verse), Cornelius Lucius Scipio Barbatus.^7 But they can be found in many other
poetic traditions: in the Rigveda, as 5. 33. 8 Paurukutsyásya... Trasádasyoh
̇
‘of Purukutsa’s son Trasadasyu’; 10. 14. 1 Vaivasvatám... Yamám
̇
ra ̄ ́ja ̄nam
‘the son of Vivasvat, Yama the king’, with the Avestan parallel at Y. 32. 8
Vı ̄vaŋhusˇo ̄... Yimascı ̄t
̃
; in Lydian, inscr. 12. 1 Siva ̄mlλSaroλ‘of Sivams ́’s son
Saros ́’; in Venetic, text 232 Lavskos Kuges‘L’s son K.’, 239 [I]nijo Kapros‘I.’s
son K.’;^8 in Old Irish, Campanile (1988), no. 1. 2 hua Luircc Labraid‘the
grandson of Lorc, Labraid’, and similarly in K. Meyer (1913), 40, lines 22, 24,
26, 30; in Old English, Waldere B 9 Welandes bearn Widia;Battle of Maldon
155 Wulfsta ̄nes bearn Wulfmæ ̄ ̄ r; in Serbo-Croat epic, SCHS ii, no. 7, lines 20,
26, 45, etc., Kraljevic ́a M a r k a, ‘of Marko Kraljevic ́’.
Archaic vocabulary, disturbed word order, and, above all, metaphors and
periphrases that reveal the identity of a thing only with the application of
some intellectual effort, present a challenge to the hearer, which he may be
able to meet only with difficulty or after acquiring familiarity with the style.
It was not just a matter of using obscure vocabulary, but also of hiding
meanings in symbolisms. Such verbal techniques were part and parcel of the
Indo-European poet’s stock-in-trade, of what gave him his claim to special
status. His obscurities were not necessarily perceived as faults; what is not
fully understood may seem more impressive than what is. In some branches
of the tradition the poet seems to have positively gloried in his mastery of a
language beyond common comprehension. I have elsewhere quoted Pindar’s
lofty lines (Ol. 2. 83–6):
Many are the swift shafts under my elbow, within the quiver,
that speak to those who understand, but for the generality
require interpreters.An Indian poet centuries earlier had stated (RV 1. 164. 45):
Language (va ̄ ́c) is measured out (párimita ̄) in four steps (pada ̄ ́ni),
known to the Brahmans who are mindful (manı ̄s
̇
ín
̇
ah
̇
).
Three, stored in secret, they do not put about;
the quarter of language humankind speaks.This antithesis between the Brahmans’ secret language and the language that
‘humankind speaks’ resembles that sometimes made between the language of
the gods and the language of men. The gods’ language, which will be dis-
cussed in the next chapter, is in fact a special vocabulary deployed by the poet;
as in the Vedic passage, it is a poetic language that is contrasted with that of
human beings. In this context Toporov aptly quotes Encolpius’ remark to the
(^7) Wackernagel (1943), 13 f.
(^8) Lejeune (1974), 292, 296, cf. 45. For poetic word order in Lydian cf. Gusmani (1975), 266–8.
- Phrase and Figure 77