greek is faithful to the primary significance of the root (mark, indicate , and so we must postulate for 6 1 ~ 7 the primary significance (mark or indication . But this turns out to be no mere hypothesis, for this is the meaning which the word actually bears in many of the earliest attested contexts. I am thinking of such passages as Odyssey 19. 43, where Telemachus marvels a t the mysterious light which makes the megaron blaze like fire and his father silences him and says: this is the 6 1 ~ 7 of the Gods . In other words (this is the mark or sign, the characteristic of the gods . There are a iiurriber of such passages where ~ L K V is used for the mark or characteristic, e.g of gods, old men,


1 Cf. Balto-Slavonic *rEditei (Mi. rcidyti aeigen , etc.) cognatc with Gothic rddjun rcden, sprechen and Oh.noruidiu spreclie (Trautmann Y35, who quotm as a semantic parallel Runs. ukuzutt). Cf. further Lith. sukyti say but OCS sotiti indicare (Trautmann 255). For details see J. Gondas exhaustive study d d ~ ~ v pAmsterdam, i, 1929. 1 have not been convinced by this authors attempt to show that tho primary meaning of *deik was richten and still less by his suggestion t h a t the root *dik meant plaats (in cen richting) . ThiR iri methodologically an important point. I n this paper I havu followed the advice of Praru Skutsch, who once said that Latin etymologiea must be sought on the Tiber. Thus I have here been primarily concerned to plot semantic fields as they are revealed in actual contexts. In this way I rccord, for instance, the semantic scatter of Slcvonic word^ deriving from wki) and *rok&, but I have ruled out such speculations as that reko oontairin the Indo-European root *wer s~ay Faithful adherence t o the samc prinaiple also excludes the assumption of the semantic development say for BCLK- in Greek. ~ L K ? munt be understood from the position it occupien in the semantic field discloscd by the study of Greek contexts, Still less do I believe that we can postulate *deik say for IE, but concur with Walde-Hofmann p. 349 : doch ist die im Lat. und z.T. im Germ. , , vertretene Bedeutung sagen jedenfalls aus zeigen mit Worten, hinweisen entwickelt.




slaves, and so on, to behave in such and such a way (e.g. Odyssey 4, 691, 14, 59, 24, 255, etc.). It is this usage which survived in the adverbial accusative in such phrases as K V V ~ S X K Y V ,which may be translated into Latin as canis rnodoyet another link with limit words. Our familiarity with the semantic fields of such (markwords now provokes the question whether 6 1 ~ 7had the meaning (boundary or limit . The idioms used in many passages in early Greek literature from Homer onwards suggest such ail interpretation of 61~7. In Hesiod, for instance, WD 36 ff., we read : uhh a$& GLaKpivwpeBa V E ~ K O S 1Belyn S l ~ ;p and again Theognis 85 : 6LaKplvovra B6pLuras lOelp G l ~ p dividing, separating the O+LMES with straight GlKaL , a phrase which echoes Homers U K O X L ~ S K ~ ~ V W U O+u7as L Iliad 16, 387. This theme of straightness and crookedness is inseparable from 81KaL. It is extremely frequent in Hesiod, and we find it in Homer : e.g. r$ 8 6 p ~ v& PET& T O ~ L IOdvraTa


Iliad 18, 508.

el 6 Ly 2yAv a6r& B L K ~ U W ,Kal p oi; T L V ~ c$qp~

E Z - L ~ ~ < & L V AavaGv. &ia ydp &nab.

Iliad 23,579 f. soion : EdeI;VEL 62 xKas uKo~Liis j y . P. 37. Piiidar : E~;OVVE haois 61Kas Pyth. 4. 153, and eluewhere.
S . the analysis of such The truly just man is ~ O V ~ ~ KIt~ was passages which led Professor Latte to his conclusion : (Das Urteil wird also als das Aufzeigen einer Linie gefasst, in der sich richtiges Verhalten zu bewegenhat (Zoc. cit., p. 15). This underlying notion of a judgement as the drawing of a line is rriade particularly explicit by Theognis, who writes, 453 ff. :-


p~ nap& ur60prp Kdpvr, 6 l ~ q v .


yvdpova T+SE BlKaauaL,

(I must decide this 6 1 by~carpenters ~ line and set square. Among these contexts, too, we observe an instructive substitution of Karpos for ~ I K:V




o"6r ycip

aoA6 K a l noA@ &%rr~ dp@ 6iaKpivEw $pevl p$ r a p & KaipAv 6vcr.rraACs.

Pindar 0 1 . 8. 23 f. But G l q keeps still other verbal company which betrays its origins. In Hesiod TVD 239 f. we read :ots 6' CPpis T E pipqhe , a , + K a l oX&Aia 2pya r o i s 82 6 1 ~ 7 KpovlSqs )~ rwpalpEraL czlrpdona Zeds.

What is racpaIpraL Z It is a derivative from -&pap meaning " a fixed mark, boundary, goal, aim, end" (see Liddell & Scott 7 . 1 Here then Zeus " marks out the 6 1 ".~ ~ But while we are dealing with rftcpctlpopac it will suit our purposes later in this lecture if I point out another passage, where Hesiod rebukes his brother with the words :t'pyqev V + r l m p u r Epya r&.r' d v O p i n o m i &ol 6Larwp7jpavro

WD 398
" the works which the gods marked out, assigned to, allocated to, men." It is such passages wJiich form the natural transition to the sense " allotted portion, rightful portion, lot, fate ", which 8 1 ~ q also bears in Homer. For instance, in bringing about the reconciliation between Agamemnon and Achilles Odysseus says :-

a6rcip &rctrci uc 6aml t'vi ~ X i a l z soEpcu&aOw T L Glrcqs E'.rriGrv& E"Xgu6a. rrwip;?, Zva 'Arpci"67, u6 6' E".rreLra SLKaidrcpos K a l &r' ZXAy Zuueac.


iiiaa 19,179 i ~ .
But thereafter let him make amends to you in his hut with a rich feast, that you may have nothing lacking of your S ~ K ' I ) . And you, Atreides, hereafter shall be more Glrcaios towards another man." Here the adjective Glrcaios is used of one

For &pap i n the wnso of r6Aos ae0 Pindar Pyth. 2. 40 : Oe6s &av id 2A~iSraa~ &pap dv6masar.




who observes propriety in the matter of rightful portions, a sense which is clearly apparent also in Od. 20, 293 f. :poipav p i v 64 ( E ~ V O S +EL miXai &s E ) ~ ~ O ~ K E Y Ibgv. 0; ycip tcahdv ~T+LV 0682 GlKaLov &Ecvovs.

Thc meaning

lot, fate , is apparent also in Od. 19, 167.

ij p t v p dXkcoai Y E ~ & U E K nhrloaiv EXopai. y&p 6 1 q , onnor~d r p r l s $s &nkyu1 2v<p 76orTov xpdvov oouov +A v5v.

Truly you will endow me with more woes than I am now possessed of. This is a mans lot when he is absent from his homeland as long as I. So far our hypothesis has accounted for most of the usages of 61~g and the peculiar idioms in which it is set. There remains the verb 8 i K E b , which acts as the aorist of /3&hh~iv t o throw . Hirzel and Ehrenberg regarded this meaning as focal and were thus led to their interpretation of 61~7 as fundamentally the throwing down of the atcjjn~pov in a symbolical act of judgement. But from our present vantage point of comparative semantics the semantic pattern appears in a different and simpler light. 6lKEiV to throw is merely the surviving representative of that part of the semantic field which we have labelled marksmanship , examples of which have been quoted previous1y.l Thus far the analysis of the idioms and contexts in which 8 1 ~ 7occurs has strengthened its evident etymological connection with the root *&& = mark, point, show . Its semantic ramifications have beeii paralleled by numerous examples from other I-E. languages. But such parallels would not themselves justify the conclusion indicated in the title which this lecture bears. The evidence so far adduced would not necessarily imply that the Greeks derived this peculiar concept of justice

1 Perhaps the best example is the Balto-Slavonia *&a(Trautmnnn 74) : aksl. go&, ~ ~ i p d &pa, r, Rkr. y15d Besttag , J a h r : ru. god Jahr, Zeit . 6. hodim, hoditi wcrfcn ; ru. dial. gob, gotlit6 aogern, warten, zielen PIIILO. TRANS. 1950. M




and judgement as the respect for certain limits from the parent Indo-European. The semantic developments mark , boundary mark , judicial decision , and the rest might be considered so natural as to have taken place iiidependently and so not justify any conclusions about a common I-E. origin of this conception of justice. To proceed further, 1 must introduce a new notion-that of fiemantic structures. This notion of structure has been applied b y Professor DumBzil in his long sustained efforts to penetrate the secrets of Indo-European religion. Quite simply tlic principle is this : an isolated fact, say, of Roman religion, which is fouiitl to resemble one of Hindu religion, would not by itself be of any great interest or significance to the comparatist. But if a group of religious concepts is found to have a definite structure and this strueture, with complex interrelations of its component features recurs elmwhere, then the likelihood of a purely accidental resemblance becomes progressively less the more peculiar and complex tthe stnructure is. It is this notion of structure that I now propose to apply to the semantic problem with which we are dealing to-day. S I K ~we , have seen, is a mark and inore specifically a boundary inark. But so fundamental a word of the moral vocabulary is not isolated. I t implies a peculiar Weltmi,schauu~,q which must reveal itself in other expressions dealing with the same sphere of ideas. If this notion of Ltoundttry or limit is focal, then we should expect t o find that other terms for moral ideas harmonize with it. In what remains of this paper, I shall try to deinonstrate that such a &xucture, such a harmony, exists in Greek ; and, further, that it occurs elsewhere in the 111: world in so peculiar a form that it justifies a conclusioii about Indo-Ruropean origins. I n the first place we note that the just man is < V ~ L K O S , quite literally he remains within his marks or limits ; unlike his opposite, who is E K ~ L K O S . But what are these limits ? They are the limits of his proper portion or allotment, his po+a or a h . The systeni of mutually determining ,uoipaL is thus cxpressed by Aeschylus :-




EL 82 p$
dpyE prj


p o i p a poipav




Agamemnon 1025 R.
A.Y for the synonym a b a , we find that a h p a Zpya are synonymous with 6 l q in Odyssey 14. 84, while the compounds E'valaLpos and E'(aluLos parallel & ~ L K O S and ; ; C ~ L K O S (e.g. A h a . . . r d v 6' E'valaipov ria, Aeschylus Ag. 775). Another such pair is Zvvopos a i d Z K V O ~ O S ,e.g. &as 06 rvyxcivovaiv E'vvdpov Aeschylus Suppl. 384. But what of the act by which a man passes from one state to the other? As many scholars have pointed out, it is an act of " stepping over ", " trespass ", '(transgression ", 6nepjlaola (cf. p6hc-r~ o h ~ L X Ep Ld,A ~ r ' .E'ml r h p a aepGu' 0 1 6 ~ 64. Sophocles Oed. Col. 883 ff.). Perhaps the best-known expression of this view of the universe where each element has its appointed portion and limits is Heraclitus fr. 94 +LOS y&p 03x d m p j l i u e r a i p&rpa* EL 62 prj ' E ~ L v ~ Alurp E s , i n l u o v p o i , E)&vp'ljuovaw. The same conception is fundamental in the cosmology of Anaximander :-&$ 6 v 82 $ y k v ~ u l s 2urL roTs O ~ U L , ual r $ v 616ovaL y&p 40opdv E ~ S racra ylveo0ai Kurd r d XPE&V* a;& G i q v ual rluiv &hh?jhoi~ rjjs L6iulas uar6 r$v r o c xpdvov r d f i v . fr. 2. Over this universal system of allocations and proper portions there broods a jealous, watchful spirit which punishes trespasses and encroachments. This is Nemesis, '' distribution" or " distributor ", for the origin of this term is quite transparent. It is the action noun from v l p m = I distribute ". The part played by Nemesis in the distribution of p o i p a i i8 made explicit by Pindar :dxopai &p#~l KahGv polpq N6pEuiv GiXdjlovXov p+j

0 1 . 8. 86. and pozpav v+mv is a frequently occurring idiom (e.g. Aeschylus PV 294, Sophocles Trach. 163, 1238, etc.).




That Greek cosmological, political, and moral thinking was dominated by this notion of appointed portions and proper limits is n fact so familiar arid so often discussed that I need do no more than refer to the late Professor F. M. Cornford's luminous pages of analysis in the early chapters of From Religion to Philosophy : " the fTalnewOrk of primitive religious representation ia Greek is a system of departments (moirai) clearly marked off from one another by boundaries of inviolable taboo, and each (department,) the seat of a potency which pervades that department, dispenses its power with it and resists encroachments from without (p. 38). And again : " i t is necessary to grasp that Nomos does not suggest uniformity of temporal sequence, hut exercise of power, within spatial or departmental boundaries. We must think of Law as a dispensation or system of provinces within which all the activities of a community are parcelled oiit and co-ordinated (p. 30). But perhaps the clearest expression of this connection of law and justice with boundaries of provinces is to be found in words given by Sophocles to Antigonc :-')

066' $






av Cl'v%pd.rro1s; p l a v

Antigone 461 f.

It was not Justice who dwells with the nether gods who

marked out the boundaries of such vdpo~.)' We may now turn to Dr. J. T. Sheppard's discussion of this set of ideas in the introductory essay to his edition of the Oedipus Tyrannus. Particularly relevant t o us a t the moment are his remarks on the Partheneion of Alkman. I quote : " The girls for whom Alcman made his Partheneion have been singing of the wicked ambition and the ruin of certain heroes, who aspired to marriage with the imniortals. For excess in matters of Aphrodite and the desire to makc great marriages are among the many forms assumed by the tendency of mortal men to thoughts that are above mortality. This is how they moralize this story before they turn to lighter themes.




The gods avenge and happy he who weaves in cheerful piety his day without a tear.' " 2arL TLS orGv r h s . 0" 6' 6 h a L O S , &TlS E v " 4 p W V

We firid ourselves at that poiiit of the ode where iiiyth crystallizes into maxim, a maxim which takes the form" Seek not t o wed Aphrodite-aspire not to heaven ". But the myth concludes just before the maxim with the baffling lines :-K P $ T ~ J U E y&p A b a navrGv

n d p o s yEpaLrClToi

ai Gv

Who are Aisa and Poros, the oldest of the gods, whose intervention is provoked hy such attempts to overstep man's proper h i t s 1 For Aisa the case is clear enough ; but who or what is Poros '1 The context and its linking with Aisa suggests that its meaning is " apportionment ". It is the noun from the root *per which we find in &pas '(the limit ", etc., in the root aorist ~ O P E T V ,while the perfect passive participle r d nmpwp&ov is yet another Greek word for "fate, destiny, the allotted portion ".I In this phrase Part and Apportionment, the oldest of the gods " we have the mythological expression for that primal dasmos or act of distribution which Cornford postulated as prior t o the emergence of the Olympian dynasty in the world. But peculiar as it is, this conception is not unparalleled and here perhaps the cornparatist may again render a service. Among the Indo-Iranian peoples we also find that '' in the physical world there rules a regular order Rta . . . which is clearly an inheritance from the Indo-Iranian period " (Berriedale Keith, Religion and Philosophy of the Veda, p. 83). Rta is also ('conceived as a firm and abiding principle residing

Note, too, that neipap besides meaning ' limits ' can also mean ' judiciel decision' : Q+w 6 ' i k u 0 ~ vin; hropt ~ ~ i p E"Arut9ai a p Iliad 18. 500. See G. Bjorck, Mdlanges Boisacq I 144.




in man (p. 247). But how amoral this conception is we may gather from the fact that I the Dawns arise in the morning according to the &a, the Fathers have placed the sun in the heavcn according to the Rta (p. 83). Professor Keith tells us further that no great stress is laid on the moral quality of the gods and the sense of sin is only very feebly represented in the hymns and the moral aspect of the Rigveda is practically confined to the case of the Varuga, the Adityas, and Aditi herself (p. 244). Now, in his book Servius et la Fortune, Professor G. Dumhzil has examined some of the myth8 relating t,o a primordial act of distribution which produced the order of the universe and society as the ancient Hindus saw it. Concerned in this distribution Professor Dumezil finds the pair of Adityas, Arilqa and Bhaga, literally portion and distribution or distributor . This is precisely Alkmans Aisa and Poros. But let us concentrate for the moment on Bhaga (distribution or distributor . T t is the name of a divinity, an hditya from whom welfare is expected. It also means portion , lot , or fortune . Rut a derived verb bhalcpti means = eats, devours, consumes . On the other hand, in Old Persian Rug@has become generalized and means god , and this word has found its way into the Slavonic languages. We have here a peculiar semantic structure : (1) divide, apportion, (2) feast, (3) god, especially as the bestower of wealth. Does this recall nothing in Greek ? Have we not GalopaL = distribute, divide with the noun Saupds, which figures in e number of significant contexts discussed by Professor Cornford P This same root figures again in a set of words denoting feast, banquet , e.g. Sat?, S a l v v p , SaLTpdv, etc. But, most remarkable of all, it forms the basis of the most general Greek word for a supernatural being-Salpwv. Little time remains to me to discuss this important word Sulpwv is derived from IE* dti/aai divide . The cognates of this
word i n Germanic show a semantic pattern strikingly similar to those disr o m Fdk-Torp 161 : tfmm m. Zeit ags. t8ma cussed above. f quote f m. Zeit, reohte Zeit, Gelegenheit ; . . tih n. Gelegenheit, Ziel spiltmnd. ti1 n. Creme, Ziel, ahd. Zil n. Grcnec, Ende, Ziel.




and I must content myself with a few illustrative quotations. That the Galpoves are bestowers of wealth, like Bhaga, is clear from Hesiod W D 122 ff., where the S a l p o v ~ sreceive the epithet ?rhauroGdrai. Rut an evil portion, too, may be meted out by the daimon, for Homer speaks of Galpovos a h a

The equivalents of Amga arid Bhaga are to be found in the Slavonic world, too, as has been pointed out to me by Professor Roman Jakobson, with whom I had the privilege of discussing this paper shortly before it went to press. He has very kindly allowed me to quote from his forthcoming article in the Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend, Vol. 11, New York, 1950, p. 1026 ff. Both Slavs and Iranians eliminated the Indo-European name of the worshipped (sacred) sky (= d&?uus). They agree (1) in substituting the name of the cloud for that of the sky, (2) in converting the derivative celestial (= deiwos) used by Indo-Europeans to denote gods into the name of hostile demonic beings (cf. the term divii attested in the demonology of various Slavic peoples and the corresponding she-demon divii, diva,d i v o h a ) , and (3) in assigning the general meaning of god to a term which originally signified both wealth and its giver (bogic). . . . Like the Vedic VFtrahan the Slavic Svarogii generated the sun-Xiiwii Daiibogii according to the Old Russian records. These designations survive among old personal names, Dadzbog in Polish, Iirs in Serbian. Helmolds ydolum . . . Podaga is perhaps a distortion of Dabog. For the bookmen, Daiibog6 was identical with Helios. I n old Russian tradition both the celestial and the hearth fire is said to be Svarogiis son. Xiirsii is an obvious borrowing from the Iranian expression for the personified radiant sun (Xursid in Persian). Daiibogii means the giver of wealth like the Vedic Bhaga. Stribogii, the neighbour of Daiibogzi on the Kievan hill before Russias conversion, means literally the apportioner of wealth like Bhagas partner Arnqa (italics mine). To this evidence we may add that of the Russian expressions for fatc-ddlja and dasti, both of which mean part, share




(see Schrader-Nehring RL TI 291) and provide us with exact Slavonic equivalents of the Greek poipa and a h . But it is opportune for me, too, to observe the proper limits of time and to draw tight the boundary ropes of my argument into a narrow compass. To recapitulate briefly, a purely philological quest starting from what was apparently a remote field, has led us to the heart of Greek moral thinking. Here we have confirmed the views of earlier scholars, such as Cornford, who established that " the Greeks believed that there was an order in human affairs which cohered with an order in surrounding nature and derived its sanction from that world order ". This order was the result of an elemental act of apportionment whereby each corqonent of the universe, gods, men, and natural objects had its allotted portion, the boundaries of which might not be transgressed without grave results. This view of the world finds expresHioii in a closely cohering structure of moral terms among which a b a , poipa, V ~ ~ J L E L T and L S , Salpwv are etymologically transpareikl What I hope to have shown to-day is that 6 1 does ~ ~riot mean " a path" or " pronouncement )', but in the sense of " boundary mark " forms an integral part o f that coherent structure, and further to have made out a t least a prima facie case for believing that this peculiar structure of ideas occurs elsewhere in the IE world and so justifies the postulate of an IE origin. It is this 1E inheritance, perpetuated in Greek idiom and so passed down from generation to generation, which was again laid bare in Plato's keen analysis of justice as 4 r d a&ov^ Tpd-rrEw K a l p$ noXvnpaypoveiv (Republic IV, 4338).
The system was also exprcsscd in it mythological form. Where there is respect for %KV, the boundary, there reigns rivopia, proper distribution, and that state of balance and tranquillity which tho Greeks called a'p$v?. It is this which is cxprevsed in the myth which makes AL'KV'Edvopia nnd Eipjvq tho dnughterx of Themis (Hcnitrd 'l'hogony 901). To them threc sisters the Greeks g i ~ v t 'the namc 'Qpac. Is it an ncoidcnt that $pa is aliio the Greek w u r d for a divixiun of timc, part of t,hc year, fitting timc or sewon ?