1. The Problem

Homeric Greek nēpios, at first glance, does not present obvious semantic problems. LSJ [1] give as a first meaning “infant, child,” citing and the frequently used phrase nēpia tekna (“nēpios children,” ΙI 136, etc.). Chantraine concurs, giving as a first meaning of nēpios “tout jeune.” [5] Various Homeric passage may be cited in which nēpios seems to mean simply “child,” for instance, where Telemachos contrasts his past and present states: Metaphorically, according to LSJ, the basic meaning “child” is applied to “the understanding,” and nēpios comes to mean “childish, silly.” The following Homeric passages are cited: LSJ add “without foresight, blind,” citing XXII 445. Here Andromache is called nēpios because she ordered a bath to be prepared for Hektor, not knowing that he was already dead. Chantraine adds to his basic definition (“tout jeune”) “sot, sans raison.” [6] Frisk simply lists a variety of possible translations of nēpios, but by placing the meaning “child” at the beginning of his list, and those meaning “foolish” toward the end, he too implies that the basic meaning is “child” and that other meanings are derivative. [7]

The word child in modern English refers to either age or descent. Greek pais (“child”) has a similar semantic range. Teukros, having shot his bow, retreats behind the shield of Ajax pais hōs hupo mētera (“like a child behind its mother,” VIII 271). On the other hand, Achilles is Thetidos pais (“Thetis’s child,” IV 512, etc.), Hektor is Priamoio pais (“Priam’s child,” III 314, etc.), and so forth. The words teknon and tekos mean “child” in the sense of “offspring.” Athene, for example, is called Dios tekos, (“Zeus’s child,” II 157, etc.).

Both pais and teknon may be used figuratively. In the first of the two following examples, Nestor is encouraging the sentinels guarding the Greek camp; in the second, the herald Idaios stops the fight between Aias and Hektor: By addressing adults with the term “children,” the speaker is expressing his own “fatherly” concern for them.

The verbal derivative of pais, paizō, is used of Nausicaa and her companions playing or dancing on the beach (vi 106, vii 291). It also describes the activity within Odysseus’s halls at xxiii 147 (where Lattimore translates it “celebrating”). In the Homeric Hymns, also, paizō means “dancing” or similar, but perhaps unstructured, playing. In later Greek, it may mean skilled dancing or the “playing” of an instrument. In none of these figurative uses do we see disapproval or censure, which is clearly implied by the word nēpios in, for example: Thus, if nēpios means “child,” it means “child” in some other sense than pais or teknon.

In English, the adjective childlike is used in a positive sense, while childish is not. It is not, in itself, surprising that words meaning “child” should have both positive and negative associations in Homeric Greek. In fact, despite the connotations of paizō, the most usual characterization of children in Homer emphasizes their weakness. [8] Diomedes taunts Paris, who has wounded him, with the following words: And Odysseus says of the Greeks: In both these passages, children are grouped with women to form a class of those who are ineffectual. [9] To compare a warrior to a woman is an insult. For example, Hektor taunts Diomedes: The mealtime honors the Greeks bestow on Diomedes are precisely those that distinguish a warrior (cf. XII 310–321), and he is distinguished, especially from the women and children. When Hektor calls Diomedes a woman, he is calling him “not a warrior.” Similarly, in the passages cited above (XI 389 and II 289–290), men are called “like women and children” because they are behaving in an unwarriorlike fashion.

The epithet nēpios, however, does not present a contrast to warriorlike behavior. When Patroklos begged Achilles to allow him to lead the Myrmidons into battle, he made a bad mistake: But certainly he was not behaving in a way that would place him in the class of women and children as opposed to the class of warriors. {4|5} Nor is his mistake due to any apparent childish qualities such as weakness of reason or carelessness of signs.

Another context of nēpios, suggests that the word, in itself may not mean “child” at all. When the steward of Menelaos hesitates to offer hospitality to Telemachos and Peisistratos, Menelaos rebukes him thus:

The semantic history of Latin infans provides a model for a semantic development of nēpios alternative to LSJ’s extension of its {5|6} meaning by metaphor. [10] Latin infans is etymologically transparent, being the negative of the present participle of for (“I speak”). Cicero uses it with its simple root meaning: It was more commonly used, in classical Latin, as a descriptor of young children, of whom inability to speak is one distinguishing characteristic. Eventually, this characteristic epithet became a noun signifying young children, and reference to speaking ability dropped out, semantically speaking. The French word enfant implies nothing about verbal ability, and, in English, a person is infant before the law up until the age of majority. Such substantivization of adjectives, with ellipsis of a traditionally associated noun, occurs in Greek, also: hoi thnētoi (“mortals’’) < hoi thnētoi anthrōpoi (“mortal humans”), to xeinēion (“the hospitality [gift]”) < to xeinēion dōron (“the hospitality gift”), hugrē (“sea”) < hugra keleutha (“watery ways”).

In Modem Greek, n ēpion means “child” in an unmarked sense—like enfant in French (a nēpiagōgeion is a “kindergarten”). [11] In Homeric Greek, it is characteristic of children to be nēpios, just as it is characteristic of ships to be black, Achaians to be well-greaved, and so forth. [12] But the traditional association of the word nēpios with children does not tell us anything about its meaning, any more than we could deduce the particular meaning of thnētoi from all that we know of human beings. In fact, if nēpios, originally meaning something about the intellect, came to mean simply “child,” then its semantic development is curiously paralleled in the modern Greek {6|7} word mōro (“child”) which is clearly derived from mōros (“silly,” “stupid”).

The semantics of nēpios are all the more open to question since the word has no generally accepted etymology. [13] There have been various proposals, most of which can be discounted because they rely on the assumption that there existed, in very early Greek, a negative prefix nē-, which is not the case. [14] The only real possibilities seem to be: (1) a connection with the root wek ^w- found in Greek epos (“word, speech”), which would make nēpios semantically equivalent to Latin infans; [15] or (2) a derivation from the root āp- found in Latin apīscor (“reach,” “attain”) and Sanskrit āpnóti (“reach,” “attain”). [16]

Neither of these suggestions is without problems. In the case of a connection with epos, there is simply no evidence that the root originally began with the laryngeal necessary for the formation of nē-. More important, despite what seems like the attractive parallel with infans; there is no good semantic evidence to support such a derivation. [17] Facility in speaking, as an adult characteristic, sometimes appears in Homer in contrast to nēpios, for example: Still there is nothing to suggest that inability to speak is the essential characteristic of a person who is nēpios. Far more common, in fact, {7|8} is the suggestion that a nēpios person is unable to know or understand the plans of the gods. For example:

The second possibility, that nēpios derives from the root āp- found in Latin apiscor and Sanskrit āpnóti, is also not problem-free. It seems likely that another cognate of these words can be found in the Hittite epmi (“to take”), and if this is the case, the original laryngeal in the root would be ǝ ₁, (hence * ǝ ₁ ep- / * ǝ ₁ p-), which would give rise to an e- vocalism, thus: *nǝ ₁ p- ios > nēp-ios. [18] On the other hand, the Mycenaean name na-pu-ti-jo, which some interpret as the formal equivalent of Homeric (etc.) nēputios, and the word napia, which may occur in a letter of Epicurus, would suggest an a- vocalism: thus *nǝ ₂ p- ios > *nāp- ios > (Ion. etc.) nēpios. There are, however, uncertainties surrounding the validity of both these forms. In the Mycenaean syllabary, there is no positive indication as to what consonant, if any, a syllable ends with, nor whether the

of a form like <na-pu-ti-jo> is unvoiced [p], voiced [b] or aspirated [ph]. The readings of individual words, therefore, must be determined by a combination of phonetic possibilities and contextual indications. In the case of a name, contextual indications are, of course, lacking. In short, the proper reading of this spelling may or may not be Naputios. The Epicurean napia, while it appears to be what is written on the papyrus fragment, may represent a hyperdorism, and even the reading napia, is not generally accepted. [19]