comparative poetics and the power dynamics of the rig veda and the gathas

8/12/2019 Comparative Poetics and the Power Dynamics of the Rig Veda and the Gathas

1/32

1

Indo-Iranian Comp arative Poetics and the Power Dynam ics of Vasihas Hymn to VaruaElizabeth Thornton, UCLA

Rigvedic hymns share a large inventory of archaic forms and phraseology with

their closest cousins, Old Avestan hitis. In consequence, studies of the poetic grammar1

of the Rig Veda and the Avesta proceed in dialogue with one another, posing an

increasingly overlapping set of questions to their respective texts. Scholarship on Old

Avestan texts is rife with discussions of patterns of formal repetition that appear to be the

structural skeleton around which many Avestan poems, and in particular the Old Avestan

Gths, are composed.2These formal devices that bind words into hitis would invite the

question of whether similar principles play a role in the composition of Rigvedic hymns;

nonetheless, such hymn-level structuring devices have until now remained a relatively

neglected topic in Vedic scholarship.

Intended to introduce a new approach to Indo-Iranian comparative poetics and to

illustrate how such studies can inform and enrich our interpretations of texts in either

tradition, my paper will identify forms and functions of the structuring devices ofVasiha,

whose hymns have been described as highly reminiscent of the Gths.3In the limited

space allotted, I hope to achieve a series of fairly modest objectives: to explain what I mean

1Watkins 1995:289.

2See Schmidt 1985, Schwartz 2003 and Schwartz 2006 in particular.

3Jamison 2007:94.


2/32

2

by structuring devices; to apply the methodology underpinning this definition to RV

7.86, attributed to Vasiha; then, using the results of this application, to demonstratetwo

of the many potential functions of these structuring devices within the Rig Veda.

Specifically, I will illustrate how transitions articulated through these devices highlight

movement from a hymns central crisis to its resolution, and help Vasiha maintain a

persuasive balance between deference and assertiveness. Finally, I will briefly suggest that

the same close-reading method yields useful results when applied to the Gths.

1. efinition of structuring deviceA structuring device is a perceptible series of formal repetitions (possibly

including formal oppositions) across an entire hymn or multipleverses within that hymn.

The force of the word perceptible is this: I start with the assumption that these

poems are composed with a human audience in mind (besides the divine addressees).

Members of this human audience have limited working memory, and, unlike latter-day

analysts, experience the hymn as a vanishing auditory phenomenon. They cannot be

expected to retain or (silently) rehearse the hymn in full upon first hearing, as they would

have to do in order to recognize each and every such formal repetition. Rather, they can

only be assumed to detect relativelyprominent repetitions.

I include the word series because in my view, for perceptible repetitions to

qualify as a structuring device, the proximity or similarity of these repetitions, and/or their


3/32

3

evident participation in a broader schema or pattern, must encourage a listener to

interpret them as a single group (or device).

The last key word is, formal. I use this word in a rather narrow sense: to refer to

repetition of particular signifierswith particularphonological spellouts(so, for instance,

the morphological overlap in dogs and catswould count as a formal repetition, but not the

grammatical equivalence of mice and cheeses). In short, words and forms must have at

least as much in common phonologically as they do semantically to be part of an initial

round of inquiry into a hymns structure. On the lexical end, the structuring devices

typically consist of repetitions of roots and derived stems, including near-homophones

where relevant; correspondingly, the grammatical repetitions involve identical or nearly

identical inflectional morphology. I include semantically distinct near-homophones in my

structuring devices, but not phonologically distinct near-synonyms.

While I borrow the term structuring device from Stephanie Jamison, my

exclusive focus on formal devices means that I use this label in a different way than she

tends to.4 In part, my narrower definition is intended to serve close-reading strategies

applied to the Gths by Hanns-Peter Schmidt and Martin Schwartz.5Schwartz primarily

4In a chapter entitled Poem: Structuring Devices in Rigvedic Hymns,Jamison (2007:59) treats

a multitude of different strategies used to produce structure: from mechanical and obvious

surface phenomena to deep semantic patterns.

5See, for instance, Schwartz 2003:1967, and Schmidt 1985:16.


4/32

4

detects repetitions of lexemes and homophones (though synonyms and antonyms are an

additional concern).

That said, with the word perceptible I have already embarked down a

methodological route that differs significantly from superficially similar discussions on

Gthic repetitions. I focus first on the capacity of the audience rather than the proclivities

of the poets. I will explain just a few of the reasons for this departure here.

First, the question of authorship: Schwartz6and others have been inspired by the

attribution of the Gthic corpus to Zarathutra to recover particular patterns of repetition

that might characterize his compositional style; in contrast, Rigvedic hymns are

traditionally attributed to many different authors, and even a cursory examination of

limited sets of hymns would reveal the wide diversity of techniques employed. I want a

methodology that could be applied to the whole Rigvedic corpus, so I will not attempt to

find a single pattern of repetition that forms the backbone of every hymn.

Schwartz also assumes that these techniques facilitate composition for the poet in

addition to (or instead of) serving particular rhetorical functions. 7Whatever the Gthic

situation is, this cannot be the case for the Rig Veda. While Vedic structuring devices, at

least as employed by the poets whose work I have examined, are too regular and pervasive

6See the interpretive yield of such analyses, e.g. in Schwartz 2006:47588.

7Schwartz 2003:196: This phenomenon is probably connected with the mnemonics of composing

preliterate poetry.


5/32

5

not to be part of an intentional compositional strategy, they are also too variegated to be

employed for a poets convenience as he composes. The hymn I examine here illustrates

this point. My understanding is that formulaic systems aid oral composition in large part

by limiting the number of discourse-internal lexical and grammatical choices once a few

initial words are selected: in the Homeric case, for instance, we suppose that a particular

memorized epithet would spring to mind as soon as a few choices of phrasing clarified the

shape of the metrical slot to be filled by the remaining idea. The overwhelming tendency

for Rigvedic formal structuring devices to cover overlapping territory, the multiplicity of

types of repetitions that can co-occur, and the tendency of these devices to link distinct

ideas through a variety of similar phonological spellouts suggest that these series of

repetitions were not part of such an oral-formulaic system.

Hence the alternate route Ive taken, with a focus on what structuring devices are

clearly perceptible to the listener rather than on those that are useful for the poet. As a

result of my initial definition, my arguments for thepresenceof structuring devices must

answer two questions: which repetitions would be perceptible to begin with, and why would

they be perceived as series rather than isolated stimuli. To these ends, I developed a list of

rather common-sense factors that would facilitate retention or recall of particular

passages, and a related list of grouping criteria grounded in Gestalt psychology (and, since

we are treating fundamentally auditory stimuli, focused on those Gestalt principles that

have applications to music). I articulate both lists in terms of five qualities that formal


6/32

6

repetitions can display: (in)frequency, recency, redundancy, (variable) density, and

conventionality. The first criterion relates mainly to the problem of the perceptibilityof

individual repetitions, the middle three criteria to both the problems of perceptibility and

ofgrouping of repetitions, the fifth criterion to the problem of grouping.

2. Detecting structuring devices: criteria for perceptibility and groupingI will illustrate each criterion with examples from just one hymn: RV 7.86.

However, this methodology has been developed through examinations of many other sets

of hymns, and yields meaningful results in all maalas of the Rig Veda.

2.1 Infrequency

Infrequencyrefers to unexpectedness in sound, sense or syntaxan aberration

that modulates attention towards the word or phrase in question. The more attentional

resources are devoted to infrequent phraseology, the longer it would take for specific

forms to fade from working memory.

By definition, infrequency can characterize only a single, short passage

(otherwise, the infrequent trait would come to constitute a secondary norm within a

series of passages). The mercilessly catchy jingle, the jarring malapropism, and the freshly

minted new phrase are examples of infrequent verbal formations: all are markedly

different from the words that comprise their immediate linguistic context. In many

languages, marked patterns of word order serve to focalize certain portions of a sentence;


7/32

7

this, too is infrequencyin action. In poetry, more stylized patterns of word order can be

deployed to the same end: the commonly referenced indexicalfunction of phonetic and

grammatical figures is one label for the effects of some types of infrequency.8

Two examples of infrequency can be found in 7.86, a hymn to Varua. As we will

see later, these passages are the starting point of two structuring devices in 7.86

(Structuring Device 1 and Structuring Device 3).

7.86.2a ut svy tanv svadettAnd I speak that/thus with my own self:

7.86.4a km gasa varua jyha7.86.4b yt stotrajghsasi skhyam

What was that highest crime, Varua,That you wanted to slay (your) praiser, (your) friend?

Each of these passages manifests a particular variety of semantic infrequency.

The word tan - can mean either self or body; but in the instrumental case (as

here), it almost always has the corporeal sense (being used with verbs like ubh, beautify,

or with adjectives like areps, blemishless, e.g., 2.39.2c and 7.72.1d; 1.124.6c and

1.181.4b). The only other example of the same collocation used in the instrumental

definitely has a physical sense: svykr p tanv rcamnashining with hisownform, hisbody, said of Agni in 7.3.9b. Of course, in 7.86 the phrase must mean with (my) ownselfbut its use in that sense must be a bit startling to the listener.

8Watkins 1995:289.


8/32

8

In 7.78.6, the superlative jyha- is used to modify a term for crime, and

therefore must be taken in the pejorative sense of egregious.However, the superlative in

the more basic sense of highestis typically used as an epithet for a god (e.g., 9.66.16a, of

Soma; 1.100.4c, of Indra) or deployed in descriptions of a gods power(1.184.5d, of Indras

might; 6.48.21e, of the Marutsmight). Agni is called the oldest/highest of the Agirases

(1.127.2b). In other contexts, it refers to the eldest in the same deferential way (see RV

4.33.5a-c, for example). A pejorative use ofjyha-is anything but typical.

Subsequent verses in 7.86 feature repetitions of each element of these

collocations.

7.86.4c prtn me voco dabha svadhvoProclaim it to me, O hard-to-deceive force-all-your-own!

7.86.5a va drugdhni ptry srj no

7.86.5b va yvaycakrm tanbhiFree us from (our) fathers misdeeds

From those we have committed with our bodies

7.86.6a n s sv dko varua dhrti sIt was not my ownintent, Varua, it was seduction:

7.86.6c sti jyynknyasa upr7.86.6d svpna cand nrtasya prayot .

The higher-up is in the offense of the junior;Not even sleep wards off evil.


9/32

9

7.86.7a rads n mhe kari

7.86.7b ah devya bhray ngLike a slave to a generous master, I will do service,

Crimeless, to the furious god.My claim here is that the semantic oddities of the prior passages (or rather, the

attentional resources these oddities command) facilitate the recognition of the later

repetitions. Note that in all of these cases, the recurrences of the words display more

typical semantics (the corporeal sense of tan -, the deferential sense of jyys-,

higher/elder,which corresponds to the superlativejyha-highest/chief).

To clarify the contribution of (in)frequency to my inventory of perceptible

repetitions in 7.86, I will list them here in separate columns with superscripts indicating the

structuring device to which they belong.

2 svytanv 1

4ab ga3

jyham3

4cd svadhva1

5 tanbhi1

6 sv1 jyyn3

7 ng3

2.2 Recency

Considered as a factor that affects the perceptibility of repetitions, recency

refers to the advantage that patterns of repetition that take shape over short distances have


10/32

10

over those that develop across distinct and sometimes quite distant segments of a hymn. It

is much easier to recall the exact wording of the sentence that one has just heard than it is

to accurately remember the wording of a long-past phrase; the status of lexical and

morphological repetitions that occur within consecutive verses is much more secure than

the status of repetitions separated by more than a verse.9No one is likely to question the

perceptibility of the repetitions highlighted below.

7.86.3b poemicikito vipcham .7.86.3c samnm nmekavyacid hur7.86.3d ayha tbhyavruo hrte

7.86.4a km ga sa varua jyha

7.86.4b yt stotrajghsasi skhyam

7.86.4c prtnmevoco dabha svadhvo7.86.4d va tvnennmas tur iym

I approachthe wise in order to askaroundTheKavis have said the very same one thing to me:This Varua is angry at from)you.

What was that highest crime, Varua,

That you wanted to slay (your) praiser, (your) friend?

Proclaim it to me, hard to deceive one,force all your own!I would approach you, free from sin, with homage.

9The verse-length separation is an essentially arbitrary quantitative cutoff point for classifying

repetitions as recent vs. not recentbut it has proven to be a useful rule of thumb.


11/32

11

This chain of repetitions continues in the versess below. Consider the relative perceptibility

of the highlighted repetitions in both passages versus the repetition of the root k in 5b

and 7a (cakrmkari).Because of space constraints, I translate only the first verse and

the last line quoted.

7.86.5a vadrugdhni ptry srjno7.86.5b vayvaycakrmtanbhi7.86.5c varjan pautpan ty7.86.5d srjvats n dmanovsiham

Free us from (our) fathers misdeedsFrom those which we have done by ourselves/with our bodiesO king, like a cattle-stealing thief,

Like a calffroma rope, free Vasiha!

7.86.6a n s sv dko varua dhrti s

7.86.6b sr manyr vibhdako citti

7.86.6c sti jyyn knyasaupr

7.86.6d svpna cand nrtasya prayot


Like a slave to a generous master, I will do service

Recency facilitates groupingjudgments, toowhich is not surprising given that

recency is essentially a synonym for the Gestalt principle of proximity, whereby stimuli

that are close together or occur in swift succession tend to be grouped together. The


12/32

12

following chart illustrating the effect of recency and proximity on perceived groupings of

visual stimuli is adapted from Lerdahl and Jackendoff.10

Figure 2.2.1

a. b. c.

In the cases of a. and b., where there is relatively little intervening space, two of the three

stimuli clearly belong in a group; in the case of c., the proper grouping judgment is less

clear. Lerdahl and Jackendoff pointed out that varying quantities of rests/pauses would

similarly affect grouping judgments of notes and other auditory stimuli. This principle of

recency or proximityencourages successive rounds of so-called concatenations tobe perceived as a single device that is, a catena, chain, rather than as a series of unrelated

formal echoes. (See Bloomfields definition of concatenation: an expression, statement,

or motif in one given stanza is taken up anew in the next stanza.11In keeping with my

general method, I narrow this definition to include only formal repetitions.12

)

10Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1996:40.

11Bloomfield 1916:5.

12At the same time, I preserve the idea that concatenation involves contiguousverses (what

Bloomfield calls stanzas) specifically, which distinguishes my usage of the term from that of

Schmidt and Schwartz.


13/32

13

2.3 Redundancy

Redundancy involves a co-occurrenceof different types of repetition unusual

enough to overwhelmthe ear, and, in a kind of constructive interference, revive the fading

memory of forms or phrases long since uttered.13 Redundancy should facilitate the

perception of repetitions separated by multiple verses.

RV 7.86 contains many instances of redundancy, including the following

highlighted repetitions, which will be identified as belonging Structuring Device 2.

7.86.3b po emi cikitovipcham7.86.3c samnm nme kavyacid hur

I approachthe wisein order to askaround.TheKavishave said the very same one thing to me:

7.86.7c cetayad actodev ary7.86.7d gtsary kavtarojunti

The noble god wisened the unwise;More Kavi-like, he speeds the experienced man to wealth.

13Constructive interferenceis a term I borrow from physics (describing the effect of two waves

enhancing one another, used more or less metaphorically here and playing on unda and whelm). If

I were using technical terms from psycholinguistics, I would identify this as multiple repetition

priming.


14/32

14

In both of these rounds of repetition, the samereferents are characterized as Kavis (poet-

sages) and, in an adjacent clause, (re-)characterized via a form derived from the root cit,

perceive, know, appear.

On to redundancys relevance togroupingrepetitions. Redundancy is related to

the Gestalt principle of similarity, whereby similar stimuli/objects tend to be perceived as

part of the same group. The simplest examples involve groupings of objects of similar

shapes, as in figure 2.3.1, also adapted from Lerdahl and Jackendoff.

Figure 2.3.1

a. b. c.

That we would describe the first two figures as, three squares and two circles and two

squares and three circles rather than as, two squares and a square and two circles, two

squares, a circle, and two circles, or five shapes,seems obvious; the implicit grouping

judgments become particularly clear from c. likely described as, two squares and two

circles rather than two pairs of a square and a circle.

Lerdahl and Jackendoff point out that the first two scenarios are analogous to

groups of notes of different pitches;14however, scenario c. touches upon an issue that I

have yet to see addressed in the application of Gestalt psychology to auditory stimuli.

Lerdahl and Jackendoff and the music theorists that followed in their footsteps seem

14Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1996:41.


15/32

15

concerned with the task of grouping contiguous notes; but what about the impact of

similarity (/redundancy) in causing stimuli that are not contiguous in space or time to be

grouped together? Consider the figure below.

Figure 2.3.2

A description of this configuration of objects might be, a repeated trio of shapes

triangle, square, squigglewithin a sea of circles, stars, etc: in other words the redundant

repetitions would be grouped together. For a musical analogue, think about a unique

musical motif or theme that resurfaces periodically in a movement or symphony; a listener

identifies and associates repetitions of such a sequence, despite flurries of intervening

notes.

Returning for a moment to the repetitions in 7.86.3bc and 7cd: the influence of the

factor of redundancy on grouping judgments underlies the assertion that these repetitions

constitute a single structuring device, outlined below.

7.86.3b cikita

7.86.3c kavya

7.86.7c cetayat

7.86.7d kavtara


16/32

16

2.4: Variable Density

Density refers to the number of repetitions in a particular hymn or hymn segment.

First, lets examinedensity as it relates to the problem ofperceiving repetitions. I assume

that any instance of repetition is more easily perceived in hymns, verses, or even smaller

metrical units characterized by a relatively low density of repetitions: it is easier for aparticular repeated term to ring a bell if there arent any comp eting sets of

tintinnabulations. One way this is manifested is that local repetitionsfor instance,

repetitions within a verse or across versesoften taper off to allow a more distant echo to

be perceived. See, for instance, the following excerpt of 7.86. Superscripts denote separate

structuring devices. I leave the passage because the point here is to notice the relative lack

of repetitions in 4ab and 7ab.

7.86.2c kmme4havym hrno4jueta7.86.2d kadmr

ksumn abh khyam

7.86.3a prchtd4no4varua didku7.86.3b po emi4cikito2vipcham7.86.3c samnm nme4kavya2cid hur7.86.3d ayha tbhya4vruo hrte4

7.86.4a km ga3sa varuajyha37.86.4b yt stotrajghsasi skhyam

7.86.4c prtn4me4voco dabha svadhvo17.86.4d va4tvnen4nmas tur iym4


17/32


18/32

18

ones expectations and instincts about how stimuli are organized. (Think about stellar

constellations, for instance.)

Concatenations definitely constitute conventional structuring devices; but under

this rubric, I want to highlight two additional conventional devices that typically unite

lexical or morphological repetitions in non-contiguous verses. The first is and most familiar

example is nested or concentric rings,17illustrated by the following structuring device

from 7.86.

Verse Repetitions

4 ga

jyham

6 jyyn

7 ng

Another conventional type is the geometricring. This category does not exclude

nested or more straightforward rings; instead, the term refers to a way in which the

beginningand end of the rings can vary. In a geometric ring, the distance between each of

the reoccurrences of the repeated lexical elements is comparable, but different from the

equally comparable distances between each of the first occurrences. For instance, the

beginning of the ring could include a series of words that all occur in a single verse (spaced

a few words apart on average), whereas the reoccurrences could surface in entirely

different verses. The reverse can also be true: the first occurrences of forms included in a

17Watkins (1995:35) highlights a standard Homeric example.


19/32

19

geometric ring could be more diffusely spaced than the reoccurrences. Alternatively, a

series of lexical items in close proximity to one another could each be repeated multiple

times, typically in the same (or, the exact reverse) order. In any of these cases, the result is

that an entire section of a hymn appears to be an expanded version of a proportional,

smaller-scale lexical blueprint (hence, geometric,with a geometric seriesin device in

mind). Below is an example from 7.86.

Verse Repetitions

2 svy tanv 4 svadhva

5 tanbhi

6 sv

This device is very common in both the Rig Veda and the Gths; as Joel Brereton has

shown, such a ring constitutes the structural backbone of RV 10.129.18

3. Forms poetics) of Vasihasstructuring devicesThe following chart summarizes the results of this methodology when applied to

7.86.

18Brereton 1999:256.


20/32

20

STRUCTURING DEVICE # AND TYPE

V 1: Geometric 2: Redundant ring 3:Nested ring 4:RedundantConcatenation

1

2 svytanv 1 tt4hrna4

3ab cikita2 tt4na4emi4cd kavya2 me4 tbhyam4

hrte4

4ab ga3

jyham3cd svadhva1 tt4me4va4

tv4anen 4iym4

5ab tanbhi1 va4no4va4vaym va4

5cd6 sv1 jyyn3

citti2?*

7ab ng3

cd cetayat2acta2kavtara2

*I cannot argue that cittiwould definitely be perceived or grouped with the others using

the current methodology.

Above, we discussed the role that infrequency played in facilitating the repetitions

that make up Structuring Device 1, and the conventionality of the geometric ring into

which they could be grouped. As we have seen, redundancy fosters the perception and


21/32

21

grouping of the repetitions in Structuring Device 2. We have also seen that infrequency

and density (or the lack thereof) both play a role in increasing the perceptibility of

repetitions in Structuring Device 3, and that the conventionality of nested rings facilitates

the grouping of those repetitions into a separate structuring device. Recency and

redundancy both argue for the perceptibility of repetitions in Structuring Device 4, and

redundancy also argues for the grouping of those repetitions into a single structuring

device.

4. Functions power dynamics) of Vasihas structuring devices4.1. Preliminary remarks on form and function

We can see that in RV 7.86, the formal structuring devices circle around Verse 4,

as if that verse is the hymns structural nucleus. More specifically, two out of the four

structuring devices (1 and 4) begin to terminate in 4c, which contains an obviously pivotal

moment of contact with Varua:

7.86.4c pr tn4me4voco dabha svadhvo1Proclaim it to me , hard-to-deceive one, force all your own

Three out of four structuring devices (2, 3 and 4) are initiated in the verse preceding this

moment; they are part of the phrases that articulate Vasihas burning questions and

failed attempts to acquire knowledge about the reason for the falling-out between him and

Varua.


22/32

22

7.86.3b po emi cikito2vipcham7.86.3c samnm nme kavya2cid hur7.86.3d ayha tbhya4vruo h te4

I approachthe wisein order to askaround.TheKavishave said the very same one thing to me:This Varua is angry with you.

7.86.4a km ga3sa varuajyha3What was that highest crime, Varun

After the central moment of contact, the same roots that were used to plead for answers

about Vasihas culpability in this conflict with Varua begin to be used in quite distinct

ways: they place the blame on another figure (a higher-up, orelder), assert Vasihas

innocence, and then imply that he is once more among the beneficiaries of the Gods

wisdom.

7.86.6c sti 3knyasa upr

The higher-up is in the offense of the younger.


7.86.7b ah devya bhray ng37.86.7c cetayad2acto2dev ary

Like a slave to a generous master, I will do service:

I, crimeless, to the furious god.The noble god wisened the unwise.

In other words, the central verse of the hymn also heralds a distinct change in

discourse occasioned by an interaction in which Vasiha and Varua seem to have sorted

out their differences by finding fault in other culprits. Stephanie Jamison has used the word


23/32

23

omphalos for this structural midriff and thematic turning point.19Vasihas structuring

devices draw attention to both the omphalos and the discourse change it occasions, i.e. to

a movement from crisis to resolution.

4.2: Poetics and power dynamics of 7.86: antanaclastic repair

Deploying a technique I call antanaclastic repair, Vasiha also uses these

repetitions to make his conflict-resolution narrative soundsuccessful, even though the task

at hand is to placate an implacable god.

One half of the term, antanaclastic repair alludes to another coinage of

Stephanie Jamisons: poetic repair, referring to Rigvedic poetstendency to introduce

a linguistic puzzle early in a hymn, and solveit later in the hymn.20The cases I am treating

here involve lexical puzzles, but syntactic and morphological riddles can also fall under this

rubric. Antanaclasis,derivationally a breaking-up-against,literally a reflection,is the

conflict between the sameness of sound and difference in sense of two word forms. Its most

trivial applications are puns. However, as its etymology would suggest, this figure of speech

need not be a simple funhouse mirror: it can also alter the significance of a given string of

sounds to better suitand/or subverta dominant discourse. Antanaclastic repair, then,

refers to the repairing (within a structuring device) of an idiosyncratic, infrequent usage

19Jamison 2007:809 and 95100.

20Jamison 2006:133.


24/32

24

of a lexical element with one that is more in keeping with Rigvedic phraseological norms.

Such deployments and modifications of Rigvedic phraseology can be closely connected to

the renegotiation of relationships between interlocutors.

Discussing infrequency, I alluded to instances of what we can now term

antanaclastic repair. The first of these examples straddles the hymns omphalos.

7.86.2a ut svy tanv svadettAnd I speak that/thus with my own self:

7.86.5a va drugdhni ptriy srj no

7.86.5b va yvaycakrmtanbhiFree us from (our) fathers misdeeds(and)

From those we have committed with our bodies

7.86.6a n s sv1dko varua dhrti s7.86.6b sr manyr vibhdakocitti

It was not my ownintent, Varua, it was seduction:Liquor, anger, dice, lack of wisdom

This piece of antanaclasis benefits the poets case: he has split his identity into two selves:

a physical tan , capable of committing misdeeds, and hisownconscious intent (expressed

by the stem sv-),which, when the flesh is not weakened by temptations, iswilling (and

able!) to commune with Varua, a deity addressed by the related vocative epithet

sva dhva.7.86.4c prtn mevoco dabha svadhvo

Proclaim it to me, hard-to-deceive force-all-your-own!


25/32

25

This splitting is actually perceived as a linguistic repair,21which makes the perspective it

expresses sound fairly natural. Vasiha is leveraging the prestige of established

phraseology to lessen perceived differentials in purity and in power, differentials that

preclude interaction with Varua.

The other case of antanaclastic repair allows the poet to blame any crime he

committed on his elders, or on those who are farther up in the hierarchy, while

simultaneously appearing to quite contritely admit to the egregiousness of that crime.

7.86.4a kmgasa varua jyha7.86.4b yt stotrajghsasi skhyam

What was that highest crime, Varua,That you wanted to slay (your) praiser, (your) friend?

7.86.6c sti jyyn3knyasa upr7.86.6d svpna cand nrtasya prayot

The higher-up is in the offense of the junior;Not even sleep wards off evil.

The use of the comparativejyys-in 6c to denote an elder/higher-up figure repairs an

odd pejorative use of the superlative jyha- to mean highest/most egregious (crime).

The latter usage of jymight affect the interpretation of the former passage; suddenly

that most egregious sin of Vasihas would sound like the fault of a forefather or a

supercilious boss (the crime of the eldest/ highest). The very phrase in which Vasiha

admitted his grave error begins to sound as if it absolves him of any personal responsibility;

21See section 2.1 if it is not currently clear why this should be the case.


26/32

26

he makes sure that phraseological conventions work in his favor, implying what he lacks

the power to state explicitly.

5. Structuring devices in the Gths: problems and prospectsMost of this methodology can be straightforwardly incorporated into close-

readings of the Gthswith one exception: it is exceedingly difficult to make judgments

about the relative frequency of forms given the extremely small size of the extant Old

Avestan corpus. Thus, one of the five perceptibility criteria introduced above is

inapplicable. It follows that we cannot say much about poetic repair in the G ths.

What, then, can we hope to discover about the poetics and power dynamics of

Avestan hitis? Ifwe replace the idea of poetic repairwith a broader understanding of

how antanaclasis can contribute to a hymns resolution,22 we can make analogous

observations in both traditions. Considered simply as cases of antanaclasis, the repetitions

above link referents at different positions in power and animacy hierarchies (poet, elder,

divinity; body, self, sentience/willpower). More specifically, these rounds of repetition

22This idea is not entirely new. Others have identified similar types of transitions in the Rig Veda;

for instance, Elizarenkova (1995:9) has pointed out that epithets introduced in the first part of

praise hymns often constitute nominalized implied actions,which may later be expressed in

verbal forms.


27/32

27

begin with a phrase that is ambiguously placed along these hierarchies; disambiguation of

various types is associated with the resolution of the stated crisis (despite its severity).

A comparable case of resolution-by-antanaclasis can be detected in Y 29.2-6.

Bridging those two verses is a redundant ring comprised of the lexemes ratu-

judgment/judge, aa- truth (as an abstract concept or a deity), and vstra-/vstriia-

forage/herdsman.As the glosses suggest, the first two terms are (in isolation) ambiguous

with regard to animacy, and the third has animate and inanimate variants distinguished by

derivational morphology; in addition, ratu- can refer to a final judgment/judge (e.g. Y

33.1), or one that can be obtained in the here-and-now (e.g. Y44.16).Below, I highlight

the elements of the redundant ring in Y 29 and underline nouns to which ratu- is

counterposed (vstra- plays both roles).

Y 29.2 ad ta g u prsa a mka ti gauui ratuhiia hm dt xaiiat had vstrgaodiiaxk m hi ut ahurm y drguu.db amm vdiii

Thereupon the cows fashionerasks Truth: What is the nature of Thy judge(ment)for the cow?23

When cow-milking zeal, along with forage, take possession of her, O ruling ones,Whom do You wish (to be) her lord, who might break through the wrath (caused)

by the deceitful?

23Transcription and translation based on Humbach (1991), with a few alterations; but similar

observations could be made of the versions of Schwartz (2003) and Insler (1975). Schwartz

renders ratu- as judge(ment), Humbach and Insler as judgment(in Y29).


28/32

28

Because the abstract/inanimate nouns are close to ratu- , and because one of them is in the

nominative, just like ratu, it is likely that ratu-would initially be interpreted as inanimate;

in other words, the first two thirds of 29.2 might be paraphrased as, In place of a proper

judgment for the cow, there is only cow-milking zeal and forage.

However, there is another, animatenoun at the end of the verse that could easily

be taken to rename ratu-: ahura-, lord; with the appearance of this noun, the possibility

of an animate ratu- reemerges. The question, Whom do You wish (to be) her lord? could

be taken to be a paraphrase of the question, What is the nature of thyjudge for the cow?

In 29.6., this ambiguity diminishes, with context supporting an interpretation of

ratu- as judge.

Y 29.6 a h vaoca ahur mazd vduu vaf viinaii

ni auu ah vist nad ratu a a c haca z fuiiatac vstriiicrt tataThe Wise Ahura, who knows the pronouncements in (His) spirit, speaks:None (has been) really found by the world, no judge(ment) in accordance with

Truth24itselfFor the shaper has fashioned thee for the cattle-breeder and the herdsman.

24Humbach translates this second aa- as truthinstead of as the animate Truth.


29/32

29

Here, fuiiant- cattle breeder and vstriia- herdsman,25 are animate analogs to the

obstacles mentioned in 29.2 (gaodiia-, cow-milking zeal and, vstra- forage26). These

shifts undermine the previous inanimate interpretation of ratu-, since the last two thirds of

this verse would be more properly paraphrased as, In place of a judge, the cow has a

breeder and a herdsman.

This recasting of the basic crisis as a lack of particular animate figures prepares

the listener to accept its resolution: the discovery of a prophetwho acts in accordance

with Truth.Quoting the relevant portions of 29.8 and highlighting terms that connect this

passage with 29.6: am mi id vistzarautr spitmhuu nmazd vati a aiccarkrr sruuaie h, This one has been found here by meZarautraSpitama...For Us, O Wise One, and for Truth, he wishes to sing lauds.

ConclusionA close-reading strategy which focuses on structuring devices fosters similar

interpretations of RV 7.86 and Y 29. In at least these two narrow subsets of Rigvedic and

25Schwartz (2006:202) translates vstriia- as, pasturage,but I can find no evidence to support this

reading; supporting the animate reading, we have the uses in 31.10, 31.15, 51.5 and 53.4, where

vstriia- appears in association with other animate nouns; in 31.10 it also appears with fuiiant-.

26Insler (1979:29) translates the form in 29.2 as if it were from vstar-, another word for pastor.

However, the contrast between an animate vstar-and an inanimate vstra-is clear in 29.1.


30/32

30

Gthic material, antanaclasis within formal structuring devices is used to clarify terms

whose first appearance is shrouded in (intentional) ambiguity. These clarifications

contribute to the resolution of the hymns fundamental crisis, insinuating a proposed

solutions success where the poet lacks the power to (unilaterally) declare it. I would invite

the reader to apply this analytical method elsewhere, as I am in the process of doing.


31/32

31

ReferencesBloomfield, Maurice. 1916. Rig-Veda Repetitions. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Brereton, Joel P. 1999. Edifying Puzzlement: gveda10.129 and the Uses of Enigma.

Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.2. 24860.

Elizarenkova, T.J. 1995. Language and Style of the Vedic is. Albany: State University of

New York Press.

Humbach, Helmut, Joseph Elfenbein and Prods O. Skjrv. 1991. The Gths of

Zarathustra and the Other Old Avestan Texts. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Insler, Stanley. 1975. The Gths of Zarathustra. Tehran: Bibliothque Pahlavi.

Jamison, Stephanie W. 2006. Poetic repair in the Rig Veda.In Pinault and Petit (eds.),

13340.

__.2007.The Rig Veda Between Two Worlds/Le gveda entre deux mondes: Quatre

conferences au Collge de France en mai 2004. Paris: Collge de France.

Lerdahl, Fred and Ray Jackendoff. 1996.A Generative Theory of Tonal Music.Cambridge:

MIT Press.

Pinault, Georges-Jean and Daniel Petit (eds.). 1996. La langue potique Indo-Europenne:

Actes du Colloque de travail de la Socit des tudes Indo-Europennes. Paris:

Peeters.

Schmidt, Hanns-Peter. 1985. Form and Meaning of Yasna 33. New Haven: American

Oriental Society.


32/32

Schwartz, Martin. 2003. Gathic Compositional History, Y29, and Bovine Symbolism.In

Siamak Adhami (ed.), Patimna: Essays in Iranian, Indo-European, and Indian

Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter Schmidt. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers. 195239.

__. 2006. The Gathas and Other Old Avestan Poetry.In Pinault and Petit, eds. 45998.

Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Wertheimer, Max and Willis D. Ellis (trans.). 1938. Laws of Organization in Perceptual

Forms. In Willis D. Ellis (ed.),A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, 71-88. New

York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

comparative poetics and the power dynamics of the rig veda and the gathas

Documents