STUDI^ fN GENERAL LINGUISTICS

ACrUUa]VnVE AND (X>MI*ARATIVIS LINGUISTICS;introduction by L. R. Palmer

^^^TS Or GENERAL LINGUISTICSr(5 Martinet

ENGLISH nlONETIC TExTSbyDaviUA. ..

'Vbcrcrombic

il^V^ OF STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICSoy L.iuh0 nil" <-<. Lcpschy

by L. It. />'olint

1 Ew Guide to the palace of knossosTHE LA'rIN LANGUAGE

!kX«fp AEANS AND MINOANS:' history in the Light ofllw Linear D Tablets

mmm WPUHpillHM4

•»"""«i|ii in in mm miaPi..

INDO-EUROPEAN

LANGUAGE AND

SOCIETY

b

EMILE BENVENISTE

Summaries, tabicand index by

JEAN LALLOT

Translated by

ELIZABETH PALMER

FABER AND FABER LIMITED

3 Queen Square, London

Civing mid Taking

which led to the formation <>r the lerm kllrontimos 'heir*. The otherusages are easily explicable.1

Thus the Germanic niman has nothing to do with taut. Wc mustpostulate a Germanic root new- which, in the light of this interpretation of its sense, links up with the group of Indo-European formsfrom the root *nern-, which arc also abundantly represented in Greek.

To what result do we come if wc subject emu to like scrutiny?Correspondences with initial e- arc found in Old Slavonic imo, andin Baltic in the Lith. imii, imti 'take*. Latin helps to delimit themeaning of emo, which is 'to draw back, to take away*. Eximo is to'take out of, while the meaning of eximius corresponds in sense toGr. ixokhos 'outstanding, preeminent'. Further, wc have exemplumwhich, by a curious development, means 'an object set apart,separated by itsverymarked characteristics', hence 'model, example';promo means 'draw from (store)' and its verbal adjective promptus'take out, drawn, ready to hand'. Per-imo (with the meaning of theprevcrb which wc find \\\per-do) means 'make disappear, annihilate';sumo (from *subs-emo) 'take by lifting'.

All this shows that the Latin sense 'take < draw, remove, seize'has no connexion with 'take <C receive, welcome' of Germanic.Those arc quite different notions in origin, and they reveal theirpeculiarity if wc succeed in grasping their first sense. Each of themhas its own domain and history. It is only at the end point of theirevolution and in the most watcrcd-down sense that Germanic

niman and Latin emo resemble each other.

Wc return to emo 'buy'. The manner in which emo develops arestricted sense in Latin suggests that the meaning 'buy' implies aquite different conception from that inherent in the terms belongingto the Greek family ofpirnimi, etc. It is clear that emo at first meant'take to oneself, draw to oneself. The possession which it affirms isexpressed by the gesture of the man who takes the object and drawsit to himself. The sense of'buy' must first have evolved with referenceto human beings whom one 'takes' after having fixed a price. Thenotion of'purchase' had its origin in the gesture which concluded thepurchase (emo) and not in the fact of paying a price, handing overthe value of the object.2

1 For the meaning of nimb we may refer to our analysis ol'nc'mesis in Nomsd'agent el noms d''action en indo-europien, Paris, 194JI, p. 79.

2 On Gr. pernemi and Lat. emo, sec below p. 109.

70

Chapter 7

HOSPITALITY

In Latin 'guest' is called hostis and hospes < *ho.sti-pct-. What is themeaning of these elements? What is the meaning of the compound?/) -pet-, which also appears in the forms pot-, Lat. polls (Gr. p6tis,desp6tes, Skr. patih), and -pt- (Lat. -pic, i-psc?) originally meantpersonal identity. In thefamilygroup (dem-) it is the master who is eminently'hinuelf (ipsissimus, in Plautus, means the master); likewise, despite themorphological difference, Gr. desp6tcs, like dominus, designated the personwho personified thefamily group par excellence.2) Theprimitive notion conveyed byhostis is thatofequality bycompensation:a hostis is one who repays my gift by a counlir-gifl. Thus, like its Gothiccounterpart, gasts, Latin hostis at one period denoted llu guest. The classicalmeaning 'enemy' must have developed when reciprocal relations between clanswere succeeded by the exclusive relations of civitas to civitas (cf. Gr. xinos'guest' > 'stranger').3) Because of this Latin coined a new namefor 'guest': *hosti-pct-, whichmay perhaps be interpreted asarisingfrom an abstract noun hosti 'hospitality'and consequently meant 'he who predominantly personifies hospitali/y', ishospitality itself.The study of a certain number of expressions relating to exchange, especiallythose based on the root *mci-, like the Latin miinus 'an honorific post implyinganobligation toreciprocate', l.-Ir. Mitra, llu personification (fa reciprocalcontract(as illustrated in Iliad VI, 120-246), *mci-t- in the Latin mutuus,Skt. mithu- 'changed (falsely)' > 'lie', Av. nuOwara 'pair' also leads usto a wordfor 'guest': mehman in middle and modern Iranian.Another wordfor 'guest' in modern Iranian, erman < a.ryam;\.n,"links upwith a very special kind of'hospitality' within a group of the Arya, one of the

form* of which is reception by marriage.

The vocabulary of Indo-European institutions throws up someimportant problems, the terms of which have, in some cases, not yetbeen posed. We become aware of their existence and even partlycreate the object of our study by examining words which reveal theexistence ofan institution, the traces ofwhich we can barely glimpsein the vocabulary of this or that language.

7<

Giving and 'Taking

One groupofwords refers toa well established social phenomenon,hospitality, the concept of.,lhe 'guest'. The basic term, the Latin hospes,is an ancient compound. An analysis of its component elementsilluminates two distinct notions which finally link up: hospes goesback to *hosti-pcl-s. The second component alternates withpot- whichsignifies 'master', so that the literal sense ofhospes is'the guest-master*.This is a rather peculiar designation. In order to understand it betterwc must analyse the. two elementspolls and hostis separately and studytheir etymological connexions.

The term *polis first merits a brief explanation in its own right. Itpresents itself in its simple aspect in Sanskrit pdlih 'master' and'husband' and in Greek p6sis 'husband', or in composition as indespdtes.

In Sanskrit the distinct senses 'master' and 'husband' correspondto different declensions of one and the same stem; but this is adevelopment peculiar to Sanskrit. As for Gr. pdsis, a poetical wordfor 'husband', it is distinct from despoils, where the sense 'master ofthe house' is no longer felt; despdtls is solely an expression of power,whereas the feminine dispoina conveys the idea of 'mistress', a titleof majesty.

The Greek term despdtls, like the Sanskrit correspondent ddmpdtih, belongs with a group of ancient compound words, each ofwhich had as its first element the name of a social unit of variable

extension:

dam pdlih (master of the house)vis" „ (master of the clan)jds ,, (master of the'lineage')

Apart from despdtls and dam pdlih, theonlyoneattested in a numberoflanguages is the compound which is in Sanskrit vii-pdlih and inLithuanian vli-pals 'clan chief.

In Latin an extensive word family is organized around the word*polls either as a free form or in composition. Apart from hospes itforms the adjectives impos, compos 'who is not . . .' or 'who is masterof himself, of his senses' and the verb *potere, the perfect of which,polui, survives incorporated into the conjugation of the verb meaning'be able', possum, which itself is formed from the adjectivepolis in apredicative use: polis sum. pole est, an expression which issimplified topossum, potest.

72

Hospitality

All this is clear and there would be no problem, the sense beingconstant and the forms superimposablc, had not *polis at two pointsof the Indo-European world developed a very different sense. InLithuanian it provides the adjective pals 'himself and also thesubstantive pals 'master' (in composition vll-pals). Parallel to this,wc find in Iranian the compound adjective xvai-paiOya 'one's own','ofoneself, and used without distinction of person 'mine, yours, his';one's own. xvae is an Iranian form of the ancient reflexive pronoun*swe, *se, literally 'of oneself and -paiOya derived from the ancient*poli-. These facts are well known, but they deserve careful scrutinybecause of the singularity of the problem which they pose. Underwhat conditions can a word denoting 'master' end up by signifyingidentity? The primary sense of *polis is well defined, and it had astrong force; 'master', whence in marriage 'husband', or in socialterminology the 'chief of some unit, whether house, clan, or tribe.But the sense 'oneself is also well attested. Here Hittite makes an

important new contribution. It offers no form corresponding to*potis, whether as adjective or substantive. Despite the early date atwhich it appears, Hittite has a vocabulary which lias already beentransformed to a considerable extent. Many notions now arc conveyedby. new terms. The interesting point in the present connexion is thatHittite presents an enclitic particle, -pel (-pit), the sense of which is'precisely (liim)self, a particle of identity referring to the objectunder discussion. An example is the following:

'If a slave flees, takku IR-is huwaiand if he goes to an enemy country, naS kururi KURc paizzithe one who brings him back, kuisan EGIR-pa uwatczzihe is the one who takes him.' nauzan a p a § p i t dai.

In this demonstrative apds-pil, 'that one precisely, that very one',the particle -pit establishes a relation of identity. It has, incidentally,the same function whether attached to a demonstrative, a noun,or even a verb. It is evident that the use of this particle corresponds to the sense of identity of *polis found in Lithuanian and inIranian.

Once the sense, the form and the use is established in theselanguages, wc discover elsewhere other forms which can be linkedwith them in all probability. The Lithuanian particle pat signifies'exactly, precisely', like the Hittite -pel. With this may be compared

73

Hiring and taking p;)l : _. nLat. ulpote, the analysis ofwhich must be rectified. It do 'preciselyetymologically 'as is possible' (with the pole ofpole est) b^phaticallyin as much', with pole marking the identity. Utpott « {Jic personidentifies the action with its agent, the predicate wi^^pn -pti »nwho assumes it. We may also add the Latin postpo9'' ^gs tothatsuopte (Festus: suopte pro suo ipsius) 'his very own, what bc ^ the mys-very person'. Afurther example, but this is less certain (0 the twotcrious -pse of ipse. In any case, ifwe confine oursclve5 j,c survivalLatin facts and to the Lithuanian pat, we can establish jgn lo himofause of*pot- to designate the person himself, and to ^cordingly,the possession of a predicate affirmed in the sentence importantwhat was considered as an isolated use becomes & While itisindication and revealsto us the proper signification ofp°' become sodifficult to see how a word meaning 'the master* c.oul ^tandhowweakened inforce as to signify 'himself, it is easy to un** 'himself,an adjective denoting the identity of a person, signify* .^strates thecould acquire the sense ofmaster. This process, which », elsewhere:formation ofan institutional concept, canbccorroborate hy a termseveral languages have come to designate 'the mast*• $ indicatesmeaning 'himself. In spoken Latin, in Plautus, ip^Jfy thc onlYthe 'master (mistress), thc patron', the (personage) hU^^n 'himselfone who is important. In Russian, in peasant speech, ^ity,amongrefers to the 'lord'. In a restricted but important comn^ ^*a said it',the Pythagoreans, aulds iph& (auTO<; &pa) 'he himself.**, and thcwith autds referred to thc 'master* par excellence, Pythag panish, hanformula was used to specify a dictum as authentic. ***sjelv and in German crselbsl have thc same meaning. ^j»c meaning

For an adjective meaning 'himself to develop "xi°^o a circle of'master* there ia one necessary condition: there must funics thcpersons subordinated to a central personage who extent thatpersonality and complete identity of the group to such *^n.he is its summation: in his own person he is its incarna -ound *dem-

This is exactly thc development we find in thc cO**1 amed is notpol(i)- 'master of the house'. The role of the person so ^ gives himto give orders but to assume a representation whl ntified.authority over thc family as a whole with which he is i ifor 'to have

A verb derived from *poti-, like Skt. pdtyale, Lat. ' ^al', alreadypower over something, have something at one's disP this may bemarks thc appearance ofa sense of'to beable to'. W»

mm compared thc Latin verb posside're, 'possess', stemming from *pot-sedere, which describes thc 'possessor' as somebody who is establishedon something. Thc same figurative expression has passed into theGerman word 'besitzen'. Again, in Latin we have the adjectivecompos 'hewho is master, who has command ofhimself. The notionof'power* (theoretical) is thus constituted and it receives its verbalform from thc predicative expression pole est, contracted to potest,which gives rise lo thcconjugation/><mu//z,/>('/<w/ 'I am capable, I can*.1

It isworthwhile pausing for a moment toconsider a peculiarfact:as against Skt. dam pali and Gr. despdlls, Latin has formed from thcsame root an equivalent expression, but by a diifcrcnt procedure:this is dominus, a secondary derivative which belongs to a series ofexpressions for 'chief. Thus tribunus 'chief of thc tribe', in Gothickindins (<*genli-nos) 'chief of thc gens'; *druhlins (OHG Iruhtin)'chiefof the body'; piudans < *Uula-nos 'king', 'chief of the people*.This morphological process whereby *-nos is suffixed to thc name ofasocial unit, has furnished in Latin and Germanic expressions forchiefs ofpolitical and military groups. Thus, by independent paths,thc two scries link up: on the one hand by means ofa suffix, on thcother by a compound word, the term for the master has been coinedfrom thc social unit which he represents.

We must return now to thc compound which provoked thisanalysis, hospes, this time in order to study thc initial term, hoslis.Among thcexpressions common to thc prehistoric vocabulary ofthcEuropean languages it is ofspecial interest: hostis in Latin correspondstogasts of Gothic and to gosti ofOld Slavonic, which also presentsgos-podl 'master', formed like hospes.

But die meaning of Gothicgasts and OS1. gostl is 'guest*, whereasthat of Latin hoslis is 'enemy*. To explain thc connexion between'guest' and 'enemy' it is usually supposed that both derived theirmeaning from 'stranger', a sense which is still attested in Latin. Thenotion 'favourable stranger' developed to 'guest'; that of 'hostilestranger' to 'enemy'.

In fact, 'stranger, enemy, guest' arc global notions of a sorne\yhatvague character, and they demand precision by interpretation in theirhistorical and social contexts. In die first place, thc signification of

1 For thc semantic study of/>o/(«')-> reference may be made to our article'Problemes semanliques dc la reconstruction', Word X, Nos. 2-3, 1954, andProbUmes de linguistiqiie ginirak, Gallimard 1966, pp. 301ft".

75

Giving and Takinghoslis must be narrowed down. Here we are helped by the Latin:ullhors themselves who furnish a scries of words of .he same hum yand also some instructive examples of the use oi the term hosUsUpreserved its ancient value of 'stranger* in the law of the lvvclvcTables cg :adversus hostem aeterna auclorilas csl(o), no word of which,with the exception of die verb 'to be', is employed in die same senseas in classical Latin: It must be understood as 'vis-d-vis a stranger, aclaim for property persists forever', it never lapses when it is against aforeigner that thc claim is introduced. Of thc word hoslis itself, lestussays ems emm generis ab antiquis hostes appellabanlur quod cranl pari mrcJn 'populo Romano, atque hostire ponebatur pro acquare in ancienttimes they were called testes because they had the same rights as theRoman people, and one said hostire for a.quan\ It follows from thisnote that testis is neither the stranger nor the enemy We have toproceed from the equivalence ofhostire = aequare, while the derivativeredhostire is glossed as 'refcrrc gratiam' ('repay akindness in lestusThis sense ofhostire is still attested in Plautus: Promitto hostire contra utmeruerispromise you areciprocal service as you deserve {Asm S77>.It recurs; in thc noun hoslimentum, explained as bemjicu pensatio,'compensation ofabenefit' and also >aequamentum\ 'equalization TonmoVc specialised technique belongs test*, an archaic: term of thelanguage of agriculture, cited and explained by Varro, R.R. i, *4> 3-hJtum vacant quod ex unofacto olei rcficUur 'one calls hoslus the amountof oil obtained in one single: pressing operation'. In soMe way theproduct is considered as a counterpart. Another tcchjlfcal term ishostorium, aslick for use with abushel measure so as to 1|W» constantlevel The old Roman pantheon, according to S. AuguMje, knew aDea Hoslilina, who had as her task to equalize thc ears Hcorn or toensure that the work accomplished was exactly competed by theharvest Finally, a very Well-known word, hostia, is connected withthc same family: its real sense is 'the victim which serves to appeasethe anger of the gods'', hence il denotes acompensatory Offering, andherein lies thc distinction which distinguishes hostia from mclima inRoman ritual.

It is a striking fact that in none of these words, apart from hoslis,docs thc notion of hostility appear. Primary or derived nouns verbsor adjectives, ancient expressions of thc religious language or of ruralvocabulary, all attest or confirm that thc first sense is acquare compensate, equalize'.

76

Hospitality

How does testis itself fit in with this? This emerges from the'definition of I'Vxtus already cited: 'quod cranl pari iurc cum populoRomano'. This defines the relation of hoslis and hostire,'.'Ahc,testeshad thc same rights as the Romans'. A testis is not a stranger ingeneral. Incontrast to the peregrinus, who lived outside the boundariesof the territory, testis is 'the stranger in so far as he is recognized asenjoying equal rights to those ofthc Roman citizens'. This recognitionof rights implies a certain relation of reciprocity and supposes anagreement or compact. Not all non-Romans arc called testis. Abond ofequality and reciprocity is established between this particularstranger and thc citizens of Rome, a fact which may lead to a precisenotion ofhospitality. From this point ofview testis will signify 'hewho stands in a compensatory relationship' and this is precisely thcfoundation of thc institution of hospitality. This type of relationshipbetween individuals or groups cannot fail to invoke thc notion ofpotlach, so well described and interpreted by Marcel Mauss in hismonograph on 'le Don, forme primitive dc l'cchangc', Annie socio-logique, 1924. This system which is known from thc Indians ofNorthwest America consists of a scries of giftsand counter-girts,eachgift always creating anobligation ofa superior gift from thc partner,in virtue of a sort of compelling force. It is at the same time a feastconnected with certain dales and cults. It is also an economicphenomenon, in so far'as it secures circulation ofwealth; and il isalso a bond between families, tribes and even their descendants.

Thc notion of'hospitality' is illuminated byreference to potlach, ofwhich it is a weakened form. It is founded on thc idea that a man isbound to another (hoslis always involves the notion of reciprocity) bythe obligation lo compensate a gift or service from which he hasbenefited.

The same institution exists in the Greek world under a differentname: xinos (£evoc;) indicates relations of the same type betweenmen bound by a pact which implies precise obligations that alsodevolve on their descendants. Thc xenta (£sv£a), placed under theprotection ofZeus Xcnios, consists of thc exchange of gifts betweenthe contracting parties, who declare their intention of binding theirdescendants by this pact. Kings :is well as private people act in thisway: '(Polycrates) had concluded a .wtfii (with Amasis) and they senteach other presents' ^evujv auveO/jKaxo (verb of making a compact)7t£|i.7«ov Scopa kou &£K6pxvo<; &XXa 7tap' Ikcivou (Herodotus III, 39).

77

•H

1

Giving and TakingMauss (Revue des Eludes grecques, 1921) finds an example of the samecustom among the Thracians. Kcnophon wanted to concludearrangements for thc food supplies of his army. Aroyal councillortells him that if he wants to remain in Thrace and enjoy great wealth,he has only to give presents to King Seuthcs and he would give himmore in return (Anabasis VII, 3; X, to). Thucydides (II, 97 g-emuch the same testimony apropos ofanother Thracian king Sua kes.for him it is more shameful not to give when one is asked to do sothan not to receive when one has asked. Inthe civilization olhracc,which seems to have been rather archaic, this system of obligationwas still preserved in its full force. ... . ,

One of the Indo-European expressions of this institution is preciselythe Latin term testis, with its Gothic correspondent^, and Slavicgosbodi. In historical times thc custom had lost its force in the Romanworld: it presupposes a type of relationship which was no longercompatible with thc established regime. When an ancient societybecomes anation, the relations between man and man, clan and clan,are abolished. All that persists is thc distinction between what isinside and outside the civitas. By a development of which we do notknow thc exact conditions, thc word hoslis assumed a hostile flavourand henceforward it is only applied to thc 'enemy*.

As a consequence, thc notion of hospitality was expressed by adifferent term in which the ancient hoslis nevertheless persists, but 1.1acomposition with +Pol(i)s: this is hospes < *hoslipcjot-s. In Greek, theguest (the one received) is the xinos and he who receives is thexenod6khos (fcvo86Xoc). In Sanskrit, atilhi 'guest' has as its correlateatithi-pali 'he who receives'. Thc formation is parallel to that oi Lat.llhospes. The one who receives is not thc 'maslcr' of Ins guest. As wchave seen, -pot- did not have originally thc meaning of master .Another proof of this is thc Gothic br&p-faps 'newly married man,voucW thc German equivalent ofwhich is Briluttgam bridegroom .From brub 'newly married woman' was created the correspondingdesignation for the 'newly married man', either with >«* as inGothic brup-faps, or with gam* 'man', like in the GermanfrSuttgam

The formation of *ghosli- (hoslis) deserves attention. It looks likean abstract word in -ti which has become a personal qualification.All thc ancient compounds in -pod- have in effect as their firstclement a general word designating a group: thus *dems-poli,jds-pati. Wc thus understand better the literal sense of *ghosli-pcts,

78

Hospitality

hospes as the incarnation of hospitality. In this way wc link up withthc above definition of polis.

Thus thc history ofhoslis recapitulates thc change brought aboutin Roman institutions. In thc same way x.inos, so well characterizedas 'guest' in Homer, later becamr. simply the 'stranger', the non-national. In Attic law there is a graph* xenias, a lawsuit against a'stranger' who tries to pass for a citizen. But xinos did not evolve thesenseof'enemy' as did testis in Latin.

Thc semantic mechanism described for testis has a parallel inanother order ofideas and another series ofwords. It concerns thosewhich come from thc root *mei-, 'exchange', Skt. m-mayate heexchanges' and especially thc Latin term munus (<*moi-nos, cf. thcarchaic form moenus). This word is characterized by the suffix -nes,the value of which was determined by Meillct (Mem. Soc. Ling.,vol XVII) in pignus,/acinusJunusjinus, all words which, like munus,refer to notions ofa social character; cf also Skt. rck-nah 'heritage',clc. In fact munus has the sense of'duty, a public office'. From it arederived several adjectives: munis, immilnis, communis. The last has aparallel in Gothic: ga-mains, German genuin 'common'.

But how can thc notion of'charge, responsibility, public office'expressed by milnus be associated with that of 'exchange' ind.catcdby thc root? Festus shows us the way by defining munm as 'donumquod officii causa dalur' (a gift made for thc sake ofan oflicium). In fact,among thc dudes ofamagistrate munus denotes spectacles and games.Thc notion of'exchange' is implied by this. Innominating somebodyas a magistrate one confers on him honour and certain advantages.This obliges him in return to counter-service in thc form of expenditure, especially for games and spectacles. In this way wc can betterunderstand thc affinity betweengrains and munis (Plautus, Merc. J05),and thc archaic sense ofimmunis as 'ingrains' (that is to say one whofails to make return for a benefit). If minus is a gift carrying theobligation of an exchange, immunis is hi: who docs not fulfil hisobligation to make due return. This is confirmed in Celtic by Irl.moin (main) 'precious objects', dag-moini 'presents, benefits'. Consequently communis docs not mean 'he who shares the duties' butreally 'he who has munia in common'. Now if the system ofcompensation is active within one and thc same circle, thisdetermines a 'community', a group of persons united by this bondof reciprocity.

79

Thus thc complex ineelmnit.ni of gifts which provoke counter-gifts by a kind of compelling force finds one more expression amongthe terms derived from thc root *mei-, like munus. Ifwc did not havethe model of this institution, ifwould be difficult to grasp thc meaningofthe terms which refer to it, for it is within this precise and technicalframework lhat these terms find their unity and proper relations.

Afurther question now arises: is there no simple expression forVilV which docs not call for a return ? The answer is already given.lT emerges from a previous study: there exists an Indo-Europeanroot that ofLatin do, donum, Greek dSron. It is true, as wc have seenabove (p. 54), that the etymological prehistory ol *do- is by nomeans straightforward but is acriss-cross ofapparently contradictoryfacts. ...... i

Nevertheless, in historical times thc notion of give is everywhereattached precisely to the form of *do-, and in each of thc languages(except Hitiite) it gives rise to parallel formations. IfmGreek thetorn dSron does not indicate in itselfand unequivocally 'gift* withoutreciprocity, the meaning of the adverb doredn 'gratuitously, fornothing' is sufficient guarantee that thc 'gift' is really adisinterestedone. We must dirther mention forms stemming Irom another motwhich is little known and represented but which must be re-establishedin its importance and antiquity: this is thc root *ai-. From it isderived the verb ai-lsi 'give' in Tokharian, as well as the IlittilChai- (formed by attachment of the proverb /«- lo at-) 'give.'. Greekhas preserved a nominal form aisa (aloa) 'lot, share'. In Osean anabstract *ai-ti- 'part* is attested by the genitive singular aelcis, whichcorresponds in meaning to thc Latin genitive partis. Finally, Illynanonomaslics presents us with thc proper name Actor, which is thcagent noun from this same root ai-. Here wc have evidence lor a newexpression for 'give' conceived as 'assigning a portion'.

Returning now to thc words belonging to the etymological familyrepresented in Latin by munus, immunis, communis, wc can pick out inIndo-Iranian a derivative ol considerable importance and peculiarformation. This is a divine personification, thc Indo-Iranian godMitra, formed from *mei-, in a reduced form, with thc suffix -Ira-,which generally serves to form the neuter nouns for instruments.In Vcdic, mitra- has two genders, masculine as the name of the godand neuter in thc sense of'friendship, contract*. Mcillcl, in a famousarticle {Journal Asialique, 1907) defined Mitra as a divinized social

80

Ihospitality

force, as the personified contract. But both 'friendship' and 'contract'may be given further precision by siting them in their context: whatis concerned is not sentimental friendship but a contract in so far as itrests onanexchange. To make clearthese notions astheywere practisedand lived in ancient society, we may recall a Homeric seem: whichgives what might be called a 'sociological' illustration. It is thecelebrated episode of thcsixth book of the Iliad, lines 1-0-236.

Glaueus and Dioiucdcs, face 10 face, are Hying lo identify eachother and discover lhat their fathers arc bound by the bonds ofhospitality (174). Diomcdcs defines his own position vis-d-visGlaueus:

'Yes, yon are for me an hereditary guest (xcinos) and lhat for a longlime (215) . . . thus 1am your host in the heart ofthe Argolid andyou are mine in Lycia, the day when I shall go to lhat country.From now on we shall both avoid each other's javelin (224-226). . . .Let us rather exchange our weapons so lhat everyone may knowhere lhat wc declare ourselves to be hereditary guests' (230-231).

This situation gives each of the contracting parlies rights ofgreater force than the common national interest. These rights arc inprinciple hereditary, but should be periodically renewed by meansof gifts and exchanges so lhat ihey remain personal: il is for thisreason that the participants propose to exchange arms. 'Havingthus spoken, ihey leap from their chariots, lake each other by thehand and pledge their faith. Hut at thai moment Zeus . . . stoleawayGlaueos'reason because inexchanging armswithDiomcdcs . . .he gives him gold in exchange for bronze, thc value of one hundredoxen in exchange for nine' (232-236).

Thus thc bard sees here a fool's deal. In reality thc inequality ofvalue between thc gifts is intentional: one offers bronze arms, thcother gives back arms ofgold; one offers the value of nine oxen, theother feels himself bound lo render the value of one hundred head

of cattle.

This episode serves lo throw light on the manifestations which inthis society accompany thc type of engagement which wc call a'contract', and lo restore its proper value to a term like Skt. mitra-.Such is the mitra- between Diomcdcs and Glaueus, an exchange whichis binding and contractual. It also makes clear theformal analysis ofthe term. This suffix -Ira- may form an agent noun as well as aninstrumental one, the grammatical gender varying according to

81

•IV Ml

Giving and Taking

whether the action is thc work of an instrument or a man: hence we

have along with thc neuter milram, thc masculine milras. Wc mightexamine mythology and try to discover in the role of Mitra theDUrvivala of its etymological origin. But fint wo must extend theinventory of notions which were formed from the same root andwhich arc related to those which wc have been studying. Closelyrelated lo *mci- is a form *mei-l- with thc suffix -1-, which appears inthc Latin verb mOld 'change', 'exchange*. Thc signification may bemore precisely delimited if it is compared with thc adjective mQluus'reciprocal, mutual'. We must also consider a particular use of thcadjective: millua pecunia 'money lent or borrowed', as well as thc verbderived from the adjective as thus used, mUtudre 'borrow*, i.e. to takemoney with ihe obligation to repay it. Thus 'loan' and 'borrowing'enter in their turn into tin: cycle of exchange. This is not. thc end ofthe mailer. 'Exchange' here has a close affinity with thc 'gift'. TheGothic correspondent of thc Latin from miito, mUluus is maidjan'exchange'. Now thc derived noun maipms (from *mail-mo-) translatesthc Greek dbron 'gift', but in a passage where it implies 'recovery' andto a certain extent 'exchange'.

The other derivatives arc divided into:

i) one group with a specialized sense, e.g. Skt. milhu- 'false, lie",as with Latin mulo, thc idea of'changing' leads to that of'altering'.When we say of somebody that he has altered, this is rarely lo hisadvantage.

2) A scries of other derivatives, however, preserve thc propersense. This is particularly so in Iranian: e.g. Avcstan miOwara-'paircd'; mucOman- < *mei-l-men 'pairing*. A development ofa socialcharacter gives to maeOman the sense of'mutuality', and this leads tothc designation of the 'guest' in Middle and Modern Iranian bymehmdn < *maeOmdnam (accusative), which by a long detour brings usback to our starting point. Once again wc end up by defining the'guest' by the notion of mutuality and thc bonds of reciprocity.1

There is another term for thc 'guest' in modern Iranian: ermdn, theancient form of which is attested as aryaman 'intimate friend', a termwell known in Indo-Iranian. This is also thc name of a mythologicalfigure, thc name of a god. Aryaman is the god of hospitality. In theRig Veda, as in thc Atharva, he isespecially associated with marriage.

In whatever way wc interpret thc formative -man (this must be a1 On the. root mei-sec our article 'Don et cchangc . . .' quoted above.

• u

82

M

IIIIIIHospitality

nominal form), the name of thc god Aryaman is connected with theterm arya. We shall see later in this work that aiya is the common andreciprocal term used by members of a community to designatethcmuclvcs. It is thc name for a man ol' thc same language and thcsame race. This explains why one of Aryuman's functions was to admitindividuals into an exogamic communiiy, called 'Aryan', through amarriage ceremony: it is a kind of internal hospitality, a tribalalliance. Aryaman intervenes when a woman taken from outside thcclan is introduced for thc first time as a wife into her newfamily.

Aryaman later came to be used in a number ofdiffcrcut senses.The*Persian ermdn 'guest' has been quoted above. In thc language of theOssctcs, an Iranian people occupying an enclave in thc Caucasuswith institutions and vocabulary of great antiquity, the word linuinmeans 'friend', and this is thc regular phonetic development ofaryaman. Thc bonds of relationship, of family and tribal friendship,arc redefined in each language according as ihe terminology remainsfixed or evolves. These terms, far removed from one another, cameback to thc same problem; that of institutions of welcoming andreciprocity, thanks to whichthc menofa given people findhospitalityin another, and whereby societies enter into alliances and exchanges.Wc have found a profound relationship between these institutionalforms and a recurrence of thc same notions behind a terminologywhich is sometimes refashioned.

83