This is a rather weird story. Heracles’ mares disappear while he’s sleeping, and after looking for them he discovers that a snake-maiden (woman from the buttocks upwards, viper from the buttocks downwards)has filched them from him. She agrees to return the horses, but naturally not without a fee - Heracles must sleep with her. He agrees of course, but she keeps delaying to return the horses until she finally thinks he’s paid in full, “ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ σεῦ τρεῖς παῖδας ἔχω”. I read this “I have three sons by you”, but according to Stein it means she’s pregnant with three sons, and refers to 4.3.2 ἐς οὗ ἂν σχῶσι αἱ ἵπποι ἐν γαστρί.
However, I don’t think this can be correct, plain ἐχεῖν without ἐν γαστρί can’t mean “to be pregnant”. Or am I wrong?
That’s 4.30.2… But I fail to see how that citation proves his point? I think he’s interpreting it contextually, that ἐν γαστρί would be understood from context, but that seems forced to me. The natural reading is that she actually has the sons. Not alone in this understanding:
“These mares came, and I kept them safe here for you, and you have paid me for keeping them, for I have three sons by you.
Herodotus. (1920). Herodotus, with an English translation by A. D. Godley. (A. D. Godley, Ed.). Medford, MA: Harvard University Press.
My thought was exactly the same as Barry’s: the idiom is ἐν γαστρί ἐχεῖν, and the citation doesn’t prove anything. It even seems to me that it’s a rather common idiom.
I looked at a number of translations and commentaries. Stein and another commentary by Shuckburgh take this to mean “to be pregnant”, but according to all others (translations, including Powell) it just means she has the sons. I would have otherwise summarily dismissed the idea of her being pregnant, but Stein is too important to dismiss summarily.
She conceives, they (the women) learn ἔχουσαν δὲ αὐτὴν , they (the Ephors) get ready for the birth.
But isn’t “to have” just as continuative as “to bear or hold or carry”?
In English? You can’t say “is having” but you can say “is bearing”, “is holding”, and “is carrying”. They bleed into each other a bit, but the aspect of the last three is generally continuative, while “have” generally signifies possession.
That’s a much better example than the one cited by Stein. I think I changed my mind - perhaps Stein and Shuckburgh (who probably got it from Stein anyway) are right. What’s the point of announcing to Heracles that “I have three sons by you” – you’d think he would have noticed. On the other hand, “I’m pregnant with three sons by you”, now there’s some news for Heracles.
LSJ seem to make a distinction between ἔχειν and ἐν γαστρί ἔχειν, the former meaning to be pregnant and the latter meaning to be pregnant “in full”, i.e. in late pregnancy.
ἀποίχομαι – 3. to have perished, ἀποίχεται χάρις E.HF134 (lyr.); of persons, to be dead and gone, ἀπολιπών μ’ ἀποίχεται Ar.Ra.83; in full, ἀ. βιότοιο v.l. in AP10.59 (Pall.); οἱ ἀποιχόμενοι, = οἱ τελευτήσαντες, Pi.P.1.93, cf. 3.3, SIG1219.10 (iii B.C.).
αὐτόχειρ – II. abs., one who kills himself, suicide, S.Ant.1175; αὐ. ἑαυτῶν Arist.Fr.502; simply, murderer, S.OT231, D.21.116; αὐτὸν . . νομίζω αὐτόχειρά μου γεγενῆσθαι τούτοις τοῖς ἔργοις ib.106: c. gen., αὐ. καὶ φονεῖς τῶν πολιτῶν Isoc.4.111, cf. Men.Sam.216; in full, τὸν αὐ. τοῦ φόνου S.OT266, cf. El.955, D.18.287.
The fact that people equally invested in the text, and with no mean ability in the language, read it differently suggests that it’s an actual ambiguity.
In your example above, there is about as clear of context of pregnancy as can be. Not really so much in the Heracles story.
How did she know they were going to be sons? Okay, she’s a mythical being, but even Zeus could be hidden from Cronus.
Herodotus’ tale has an unmistakable connexion with Hesiod’s Theogony., where we have the same nymph-snake creature (295ff).. She is the Echidna (not named in Hdt), and she bears chlldren not to Herakles but to Typhaon (another chthonic creature), the first three of whom (Geryon’s dog Orthos, Cerberus, and the Hydra) are counted off, 1-2-3. Herakles has famous mythological dealings with all three.
Hesiod’s account tale must somehow underlie Hdt’s. What do Hdt’s commentators say?
Hdt’s tale is presented as a quid pro quo. If he has sex with her she will give the horses back. But the way it turns out is presented a bit differently. She safeguarded the horses (ἔσωσα—as if she was doing him a favor), in return for which he gave σῶστρα, a reward for the safeguarding—by spawning three children. She got what she wanted (sex, his children), and now Herakles is free to go.
She wanted to be with him as long as possible (cf. Calypso) but the time-frame is vague, just as in Hesiod, and so is the description: she “has” three children by him. I don’t think we can press this too closely. It’s not implied that the children have already been born, but ἐν γαστρί would confer undue specificity; and they’re not said to be triplets any more than Hesiod’s three are. We’re in the realm of myth, where not everything makes ordinary sense.
I didn’t find anything very interesting (for me at least) in the commentaries. Aldo Corcella (who takes over the commentary for book IV) in Asheri points out the Hesiod parallel (like other commentators) and says: “Here, in the Greek rendition, she [Echidna] is a manifestation of the ‘great goddess’ of fertility and nature, of whom there are several representations in the Scythian region”. Then he gives a long list of references, which I have not looked up. (I don’t really find helpful these long lists of references in modern commentaries without any real information on whether they are worth looking up. I would much prefer shorter lists and longer explanations.)
It bothers me that I can’t remember if it was in Greek mythology or elsewhere, but I seem to recall stories where important conceptions took more male time in copulation. (Zeus and Leto?)
But maybe συνεῖναι is meant more loosely.
Edit: Zeus and Alcmene took three nights for the conception of Hercules
