The Stakes of the Warrior

Georges Dumezil

Translated by David Weeks Edited, with an Introduction, by Jaan Puhvel

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Berkeley Los Angeles

PRESS

London

University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California /Jniversity of California Press, Ltd. London, England Copyright 1983 by The Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Dumfeil, Georges, 1898The stakes of the warrior. Translation of: L'enjeu du jeu des dieuxun heros (which is pt. 1 of v. 2, Types epipues indo-europeensun heros, un sorcier, un roi, of Mythe et epopee) 1. Mythology, Indo-European. \. Puhvel, Jaan. II. Title. BL660.D793513 1983 291.1'3'809034 82-13384 ISBN 0-520-04834-2 Printed in the United States of America

Contents
EDITOR S PREFACE VU IX EDITOR S INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

I. Starkadr 1. T h e T e x t s 9 2 . T h e Birth, Fate, and First C r i m e of S t a r k a 3 r 12 3 . O d i n , T h o r and S t a r k a 3 r in the Gautrekssaga and in Saxo 19 4 . T h e F a c i n o r a , Starcatherus and the Kings 29 5 . T h e end of Starcatherus; Starcatherus and Hatherus 38 6. H65r 44 II. Sisupala 1. T h e Birth and Destiny of Sisupala 51 2 . R u d r a , Kr?na a n d Sisupala 56 , 3 . T h e Offenses 59 4 . Sisupala and the Kings 61 5 . T h e End of Sisupala; Sisupala and Kr$na 65 III. StarkaAr and Sisupala 1. C o m p a r i s o n of the Legends of S t a r k a S r and Sisupala 71

Contents 2 . C o m m o n Inheritance? 74 3 . Rudra and Vinu 78 4 . O d i n and T h o r 85 5 . T h e Roles of the G o d s in the T w o Legends 9 1 IV. Jarasandha 1 . O d i n , R u d r a - S i v a and the Sacrificed Kings 9 7 2 . J a r a s a n d h a and Sisupala 100 3 . T h e End of Jarasandha 104 4. Aporia 107 V . T h e W o m a n and the Ancestors 1. Masculine Rivalries 113 2 . Reincarnated D e m o n and G r a n d s o n of a Giant 119 V I . Herakles 1 . T h e Failings of Herakles 123 2 . Hera, A t h e n a and Herakles 124 3 . T h e End of Herakles; Herakles and Hera 128 4 . Herakles, S t a r k a 3 r and Sisupala 131
SUMMARY APPENDIX 135 145

VI

Editors

Preface
et epopee (1968,

Georges Dumezil's three-volume opus Mythe

1 9 7 1 , 1973) has b e c o m e , for better or worse, a kind of q u a r r y , subject to piecemeal extractions into the English language. A start was made with The Destiny of a King (University of C h i c a g o Press, by the University of 1 9 7 3 ) , covering the last third of ME II. Subsequently the bulk of ME III has been m a d e available as Camillus California Press ( 1 9 8 0 ) . T h e editor of the latter, U d o Strutynski, anticipated the present undertaking by formulating a desideratum as follows (p. 2 6 1 ) : " . . . surely the next order of business should be to m a k e Dumezil's latestand p r e s u m a b l y f i n a l w o r d on the warrior complex available b y bringing out a translation of the first part of Mythe et epopee II. . . . T h i s theoretical disquisition on the of the Warrior heroic predicament constitutes a tightly knit m o n o g r a p h in its o w n right as it takes the argument begun in Destiny through uncharted waters and launches a new perspective on the p r o b l e m . It is self-evident that without a full understanding of the tensions and contrasts at w o r k between the earlier and later studies no further progress on the warrior question can o c c u r . " W i t h the presentation below of "L'enjeu du jeu des dieux; un h e r o s , " introduced b y a critical essay, all but the central third of ME II (concerning the Indie sorcerer K a v y a Usanas, of Indo-Iranian rather than Indo-European relevance) is n o w available in v e r n a c ular to what the French are wont to call "le m o n d e a n g l o - s a x o n . " This leaves in the main only the m o n u m e n t a l first v o l u m e , D u m e zil's s u m m a on the Mahabharata, R o m a n " h i s t o r y , " the Ossetic epic, and "epica m i n o r a , " as a future a g e n d u m .

Editor's Preface

For m o s t q u o t a t i o n s f r o m S a x o G r a m m a t i c u s the new EngHsh translation b y Peter Fisher (1979) is used in preference to O l i v e r Elton's old version, except that the Latin f o r m s of proper names h a v e been retained. T h e renderings of certain of S a x o ' s quoted Latin p o e m s , h o w e v e r , as well as all quoted passages f r o m O l d Icelandic, are of the translator's and editor's m a k i n g and based directly on the original. For the Mahabharata Dumezil uses interchangeably the C a l cutta and P o o n a editions. W h e n e v e r the latter occurs in extensive q u o t a t i o n s , the English version given is normally that of J . A . B . v a n Buitenen's C h i c a g o translation ( 1 9 7 3 - ) ; where the t w o editions run parallel, with n o or insignificant variations, van Buitenen's rendering (with occasional slight corrections) also serves f o r Dumezil's use of the C a l c u t t a edition; but in cases of significant divergence or i n a c c u r a c y , the Calcutta passages are translated directly f r o m the Sanskrit, and the same is true in glossing all short snatches of S a n skrit in the running text. Q u o t e d passages f r o m D i o d o r u s Siculus are given in some changes in the spelling of proper n a m e s . O f the appendices to ME II, only the extracts f r o m de Polier's Mythologie des Indous which relate to J a r a s a n d h a and Sisupala (pp. 3 8 1 - 3 8 8 ) have been included; appendix II ( p p . 3 9 2 - 4 0 2 , text and French translation of S a x o ' s seventy Sapphic stanzas c o n t a i n ing Starcatherus's and Fisher. torrent of invective against Ingellus) is unnecessary in English, given the available renderings b y both Elton the translation of C . H . O l d f a t h e r (Loeb Classical Library, 1 9 3 5 ) , with

Editor's
W i t h Aspects malheur du guerrier de la fonction =

Introduction
guerriere chez les Indo-europeens et

( 1 9 5 6 ; G e r m a n edition 1 9 6 4 ) a n d its revamped version Heur The Destiny

of the Warrior ( 1 9 7 0 ) , G e o r g e s

Dumezil inaugurated a systematic investigation of the Indo-European w a r r i o r type b y matching the R o m a n " e p i c " of Tullus Hostilius with Vedic m y t h s surrounding Indra, m o r e specifically the c o m b i n e d "third v s . triple" and killing-of-kin themes (Horatii v s . Curiatii, T r i t a A p t y a v s . Trisiras) a n d the episode of the treacherous ally ( N a m u c i , Mettius) o v e r w h o m the hero prevails w i t h the aid of succorous deities (SarasvatT-Asvins, Quirinus-Ops) and w h o m he slays in the end b y cruel and unusual, thus " s i n f u l " m e a n s . Dumezil also stressed the "solitude and liberty" c h a r a c t e r istics of the Indo-European w a r r i o r , as exemplified b y epithet eka-, 'one, a l o n e , unique,' his a v y a y l b h a v a adverb vasam, 'as one wills,' and his noun svadha, 'one's own a u t o n o m y . ' T h e latter's cognate relationship with Latin Indra's yathalaw, sodalis,

' m e m b e r of a secret society,' pointed up the warrior's ambivalent role as single c h a m p i o n or part of a self-centered corps or coterie, b o t h a society's external defender and its potential internal m e n a c e . A s s y m p t o m a t i c of such a m y t h i c warrior's "life s t o r y " D u mezil singled out "negative p e a k s " or perhaps nadir-episodes, a structured set of misdeeds or failings in which the hero c o m p r o mises his career b y offending all three levels of society b y murderous/sacrilegious, c o w a r d l y / u n w a r r i o r l i k e , and venal/adulterous acts respectively. T h u s Indra, spared censure in Vedic h y m n s f o r

IX

Editor's Introduction

the simple reason that one does not dwell on the s e a m y side of one's object of celebration, has his antisocial proclivities fully aired in B r a h m a n i c , Epic, and Puranic texts, especially B o o k Five of the Markandeya-Purana where Indra's killing of his fellow god Tva^tar's son Trisiras and of Vrtra (replacing N a m u c i ) , and sexual possession of A h a l y a in the disguise of her husband G a u t a m a , cause him to be divested of his splendor, might, and looks balam, rupam) V a y u ) , and the N a s a t y a ( = {tejas, which are transferred to D h a r m a , M a r u t a ( = Asvin) twins respectively (and subseAr-

quently deposited in the w o m b s of the queens K u n t I and MadrT, engendering the M a h a b h a r a t a heroes Yudhi?thira, B h l m a + j u n a , and Nakula + S a h a d e v a ) . Dumezil saw a parallel in the in staggered p o r t i o n s which were suc-

Avestan "first king" and culture hero Y i m a w h o w h e n sinning lost his regal glory {x^aranah) cessively reinvested in M i t h r a , T h r a e t a o n a , and K r s a s p a . T h r e e similar low points in the sagas of Starcatherus in S a x o G r a m maticus (regicidal h u m a n sacrifice inspired by O d i n , uncharacteristic c o w a r d i c e in battle, " c o n t r a c t " killing f o r gold of a king in his bath) and of Herakles in D i o d o r u s Siculus (defiance of Zeus leading to madness resulting in the killing of his own children in rage brought on by Hera, ruseful defenestration of Iphitus, adultery with lole) supplied G e r m a n i c and G r e e k reinforcements of the t y p o l o g y . T h i s w o r k , attractively presented, closely reasoned, a n d full of intriguing parallelisms, received further substantiation in Mythe epopee et II (1971) and III (1973). T h e hero as the stakes in a game of

g o d s s u c h is the title Dumezil bestowed on his treatment of the "parallel lives" of Starcatherus, Sisupala, and Herakles in ME II, pp. 1 3 - 1 3 2 = the present b o o k , a w o r k which m a k e s the earlier study seem a superficial sketch. Y i m a and Indra h a v e been excluded from the dossier, the former without explanation in loco. In Heur et malheur p p . 9 4 - 9 5 = Destiny of the Warrior p p . 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 Yima's n o n - w a r r i o r status was explained via the doctrinal "demilitarizat i o n " of the Zoroastrian r e f o r m , whereas n o w ( M E //, p p . 3 5 6 -

Editor's Introduction

358 =

The

Destiny

of a King

p p . 1 1 0 - 1 1 2 [1973]) Y i m a stands

apart altogether, charged rather with a single (albeit triply c o m partmentalized), all-encompassing "sin of the sovereign" radically different in kind f r o m the "three sins of the w a r r i o r . " Indra's eviction is explicit: T h e Markandeya-Purana account is p r o n o u n c e d a s e c o n d a r y , artificial mythological extension of the epic theme of the three sins (see b e l o w , pp. 4 - 5 , 140) which latter Dumezil finds rather tucked a w a y in the figures of Sisupala + Jarasandha in the Mahabharata. T h e s e refinements started from a realization that peculiar c o n c o r d a n c e s of the mortal careers of Starcatherus and Herakles, f r o m the setting of their fates b y antagonistic deities of the "first two f u n c t i o n s " ( O d i n - T h o r , H e r a - A t h e n a ) to their quasiself-immolational death using the services of a y o u n g assistant (Hatherus, Philoktetes), outweigh the single theme of the three sins. T h e resulting study of three heroic careers attains i m p o r t a n t new levels of penetration in the Starcatherus part, giving their due also to O l d Icelandic sources for S t a r k a 5 r (especially the Gautrekssaga). It also analyzes in depth for the first time the strange figures of Sisupala and his supplementary analogue and overking J a r a s a n d h a . T h e Herakles part, however, remains as before s o m e w h a t sketchy and inconclusive. Dumezil nevertheless triangulates the S c a n d i n a v i a n , Indie, and G r e e k traditions and reaches the startling conclusion that the S c a n d i n a v i a n - G r e e k isotheme bundle constitutes the strongest axis, with the S c a n d i n a v i a n - l n d i c one a clear s e c o n d , and the G r e e k - I n d i c one an almost nonexistent third. T h u s the Starcatherus s t o r y , despite its late attestation, is the c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r and hence the purest reflector of I n d o - E u r o p e a n inheritance. R a t h e r than a triangle, the whole is triptych, with S c a n dinavia as centerpiece and India and G r e e c e as side panels. S o m e of the discrepancies and "loose ends" in the Herakles saga are readily explicable as culturally conditioned i n n o v a t i o n s . Unlike S t a r c a t h e r u s and Sisupala with their innate enormities (supernumerary arms [ + eye in Sisupala]) which are corrected in childhood by divine intervention, Herakles is " n o r m a l " f o r the simple reason

XI

Editor's Introduction

that he c o n f o r m s to the Greek n o r m which eschews congenital m o n s t r o s i t y in O l y m p i a n heroes, reserving hand-related and o c u lar irregularities for the f o r m e r gods of the T i t a n generation (Heka t o n k h e i r o i , K y k l o p e s ) . R a t h e r than undergo decapitation in the m a n n e r of Starcatherus o r Sisupala, Herakles has a mysterious apotheosis b y fire on a m o u n t a i n , in c o n f o r m i t y with the classical heroic pattern. In contradistinction to the ultra-royalists S t a r c a therus and Sisupala w h o nevertheless b e c o m e regicidally entangled (counting J a r a s a n d h a as alter ego of Sisupala), Herakles has n o similar extreme proclivities; apart f r o m his strained service to Eurystheus, his legend c o n f o r m s to the relative obsoleteness o f h u m a n sacrifice (or at least the i m m o l a t i o n of kings) in classical G r e e c e , unlike the persistence o f ritualistic murder in pagan S c a n dinavia a n d its vestigial reminiscences in b o t h Vedic legend and ritual and in the laws of M a n u . But interest centers on the " g a m e o f g o d s " in which the hero is the " s t a k e s " (perhaps one might call him rather the p a w n in a divine tug-of-war), and here, t o o , Herakles is n o t a b l y discrepant. Unlike Starcatherus buffeted in the tension-field between O d i n and T h o r , and Sisupala, h u m a n replica o f R u d r a - S i v a , face to face with Kr?ria, an a v a t a r o f Vinu, Herakles is the victim/ beneficiary of the attentions o f t w o female deities, Hera and A t h e n a . T h i s feature, t o o , c a n b e explained as a G r e e k i n n o v a t i o n , attributable to the role that the O l y m p i a n o f f s h o o t s o f the A e g e a n goddesses typically play in the careers of individual heroes (e. g., A t h e n a with O d y s seus); Zeus is in such cases a b o v e the f r a y , or in this instance w o r k ing f o r his son through the p r o x y o f his h e a d - b o r n daughter, with O l y m p i a n household tensions replacing inherited Indo-European antagonisms. Since Indo-European structures are involved in this epic plot, neither sectarian oppositions between Odin-cult and T h o r - w o r s h i p in Viking S c a n d i n a v i a , n o r the V a i ? n a v a / S a i v a split of Hinduism, n o r the absence o f a n y such historical schism in the O l y m p i a n system are of relevance (the O l y m p i a n : c h t h o n i a n d i c h o t o m y does not enter). Dumezil is naturally p r o n e to applying the trifunctional

Editor's Introduction

analysis and to extrapolating from such typecasting. T h u s O d i n is essentially of the "first f u n c t i o n , " T h o r " s e c o n d f u n c t i o n , " as are Hera and A t h e n a respectively, chiefly on the basis of the anecdotal Judgment of Paris, while Rudra and V i j n u are not " f u n c t i o n a l l y integrated" (still, V a s u s , Rudras, and A d i t y a s sum up the formulaic roster of the tripartite p a n t h e o n [RV 1 0 . 1 2 8 . 9 ] , and Rudrfiylas = M a r u t s are clearly warrior deities). Dumezil is of course a w a r e of the functional shifts and slippages in G e r m a n i c theology, with Odin's warlike preoccupations and T h o r ' s impingements on the rain-related c o n c e r n s of the h u s b a n d m e n . He is also quite willing to admit further complexity in O d i n , latching on to the c o m p a r i s o n s m a d e b y Jan de Vries and others between O d i n and R u d r a . T h u s a different, extrafunctional opposition of " d a r k " ( O d i n , Rudra) and "light" ( T h o r , V i j n u ) deities is set up, one that is m o r e serious for the tripartite system than was Dumezil's one-time distinction of "first" and " l a s t " gods, since it cuts across such stalwarts of trifunctionality as O d i n and T h o r . Dumezil realizes that this " d a r k " : "light" opposition lies at the heart of the antagonisms that victimize the hero, and yet he is unable to find any trace of it in Hera : A t h e n a , leaving this dn:op(a for others to solve (see b e low, p. 132). For further understanding of this saga w e might expunge all reference to the "first f u n c t i o n " and treat it as purely internal to the warrior class, with the " d a r k " : "light" opposition basic to the inner tensions of that class. S u c h distinctions as the " c h i v a l r o u s " v s . " b r u t e " w a r r i o r (Indra vs. V a y u , A r j u n a v s . BhTma, Achilles vs. Herakles; cf. e. g.. Destiny of the Warrior xi) should likewise be deemphasized as superficial: T h o r is called " a kind of V a y u or BhTma" ( i . e . , a " s o l i t a r y " c h a m p i o n ; see b e l o w , p. 8 6 ) , and yet V a y u ' s alleged pre-Vedic " b r u t e w a r r i o r " character had supposedly turned into that of a "first" (or "initial") god b y Vedic times tiny of the Warrior, of that non-basic differentation. For " d a r k " and "light" I would rather substitute a " d e m o n i c " v s . "culture g o d " opposition between deities of the w a r r i o r class. It (Desp. 5 9 ) . In short, we should clear the b o a r d s also

xiU

Editor's Introduction

is the difference between a figure of monstrous a n c e s t r y or attachments and o n e w h o m a k e s the world safe against monsters, a kind of nature : culture tension in which the warrior is caught up. Rudra with his three eyes and four a r m s , one-eyed O d i n born of the giantess Bestla and riding an eight-legged horse, Hera born of T i t a n s , with one-eyed K y k l o p e s and hundred-armed H e k a t o n k h e i roi f o r uncles and herself the parthenogenous m o t h e r of the monster T y p h o e u s a l l these fit the " d e m o n i c " slot. T h e hero has definite onomastic associations with this kind of deity: Sisupala echoing (Rudra) Pasupati, Starcatherus-StarkaSr being a c o m pound of H a t h e r u s - H 6 3 r (name of both the hero's y o u n g deliverer from life and the fate-god himself, close to O d i n ) , and Herakles meaning "possessing Hera's KX^O?." T h e contrasting deity is o n e w h o prunes the wild by holding d o w n the m o n s t r o u s (Indra or T r i t a A p t y a slaying Trisiras, T h o r cutting b a c k on giants, A t h e n a Nike with the G o r g o n ' s head on her breastplate) a n d furthering n o r m a l nature (Indra and T h o r releasing waters, T r i t a A p t y a being " w a t e r y " in his very c l a n - n a m e , A t h e n a nurturing both plants [olive] and the young [Erikhthonios]). V a y u m a y well originally belong on the " w i l d " side, and Indra has b e c o m e too much of an all-round w a r r i o r god to admit full and sharp polarization; but Vinu is a g o o d candidate for the "culture g o d " type, not only in his Krsrta-avatar but also in that of R a m a , w h o after all married the Furrow, S i t a , and whose story is h o m o l o g o u s to the Indra-myths of the V e d a , as Hermann Jacobi showed almost a century a g o . V i j n u ' s Norse parallel, Vi3ar, is typically a strong-arm/ foot god second only to T h o r himself, one w h o will not desist f r o m monsterextermination even in the last straits of e s c h a t o l o g y , as he forces apart and shatters the j a w s of the wolf Fenrir w h o has devoured O d i n . T h e warrior hero is thus s o m e h o w genetically and inherently demonic, and his career is m a r k e d b y the d r a m a between this ancestral burden and the rehabilitational and "civilizing" efforts under the figurative (and in one case literal) aegis of the o p posing deity. T h o r performs on S t a r k a 3 r a rough form of plastic surgery, Kf^na relies on m o r e miraculous instant normalization of

xiv

Editor's Introduction

the infant Sisupala, A t h e n a ' s services to Herakles range from nurture to a r m a m e n t . In line with European heroic tradition, the Norse and G r e e k strongmen even acquire the finer skills of poetry and music, whereas India lays more stress on the purely d e m o n i c . Herakles shows traits reminiscent of the T h o r type, perhaps preserving some of the features that have been otherwise lost due to Athena's female gender, such as active monster-killing and the episodes of transvestitism which also characterize Thor and Achilles. In the fullness of time, the god O d i n w h o ordained

S t a r k a 3 r ' s three life-spans takes him b a c k unto himself b y the offices of H 6 3 r ; Zeus arranges for Hera to " a d o p t " formally the deified Herakles on whose begetting he had spent three symbolic night-spans. Sisupala's end comes instead at the hands of Kj-jna, upon which he is a b s o r b e d into the godhead of his killer b y a V i j n u i t e salvation miracle; this thematic reversal is as understandable in classical India as is the reclaiming of the hero by O d i n in Viking Scandinavia; both a c c o u n t s are simply true to their sectarian e n v i r o n m e n t s . T h e hero's career is in all instances tragic, due to the flaws inherent in his demonic nature or inflicted by the gods vying for his soul, but the resolutions differ: reconciliation in Europe, redemption in India. Ancillary matter to this great tableau has been accumulating during the 1 9 7 0 s . A k i n to the "three sins" is the theme of the "three charges against the w a r r i o r , " as w h e n the R o m a n s Camillus (nia65Tinoq according to Plutarch, like the populace-hating Starcatherus) and Coriolanus are accused of sacrilege/usurpation, irregularities in the disposal of military spoils, and opposition to populist measures (ME III, p p . 2 3 1 - 2 3 5 , pp. 2 4 2 - 2 4 8 ) . Dumezil himself has c o m p a r e d with the three sins the excessive revenge that the Ossetic hero Batraz exacts for the murder of his father X a e m y c , with successive cruelties against the B o r a t a e (third-estate clan), the / E x s a e r t a e g k a t a e (warrior estate), and the heavenly powers themselves (angels, spirits), until his death reconciles him to (Romans de Scythie et d'alentour Economies Societes son (Annales Civilisations God [ 1 9 7 8 ] , pp. 5 0 - 5 8 ) . Daniel Dubuis34 [ 1 9 7 9 ] , 4 6 4 - 4 8 9 )

Editor's Introduction

has tabulated w h a t he considers the "three sins of R a m a " (unethical slaying of Valin, b r a h m a n i c i d a j killing of R a v a n a , repudiation of Slta), thereby to a degree affirming J a c o b i ' s thesis of the Indraic sources of the characters and plot of the Ramayana. interesting of all, D a v i d J . C o h e n {Celtica challenged Dumezil's claim (see b e l o w , p. 141) Perhaps most that "of the 1 2 . 1 1 3 - 1 2 4 [1977]) has

numerous great warriors of Irish sagas, n o n e is the subject of a tale which even remotely recalls those that have been studied" (viz. S t a r k a S r , Sisupala, Herakles). S u i b h n e Geilt in the Buile Suibhne is an Irish w a r r i o r whose life of wandering and poetry is dramatically highlighted b y his u n p r o v o k e d outrages against S t . R o n a n , his strange c o w a r d l y flight f r o m the battle of M a g h R a t h , and his violent death in the house of S t . M o l i n g on an accusationalbeit f a l s e o f adultery, a c c o m p a n i e d b y last rites administered b y S t . M o l i n g w h o had long anticipated Suibhne's coming and was thus fatally foreordained to attend to the final stages of his life. Here R o n a n , the church-builder and " c o n s t r u c t i v e " figure in association with kings, clearly occupies the "culture g o d " slot, and Suibhne's frenetic hatred of him h a s m u c h in c o m m o n with Sisupala's onslaught on Kfsna- M o l i n g , on the other h a n d , figures as the ingatherer of the spent soul of this Sweeney Agonistes in the m a n n e r in which O d i n arranges f o r the return of his o w n : reconciliation of the poet-warrior to his god rather than miraculous transfusional salvation, in line with S c a n d i n a v i a and Greece rather than India. C o h e n also finds an inverted variant of the theme of the "three sins" in the Borama Laigen, which details S t . C o l u m b ' s description of had g o n e to heaven, namely, Daimin three Irish kings w h o

D a m a r g a i t w h o never hassled the church, Ailill w h o in the nick of time had thought better of fleeing f r o m battle, and Feradach w h o was beguiled b y gold until he repented of his hoarding on his deathbed and at last sought divine g r a c e . Here the pitfalls which the first t w o " s a v e d " rulers avoided m a t c h the first t w o sins of S u i b h n e , whereas Feradach's last-minute i m m u n i t y to auri sacra fames looks rather like the antidote that might have saved S t a r c a t h e r u s f r o m his third sin, the mercenary murder of King O l o in return f o r gold.

XVl

Editor's Introduction

T h a n k s to Dumezil we are on the tracks of a truly IndoEuropean h e r o - t y p o l o g y , one that mirrors an epic m y t h o n c e current in traditions f r o m Iceland and Ireland to Iran and India, greatly at variance with the ritualistic and p s y c h o a n a l y t i c p r o t o types postulated f o r the " a v e r a g e " hero figure b y the likes of Lord R a g l a n , O t t o Rai\k, and Joseph C a m p b e l l .

xvii

Introduction
T h e w o r k presented here follows up a study m a d e in a course at the College de France in M a r c h 1 9 5 3 , published in 1 9 5 6 in Aspects de la fonction guerriere, and reproduced with few alterations pp. 5 1 - 1 0 7 . trifunctional in 1 9 7 0 in The Destiny of the Warrior,

It was in 1 9 5 3 that three examples were assembled of a rem a r k a b l e epic thematization of the Indo-European structure which I proposed to call, f o r short, " t h e three sins of the w a r r i o r . " T h e y concern an Indie g o d , Indra, a S c a n d i n a v i a n hero, S t a r k a S r (Starcatherus), and a G r e e k h e r o , Herakles. T h e theme provides the two heroes with the general outline of their careers, f r o m y o u t h to death, while it a c c o u n t s f o r only a segment of the god's career, one leading to a t e m p o r a r y but nearly downfall. A c c o r d i n g to the fifth section of the Markandeya-Purana, in an act which is necessary f o r the well-being of the w o r l d but inherently censurable, Indra kills a demonic being w h o holds the r a n k of B r a h m a n and w h o is according to some also the priest of the gods and even their k i n s m a n ; this sacrilegious act causes the murderer to lose his tejas, his spiritual energy. Later he treacherously slays a second demon of w h o m he, the w a r r i o r , has been afraid and w h o m , c o n t r a r y to his calling, he has not dared to c o n front in a fair fight; as a result of this c o w a r d i c e he loses his bala, his physical strength. Finally, like Jupiter with A m p h i t r y o n , he dons the a p p e a r a n c e of a husband w h o s e wife he c o v e t s and thus gets his w a y ; this sexual villainy m a k e s him lose his riipa, his complete

Introduction beauty. Nothing remains to him except, since this immortal

naturally must hve o n , a small portion of the bala,

the strength

which is the essence of his o w n function. C o n s e q u e n t l y he is virtually wiped out, and his situation is the m o r e serious as the tejas, the bala, and the rupa that have deserted him seem irrecoverable, e a c h having entered into the god with w h o m it has a natural affinit y : his spiritual energy has flowed into D h a r m a , the personification of right as well as m o r a l i t y ; his physical strength into V a y u , the brutish W i n d ; his beauty into the t w o h a n d s o m e divine twins, the A s v i n s . T h e s e four gods, plus w h a t remains of Indra himself, later beget on Pandu's behalf an equal n u m b e r of sons, w h o finally m a k e up the f a m o u s trifunctional group of the five Pai^dava brothers (or half b r o t h e r s , o r near brothers). In the s u m m a t i o n b y D i o d o r u s Siculus, the long string of Herakles' feats, so helpful t o men and to the gods, is set off, p u n c tuated b y three failings whose effects are serious and which necessitate, besides a consultation of the priestess of Delphi, some expiation or redress. For having tried to avoid the divine c o m m a n d which sent him into the service of Eurystheus, he is seized with madness (XvaGu), kills his children, and o v e r c o m e b y this deed, must resign himself to perform the labors which Eurystheus dreams up, with a n u m b e r of s u b - l a b o r s . W i t h this task d o n e , he kills, b y a shameful trick and not in a fair fight, an e n e m y w h o is next to him; he is then stricken with a physical illness (voaf|aag) w h i c h he c a n be rid of only b y b e c o m i n g , on the advice of the P y t h i a , the slave of O m p h a l e , queen of L y d i a . Finally, after a new series of " f r e e " deeds, he forgets that he has just formally and legally married Deianeira and enters into a culpable relationship, as the direct consequence of which he is bodily devoured b y the burning ((Sspjoaoia) of the tunic s o a k e d in the b l o o d of Nessos, and after a last c o n sultation with the Pythia ascends the pyre of O e t a . In the treatment of S a x o G r a m m a t i c u s , the o n l y complete o n e , the n o less lengthy and varied string of exploits of the hero S t a r catherus is spread out over three periods, m o r e precisely three lives, each of which is of necessity and b y preordination marked b y

Introduction

a facinus,

a f e l o n y . H e helps the god O t h i n u s kill a N o r w e g i a n

king, his master and friend, in a simulated h u m a n sacrifice. A f t e r the death of a n o t h e r master, a Swedish king, he flees shamefully f r o m the battlefield, contributing to the rout of the a r m y . Finally, he lets himself be bribed b y conspirators, for a hundred a n d twenty pounds of gold, and kills a third master, the Danish king O l o . B r a h m a n i c i d e , c o w a r d i c e instead of v a l o r , b a s e adultery; such is the criminal record of Indra. Disobedience to Z e u s , c o w a r d i c e instead of b r a v e r y , and neglect of conjugal duty constitute the dossier of Herakles. A n d that of Starcatherus includes murder of his king in a h u m a n sacrifice, flight o n the battlefield after the death of his king, a n d murder of his king f o r cash m o n e y . Each of these three sets violates in succession the laws of religion, the warrior's ethic, and o n e o r the other of the t w o most important c o m p o n e n t s s e x uality a n d w e a l t h o f the m o r a l i t y of the third f u n c t i o n . T h i s parallelism was certainly no illusion, b u t w h a t lesson did it offer? Since 1 9 5 3 I had singled out a m o n g the three d o c u m e n t s , taken in pairs, further b i n a r y a c c o r d a n c e s in which the third did not share. T h u s only the sins of Indra and of Herakles, f o r w h i c h the culprits are fully responsible, entail separate, immediate, a u t o matic sanctions, while those of Starcatherus, the results of a curse against which he is powerless, have n o such effects. Y e t even here the similarity involves an important difference: while Indra loses successively, without intervening restoration, the three c o m p o n ents of his being (spiritual energy, physical strength, b e a u t y ) , thus heading continuously and linearly towards his t e m p o r a r y downfall after the third sin and the third loss, on the c o n t r a r y the " m a d n e s s , " then the " s i c k n e s s " of Herakles are completely cured, each after an a t o n e m e n t ; his mental and physical health are restored, and it is the third sin alone which puts him in a state f o r which there is n o o t h e r remedy than a v o l u n t a r y death. B y the same t o k e n , the G r e e k structure is closer to the S c a n d i n a v i a n in which the first t w o facinora h a v e no ill effects, but where Starcatherus, o n c e the third is c o m m i t t e d , has but one idea, one need: to offer himself willingly to

Introduction

the sword of a killer chosen b y himself. In short, the width of the divergences imposed the v i e w h e n c e the title given to the 1 9 5 6 e s s a y t h a t only the general f r a m e w o r k of the " t h r e e sins of the w a r r i o r " is to be ascribed to Indo-European inheritance, and that each of the three societies has made use of it independently and in an original m a n n e r . A n d yet, between S t a r k a S r - S t a r c a t h e r u s and Herakles, b e sides this general outline, there appeared very specific c o r r e s p o n d ences: not only their v o l u n t a r y death, but their type of c h a m p i o n , as righters of wrongs wandering throughout the w o r l d ; the paid help which they seek and get f r o m a young friend for the sort of death which they h a v e chosen; and a b o v e all, in their beginnings, the t w o antagonistic divinities w h o set or enjoin their fates, and w h o turn out to be those of the first two functions on well-known c a n o n i c a l lists: O d i n and T h o r , Hera and A t h e n a . T h u s one could glimpse the main features of a c o m m o n plot, where the three sins were merely one correspondence a m o n g others. But h o w was one to interpret this b r o a d agreement in which India did not share? Actually, the c o m p a r a t i v e dossier was s o m e w h a t unbalanced, b y the simple fact that it entailed two h u m a n heroes in contrast with a g o d : Indra's sins are m y t h o l o g i c a l , those of S t a r k a S r and of Herakles are epic. This of course does not preclude c o m p a r i s o n , but there was a more troublesome p r o b l e m . Critics h a v e not failed to n o t e that the Indie document used w a s a P u r a n a , the valuable Markandeya-Purana to be sure, which has preserved other certainly archaic material, but which o n e would like t o b a c k up here with an epic version; as matters stand, although a text of the Mahabharata does expound a theory of the downfall of Indra in the same sense, it lacks precisely w h a t would be i m p o r t a n t , the theme of the three sins. T h u s one c a n n o t exclude the possibility that a relatively late a u t h o r had systematized the sins, or at least some of the sins of I n d r a a w e l l - k n o w n n o t i o n ever since Vedic prose literature, as is m o r e o v e r the theme of the god's " l o s s e s " w i t h i n the f r a m e of the three functions which w a s suggested to him by the

Introduction end of the story, the begetting of the P a n d a v a s by the gods of these functions. M o r e generally, the idea that a warrior, man or g o d , successively c o m m i t s a spectacular sin in each of the three areas (social, m o r a l , even cosmic) defined by the three functions, is not so unique that it could not have been reinvented independently in several places, in several societies where the ideology of the three functions remained alive and d o m i n a n t . It is all a matter of c o n t e x t . But in fact, the context of the "sins of I n d r a " in the Markandeya-Purana T h e third term of the c o m p a r i s o n being thus w e a k e n e d , Diodoruswith witnesses. A n o t h e r section of the 1 9 5 3 study also required additional investigation. W i t h regard to S t a r k a S r , it had seemed natural and e a s y , going b e y o n d the theme of the three sins, to interpret his career as a w h o l e , and to do so b y relying on S a x o G r a m m a t i c u s : does not he alone present entire, in all its three parts and with great clarity, the p a n o r a m a of facinora which are merely mentioned by O l d Icelandic texts? I therefore preferred S a x o ' s account f o r other points of the saga where it does not agree with the Icelandic sources, and in particular for a most important point, since it is o n e of those where, in addition to the theme of the three sins, the legend of Herakles and that of S t a r k a 3 r manifest a specific a c c o r d a n c e : the relationships of the hero with two divinities w h o are variously interested in him, Hera and A t h e n a , O d i n and T h o r . C o n s e q u e n t l y , I categorized S t a r k a 3 r as a " h e r o of T h o r , " a rare specimen in c o n trast to the a b u n d a n t l y attested " O d i n i c h e r o . " T h o r , in f a c t , seems in S a x o ' s account to be completely benevolent towards S t a r c a therus, since his o n l y , but decisive, intercession is t o rectify the hero's m o n s t r o u s birth and give him a human form which is indispensable f o r his prestigious career, whereas O t h i n u s , besides the margin of indeterminacy inherent in is and any entirely different from that of the sins of S t a r k a 3 r and H e r a k l e s . perhaps s e c o n d a r y , there remained face to face only the saga and c o m p a r a t i v e study where the dossier has been reduced to t w o

Introduction

unarguable benefits, is wholly responsible f o r the imposed f a t e which sullies this career by three crimes. T h i s interpretation has encountered m o r e opposition than assent, and constructive critics, such as m y late friend Jan de Vries and M r . Edward O . G . Turville Petre, have objected that the oldest d a t u m , the allusion m a d e b y a ninth-century skald to an apparently c o n t e m p o r a r y tradition, can be understood only if o n e admits, in agreement with the Gautrekssaga and against S a x o , that T h o r had well and truly killed a giant n a m e d S t a r k a S r , w h o c a n only b e , as the saga calls him, a "first S t a r k a S r , " the hero's grandfather. T h u s it was necessary to revise so debatable a solution, which w a s , h o w e v e r , reinforced by the case of Herakles; persecuted b y H e r a , protected b y A t h e n a , in a context where these two goddesses are in fact, differentially, the Sovereign and the W a r r i o r e s s , is not the G r e e k hero the b r o t h e r of this Starcatherus w h o m the magical sovereign O t h i n u s favors only to gain his first crime, and to w h o m the c h a m p i o n T h o r first g a v e h u m a n form while leaving him the strength of a giant? T h e study of the "three sins of the w a r r i o r " thus remained f o r nearly a decade burdened with a double uncertainty: b o t h as to the value of the Indie d a t a , and as to the meaning to be given to the fate of the Scandinavian hero and consequently to the o b v i o u s similarity of his career to that of Herakles. N o new decisive element appeared, and there w a s no r o o m to pursue debates where n o argument on either side could be definitive. A s often happens, the solution was found on the trail of another inquiry altogether. Since 1 9 4 7 , and Stig W i k a n d e r ' s discovery a b o u t the mythical basis of the Mahabharata, I h a d continued to explore its numerous and i m p o r t a n t consequences, for the interpretation of the p o e m itself as well as for the c o m p a r a t i v e use of the very archaic m y t h o l ogy uncovered beneath the epic transposition. Several times the inquiry revealed r e m a r k a b l e correspondences between this p a r a V e d i c , often pre-Vedic, m y t h o l o g y and S c a n d i n a v i a n m y t h o l o g y ; thus it is that the D y a u h w h o acts indirectly through B h i j m a , with

Introduction

his extraordinary birth and his role in the dynasty, m a t c h e s the Heimdallr-Rigr of the Edda, and that the "eschatological b a t t l e " lurking b e n e a t h the battle of K u r u k j e t r a has no closer parallel than R a g n a r o k . V e r y soon one character caught m y attention, b o t h b e cause he seemed b y nature to belong to a n o t h e r period of Indie m y t h o l o g y , and because at the s a m e time he lent himself, especially in his role as savior in extremis, to precise c o m p a r i s o n s with S c a n Mythe dinavian m y t h o l o g y : n a m e l y K r j n a , and through him V i j n u . T h e essence of what I think I can offer on this subject is found in et Epopee I, in the last chapter of Part O n e ("Annihilation and R e b i r t h " ) , but so vast a problem cannot b e exhausted, or even e n c o m passed, in the space of a few years. Kfi:ia, m o r e exactly the Krgna of the Mahabharata, must be looked at not only in his general role as adviser and p r o t e c t o r of the Pari(^avas, but in all his individual interventions. His particularly close relationship with A r j u n a ; the freedom which he, and he alone, has to authorize and suggest questionable a c t i o n s , even lies, without tarnishment; his participation in a battle in which he nevertheless does not fight; the odd pair which he m a k e s with his brother B a l a r a m a , and m a n y other peculiarities invite s o m e thought and undoubtedly reserve h a p p y surprises f o r the comparativist. It was at one point in this investigation, already long and yet hardly begun, that w h o s e place Indra had filled u n c o m f o r t a b l y . It is in the second b o o k of the Mahabharata that Krgija first intervenes significantly in the life of the P a n d a v a s . He persuades the eldest b r o t h e r Yudhithira, w h o is apparently reconciled with his o b n o x i o u s cousins, the sons of Dhrtara^fra, to celebrate the sacrifice of r o y a l enthronement which in this context also takes on imperial significance: Y u d h i j t h i r a will be not only king in his o w n realm, but recognized sovereign o v e r all the kings of India. B y his advice and b y several deeds, K r j o a actually directs the preparations a n d the accomplishment of the rites. In particular, he eliminates t w o ( m o r e o v e r interrelated) obstacles: before the c e r e m o n y , a rival king; at the beginning of the c e r e m o n y itself, w h a t might K f j p a provided S t a r k a 9 r a n d through him H e r a k l e s w i t h the Indie " b r o t h e r "

Introduction

be called a c o n t e s t a n t . T h i s latter is n a m e d Sisupala, and his bizarre story is recounted in great detail. T h i s was w h a t we were waiting f o r . From 2 5 J a n u a r y to 15 M a r c h 1 9 6 2 , in seven seminars at t h e College de France, I attempted to tame this u n m a n a g e a b l e c h a r acter. Since then the study has progressed, and w h a t follows is an a c c o u n t of its current state.

STARKADR
1. T H E TEXTS

T h e tale of S t a r k a S r is p r e s e r v e d in t w o i m p o r t a n t d o c u m e n t s , o n e o f w h i c h is a c c o m p a n i e d b y a small g r o u p of b r i e f a n d fragm e n t a r y r e c o r d s w h i c h add n o t h i n g c o n s e q u e n t i a l c o n t e n t s of these t w o d o c u m e n t s are v e r y u n e q u a l . O n e was c o m p o s e d in O l d I c e l a n d i c , b y an a u t h o r well-versed in ancient t r a d i t i o n , a n d preserves, interspersed with the p r o s e , a p o e m in which the h e r o himself is supposed to be s p e a k i n g . ' U n f o r t u n a t e l y the p e r i o d of life c o v e r e d b y this p o e m a n d s t o r y is limited, extending o n l y f r o m the b i r t h of S t a r k a S r until s h o r t l y after ' The Gautrekssaga, chaps. 3 - 7 , is cited in the edition of Wilhelm Ranisch, Palaestra XI (1900), 11-34. On this saga, see Jan de Vries, Altnordische Literaturgeschichte II (1942), 455-457. The poem, Vikarsbalkr, contains thirty two stanzas, which are stanzas 6 - 3 7 of the saga; it is found, with critical notes and vocabulary, in Andreas Heusler and Wilhelm Ranisch, Eddica Minora (1903), 3 8 - 4 3 ; pace these authors, pp. xxx-xxxi, there is no decisive reason to think that stanzas 1 6 - 2 3 ( = saga 21-28) were interpolations. The main connected text is Hervararsaga ok Heidreks konungs, ed. Jon Helgason (1924), 1:1-2, with variants unimportant for the story. On the local folklore, or pseudo-folklore, of StarkaSr (tombs, etc.), see the very interesting article by Valter Jansson, "Medelpadssagnerna om Starkotter," Jngermattland-Medelpad, /jrsbok for Vdsternorrlands Lans Hembygdsfdrbund (1935), 5 7 - 6 9 ; also Arvid Enqvist, "Starkotters grav i Wattjom, Medelpad," Folkminnen och Folktankar, XXIX (1942), 1 - 1 1 ; Daniel Aslund, "Tuna Socken," Det gamla Medelpad III (1946), 3 9 - 4 1 ("Starkodders saga berattad av en 92-arig blitsman"). to it, b u t the

StarkaSr his first c r i m e . It w a s only this period which interested the sagamadr, for w h o m S t a r k a S r w a s no more than an accessory figure in a b o o k whose subject was quite different. In fact he is presented to us, at the beginning of the "long version" of the Gautrekssaga, in connection with the history of his friend and first victim, the king V i k a r , himself incidental. T h e redaction which we read dates undoubtedly f r o m the thirteenth o r even the fourteenth century, but all are agreed that it faithfully records ancient material, and in particular that what it adds to the p o e m which it quotes and explicates, the Vikarsbalkr, c o r r e c t l y transmitted. T h e o t h e r document is f o u n d in the Gesta Danorum of S a x o Grammaticus^ (born c a . 1 1 5 0 , died after 1 2 1 6 ) . It follows the life, or rather the three complete lives, of Starcatherus, divided a m o n g b o o k s VI (chapters 5 to 8), VII (chapter 5 and 11), and VIII (chapters 6 and 8 ) . T h e s e three w e r e , according to the plausible opinion of Paul Herrmann,^ almost the last to be c o m p o s e d a m o n g the first nine, o r " m y t h o l o g i c a l b o o k s . " T h e text is b r o k e n up by numerous p o e m s , s o m e in epic, others in lyric meters, which are all attributed to the hero and are surely paraphrases of O l d Icelandic p o e m s . S a x o ' s sources c a n n o t be determined, but there is no doubt that he w o r k e d f r o m o n e or m o r e sagas, written or oral, of which there remains no trace. T h e p r o b l e m is to k n o w to what extent he understood them, and also to what degree he willfully modified them. In the part corresponding to the episode of the portant p o i n t s . Gautrekssaga, S a x o is very s u m m a r y , and the two a c c o u n t s diverge on imis n o gratuitous invention, but knowledge

^ The Gesta Danorum is quoted in the edition of H. R. Ellis Davison, as translated by Peter Fisher under the title, History of the Danes (Totowa, N.J., 1979). On Saxo, see the introduction to From Myth to Fiction: The Saga of Hadingus, trans. Derek Coltman (Chicago and London, 1973). ^ These books, certainly later than the "historical books" X-XVl (from Harald Bluetooth, 936-986, to Knud VI, 1182-1202), were probably composed between 1202 and 1216 in the order: III, IV, V; VI, VII, II, I, VIII; IX.

10

StarkaSr

T h e legend has been a b u n d a n t l y c o m m e n t e d u p o n . O n e finds mention and occasional discussion of w o r k s before 1 9 2 1 in Paul H e r r m a n n ' s Erlauterungen chen Geschichte zu den ersten neun Biichern der ddnisdes Saxo Grammaticus, 1. Teil, K o m m e n t a r (1922), 522-555, 557commentary,

p p . 4 1 7 - 4 6 7 , 4 8 8 (mention of the second facinus), 5 6 8 . H e r r m a n n himself m a d e a new and careful

though marred b y the tendency to deny a priori the unity of the w h o l e and to dismember the interpretation to an extreme degree. T h e r e a f t e r , the principal studies have been: H e r r m a n n Schneider, Germanische Starkadsage," tion guerriere The Destiny deutschen O.G. Heldensage, II, 1 ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 1 4 3 - 1 8 3 ; Jan de Vries, " D i e Monatsschrift, 36 ( = de la foncGermanisch-Romanische

N . F. 5 [ 1 9 5 5 ] ) , 2 8 1 - 2 9 7 ; the second part of m y Aspects

( 1 9 5 6 ) , with, as an appendix, a s u m m a r y of de Vries' of the Warrior und [ 1 9 7 0 ] , part II); de Vries' clarifica. . . , Beitrdge and Religion zur Geschichte der 78 (1957), 4 5 8 - 4 7 1 ; of the North Edward (1964),

article (repeated, slightly modified and without this discussion, in tions in his review of Aspects Sprache Turville Petre, Myth

Literatur,

pp. 2 0 5 - 2 1 1 . " T h e c o m p a r a t i v e study which is presented here, if it is correct, c o n s i d e r a b l y changes the standing, the very data of the p r o b l e m . Let us follow first, piece b y piece, the legend of S t a r k a 3 r in its several v a r i a n t s , and see w h a t can b e suggested, if not d e m o n s t r a ted, b y internal criticism.
" Earlier bibliography, of only historical interest, will be found in Hermann Schneider's book. The old study of Johann Ludwig Uhland, naturalistic as it is, remains nonetheless one of the most interesting: Der Mythus von Thor nach nordischen Quelten (1836), reprinted in Uhland's Schriften zur Geschichte der Dichtung und Sage, VI, ed. Adelbert von Keller (1868), 101-110. One may still profitably consider Karl Miillenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde V (2d ed. |1907l by Max Roediger), 301-356; Gustav Neckel, Beitrdge zur Eddaforschung, mit Exkursen zur Heldensage (1908), 351-358; Axel Olrik, Danmarks Hettedigtning, II, Starkad den gamle og den yngre Skjoldungrcekke (1910), with Andreas Heusler's very weak (especially p. 180) review in Anzeiger fur deutsches Attertum und deutsche Literatur, XXXV, 3 (1911), 169-183.

11

Starkadr 2. THE BIRTH, FATE, AND FIRST CRIME OF STARKADR

T h e a u t h o r responsible f o r the episode inserted in the trekssaga

Gau-

k n o w s t w o characters n a m e d S t a r k a S r . T h e first, grand-

father of the h e r o , w a s a monstrous giant, possessed of four pairs of a r m s . He abducted a certain girl, and her father appealed to the god T h o r to rescue her. T h o r slew the kidnapper and restored the girl to her father. But she was pregnant, and b o r e a h a n d s o m e b o y with b l a c k hair, an entirely h u m a n being w h o inherited f r o m his father an extraordinary strength, and w h o received the n a m e of S t o r v i r k r . He married a princess of Halogaland, and h a d b y her a son w h o m he n a m e d , according to c u s t o m , after his grandfather, S t a r k a S r . A s the death of King V i k a r is all that the a u t h o r of the episode intends to recount, he stresses the relationship S t a r k a S r and V i k a r had f r o m their early y o u t h . S t o r v i r k r was killed b y Haraldr, king of A g S i r , w h o brought up little S t a r k a S r along with his own son, V i k a r . Haraldr was defeated and slain in his turn b y Herthjofr, king of H o r d a l a n d , w h o t o o k hostage the sons of a n u m b e r of important personages, beginning with the young V i k a r . O n e of Herthjofr's men, G r a n i , also called Hrossharsgrani (Horse-hair G r a n i ) , w h o lived in H o r d a l a n d on the island of Fenhring, t o o k a w a y with h i m as b o o t y S t a r k a S r , aged three. T h e child stayed nine years with G r a n i and grew big and strong as a giant. He then helped his friend V i k a r to reconquer his realm, and joined up with h i m , a c c o m p a n y ing him on m a n y victorious expeditions and being showered b y h i m with h o n o r s . ' But s o m e o n e had dark designs on the t w o friends: O d i n , the sovereign g o d . O d i n in fact destined King V i k a r to be offered to him as victim in a human sacrifice, a n d he had chosen S t a r k a S r to be the sacrificer. If, f r o m the point of view of m e n , the act which S t a r k a S r is to c o m m i t is contemptible and treasonous, one ought to refrain f r o m being equally harsh from the god's perspective and should not m o u r n f o r V i k a r . T h e fate of a h u m a n victim offered
' Chap. 3, p. 12; cf. Saga Heidreks konungs ins vitra, ed. Christopher Tolkien (1960), appendix ("U-Redaktion"), pp. 6 6 - 6 7 .

12

Starkadr

to O d i n , especially b y hanging and spear-thrust, is not lamentable; it will h o n o r a b l y increase, in the o t h e r w o r l d , the vast b o d y of Einherjar, w h o do not find the time long either in the mead-halls of Valhalla where they a r e the guests of the g o d , or on the n e a r b y fields where between banquets they wage fierce c o m b a t , henceforth without risk. Sacrifice to O d i n w a s as g o o d as death on the battlefield, which every well-born G e r m a n wished for. S o true is this that the S c a n d i n a v i a n s had devised a sort of sacrament designed to save by a shortcut those w h o had the mischance to meet with a natural death, b y old age or illness: the historicized account which the Heimskringla {Ynglingasaga) gives of the reign of " k i n g " Osinn says that he instituted a " m a r k of the s p e a r , " a scratch that, inflicted on a dying m a n , would vouchsafe him the eternal happiness which n o r m a l l y ought to result only f r o m a mortal b l o w received f r o m an e n e m y . A w a r r i o r or king sacrificed to the g o d , willingly or otherwise, w a s assured a fortiori of a bountiful and violent afterlife. A s for the murder which O d i n is going to m a k e S t a r k a S r c o m m i t , not only will it have no grievous consequences for the h e r o , either in this world o r the next, but the god vests his c o m m a n d in a series of such conspicuous benefits that one is tempted to doubt its criminal c h a r a c t e r , stated though it b e . Here then is h o w he goes a b o u t it, or rather has long since gone a b o u t i t . ' T h e Hrossh^rsgrani w h o has taken to himself and brought up S t a r k a 3 r with so much solicitude and success is none other than a h u m a n f o r m assumed b y the g o d . Patiently, this M e n t o r awaits f a v o r a b l e circumstances to ask of his T e l e m a c h u s the act for which he has thus chosen him. T h e m o m e n t arrives in chapter V I I , ' w h e n , during a Viking expedition, V i k a r ' s sailing fleet is long becalmed near a small island, and the duration of this e m b a r r a s s m e n t is such that the king and his c o m p a n i o n s resort to a magical consultation to determine the cause of it. T h e answer is that O d i n desires a m a n of the a r m y to be sacrificed to him b y hanging. Lots are drawn, a n d
' Chaps. 3-6, pp. 13-27. ' Pp. 2 8 - 3 1 .

13

StarkaSr

it is the king w h o is chosen. T h e a r m y remains silent and postpones the deliberations to the next d a y . It is indeed n o m i n o r matter to kill one's king, even in sacrifice, and besides h o w are they to induce V i k a r , w h o is master of the expedition and free to f o r g o it, to offer himself as victim to assure a success which will n o longer c o n c e r n him? It is at this point that Hrossharsgrani intervenes. In the middle of the night he a w a k e n s S t a r k a S r , takes him in a b o a t to the shore of the islet and leads him through the forest to a clearing where a strange ping, o r assembly, is being held. A c r o w d of beings of h u m a n appearance are gathered around twelve high seats, eleven of which are already occupied b y the chief gods. Revealing himself f o r w h o he is, O d i n ascends the twelfth seat a n d a n n o u n c e s that the order of business is the determination of the fate of S t a r k a S r . In fact, the event c o m e s d o w n to a magical-oratorical duel between O d i n and T h o r . T h o r , taking the f l o o r immediately, declares that he c a n n o t bear g o o d will t o w a r d a young m a n w h o s e grandfather was a giant w h o m he h a d had to kill and w h o s e g r a n d m o t h e r , in her girlhood, had preferred this giant to h i m t o him, T h o r , the " T h o r of the / ^ s i r " I C o n c l u d i n g , he imposes a first fate, a b a d o n e : " S t a r k a 8 r will have n o children. Odin formulates a compensain each."^ A n d the tion: " S t a r k a S r will have three h u m a n life s p a n s . " ' But T h o r rej o i n s : " H e will c o m m i t a villainy, a nidingsverk, duel continues: " H e will a l w a y s , " says O d i n , " h a v e the best a r m s and the best r a i m e n t s . " " H e will h a v e , " says T h o r , "neither land n o r real p r o p e r t y . " O d i n : " H e will have fine furnishings." T h o r : " H e will never feel he has e n o u g h . " O d i n : " H e will h a v e success and vict o r y in every c o m b a t . " T h o r : " H e will receive a grave w o u n d in every c o m b a t . " O d i n : " H e will h a v e the gift of poetry and i m p r o v i s a t i o n . " T h o r : " H e will forget all he has c o m p o s e d . " O d i n :
' "Alfhildr, moSir fodur StarkaSs, kaus fodur at syni sinum hundvisan jotun heldr enn Asapor ok skapa ek pat Starkadi, at hann skal hvdrki eiga son ne dottur, ok enda svd cett sina. ' "pat skapa ek honum, at hann skal Ufa prja manzaldra." ' "Hann skal vinna nidingsverk a hverjum mannzaldri." The theme of the three nidingsverk was transferred to the sword Tyrfingr and its owner Svafrlami in the Hervararsaga (2, p. 3 [see above, p. 9 n. I j ) .

14

Starka3r " H e will appeal to the well-born and the great." T h o r : " H e will b e despised b y the c o m m o n f o l k . " T h e blueprint f o r the future ends here. T h e gods endorse without discussion the propositions of the two debaters, the meeting is a d j o u r n e d , and Hrossharsgrani brings S t a r k a S r b a c k towards the ships. In p a y m e n t f o r the aid he has just provided h i m , he demands of S t a r k a S r bluntly that he " s e n d " him the king, that is arrange f o r the king to place himself in a position to b e sacrificed: he himself will take care of the rest. S t a r k a S r , realizing that he must p a y , agrees. A n d the god turns o v e r to the m a n , hereafter his a c c o m p l i c e , a spear, telling h i m " t h a t it w o u l d appear as a stick of reed" (reyrsprdti).

T h e next m o r n i n g , the king's counsellors met a n d arrived at the following decision: they w o u l d c a r r y out a m o c k sacrifice, a n d it w a s S t a r k a S r w h o proposed the plan. T h e r e s t o o d near them a fir tree and a high stump near the fir; far d o w n f r o m the tree stretched a slender b r a n c h , which rose up into the foliage. T h e servants were preparing f o o d for the m e n , and a calf h a d been opened and gutted. S t a r k a S r had them take out the calf's intestine, then he stood up on the stump, bent d o w n the thin b r a n c h , and k n o t t e d the entrail a r o u n d it. T h e n S t a r k a S r said to the king, " Y o u r gallows is ready f o r y o u , king, and it does not seem very dangerous. N o w c o m e hither, a n d I will lay the rope a r o u n d y o u r n e c k . " T h e king said, "If this apparatus is n o m o r e dangerous than it l o o k s to m e , then I think it will not h a r m m e , but if it is otherwise, then it is for fate to decide w h a t will h a p p e n . " T h e n he stood up on the stump, and S t a r k a S r laid the n o o s e a r o u n d his neck and stepped d o w n f r o m the s t u m p . T h e n S t a r k a S r thrust his stick at the king and said, " N o w I give thee to O d i n . " " T h e n S t a r k a S r released the b r a n c h . T h e reed-stick suddenly b e c a m e a spear and pierced the king. T h e stump fell out f r o m beneath his feet, and the calf's intestine b e c a m e a strong w i t h y , and the b r a n c h sprang up a n d dragged the king into the leaves, and there he died. T h e r e a f t e r the place has been called V i k a r s h o l m a r , 'Vikar's

" "Nu gef ek pik OdnW 15

StarkaSr

Island.' From this deed S t a r k a S r b e c a m e much despised b y the people, a n d w a s exiled f r o m H o r d a l a n d . S t a r k a S r then goes to S w e d e n , where he is supposed to h a v e c o m p o s e d the end of the Vikarsbalkr,^^ and w e hear nothing m o r e sagamadr. of his life; it w a s of n o further interest to the

From the birth of Starcatherus to the death of W i c a r u s , S a x o ' s account is brief. Here it is in its entirety (Fisher, p . 1 7 0 ) : In those days there w a s a man Starcatherus, son of S t o r w e r c u s , w h o , w h e n he a n d his comrades were involved in a disastrous shipwreck, w a s the o n l y one to escape through strength o r l u c k . O n account of his wonderful pre-eminence of mind and b o d y he w a s invited b y F r o t h o to be his guest. A f t e r he h a d been his c o m p a n i o n f o r s o m e while and been treated m o r e elegantly and h a n d s o m e l y each day, he w a s at length given a splendid ship and told to pursue the life of an adventurer, at the s a m e time exercising watch o v e r the seas. N a t u r e h a d equipped him with a superhuman physique and spiritual end o w m e n t s to m a t c h , s o that men believed that in b r a v e r y he w a s second to n o n e . S o widespread w a s his conspicuous ren o w n that even t o d a y his deeds and n a m e remain distinguished in p o p u l a r esteem. T h e roll of his achievements not o n l y scintillated in our own c o u n t r y but gained him brilliant repute even through all the provinces of Sweden and S a x o n y . Certainly it is recorded that he c a m e f r o m the region which borders eastern Sweden, that which c o n t a i n s the wideflung dwellings of the Estlanders and o t h e r numerous savage hordes. But a c o m m o n tale has been invented a b o u t his origin which is fictitious, unreasonable and downright incredible. For s o m e folk tell h o w he was b o r n of giants and revealed his m o n ster kind b y a n extraordinary n u m b e r of h a n d s . T h e y assert that the god T h o r b r o k e the sinews which joined four of these superfluous extensions of freakish Nature and tore them off, plucking a w a y the unatural bunches of fingers f r o m the b o d y

Pp. 31-34.

16

StarkaSr

proper; with only t w o a r m s left, his f r a m e , which before had run to a gigantic e n o r m i t y and been shaped with a grotesque c r o w d of limbs, was afterwards corrected according t o a better model and contained within the m o r e limited dimensions of men. T h i s birth is followed in abrupt fashion b y a digression into m y t h o l o g y , concerning in particular the gods O t h i n u s and T h o r (pp. 1 7 0 - 7 1 ) . T h e y were of course not " g o d s , " S a x o explains, but magicians w h o b y their prestige h a d c o n v i n c e d the simple folk that they were gods, and this deception h a d infected N o r w a y , Sweden and D e n m a r k . T h i s is w h y their names appear in the days of the week, just as the ancient R o m a n s had also n a m e d these days after the gods o r the seven planets. A n o u t c o m e of this is that the days of the w e e k , in their a p pointed series, are thought of under the n a m e s of these " g o d s , " since the ancient R o m a n s are k n o w n to h a v e given them separate titles f r o m the names of their deities or f r o m the seven planets. O n e gathers plainly f r o m this very n o m e n c l a t u r e of days that the persons w h o were h o n o r e d b y our people were not the same as those the early R o m a n s called Jupiter and M e r c u r y , or those w h o m Greece and Italy accorded all the h o m a g e of superstition. W h a t we call T h o r ' s or Odin's day is termed b y them Jove's or M e r c u r y ' s day. If w e accept that T h o r is Jupiter a n d O d i n M e r c u r y , following the c h a n g e of the d a y s ' designations, then it is clear proof that Jupiter w a s the son of M e r c u r y , if w e abide b y the assertions of our c o u n t r y m e n , w h o s e c o m m o n belief is that T h o r w a s the child of O d i n . A s the R o m a n s hold to the opposite opinion that M e r c u r y w a s b o r n of Jupiter, it follows that if their claim is undisputed, we must realize that T h o r and Jupiter, O d i n and M e r c u r y are different personages. S a x o then resumes his account as abruptly as he had interrupted it: A n c i e n t tradition says that Starcatherus, w h o m I introduced earlier, devoted his initial career to pleasing the gods through the murder of W i c a r u s , king of N o r w a y . S o m e narrate this

17

StarkaSr

version of the affair: O t h i n u s once desired that W i c a r u s should c o m e to a dismal end, but did not wish t o effect this openly. He therefore m a d e Starcatherus, already r e m a r k a b l e f o r his unusual size, f a m o u s f o r his courage and his artistry in c o m posing spells, so that he could use the m a n ' s energies m o r e readily to accomplish the king's death. O t h i n u s hoped that this was h o w Starcatherus would s h o w his thanks f o r the privileges bestowed on him. T o this end he also gave him three times the span of mortal life, in order that he might perpetrate a proportionate number of d a m n a b l e deeds, and crime a c c o m p a n y his prolonged existence. He soon c a m e to W i c a r u s and f o r s o m e time lodged with him in his p a l a c e , devising a trap during his attendance on the king. Eventually they e m b a r k e d together on a pirating expedition but arrived at a place where they were troubled b y a long spell of violent storms. T h e gales interrupted their v o y a g e and m a d e them spend a m a j o r part of the y e a r doing nothing, till they decided that the gods must be appeased b y h u m a n b l o o d . Lots cast in an urn showed a demand for a royal victim. S t a r catherus then twined round the king's n e c k a n o o s e he had m a d e of osier, pretending to offer the appearance of an expiation merely f o r a m o m e n t . But the tightness of the knot fulfilled its function and cut short W i c a r u s ' breathing as he hung there. W h i l e he was still panting Starcatherus tore out the r e m nants of life with his s w o r d , and w h e n he should have lent relief disclosed his treachery. I c a n n o t entertain the view of one version which relates that the soft osiers hardened as they suddenly gripped and acted like a halter of i r o n . " O n c e this first c r i m e has been c o m m i t t e d , Starcatherus associates himself with a Danish Viking. A t first with h i m , and later a l o n e , he travels o v e r a huge area: Russia, Ruthenia, Biarmia, S w e den, Ireland, Slavia, Russia again, B y z a n t i u m , P o l a n d , S a x o n y , and eventually arrives at the court of the D a n i s h king F r o t h o (pp.
Saxo did not understand the two-staged scenario of the sacrifice; see The Destiny of the Warrior, trans. Alf Hiltebeitel (Chicago and London, 1970), p. 91, and nn. 7, 8.

18

Starka3r 1 7 2 - 1 7 4 ) . Everywhere he performs outstanding exploits, a model of martial virtue.

3.

ODIN,

THOR

AND

STARKADR AND IN SAXO

IN THE GAUTREKSSAGA

T h e t w o tales, the Icelandic and the Latin, follow in the m a i n the s a m e pattern but manifest significant differences on several p o i n t s . A n d as happens whenever a c o m p a r i s o n is m a d e on the basis of only t w o terms, it is difficult t o unravel a single archetype of which the k n o w n texts w o u l d b e t w o divergent derivatives. Aside f r o m the fact that it is not even certain that such an archetype ever existedfolklorisls a r e a c c u s t o m e d to discovering such irreducible doubletsit is inevitable, w h a t e v e r effort the critic m a y m a k e at o b j e c t i v i t y , that in arguing f r o m one p r o b a b i l i t y to the next he m a y venture b e y o n d w h a t is justifiable. In this case, h o w ever, internal criticism does lead to some conclusions. T h e presentation of the birth of S t a r k a S r is tighter in S a x o than in the s a g a . S a x o k n o w s only a single Starcatherus, w h o consolidates w h a t the saga distributes between the t w o S t a r k a S r s , grandfather a n d grandson: his native monstrosity, the intervention of the gods, a n d the beginning of his heroic career. T h i s discrepancy, while at first seeming considerable, is nonetheless reduced b y the fact that, according to the Vikarsbalkr, the grandson bears hereditary traces of his grandfather's monstrosity, vestigial stumps of supernumerary a r m s . I k n o w that those critics w h o are quick to prune the texts, and to reject as later additions w h a t e v e r does not fit their idea of the " o r i g i n a l " plot, have edited out the stanza of the p o e m which says this in clear t e r m s ; ' " their reasons a r e very w e a k . If one avoids mutilating the bdlkr, the Icelandic and Latin versions are not so different, since even in the f o r m e r S t a r k a S r is not, even
" Stanzas 31-32 ( = 36-37 of tfie saga); 31. Sea pykkjask peir I d sjalfum mer I jotunkumi /atta handa, II er HlorriSi I fyr hamar nordan I Hergrims bana I hondum rainti.

19

StarkaSr

at his beginnings, such a h a n d s o m e young m a n as o n e could hardly believe to h a v e been descended from a m o n s t r o u s giant. O n the c o n t r a r y , because of this origin he is at birth very like Starcatherus " r e t o u c h e d " b y T h o r , and like him carries stigmata, ones. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to guess wrhich of the t w o variants preserves the original state. T h e lectio of S a x o is hardly difficilior than that of the saga and b o t h , in different w a y s , recall the type of the hero relieved of superfluous a r m s (in S a x o b y direct a m p u t a t i o n ; in the saga a m p u t a t i o n with hereditary transmission of the " a c q u i r e d characteristic," but a trace of the old state). But this type is without parallel in all the heroic tales of the N o r t h , and this is undoubtedly the most important fact. O n e is inclined at first to think that it is the saga w h i c h , to reduce the strangeness of the type without eliminating it, divided it into t w o stages, over t w o separate generations, and that S a x o has preserved in this instance a purer and simpler d a t u m . H o w e v e r , when one reflects on the liberties which S a x o o r his immediate source have taken in m a n y other cases where they are easily discovered, one hesitates to attribute such fidelity to him here. M o r e o v e r , in a fragment of a p o e m m u c h older (tenth century) than the Gautrekssaga, f o u r lines of the skald VetrliSi SumarliSason (the o n l y ones prejotunkumi: stumps or vestiges of undeveloped limbs, if not scars of amputated

32. Hte/a menn I er m'xk sea I Ijotan skolt I langa trjdnu II hdr ulfgratt I hangar tjUgur I hriifan h&ls I hiiS jotraSa. 31. ". . . They [i.e. the Swedes, with whom StarkaSr has taken refuge] think they see upon myself the giant's mark, eight arms, where Hlorri3i [ = Thor] . . . relieved Hergrim's bane of his arms. 32. Men laugh when they see me, ugly jaw, long snout, wolf-gray hair, hanging arms, scarred neck, wrinkled skin." Cf. Ranisch, in his introduction to the Gautrekssaga (above, p. 9, n. 1), p. xcvii [translated from German]: 'The men of the Swedish kings still wished to find on StarkaSr marks of his gigantic descent, traces of eight arms, as that older StarkaSr had, the killer of Hergrimr"; Paul Herrmann, Kommentar, p. 423: "Like a mark of Cain he bears the signs of gigantic extraction on his body, the stumps of the eight arms which Thor removed from his grandfather, the wild look, the wolfish snout."

20

StarkaSr

served of his w o r k ) , S t a r k a S r is n a m e d in a list of giants w h o c a m e to grief at the hands of the god T h o r : Y o u b r o k e the legs of Leikn, thrashed T h r i v a l d i , overthrew StarkaSr, caused the death of G j o l p . " T h e violent, hostile act designated b y the v e r b steypa (to t h r o w [hurl] d o w n , to o v e r t h r o w ) , can scarcely be that b y which the Thor of S a x o " c o n t a i n s Starcatherus within the m o r e limited dimensions of m e n . " It is rather that b y which T h o r , in the saga, slays the first S t a r k a S r . T h e differences b e c o m e m o r e serious when we consider the role of the gods in the tales of StarkaSr's birth (the m o n s t e r reduced to h u m a n limits) and the murder of V i k a r . For here it is the gods w h o direct the a c t i o n , free to disappear afterward a n d to disinterest themselves, at least apparently, in the career they h a v e arranged f o r the h e r o . Here again, S a x o is simpler a n d seems m o r e c o h e r e n t . T h e t w o gods step in successively, without interference; and s o b e r l y , each o n e with a single gift, o r with several, which do not call f o r a n y response. T h o r first of all brings the y o u n g Starcatherus to h u m a n f o r m , a n d this act seems to be understood b y S a x o as a g o o d deed, since out of a horrible giant he has m a d e a m a n , offering h i m the c h a n c e of a useful and illustrious existence. O n l y thereafter does O t h i n u s appear. A s he needs to obtain f r o m S t a r c a t h e r u s a service w h i c h , f r o m the h u m a n point of view, is an a b o m i n a b l e crime, a facinus, the murder of the king his master and friend, he p a y s generously: all the physical a n d spiritual qualities that will m a k e an exceptional hero; poetic skill, b y which the hero will also be the first great skald; and a life extended to the length of three n o r m a l
Ernst Albin Kock, Den norsk-islandska Skaldedigtningen leggi brauzt Leiknar, lamdir privalda, steypdir StarkeSi, stett of Gjdlp dauSa. (1946), I, 71;

21

StarkaSr

h u m a n lives. In this presentation of "gifts," though, there is a p r o b l e m : O t h i n u s has need of only the first facinus, vitude: Starcatherus will c o m m i t three facinora, the murder of o n e in each life. W i c a r u s , but he burdens the gift of three lives with threefold serW h y ? W e might answer, being modern c o m p a r a t i v i s t s , that the saga was c o m p o s e d on the traditional theme of the "three functional sins of the w a r r i o r , " and the three facinora h a v e been imO n e is led posed at the cost of a certain ungainliness in c o m p o s i t i o n . " But this would be t o give little credit to the skill of the sagamenn. satisfactory original. M o r e o v e r , if the interventions of T h o r a n d O t h i n u s are successive and without any element of rivalry or conflict, one point in S a x o ' s c o m p o s i t i o n arouses suspicion, namely the parallelism of the t w o gods, of their natures and their Latin interpretations, w h i c h , placed as it is between the birth and the career of the h e r o , constitutes a parenthesis within the story a n d interrupts it t o no a d v a n t a g e . For w h a t a d v a n t a g e is there in defining t w o gods in this w a y , one in terms of the other, in opposition to e a c h other, when their interventions are entirely independent and not even c o m plementary? But this is a c o m m o n practice of S a x o , well illustrated and clarified particularly b y the "saga of H a d i n g u s , " in the first b o o k of the Gesta Danorum.^'' Hadingus is the god N j o r S r transposed into a Viking h e r o . S u c h transfer requires s o m e fancy f o o t w o r k , granted the essentially peaceful c h a r a c t e r of N j o r S r in the m y t h o l o g y (such m o r e o v e r is the fate of all the divinities, including that other "pacifist" Baldr, w h o m S a x o has enlisted in his first nine b o o k s , the " m y t h o l o g i c a l b o o k s , " to provide a prehistory for his Danish h i s t o r y ) . But it was impossible f o r a n y S c a n d i n a v i a n m y t h o g r a p h e r at all to speak of N j o r S r , his life a n d lineage, without mentioning the distinction and
^' See above, pp. 1 - 8 . From Myth to Fiction (1973), chap. 6 ("The first mythological digression: giants, Ase gods and Vane gods") and 7 ("The second mythological digression: the war between the Ases and the Vanes").

to believe rather that on this point S a x o has slightly altered a m o r e

12

StarkaSr

opposition of the / E s i r and the V a n i r , and even their primeval w a r . For it is at the conclusion of this w a r , b y virtue of the peace t r e a t y , that the great V a n i r g o d s N j o r S r , Freyr, F r e y j a b e c o m e the partners of the y ^ s i r , m e m b e r s with them in a joint c o m m u n i t y . M o r e particularly, this w a r m a r k s a turning point in NjorSr's life: hitherto purely V a n (with an incestuous marriage), thereafter V a n retouched according to the " m o r a l i t y " of the /Esir (with a new, nonincestuous marriage). A s all his characters were h u m a n , S a x o , w h o in this circumstance seems m o r e o v e r to h a v e understood p o o r l y the pagan theology of the ancient S c a n d i n a v i a n s , could n o t transpose as such these divisions of supernatural beings. Nevertheless h e has not let them slip a w a y . In t w o places, at the beginning where the m y t h o l o g y imposed a contrastive definition of the / E s i r a n d the V a n i r , and later, at the turn where the m y t h o l o g y presented the w a r and the reconciliation of the t w o divine groups, S a x o inserted t w o disquisitions, one theological, the other m y t h o l o g i c a l , long a n d ungainly parentheses unrelated to the n a r r a t i v e , ma t ch i n g with evident awkwardness these t w o fundamental strands of the p r o t o narrative. It is p r o b a b l y likewise in the story of S t a r c a t h e r u s . If S a x o has inserted here a contrastive definition of T h o r and of O t h i n u s which is in n o w a y necessary t o the action as he describes it, it is undoubtedly b e c a u s e , in the S c a n d i n a v i a n saga of S t a r k a S r which he used, the character opposition between T h o r and O d i n on the c o n trary played at this point a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e . C o n s e q u e n t l y the Danish " h i s t o r i a n " has here modified and simplified the u n k n o w n sagamadr's a c c o u n t , eliminating from the plot a specific example of the rivalry of the two gods and replacing it with a general t h e o r y . T o be sure, it can b e o b j e c t e d that S a x o ' s a c c o u n t does in fact present an opposition in the b e h a v i o r s of the t w o gods t o w a r d the h e r o , and that this is enough to m o t i v a t e their c o n f r o n t a t i o n in the f o r m of a theological digression. T h o r ' s a c t i o n is w h o l l y g o o d , with n o noxious pendant, while that of O t h i n u s is nastily a m bivalent and S a x o ' s very wording reveals that it is because he needs the first crime that h e is so interested in the h e r o . Nonetheless, T h o r

23

StarkaSr does not directly o r actively oppose O t h i n u s here, f o r example he does not intervene to defend his erstwhile protege against this evil l o t . T h e r e is a n o t h e r difficulty besides this o n e . ' * T h e role of O t h i n u s agrees with what Scandinavian tradition says of O d i n . A s " sovereign g o d , he grants gifts which a m o u n t to " l o t s , " that is, he determines a destiny. A c o m p l e x , disquieting, maleficent g o d , he c o m p o u n d s this destiny out of " g o o d " privileges mingled with an " e v i l " d e m a n d . T h a t he is interested in Starcatherus, a giant b y birth, a humanized giant, is not surprising either: m o r e than o n e trait of the a m b i g u o u s O d i n , beginning with his ancestry, c o n n e c t s him with that race. In contrast the role S a x o has T h o r play is unique. In every circumstance this god is the irreconcilable e n e m y of all giants; he slays those w h o venture a m o n g the /Esir and goes off to kill others in their o w n haunts, the land of the giants being the n o r m a l stage of his exploits. But on meeting a y o u n g giant w h o , to m a k e matters w o r s e , is m a r k e d b y the m o n s t r o s i t y of six a r m s , w h i c h m a k e h i m three times as dangerous, he does not kill h i m . Having him at his m e r c y , not only does he not destroy h i m , but he performs a series of surgical operations w h i c h m a k e him n o r m a l . This unique failing of T h o r in his calling remains unexplained; S a x o is here suspect a priori of having misunderstood o r altered a version of the story in which T h o r remained faithful to h i m s e l f w h i c h , it should be said in passing, seems to indicate that f o r the birth, the Icelandic version is preferable. If the a c c o u n t of the saga is m o r e satisfactory with regard to the theology, h o w e v e r , it still has difficulties of its o w n . T h o r and O d i n oppose, even c o n f r o n t each other, at the assembly of the gods, in the conflict in which young S t a r k a S r is the p a w n . T h o r is consistently hostile, O d i n consistently b e n e v o l e n t . T h o r ' s hostility has t w o causes, the first of which is completely in line w i t h his c h a r a c t e r . Because the first S t a r k a S r was of the race of giants, which he a b h o r s , he has not " t a i l o r e d , " but killed him; a n d he
'* What follows is the revision of my earlier proposals (cf. above, pp. 5 - 6 ) , as given in The Destiny of the Warrior, p. 83 n. 1 (cf. p. 95 n. 11).

24

StarkaSr

naturally extends his hatred to the grandson, even though the latter, apart f r o m the " m a r k s " of the extra a r m s which heredity has imposed on h i m , is a m a n . T h e second cause is m o r e surprising, at least in one of the t w o successive descriptions which the Gautrekssaga provides. C h a p t e r III recounts nothing a b n o r m a l : the giant, following the c u s t o m of his race, has abducted a young w o m a n , a p parently without her c o n s e n t . Her father requests the help of T h o r , w h o wipes out the a b d u c t o r and returns the victim to her family, the victim w h o thereafter carries in her w o m b the father of the saga's h e r o . W i t h g o o d reason this vengeful action of T h o r has been c o m p a r e d with certain exploits attributed to him b y the m y t h o l o g y ; m o r e than o n e giant has succumbed under his h a m m e r f o r having abducted o r threatened to abduct a fair goddess. But in chapter V I I , w h e n T h o r states his grievances in the gods' assembly, he speaks of something else: the girl has had to " c h o o s e , " kjdsa, in an Indian svayaryivara, and she has preferred [kaus . . . as heldr

en . . . ) the giant to the g o d . A n d to what a g o d , to h i m , the " T h o r of the . . ^ s i r " ! If T h o r has killed the giant, it w a s in punishment for this presumptuousness; he has simply gone about it a little late, w h e n the girl w a s already, so to speak, with the interpolation of a son, pregnant with her grandson, the second S t a r k a S r . T h u s T h o r , to put a n end to this evil b r o o d , must a b o v e all c o n d e m n the y o u n g S t a r k a S r , at the fixing of his fate, to have neither son n o r daughter, hvorki eiga son ne dottur. T h i s r o m a n t i c rivalry between a giant and T h o r , and generally the notion of "loves of T h o r , " are e x t r a o r dinary, even if pride rather than sentiment seems to m o t i v a t e the god h e r e . Still we should a v o i d the t o o - h a s t y conclusion that this r o m a n e s q u e element is the late invention of a sagamadr. dingsverk In any case let us n o t e that, thus imposed b y T h o r , the curse of the three niis comprehensible. Since O d i n has granted the hero three lives, T h o r , with nothing really specific in mind, ordains three crimes. T h i s w a s not the case, o n e should r e m e m b e r , in S a x o where O t h i n u s , w h o needs only one facinus foretells and imposes three misdeeds. T h e relationships between O d i n and S t a r k a S r in the saga are at o n c e simpler and m o r e c o m p l e x than in S a x o . Simpler because, in 25 of S t a r c a t h e r u s , nevertheless

StarkaSr

the scene where the two gods, in a sort of s t i c h o m a c h y , o p p o s e e a c h other in determining the character and the fate of the h e r o , all the g o o d is furnished b y O d i n , and all the b a d , as might b e expected f r o m a steadfast grudge, is imposed b y T h o r . M o r e complex a n d , all things considered, harder to understand because on the o n e h a n d , O d i n ' s kindness toward S t a r k a S r leads to his demand on h i m , forcing S t a r k a S r to c o m m i t a great crime which will dishonor him, and on the other, this crime is the result o f a strange and peculiar collusion of the hatred of T h o r and need of O d i n . W i t h the exception of T h o r ' s curse, in fact, the conduct of O d i n and the development of the plot a r e logical: O d i n has long a g o , f r o m StarkaSr's c h i l d h o o d , chosen him to officiate at the sacrifice of V i k a r . In view of this he has m a d e the y o u t h indebted t o h i m , at first b y raising h i m and making him a n eminent h e r o , later, at the time of the c o n t r a d i c t o r y imposition of his fate, b y piling up in his presence the " g o o d " prescriptions. All that remains for O d i n is to present his due statement, a n d this is in fact h o w he makes use of the gifts: Vel muntu nu launa mer, " N o w y o u must repay m e f o r the education, fostri, a n d the help, lidsemd, that I h a v e given y o u . " . . . A n d S t a r k a S r is s o indebted, perhaps also so attached to his foster father, that he makes no o b j e c t i o n . Vel, sagdi Starkadr. T h e intervention of T h o r disturbs this a r r a n g e m e n t . For if it is O d i n w h o decides that the hero will live three h u m a n lives, at hava skal Ufa prja mannzaldra, jum mannzaldri, it is T h o r w h o , rejoining that the hero a hverwill c o m m i t a villainy in each, hann skal vinna nidingsverk

a n n o u n c e s , authorizes, renders truly inevitable

the criminal act which O d i n will demand of S t a r k a S r , which he has been arranging f o r so m a n y y e a r s , and whose immediate conditions he has already gathered just b e f o r e the scene of the assembly of the gods (lack of wind making sailing impossible, presence of a tree a n d a stump " n a t u r a l l y " suited for a m o c k hanging). H o w is this a p p a r ent contradiction to be understood? Strictly speaking, one might think that, after O d i n has arranged the material conditions for the crime in which he will engage S t a r k a S r , he desires to share the responsibility with others (though this w o u l d not be c u s t o m a r y f o r him), to be s o m e h o w morally covered b y a collective decision of
26

StarkaSr

the gods: hence this ping,

this general assembly of the highest

deities which is held, miraculously enough, exactly on an islet close b y the immobilized fleet. But h o w c o m e s it that T h o r gives O d i n precisely what O d i n has c o m e to seek? Shall we admit a complicity between these t w o gods w h o seem s o antagonistic? T h e story as a w h o l e excludes it. Should one suppose that, in his omniscience, O d i n has foreseen that T h o r would fling the curse of the "three villainies"? T h e idea is gratuitous. O r rather m o r e subtly, has the c r a f t y . M a c h i a v e l l i a n O d i n manipulated T h o r , a c h a r a c t e r all of a piece, a model of u n c o m p r o m i s i n g h o n o r , as the t o r e a d o r " w o r k s " the bull, a n n o u n c i n g the gift of "three lives" o n l y to draw out the response "with a dishonor in e a c h " ? But besides the fact that T h o r ' s response could h a v e been different (three great misfortunes, three physical setbacks, etc.), it is not in fact O d i n but T h o r w h o at this point in the debate runs the show and leads the discussion. T h e gift of the "three lives" b y O d i n is simply the c o m p e n s a t i o n or counterpart f o r T h o r ' s first curse: T h o r has said that S t a r k a S r will h a v e n o descendants; s o be it, s a y s O d i n , but he himself will live the span of three generations. A n d it is only then, to rebut this rebuttal, that T h o r m a k e s his second curse, that of the three villainies. In fact, n o explanation is satisfactory, and however one attempts to unravel it, the tangle is unresolved; perhaps the sagamadr plicated the traditional material? O n e might h o p e f o r some illumination f r o m the m o r e ancient p o e m intercalated in the saga, on which the prose a c c o u n t is only a c o m m e n t a r y . But the elliptical, rhetorical character of this Vikarsbalkr m a k e s even its m o s t precise expressions leave r o o m for d o u b t . Indeed, in this confession or plea which he m a k e s after the crime b e f o r e the hostile a n d derisive assembly of the Swedish n o b l e m e n , S t a r k a S r expressly imputes to T h o r the responsibility for the m u r der of V i k a r , alluding to the curse of the three Pess eyrindis at Porr um skop mer nidings nafn,
" Stanza 26 ( = 31 of the saga).

has altered, c o m -

nidingsverk:^''

27

StarkaSr

hlaut ek Hit at

ohrodigr

vinna.

" O n such a mission, when T h o r assigned me the n a m e of villain . . . I w a s forced without glory to do e v i l . " A n d in the following stanza, it is a pluralis g o d s " t h a t m a s k s O d i n , his will and initiative: Skyllda ek Vikar i vidi hdfum Geirpjofsbana godum um signa; lagda ek geiri gram til hjarta pat er mer harmazt handaverka. " V i k a r I had in a high tree, Geirthjof's b a n e , to consign to the gods; I set the spear to the hero's heart. T h a t to me w a s the m o s t grievous of m y hands' deeds." T h u s , in the operetta. La Belle Helene indicts fate, forgetting b o t h her own will and the initiative of the T r o j a n prince. S t a r k a S r emphasizes the sad " l o t " cast b y T h o r , and glosses o v e r all that has followed, between the curse and its first result. But this o b v i o u s l y tendentious presentation does not acquit O d i n any m o r e than it a b solves S t a r k a S r himself, and it does not attest, as o n e has s o m e times thought, a third variant in which O d i n has nothing at all to do with the affair and it is solely and directly T h o r w h o has imposed and orchestrated the c r i m e . Furthermore the mention m a d e in an earlier stanza ( 8 , = 3) of Hrossharsgrani does not permit
28

pudicitiae"the

StarkaSr

such an easy exclusion of the great sovereign g o d . Hrossharsgrani is certainly O d i n b o t h in the p o e m and in the prose n a r r a t i v e , and his solicitude for S t a r k a S r there cannot be m o r e disinterested. Through these difficulties and even contradictions, and whether one posits at the source a single variant which S a x o would h a v e very considerably altered and the Scandinavian texts better preserved, or rather two already perceptibly different variants, there remains nonetheless a r e a s o n a b l y clear pattern, uniform but with t w o alternatives. 1. S t a r k a S r is either a giant with m a n y a r m s , reduced b y T h o r to " h u m a n m e a s u r e , " or the h o m o n y m o u s grandson of a m a n y armed giant slain b y T h o r , bearing the physical traces of this m o n strous descent. 2 . T w o antagonistic divinities intervene at his beginnings: a) S a x o ' s plot, w h i c h reduces this a n t a g o n i s m , in excursu, to a theological discussion with n o effect on the o u t c o m e , also reduces the intervention of T h o r to the initial b e n e v o l e n t , beneficent operation b y w h i c h he m a k e s a n o r m a l m a n out of this m o n s t r o u s giant. T h e b e s t o w a l of all " l o t s , " b o t h g o o d and b a d , is reserved f o r O t h i n u s , m o r e o v e r the evil lots are reduced to o n e , that of the three facinora w h i c h e n c u m b e r the three vitae and of which the first is immediately necessary to O t h i n u s . b) In the saga, the a n t a g o n i s m is active, and expressed at length at the fixing of S t a r k a S r ' s f a t e . T h e t w o gods wrangle over the h e r o , one wishing to m a k e him h a p p y , the other ill-starred, and then the first crime is c o m m i t t e d , which O d i n needs and h a s prepared long since, but w h i c h , since it involves fatum, b y T h o r at the m o m e n t of its implementation. is decided on

4.

THE

FACINORA,

STARCATHERUS AND THE

KINGS

T h e balance of the s t o r y , f r o m the aftermath of the first facinus to the perpetration of the third, presents n o difficulty. T h e essentials have been mentioned a b o v e , and it seems that S a x o , f r o m here on our only source, has fully understood and respected the

29

StarkaSr

Scandinavian tradition, which has not c o m e d o w n to us in the vernacular but which certainly existed, since the p r o c l a m a t i o n of the three nidingsverk in the Gautrekssaga m a k e s sense only if the second and third, as well as the first, were eventually carried out. Starcatherus, then, passes his three h u m a n life spans in a c o n t i n u o u s aging p r o c e s s s h o r t l y after the episode of the murder of W i c a r u s S a x o already calls him senexbut until the third facinus, course. T h e terrible, mutilating wounds which he receives in several c o m b a t s , and the enmity which he displays repeatedly t o w a r d s c o m m o n folk (except farmers), correspond to t w o items in the curse which T h o r imposes on S t a r k a S r in the Gautrekssaga, items which S a x o has not preserved as such but w h o s e existence in his source material is proven here b y their realization. R o u g h l y , this career is a series of extraordinary exploits, against the b a r b a r i a n s in the East a n d the aggressive neighbors of the S c a n d i n a v i a n s . It unfolds in the service of Swedish and D a n i s h kings t o w a r d w h o m the hero displays unblemished loyalty and devotion which he readily shifts t o the sons u p o n the death of the fathers. S i m p l y , just as he o n c e helped O d i n to kill his first master and childhood friend. King V i k a r , twice m o r e he fails peculiarly in his duty, impelled by the lot that has been cast f o r him. T h e second facinus is a shameful flight when the Swedish a r m y , in w h o s e ranks he is fighting, has been shaken b y the death of its king; the third, the most vile, is the putting to death, in exchange f o r m o n e y , of a Danish king, w h o though not very admirable is still n o less his master. It is r e m a r k a b l e that the three facinora, in S a x o a n d T h o r in the Gautrekssaga w h o s e content O t h i n u s leave completely undefined, he keeps all his strength, at least until the c o m b i n e d effect of his privileged

longevity and the i m m o r a l condition burdening him has run its

should all be realized in the same a r e a : the relationships of the hero with kings, his successive masters. He might have allowed himself m a n y other dishonorable excesses, but the t w o murders which he c o m m i t s are those of kings w h o trust him, and his flight on the b a t tlefield immediately u p o n the death of his k i n g a usurper, but n o

30

StarkaSr

m a t t e r i s a failure in a very serious posthumous duty to the king, to ensure the passage of power to the legitimate heir, a duty to which in other circumstances he adheres, f o r example in returning f r o m D e n m a r k to Sweden to install on the throne Prince S y w a r d u s , son of King Haldanus, "killed b y his rivals" (History p. 183). T h i s localization of the facinora is explainable. It m a k e s them especially heinous, inasmuch as they contradict w h a t , apart f r o m these three cases, consistently characterizes S t a r c a t h e r u s : an extremely lofty ideal, a kind of religion of regal w o r t h , a true v o c a tion as theoretician, defender, indeed tutor of royal personages and r o y a l t y per se. T h i s trait is so essential to his character that it b y itself justifies an episode in three parts, replete with p o e m s and itself as long as the rest of the saga, and which if not considered from this point of view l o o k s like a foreign b o d y : that of the tumultuous relations of the hero with the children, daughter a n d son, of the fourth F r o t h o , a D a n i s h king w h o m he served. But much earlier and m o r e briefly, under King F r o t h o himself, Starcatherus had already theorized a b o u t his c o n d u c t . facinus. ' ' In fact it is with F r o t h o that he had c o m e to live after the first But he kept a great freedom of m o v e m e n t , piling up exploits f r o m Byzantium to the subarctic c o u n t r y of the " B i a r m i a n s . " From these long journeys he returned b y c h a n c e in the nick of time, just when the p o o r l y subjugated S a x o n s had personally challenged and endangered the D a n i s h king (p. 1 7 4 ) : M e a n w h i l e the S a x o n s were contemplating rebellion and giving particular thought to h o w they could destroy F r o t h o , so f a r undefeated, in a w a y which would a v o i d a general conflict. Because they believed the most suitable m e t h o d w a s individual c o m b a t they sent emissaries to issue a challenge to the king, aware that he a l w a y s e m b r a c e d every danger eagerly and that his high spirit w o u l d certainly never give w a y to a n y a d m o n i tion. W h e n they k n e w that Starcatherus, whose b r a v e r y intimidated m o s t men, w a s occupied elsewhere, they r e c k o n e d then w a s the time to accost F r o t h o . But while the king was of the Danes,

31

StarkaSr

hesitating and saying he w o u l d have to consult his friends a b o u t a reply, Starcatherus appeared on the scene, b a c k f r o m his sea-roving; he severely criticized the idea of the challenge because, as he pointed out, such fights were not appropriate for kings except against their equals a n d certainly they should not be undertaken against men of the people; m o r e properly it devolved on himself, as one b o m in a humbler station, to h a n dle this contest. After this statement, which convinces the king, Starcatherus goes f o r w a r d , c o n f r o n t s and kills the huge c h a m p i o n H a m a , w h o m the S a x o n s h a d wished to set up against F r o t h o . O f course the h e r o , devoted to his king, assessed the danger and wished to save him. But, S a x o states, this w a s not the most important thing f o r him; after all, a king as m u c h as and m o r e than a n y other w a r r i o r should be daring and risk himself, even if it be in an unequal c o m b a t . But he must not degrade himself. S y m m e t r i cally, the principal offense of the S a x o n s w a s not their revolt, n o r their defiance, but their failure to h o n o r the w o r t h , the transcendence of kingshipthere is a royal class, the compares, with its o w n rights and duties a n d set apart f r o m all the rest. N o m o r e in international affairs than in his o w n realm must the king descend to the level of the populares, no popularis be they c o u n t r y m e n or foreigners, and m a y aspire to the level of a king, especially not with

the intention of surpassing him. T h e long episode of the children of F r o t h o (pp. 1 7 5 - 6 ) merely develops and stages the same precept in the following generation. Starcatherus is there at o n c e a theoretician a n d a m a n of a c t i o n ; he teaches authoritatively and imperiously directs, so to speak, fieldw o r k exercises. Frotho is dead, assassinated b y a D a n e named Suertingus w h o incidentally also perished on the same occasion, and the son of F r o tho has ascended the throne. But this y o u t h , Ingellus (Ingjaldr), b e h a v e s astonishingly. Instead of seeking to avenge his father, he weds the daughter of the murderer and m a k e s intimates of his wife's b r o t h e r s . He devotes himself to pleasures, not only in the

32

StarkaSr

b e d c h a m b e r to the a b u n d a n t sensual pleasures which his consort legitimately offers h i m , but also in the dining r o o m to gluttony w h i c h is described graphically and at length, a n d in which appears m o r e o v e r his scandalous intimacy with his messmateshis brothers-inlaw, the sons of Suertingus. Starcatherus c a n n o t endure this spectacle of intemperantia. a v o i d seeming to c o n d o n e this dissoluteness, luxuriae assensor, To he

leaves D e n m a r k and changes masters, entering the service of the Swedish king, H a l d a n u s . But f r o m Uppsala, grumbling with indignation, he watches w h a t is happening at the court of D e n m a r k . A d m i t t e d l y weird goings-on take place there, not very c o m p a t i b l e with the majesty of royal b l o o d . T o begin with there is Helga (pp. 1 7 6 f f . ) , the nubile sister of Ingellus. This unfortunate accedes to the attentions, the familiarities, and soon the demands of a certain goldsmith, ami faber, one of those low-class people w h o m Starcatherus particularly despises, respecting only those w h o w o r k the land, and a m o n g the fabri o n l y those w h o forge w e a p o n s . N o doubt p r o u d of his wealth, this lout has Helga c o m b his hair, then, opening his pants, invites the y o u n g lady to delouse him. S t a r c a t h e r u s sets out, with the swiftness of l o c o m o t i o n w h i c h seems a gift f r o m his giant ancestry, and appears in the hall where these disgusting ministrations are taking place. Leaping at o n c e at the goldsmith he keeps him f r o m fleeing, cuts his b u t t o c k s to pieces with his sword, and expresses his feelings toward the t w o culprits in n i n e t y - t w o hexameters which must be the paraphrase of a S c a n dinavian p o e m . T o the y o u n g w o m a n he is willing to c o n c e d e certain extenuating circumstances, but w h a t a s e r m o n ! T h e S c a n i a n m o n k gives full rein to his penchant f o r amplitudo: parentum

Defer auis, venerare patres, memor esto et proavos metire tuos, stet gloria cami.

Respect thy forebears, venerate thy ancestors, be mindful of those w h o b o r e thee, take the measure of t h y forefathers, let r e n o w n be in thy lineage.

33

StarkaSr

He showers the mutilated goldsmith with his c o n t e m p t : Quis furor incessit? Quod te, faber impulit ingenuam tentare cupidine improbe, stirpem? fatum

W h a t madness got into y o u ? W h a t fate, wicked smith, propelled y o u to try y o u r lust on a n o b l e breed? T h e n he returns to the daughter of F r o t h o : Aut quis te, virgo claris dignissima egit in obscuram Venerem? . . . fulcris,

A n d y o u , maiden most w o r t h y of an illustrious b e d , w h o drove y o u to base love-making? . . . But this is merely a prelude. O n c e the execution is d o n e , and Helga rehabilitated, Starcatherus returns to S w e d e n , w h e n c e he c o n tinues to observe D e n m a r k uncompromisingly and recrosses the straits, when he deems it necessary, with his supernatural speed. A f t e r a second " l e s s o n " given t o a well-intentioned but misguided y o u n g noble betrothed to another daughter of F r o t h o (pp. 1 7 9 1 8 3 ) , there c o m e s the third scene, the main event: Starcatherus takes o n the king himself, the weakling Ingellus (pp. 1 8 3 ff.).^'' T h e old hero has just installed on the Swedish t h r o n e the y o u n g S y w a r d u s w h o w a s kept f r o m reigning b y his father's assassins, when he learns, fama rei crebrescente, that the h o r r o r s at the Danish court are n o longer tolerable. H e decides to put an end to them and sets out with a great l o a d of c h a r c o a l on his shoulder. T o all w h o ask, he replies that with these coals he is going to sharpen the blunted spirit of King Ingellus, Ingelli dinem ad acuminis habitum carbonibus se regis hebetuperducturum.

He arrives in the hall where Ingellus, at first with his wife, then with her and her b r o t h e r s , indulges in the m o s t incredible excesses a n d refinements of g a s t r o n o m y . H e is u n k n o w n to a n d treated w i t h disrespect b y the regina, but is soon recognized b y Ingellus and f r o m then on surrounded with an excess of deference. But he refuses to eat, flings at the queen's head the presents w h i c h she
^ An old form of this episode inspired a fine passage in Beowulf, in an entirely different plot, lines 2009-2069.

34

StarkaSr

ineptly offers h i m , hurls a b o n e at the musician in charge of mollifying h i m , and recites to Ingellus p o e m s of b o t h invective a n d exh o r t a t i o n . T h e source of these lyric pieces is certainly, here again, o n e o r t w o S c a n d i n a v i a n p o e m s , but the virtuosity and zest of S a x o h a v e n o less certainly o u t d o n e the originals. In these Sapphic stanzas, t w e n t y - o n e in the first p o e m , forty-nine in the second, the hero takes the y o u n g king to task for fraternizing with the murderers of his father instead of avenging h i m , f o r being virtute vacuus, abandoning himself to l u s t a n d this in very coarse Latin, which f o l l o w s f o r example the m o v e m e n t s of Ingellus' hand o v e r the most secret parts of his wife's b o d y a n d also f o r the gluttony w h i c h he calls petulantis stomachi ingluvies; but a b o v e all, overshadowing a n d outweighing the other ills, f o r not behaving like a king. In this flood of eloquence, he refers to the y o u t h as king o n l y o n c e , in the third person a n d with humiliating epithets, while at the s a m e time he recalls emphatically the c o n d u c t of the rex F r o t h o a n d the n o r m a l d e m e a n o r of reges and of the assembly of kings, regum. contio T h u s , in the first p o e m , he blames himself f o r the death of regum" (st. 1 2 ) . " W h y w a s I n o t there pete-

F r o t h o : " I should never h a v e gone a w a y f r o m y o u , f o r that w a s y o u r death w a r r a n t , maxime w h e n a treacherous guest butchered the king, regis iugulum pari gaudens sequerer beatum funere regem

batl" (st. 1 3 ) . " W h y did I not die with the king, or avenging h i m , . . . 7" In c o n t r a s t , the n e w king Ingellus (st. 1 9 ) : Sed probum quaerens adii gulosum deditum ventri vitioque regem cuius in luxum studium refudit foeda voluptas But seeking a virtuous king, I f o u n d a glutton, o n e given o v e r to belly and vice, w h o s e keenness has been perverted to license b y foul lust. T h e second p o e m develops boundlessly this theme of the degenerate king; f o r example, the depiction there of gluttony (st. 1 2 ) : 35

StarkaSr Quis prior regum potuit gulosus viscerum putres agitare sordes aut manu carptim fodicare foedum alitis anum? W h a t king b e f o r e c o u l d be so gluttonous as t o r u m m a g e in rotten filth of b o w e l s , or with his hand pick and dig in the foul anus of a bird? A n d the hero-poet cries out in his anguish (st. 3 0 - 3 1 ) : Unde, cum regum tituli canuntur et ducum vates memorant triumphos pallio vultum pudibundus abdo pectore tristi. Cum tuis nil eniteat trophaeis quod stilo digne queat adnotari nemo Frothonis recitatur heres inter honestos. T h e r e f o r e , when the h o n o r s of kings are sung a n d poets r e m e m b e r the triumphs of leaders, a s h a m e d , I c o v e r m y f a c e with m y m a n t l e , saddened in heart. Since nothing shines with y o u r trophies that could b e worthily consigned to writing, n o heir of Frotho is counted a m o n g the respectable. Increasingly violent, he h a m m e r s a w a y at Ingellus, that he might rediscover the meaning and understand the requirements o f his royal function (st. 3 7 ) : Te pudor late comes insequetur et gravi vultum feriet rubore quando magnorum sociata ludit contio regum . . . Disgrace will dog y o u , y o u r constant c o m p a n i o n , a n d m a k e y o u r f a c e heavy with s h a m e , 36

StarkaSr

w h e n the c o n v e n e d assembly of great kings makes merry. T h e miracle o c c u r s . T h i s time in prose, S a x o describes the y o u t h ' s metamorphosis (p. 1 9 3 f . ) : A t first Ingellus' ears were deaf to the song, but soon he w a s m o v e d b y his guardian's m o r e urgent exhortations and his spirit, late in the d a y , caught the heat of revenge. He forgot the part of reveller a n d b e c a m e an a d v e r s a r y . In the end he leapt f r o m his place a n d unloosed the a v a l a n c h e of his fury on the guests. Bloodthirsty, ruthless, he bared his sword a n d levelled its point at the throats of Suertingus' sons, whose palates he had been tickling with culinary delights. A n d here is S a x o ' s c o m m e n t a r y , in praise of a hero w h o is o b viously close to his heart (p. 1 9 4 ) : H o w then c a n we value this tireless veteran, w h o h a d stormed with his eloquent a d m o n i t i o n s the vast corruption of the kir\g's mind and in its place, after bursting through the barriers of immorality, had planted a m o s t effectual seed of valor? A c t i n g in partnership, he assisted the royal a r m and not only displayed outstanding b r a v e r y himself, but s u m m o n e d it b a c k where it had been uprooted f r o m another's b o s o m . T h e hero recites, and is supposed to h a v e c o m p o s e d f o r the o c c a s i o n , fifty-seven hexameters, a last poetic piece, incidentally inc o m p l e t e and f r a g m e n t a r y , which ends the sixth b o o k and which begins with the a c c l a m a t i o n wherein he a c c o r d s Ingellus, in the v o c a t i v e , the title of rex which he has until n o w refused or given o n l y derisively: Rex Ingelle, vale, cuius iam prodidit plenum animi pectus. . . . ausum

K i n g Ingellus, farewell, whose heart full of courage has at last produced a daring deed. . . . A n d he repeats the title further o n , again in the v o c a t i v e , to persuade the y o u n g king, w h o has just killed his brothers-in-law, t o rid himself of their sister, his wife:

37

StarkaSr

Tu quoque, rex, saevam, si quid sapis, effuge ne lupa consimilem sibi fetum gignat et ex te belua consurgat propria nocitura parenti. . . .

nuptam,

A n d y o u , king, if y o u h a v e a n y sense, rid yourself of y o u r savage w i f e , lest the she-wolf produce offspring like to herself, a n d a beast arise f r o m y o u to h a r m its own father. . . . T h u s , in a violent outburst, is expressed the basic " i d e o l o g y " of Starcatherus. O n e sees that, behind his e m o t i o n a l a t t a c h m e n t to the person and later the m e m o r y of F r o t h o , he in fact serves kingship as such, imperiously a n d didactically, a true educator, who draws out the y o u n g son of the great king f o r a kingly deed, on the accomplishment of which he a w a r d s h i m , one might s a y confers on h i m the title which is the object of his cult a n d which he has refused h i m only in order to deliver it with all its c o n t e n t and g r a n d e u r . T h i s impassioned, aggressive defense of kingly w o r t h is truly fundamental in his c h a r a c t e r . W i t h Ingellus set straight, Starcatherus can set out again with unencumbered mind f o r other battles, which c u l m i n a t e , at the b e ginning of the eighth b o o k , in the f a m o u s battle of Bravalla, the a c c o u n t of which he is said to have c o m p o s e d himself, in verse.
5. THE END OF STARCATHERUS; AND HATHERUS

STARCATHERUS

Here again S a x o remains, in his B o o k Eight, o u r only authority for the a c c o u n t of the death of Starcatherus. T h e few facts f o r which one might h a v e l o o k e d to local f o l k l o r e f o r the Gesta norum folklorizations f r o m S a x o or b o l d , semi-scholarly Danames the place where the event h a p p e n e d a r e nothing but assimilations in a n y

f r o m S a x o ' s hero and giants of local fables. N o excursus

saga, n o allusion in a skaldic p o e m informs us. T h i s paucity of inf o r m a t i o n is regrettable because, as with the childhood, the m o n k , e n a m o r e d of national traditions but p o o r l y equipped to understand them in depth, has clearly been confused at certain points. In a

38

StarkaSr

w o r d , his a c c o u n t is not entirely comprehensible, w h e t h e r because he has j u x t a p o s e d several v a r i a n t s , as certain repetitions might suggest, o r because he has a w k w a r d l y rationalized o r simply altered his material. Let us follow him step b y step. Starcatherus, having exhausted his three lives, is n o w b u t a w r e c k . He w h o just b e f o r e , despite his age, w a s still a c h a m p i o n in active service, in w h o m his master. K i n g O l o , had every c o n fidence, w h o m the conspirators hired for m o n e y to put an end to the reign of this dangerous tyrant, and w h o thereupon punished them vigorously f o r having bribed him, he is suddenly a l m o s t blind, supported on crutches, keeping, to be sure, enough strength to strike d o w n a n y o n e imprudent enough to c o m e near h i m , but unable to m a n e u v e r or a t t a c k . A n d yet this final episode follows immediately on the murder of O l o a n d the punishment of the conspirators, n o t only temporally but logically: it is its direct c o n s e q u e n c e . If one insists o n restoring s o m e verisimilitude to the fictitious, o n e will a d mit that after the third a n d last prophesied facinus, the formula b y which O t h i n u s h a d conferred on him two extensions of life, having no further o b j e c t , has ceased to operate, and that the hero has been suddenly m a r k e d with the scars of a n extreme, triple old age. In a n y case, prolixa si voluntarium set arbitrio, iam aetate defessus, exitum, he determines that he fore putavit, maturasproprio will n o t die thus of senium, n o r f r o m illness; egregium fatumque

sibi conscisceret

" h e thought it w o u l d b e h o n o r a b l e to e m b r a c e a v o l u n -

tary end and hasten on death at his own decision." In which, S a x o r e m a r k s judiciously, he c o n f o r m s to the ancient morality of the G e r m a n s , so often illustrated a n d implicit in the Ynglingasaga the great n a m e of O d i n : adeo quondam oppetere probrosum existimatum rei bellicae deditis in morbo

est, " D y i n g through illness w a s

o n c e thought as discreditable as this b y individuals w h o were dedicated t o w a r f a r e . " T h e old m a n has besides this a n o t h e r , m o r e personal reason to m a k e an end of it: the remorse of his last facinus, m o r e deeply, the feeling that with this last facinus or his life has lost

the ambiguity which gave it such special meaning. For this reason, linking his o w n death to that of O l o , he decides to devote the

39

StarkaSr

m o n e y he has shamefully received, the price of his master's b l o o d , to b u y the executioner of his c h o i c e (p. 2 4 7 ) . C a r r y i n g t w o swords and t w o crutches, he travels slowly and has several encounters. T h e first raises n o difficulty; it is intended only to emphasize a feature of his character already illustrated several times in a previous episode (the mutilated goldsmith; the repulsed " s a v i o r s " ) , and corresponding to one of the fatal traits which T h o r , according to the Gautrekssaga, has imposed on h i m , quidam, supervacuum n a m e l y the incompatability of temperament which opposes him to the c o m m o n people. A man of lower class, popularium hands of an old m a n , geminum gladiorum usum seni c o m e s near him, and thinking t w o swords t o be t o o m a n y f o r the ratus, insists that he give one u p . Starcatherus pretends to consent, lets him c o m e close and shatters his head (ibid.). T h e difficulty begins with the second, and decisive, e n c o u n t e r . A y o u n g m a n , Hatherus, w h o is not introduced to us in a d v a n c e , is returning f r o m the hunt with his dogs and sees the scene f r o m a dist a n c e . He does not recognize the old h e r o , a n d f o r sport o r ridicule, sends t o w a r d him at a gallop t w o of his c o m p a n i o n s , w h o are of course received with b l o w s of the crutches and killed. He himself a p p r o a c h e s , recognizes Starcatherus without being recognized in turn, and asks whether he wishes t o exchange o n e of his swords f o r a w a g o n , an gladium vehiculo permutare vellet. M o r e o v e r , nothing in his attitude is menacing o r even insolent; a w a g o n would certainly be of m o r e use to a cripple than would a second sword (ibid). But Starcatherus takes him for an irrisor and recites fiftyeight hexameters (p. 2 4 8 ) in which he laments the miseries of advanced age, of senium, qui, belloque and recalls his martial caree? and his past nascenti fata dedere I bella seexploits (11. 4 0 - 5 8 ; at mihi si recolo,

mori . . . ) . In the gap between these t w o themes (11.

2 7 - 3 9 ) he expresses a r e m a r k a b l e wish, which suddenly places his y o u n g partner Hatherus in an unexpected light: . . . N o o n e takes care of m e , no soldier brings c o m f o r t to a veteran, unless Hatherus is here to help his shattered friend. O n c e he h o n o r s

40

StarkaSr

a n y o n e with his dutiful affection, true f r o m the start he attends him with the same unflagging w a r m t h , dreading to snap their initial b o n d s . Frequently he bestows fitting rewards on w a r heroes, venerates their spirit, grants his esteem to the valiant a n d reveres f a m o u s c o m r a d e s with gifts. He scatters riches, strives to a m a s s glowing r e n o w n b y his b o u n t y and surpass m a n y of the m i g h t y . N o r does his strength f o r the fight fall b e l o w his sense of duty; quick to take arms, slow to w a v e r , ready to start the f r a y , yet ignorant h o w to turn his b a c k on a pressing f o e . S u c h then is the true nature of this carefree y o u n g hunter w h o m c h a n c e , apparently at least, has put b e f o r e the old hero, w h o in his humiliation wished fervently to find him alone of all men f o r an assist which he does not specify. A n d the praise which he m a k e s of him as an illustrious person w o u l d b e fitting f o r the greatest V i k ing chiefs, as m a g n a n i m o u s t o w a r d their c o m p a n i o n s as they are courageous in the face of the e n e m y . But at this point other p o e m s inserted in the prose take us b a c k again, recreating in verse the scene which has just been recounted to us in prose (p. 2 4 9 ) . Hatherus m a k e s his offer in twenty-two h e x ameters: that the old m a n sell him o n e of his swords for a w a g o n . In sixty-five hexameters, S t a r c a t h e r u s expresses his indignation to the stranger: improbe, verba seris facili temeraria auribus inconcinna pits. . . . labio

villain, y o u r lips are glib in sowing rash talk, inharmonious to a g o o d man's e a r . . . . a n d recapitulates in detail the events of his glorious life. Finally, there c o m e s a dramatic surprise. From the turn w h i c h the conversation has taken the old m a n realizes that he has b e f o r e him Hatherus. But, at the same stroke, w e learn an astonishing f a c t : this Hatherus w h o m Starcatherus has longed f o r , counting o n

41

StarkaSr

the faithfulness of his affection, is n o n e o t h e r than the son of Lennus (or Lenno), o n e of the conspirators w h o had bribed him into killing O l o , and w h o m he had slain when he c a m e b a c k to his senses. Right a w a y he sees in Hatherus the ideal executioner, the one he has been searching for, and he entreats him to kill h i m : is he not a y o u t h of noble birth? Having a father to be avenged, does not this service which is asked of h i m m a t c h his o w n duty? Here is the scene until its conclusion (pp. 2 5 1 - 2 5 2 ) : T h u s S t a r c a t h e r u s . A t last, in talking w i t h h i m (mutuo sermone), he b e c a m e a w a r e that Hatherus w a s Lennus' son a n d realized the young m a n c a m e of a distinguished family (animadvertens iuvenem splendido loco natum); he offered him his throat to cut, urging him not to shrink f r o m taking satisfaction f o r his father's murder. He promised that if Hatherus c o m plied, he w o u l d b e c o m e possessor of that gold w h i c h S t a r catherus h a d received f r o m Lennus. T o goad Hatherus into a fiercer m o o d toward him [et ut eiusdem in se vehementius animum efferaret), he is said to h a v e egged him on like this: " A g a i n , H a t h e r u s , I bereaved y o u of L e n n o , y o u r father; p a y m e b a c k , I beg, strike d o w n an old m a n w h o longs to die, seek my gullet with avenging steel. For my spirit wishes this service f r o m a noble h e a d s m a n , but shudders to d e m a n d its d o o m f r o m the right hand of a c o w a r d . A m a n m a y righteously c h o o s e to anticipate Destiny's law; what y o u c a n n o t flee, y o u m a y even take in a d v a n c e . A young tree must b e nourished, an ancient o n e hewn d o w n . W h o e v e r o v e r t h r o w s w h a t is close to its fate and fells what c a n n o t stand is an instrument of Nature {minister naturae est, quisquis fato confinia fundit. . .). Death c o m e s best when c r a v e d , life b e c o m e s tedious w h e n the end is desired; do not let disagreeable age prolong an insupportable e x i s t e n c e . "

42

StarkaSr

This sixth-century bronze die, one of four found at Torslunda (island of O l a n d ) in Sweden, w a s used to make helmet plates. It depicts a y o u n g Odinic w a r r i o r in the presence of a berserk, not inappropriately f o r the Hatherus-Starcatherus encounter.

W i t h these w o r d s he drew out his purse and proffered the m o n e y . Hatherus, excited b y a passion to e n j o y the fee n o less than take revenge f o r his father, promised he w o u l d not spurn the p a y m e n t but c a r r y out his wishes. S t a r c a t h e r u s willingly offered him his s w o r d a n d then bent f o r w a r d his head beneath it; h e urged Hatherus not to fulfil his task of executioner squeamishly or handle the blade like a girl, and told him that if, when he had killed him b u t b e f o r e the b o d y dropped, he could leap between the t o r s o and its fallen head, he w o u l d be rendered p r o o f against a n y w e a p o n . It is uncertain whether he said this to instruct his murderer or to punish him (quod instruendi percussoris gratia an puniendi dixerit, utrum incertum

est). Possibly the u n c o m m o n b u l k of S t a r c a t h e r u s ' b o d y might

43

StarkaSr

h a v e o v e r w h e l m e d him as he sprang. Hatherus, then, drove his sword vigorously a n d lopped off the old man's h e a d . T h e story tells h o w , severed f r o m the trunk, it snapped at the soil with its teeth as it hit the ground, the fury of the dying j a w s indicating his savage temper. A f r a i d that there could be treachery underlying the p r o m i s e , his slayer prudently refrained f r o m leaping, for if he had thoughtlessly done s o , he might have been crushed under the impact of the descending b o d y and f>aid for the old man's murder with his o w n life. Hatherus burned the b o d y on the field of Roling and had the ashes buried. ,

6.

HODR

T h i s ending leaves the reader unsatisfied. T o begin with there is the diversity, the contradictions in characters successively attributed to Hatherus. T o the one which w e have already taken u p the transformation of the y o u n g j o k e s t e r into a renowned w a r l o r d , m a g n a n i m o u s and fearsome, w h o on top of this turns out to b e the son of L e n n u s y e t another needs to be added. If Starcatherus, with all his last strength, desires his presence as that of the o n l y friend w h o c a n help h i m in his despair, if he then recognizes in him the ideal executioner he seeks, it is because he admires and loves him, and this excludes a n y baseness or venality in the y o u n g m a n , crimes w h i c h the old hero has himself c o m m i t t e d but once in his life, through fate, and f o r which he does n o t forgive himself. A n d yet he corrupts, as much as he depends u p o n , this b e l o v e d and admired y o u t h . T o the noble m o t i v e s t o render a heroic service to an old m a n w h o requests it, and to avenge his father's b l o o d h e adds an appeal to greed, the offer of the gold pieces that he carries a b o u t his n e c k . A n d the worst of it is that the y o u n g m a n appears amenable to this proposition. All of this, f r o m the point of view of G e r m a n i c w a r r i o r m o r a l i t y , is of a mediocrity which it is hard to attribute to the original used b y S a x o . T h e r e is m o r e o v e r a m o r e

44

StarkaSr

o b j e c t i v e reason to see here an adulteration, a debasement. T h i s contemptible motif is f o u n d only in the p r o s e , whereas the brief p o e m , which is the last that Starcatherus will recite, a n d , like all those of the first b o o k s of the Gesta Danorum (of which it is a l s o , absolutely, the last) is certainly an adaptation of native stanzas, m a k e s n o allusion to it, limiting itself to n o b l e exhortations a n d n o less n o b l e generalities. T h e reader's uneasiness has a n o t h e r cause, n a m e l y the uncertainty with which S a x o leaves him a b o u t the true last intentions of Starcatherus with regard to Hatherus, a n d , through this uncertainty, the author's insinuated preference f o r the most unpleasant alternative. T h r o u g h o u t his life, s a v e f o r the three facinora imp o s e d b y O d i n , our hero is a model not o n l y of strength and c o u r a g e , but of integrity and reliability. F r o m his giant ancestry he carries certain physical traits, but his soul, apart perhaps f r o m the harshness and intensity of his w r a t h , o w e s nothing to it; there is no trace of the excesses, the unbridled desires, the b r a g g a d o c i o , or the deceptions that characterize the n o r m a l b e h a v i o r of giants. H o w is o n e to think that, at this last m o m e n t of his life, a deeper nature should take its revenge on h i m , and that he should with a villainous lie b e t r a y the y o u t h w h o is only obeying h i m and o n l y kills him in order to serve him? T h i s w o u l d be a fourth facinus, a supernumerary o n e , that would destroy the sense and the structure of this long biography. Furthermore, the fear which S a x o ascribes to Hatherus is n o t justified b y the o u t c o m e : the trunk and head do not clash like the Symplegades, and if the dying head carries on ferociously on the ground, it has n o thought for the m a n w h o has severed it. T h u s the situation is quite different f r o m others with which o n e might at first be tempted to c o m p a r e it, for example the scene w h i c h the C a u c a s i a n legends of S o s l a n - S o s r y k o describe in numerous v a r i ants.^^ T h e r e the hero has managed with difficulty to defeat a specific e n e m y , a giant, as stupid as he is strong; reduced to p o w e r See my Legendes sur les Nartes (1930), no. 21, pp. 77-83 (six variants); Le Livre des heros, pp. 8 9 - 9 4 .

45

StarkaSr

lessness, trapped and unable to escape death, the giant feigns a sudden b e n e v o l e n c e : after having beheaded h i m , he says, his c a p t o r should draw out o f his neck a particular tendon a n d m a k e a belt of it; thus he will inherit some of his strength. Justifiably suspicious, S o s r y k o tries out the belt on a tree, which b r e a k s o r crumbles, burned to ashes. In other versions, once the giant is decapitated, his head leaps t o w a r d S o s r y k o a n d seizes the s w o r d tight in its j a w s . S o s r y k o begins to run but the head does not let g o ; finally, though, it slackens its hold, falls, and S o s r y k o is able to scalp it. In this case, and in all the analogous cases, the giant or monster is faithful to his nature, prolongii\g at the m o m e n t of his death a hostility a n d treachery that have never been contradicted o r c o n c e a l e d . T h e circumstances of Starcatherus' death are entirely otherwise, and o n e has the impression that S a x o has g o n e w r o n g in not c h o o s i n g the " b e t t e r " interpretation, in not admitting that his hero is sincere and simply reducing the scene to this c o m m o n p l a c e theme of the giant wreaking p o s t h u m o u s vengeance.^^ Starcatherus has b e f o r e him a m a n w h o m he admires, respects, loves; he asks of him a n e x c e p tional service w h i c h will be in n o w a y a fault, n o r require a n y v e n geance. He gives him at the outset (with a disagreeable touch of venality) all that he possesses materially, but he wishes also to b e queath to him a m o r e valuable treasure, not the strength that he carries within him, but the c o m p o u n d e d sum of this strength which he himself has not drawn o n , n a m e l y invulnerability. T h i s he c a n only do b y a sort of crossing of their bodies, an insertion of the youth's entire b o d y between the still-twitching fragments of his o w n , at the very m o m e n t when there w o u l d pass, f r o m head to trunk or f r o m trunk to head, the last mysterious current of his life f o r c e : a gift a n d also a fusing, a i m i o n . But w h o exactly is Hatherus, this figure w h o m w e have already seen to be incoherent even m o r e than c o m p l e x ? It has long been
And to another magical theme: the efficacy of passing between the severed parts of a corpse (purification; acquiring of privileges); see Olivier Masson, "A propos d'un rituel hittite pour la lustration d'une arm^e: le rite de purification par le passage entre les deux parties d'une victime," Revue de I'histoire des religions, CXXXVII (1950), 1-25.

46

>4

StarkaSr

thought that S a x o , b y misunderstanding or design, has here debased and humanized a divine figure, namely HoSr, the son o f O d i n . In the m y t h o l o g y which survives, H 6 3 r o n l y appears as the blind, unwitting killer of Baldr, a n d after the destruction a n d restoration o f the world, in association with Baldr as O d i n ' s successor. But there are r e a s o n s H 6 8 r continues a n ancient I n d o - E u r o p e a n w a r r i o r name^^to think that he w a s originally a m o r e general figure o f Fate, in particular the fate o f the fighter, with its long uncertainty a n d its m o r e than p r o b a b l e o u t c o m e . " T h e phonetic difficulty Hatherus transcribes *Hadr rather than H 6 5 r d o e s not seem insoluble; the second element of the c o m p o u n d Stark-(h)adT^^ m a y h a v e affected the v o w e l c o l o r of the u n c o m p o u n d e d *Hotherus, a n d this is all the m o r e likely as it is plausible that, having elsewhere used H 6 9 r - H o t h e r u s (Hatherus^') with his correct n a m e f o r m in reducing him to a h u m a n figure, and n o longer understanding the theology of the g o d H 6 5 r , S a x o preferred not to repeat the same name exactly. Further efforts h a v e occasionally been m a d e in this direction, for example b y the late J a n de Vries in his (1955) article o n S t a r k a S r . ^ ' A c c o r d i n g to h i m , here as elsewhere in the m y t h o f B a l d r , H 6 3 r did not h a v e his o w n separate existence but w a s simply "eine Erscheinungsform des G o t t e s 0 3 i n n , " a manifestation o f the g o d
^'Jan de Vries, Altnordisches etymologisches Worterbuch (1961), pp. 2 7 8 279: Olce. hoS 'battle,' OHG hadu, OE heaSu: Olrish cath 'battle' (Gaulish Caturiges), Thracian KaTU-, etc. " Gods of the Ancient Northmen (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1973), chap. 3 ("The Drama of the World: Balder, Hoder, Loki"); ME / (1968), pp. 222-230. " Jan de Vries, op. cit., p. 544, s.v. "starkr'', writes: "Dazu PN. Starkadr alt. Storkudr {<Stark-hodr), vgl. ogot. Starcedius (= Starki-pius . . . ), frank. Sfarchildis, Starkfrid, ae. Starkwulf, langob. Starcolf." As the second term in compounds, 'haduR gives sometimes -(h)udr (NiduSr 'der grimmige Krieger' = OHG Nidhad, OE Nidhad; Dorrudr 'der Speerkampfer'), sometimes -(h)adr {Andadr 'der Gegner', *Anda-haduR beside Andudr, Ondudr). Cf. Birger Nerman, Studier over Svdrges hedna Litteratur (1913), pp. 108-109. See "Hotherus et Balderus," Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 83 (1962), pp. 259-270: reprinted as Appendix 3 in from Myth to Fiction (Chicago, 1973). Cited above, p. 11; the text quoted here is on p. 296.

47

StarkaSr

O d i n , and the v e r y n a m e of S t a r k a S r m a d e of this character " e i n P r o t o t y p der odinischen W e i h e n k r i e g e r , " emphasizing " d e n religiosen C h a r a k t e r dieser V o r s t e l l u n g . " F o r m y part I a m not inclined t o accept this reduction o f multiple gods to o n e ; the procedure h a s done much h a r m in the study, f o r e x a m p l e , of R o m a n religion, w^here goddesses a s different as M a t e r M a t u t a , Feronia, C a r n a , a n d so on h a v e been considered as so m a n y specific " n u m i n a " of o n e vast J u n o . It is n o m o r e t o b e r e c o m m e n d e d f o r the interpretation of S c a n d i n a v i a n religion. H 6 5 r is o n e of the figures in the orbit o f the s o v e r e i g n - m a g i c a l - w a r r i o r g o d O d i n , a n d o n e of those closest to h i m , t o b e sure, but he remains distinct, a n d I a m not resigned t o admitting that O d i n , in the m y t h of Baldr, openly, under his o w n n a m e , should at first try t o prevent a n d in the end lament a murder which he h a s meanwhile c o m m i t t e d under c o v e r of a n o t h e r n a m e . W i t h this reservation, maintaining the duality of H o S r and O d i n , I think nonetheless that J a n de Vries is correct when he writes, after having mentioned the murderer of B a l d r : T h e r e is yet a second H 6 3 r : the Hatherus w h o appears in the account of the death o f S t a r k a S r . H e is the son of the D a n e L e n n o , w h o m S t a r k a S r has killed, a n d he is b o u n d t o S t a r k a S r b y a loyal friendship; yet it is he w h o gives h i m den heissersehnten Todesstreich. A c c o r d i n g t o Schneider, H a t herus is a late, in no w a y heroic figure. T h i s is b y n o m e a n s s o ; it is O d i n himself, the divine H o S r , w h o recalls S t a r k a S r t o

him at the end of his life {Starkadr zu sich heimholt). O n e

should take note of the singular f o r m of the killing: there is n o c o m b a t ; on the c o n t r a r y the decrepit old m a n extends his head to the y o u t h , as a sacrificial victim, pronam cervicem applicuit, and Hatherus has only t o strike. . . . Following the text more closely, w e w o u l d s a y : at the point w h e n t w o of the facinora of Starcatherus imposed b y O d i n (in S a x o ) o r b y T h o r (in the Gautrekssaga) h a v e already been c o m mitted a n d the third facinus is in the m a k i n g , Hatherus, that is to say the g o d H o S r , Fate, close to O d i n , strikes up a friendly relationship with the old Starcatherus in the guise of a y o u n g m a n , as (in the Gautrekssaga) O d i n himself o f o l d , in the appearance of the

48

StarkaSr

mature m a n Hrossharsgrani, b e c a m e the tutor of the y o u n g S t a r k a S r in view of obtaining f r o m h i m , after years o f care, the first facinus. O n c e the third facinus is accomplished, a n d with it the last extension of his life is exhausted, Starcatherus, suddenly deteriorated a n d wishing t o die, calls in his prayers f o r the presence of this H 6 3 r , w h o m he finds, providentially rather than b y c h a n c e , a n d has himself killed b y h i m once h e has recognized h i m . Finally, at the m o m e n t when he is t o die, he wishes at least to transfer t o his killer the privilege of invulnerability which he himself has p o s sessed only latently. In the reality of theology, this w o u l d b e literally a transfusion of the hero into the god, but under h u m a n guise it is n o m o r e than a gift w h i c h the old m a n offers the y o u n g . A n d of course in the novelistic a c c o u n t , the h u m a n f o r m carries the d a y : cut off f r o m his origin a n d his theological value, H a t h e r u s is only a h u m a n individual w h o hesitates, is suspicious of the gift, a n d finally does not receive it. Having at our disposal only S a x o ' s a w k w a r d a n d inaccurate adaptation, it is impossible to b e more affirmative o r m o r e precise regarding this conclusion. W h a t is essential is a s f o l l o w s : O u r h e r o t h i s six-armed giant reduced b y a m p u t a t i o n t o h u m a n shape, o r this grandson of an eight-armed giant, h u m a n but m a r k e d with inherited s c a r s a f t e r having been in his y o u t h the o b j e c t , the p a w n o f the opposing attentions o f the gods T h o r a n d O d i n , a n d after developing his career within the f r a m e w o r k of three lives granted a n d three facinora imposed b y o n e or the other of the gods, voluntarily ends his life a n d career b y having himself slain b y a y o u n g m a n behind w h o m w e glimpse a third g o d , very close t o O d i n , H o S r . T o this young m a n he declares his affection a n d wishes, n o doubt sincerely, to transfuse into h i m the best part of himself. T h e finale of the story, a s w e see, is n o less strange than the beginning. N o w the Indie epic k n o w s a hero of the same type, w h o m w e shall f o l l o w , t o o , f r o m a m o n s t r o u s birth miraculously repaired to his decapitation a n d absorption b y the g o d percussor.

49

SISUPALA
1. THE BIRTH AND DESTINY OF SISUPALA

Sisupala is, in the Mahabharata,

an incidental c h a r a c t e r . '

Close kinship ties exist a n d hostile relations develop between h i m and K f ^ n a , b u t h e has n o b l o o d relation n o r alliance with the Pan<^avas, a n d does n o t h a v e to intervene, o n o n e side o r the o t h e r , in the conflict in which all the great names of the epic c o n f r o n t each other; he is put to death beforehand in B o o k T w o . Still, according to the rules of the g a m e , this apparently wholly h u m a n being is the incarnation of a being f r o m the b e y o n d , the powerful demon w h o in several previous lives has already confronted other incarnations of Vi^nu; H i r a n y a k a s i p u , w h o m the g o d fought a n d slew in the guise of the man-lion; later R a v a n a , over w h o m Vijnu-Rama prevailed with difficulty.^ T h e s e antecedents barely enter into the plot of the p o e m , simply justifying that Sisupala should b e b y nature a determined adversary of Krna-Vinu. B u t , in a c c o r d with
' The episode of Sisupala occupies slokas 1307-1627 of the second book (Sabhdparvan) in the Calcutta edition (matching van Buitenen pp. 91-104). The late poem of Magha has nothing to offer for our purposes; see Balamagha, Mdgha's Sisupalavadha im Auszuge, bearbeitet von Carl Cappeller (1915), and Magha's Siiupdlavadha, ins Deutsche iibertragen von E. Hultzsch (1926). For the Puranic accounts (particularly the Bhdgavata Purana) see V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, The Purdrta Index, III (1955), 423, s.v. "Sisupala." ^ Edward W. Hopkins, Epic Mythology (1915), pp. 51, 211.

51

Sisupala a n o t h e r rule of transposition, this deep causality is replicated on the earthly level b y a n o t h e r , m o r e immediate a n d m o r e novelistic one. Sisupala is introduced in the following w a y . A f t e r their c h i l d h o o d , a n d despite their already serious corvflicts with their cousins, the hundred sons o f Dhftaratra ( a n d especially with the eldest, D u r y o d h a n a ) , the P a n d a v a s h a v e not as yet k n o w n their great misfortunes, a s it is only at the end of B o o k T w o , the Sabhdparvan, that D u r y o d h a n a ' s malice a n d Dhftara^fra's weakness will arrange the fateful dice-game which, b y fleecing Yudhithira a n d his brothers a n d forcing them into thirteen years of exile, begins a conflict between the t w o groups o f cousins that will b e settled only in the b l o o d y battle of the "field of the K u r u s , " Kuruk^etra, from B o o k Six to B o o k T e n . T o all appearances, at the m o m e n t , things are o n the w a y to turning out otherwise: Yudhi?thira's rights to kingship seem to b e recognized b y e v e r y o n e , including the blind uncle a n d the maniacal D u r y o d h a n a ; h e has received the first visit f r o m his cousin Kf$i;ia, w h o is n o n e other than Vi^nu incarnate (as Yudhi?thira himself is either the s o n , o r the incarnation o f a p o r tion of Dharma),^ a n d Kr?pa has begun the part which he will play throughout the p o e m , that of faithful, lucid, discreet a n d resourceful counsellor. Yudhi?thira h a s been discussing with h i m the advisability of celebrating a rdjasuya, the c e r e m o n y of royal c o n secration, or "spriiJcling," here curiously conceived as a n imperial c e r e m o n y , bestowing on the recipient not only r o y a l t y , rd^fra, b u t sdmrdjya, "universal kingship" a n d pdrthivya, "earthly sovere i g n t y , " implying in consequence recognition b y all other kings of a m o r e o r less effective sort of s u p r e m a c y .

^ This phrase does not pretend to solve the large set of problems posed by the character of Krjija in the Mahabharata. My feeling is certainly that much of what is said of him is sufficiently explained as transposition of the mythology of an ancient Vijiju, a transposition of the same sort and scope as that which has produced the Paijdavas from an archaic list of the functional gods. But of course, Kf^ija is not only that. Here, it suffices that the equivalence Kfjija-Visnu is explicitly stated in the course of the episode.

52

Sisupala

A first obstacle h a s already been averted, o r rather eliminated. A n o t h e r prince, J a r a s a n d h a the king o f M a g a d h a , h a d launched the s a m e claim to sovereignty as Yudhi?thira, a n d h a d begun to b a c k it up with cruelty a n d indeed b a r b a r i t y , b a c k e d b y the support of the god R u d r a - S i v a . In the presence of Krna- o n his advice a n d almost on his orders, t w o of Yudhi?thira's brothers h a v e disposed of this c o m p e t i t o r under dramatic circumstances w h i c h w e will examine later." Yudhithira has then dispatched his f o u r younger brothers to the four corners of the world to secure, a n d if need b e to c o m p e l , the consent of the kings. W i t h o u t m u c h trouble these missions h a v e succeeded and the kings h a v e poured into Yudhi?thira's capital to attend the c e r e m o n y a n d thus to c o n f i r m their allegiance. T h e P a n 4 a v a s have before them truly a gallery of kings, seemingly well disposed, a m o n g them V a s u d e v a , a c c o m p a n i e d b y his son Kysna, that is to s a y again, Vi?nu incarnate. T h i n g s get off to a g o o d start, with the usual ceremonies of hospitality, particularly the arghya, the offering presented to the guests of h o n o r . But very quickly there arises a serious p r o b l e m , a n unexpected quarrel which remotely recalls the Irish legends, where the "hero's p o r t i o n " regularly p r o v o k e s competitions a n d battles. In this case it h a s to do n o t with such a p o r t i o n , but with a supplementary arghya, a n arghya of excellence, which B h i ? m a (the great-uncle, tutor, a n d counsellor of the w h o l e family of the B h a ratas, the sons of D h r t a r a j t r a and those of Panc^u alike) proposes to offer to the most w o r t h y of those present ( 1 3 3 0 ) . Yudhi?thira agrees and asks Bhlma himself to designate the o n e to be so h o n o r e d . BhTjma does n o t hesitate and responds, with g o o d reasons: Kr?na ( 1 3 3 2 - 1 3 3 4 ) . T h e assembled kings would surely accede to this a w a r d without grumbling when o n e of them rises a n d protests vehemently; it is Sisupala, the king of Cedi. He refuses to accept that, in a n assembly of kings, a special h o n o r should g o to an individual w h o is n o t a king.
" See below, chap. IV.

53

Sisupala His protest rapidly occasions an ever m o r e lively exchange of words a n d the old B h i ? m a , w h o has lived through three generations and harbors much knowledge, is led to explain to B h l m a s e n a , the second of the P a n d a v a s w h o is n o t exactly well-informed a n d w h o m Sisupala has taken personally to task, w h o this spoilsport is, h o w he c a m e into the w o r l d , what fate weighs upon h i m , a n d also w h y up to this m o m e n t Kr?na has s h o w n so much patience t o wards h i m ( 1 4 9 4 - 1 5 2 2 ) . T h e tale of his beginnings follows. :>>

Sisupala w a s well-born in the r o y a l family of the Cedis, the son o f the reigning king. But he w a s b o r n m o n s t r o u s : he h a d three eyes a n d four arms (tryaksah caturbhujah), a n d uttered inarticulate cries like a n animal (1494). His distraught parents were all set to a b a n d o n him, tyagaya kurutam matim (1495), when a disembodied voice, vag asanrini, made itself heard to the king, his wife, a n d his assembled ministers. T h e voice said ( 1 4 9 7 - 1 4 9 8 ) : " K i n g , he is b o r n y o u r s o n , illustrious a n d powerful, therefore be not afraid of h i m , but guard y o u r child anxiously. Y o u a r e not to b e his death, n o r has this T i m e yet c o m e . His death, his slayer b y the sword, h a s been b o r n , lord o f m e n . " Hearing this speech which c a m e f r o m the invisible, vakyam antarhitam, the m o t h e r speaks, tormented b y the affection she feels, in spite o f everything, f o r this small monster, her son (putrasnehabhisantapta) ( 1 5 0 0 - 1 5 0 1 ) : "I b o w with folded hands to h i m w h o has spoken this w o r d concerning m y s o n . N o w let h i m also speak further. I want to hear w h o shall b e the death of this s o n l " T h e n the invisible being speaks again ( 1 5 0 2 - 1 5 0 3 ) : " H e upon w h o s e lap his t w o extra arms will b o t h fall o n the ground like five-headed snakes a n d that third eye in the middle of the child's forehead will sink a w a y a s he l o o k s at h i m h e shall b e his d e a t h . " T h u s the prophecy is t w o f o l d , but u n a m b i g u o u s : o n e d a y , placed in someone's l a p , the m o n s t r o u s child will lose his excesses,
54

Sisupala two a r m s a n d the central e y e , a n d will b e c o m e n o r m a l ; b u t the Deliverer w h o will w o r k this a n a t o m i c a l miracle will also later b e the cause o f his death. R u m o r o f such a r e m a r k a b l e occurrence travels fast, a n d all the kings of the earth, drawn b y curiosity, didrkfavah, c o m e to the c o u n t r y and the palace where it t o o k place. T h e king o f Cedi receives t h e m all with h o n o r and places his b a b y upon the lap o f

each, ekaikasya nzpasyanke putram aropayat tadd, a n d o n the

knees of every single o n e , pxthak, o f these thousands of kings, rdjasahasrdndm, but the spectacle, the expected miracle never o c c u r s ,

sisur anke samdru^ho na tat prdpa nidarsanam.

S o it goes until there arrive f r o m the town o f D v a r a v a t l , attracted b y the reports, t w o princes, w h o h a v e m o r e o v e r excellent reasons f o r c o m i n g , since the small monster's m o t h e r is their paternal a u n t . T h e s e t w o princes a r e the Y a d a v a s Krna a n d his older b r o t h e r B a l a r a m a . T h e y t o o a r e received with h o n o r , a n d the queen personally has just placed her son o n Krna's knees, putram ddmoda-rotsange devTsarnvyadadhdt svayam ( 1 5 1 0 ) . T h e n finally, the miracle o c c u r s ( 1 5 1 1 ) : " . . . N o sooner was he placed on his lap than the two extra a r m s fell off a n d the eye in his forehead sank a w a y . " Seeing this, the m o t h e r is troubled a n d begins to tremble [vyathitd, trastd), and understandably: according to the disembodied V o i c e , the m a n w h o s e touch has w o r k e d this transformation will also b e the mrtyu, the (cause of) death of the small being restored to h u m a n f o r m . S h e asks a favor of h e r nephew ( 1 5 1 2 - 1 5 1 3 ) : " G i v e a b o o n to m e , Kf^^ia, w h o a m sick with fear, strongarmed o n e , f o r y o u a r e the relief o f the oppressed a n d grant safety to those that a r e a f e a r e d l " Kr?ria answers ( 1 5 1 4 - 1 5 1 5 ) : " D o n o t fear. . . . W h a t b o o n must I give y o u , o r what should I d o , m y aunt? W h e t h e r it c a n b e done o r n o t , I shall obey your word]" 55

Sisupala

Then the queen makes her appeal (1516): "Pray pardon, strong man, the derelictions of Sisupala!" Krjna answers (1517): "I shall forsooth forgive a hundred derelictions of your son, paternal aunt, even though they may be capital offenses. Do not sorrow." Thus the fate of Sisupala was sealed. We shall soon learn that the account of these hundred offenses, the aparadhah to be tolerated, is exhausted and even overdrawn. Released from the promise to his aunt, Kr$na will in the end be able to punish Sisupala.

2.

RUDRA,

KRSNA AND

SISUPALA

Before proceeding further, let us ponder this monstrous birth, this correction of shape and this boon lirdcing facinora and longevity. India is more familiar than Scandinavia with persons with extra arms, not only among babies, but adults as well, including the greatest of themcaturbhuja 'four-armed' is a frequent Hindu epithet of Vi?nu as well as of Siva, and there come immediately to mind the figures of Indian gods who seem to have more arms, all gracefully and symmetrically arrayed, than the Hydra of Lerna had heads. The Mahabharata mentions other births of children, even quite human ones, with several arms, which occasion no such alarm nor grief. Here, the fear is immediate: the father and mother can think only of abandoning the infant, and would do so if the Voice of an unseen being did not intervene. We are faced with a peculiar case. But this is not what is most important. Long ago it was noted that the second congenital deformity of the "little one," the third eye in the middle of his forehead, lalafajarri nayanam, clearly marks him as a human replica of Rudra-Siva. It is this god, and he

56

Sisupala a l o n e a n d very early, if the epithet tryambaka means, at least b y c o n n o t a t i o n , " h a v i n g three p u p i l s " w h o enjoys the privilege o f having three eyes, the third between the t w o n o r m a l ones in the middle o f the forehead: tricak^us, tryakfa are epithets of Siva.^ A l o n g the s a m e line it has been pointed out that the n a m e of Sisupala, f o r which the Mahabharata (1497) suggests an obviously postfabricated e t y m o l o g y , ' is a transposition, to the level o f the "small" (sisu-), o f the already Vedic epithet of R u d r a , a n d frequently later of Rudra-Siva, pasupati; pasupati is "lord of animals"; sisupala is " p r o t e c t o r (and also " k i n g , prince") o f the s m a l l . " Finally, in a previous episodewhich he himself recalls within the present oneSisupala manifests a particular a t t a c h m e n t , t o the extent o f being his " a r m y chief," to King J a r a s a n d h a , w h o will o c cupy us later a n d w h o is presented as the favorite of R u d r a - S i v a , endowed with the privilege o f seeing R u d r a - S i v a with his o w n eyes, a n d w h o offers kings in sacrifice to R u d r a - S i v a . ' T h e s e reasons oblige us to conclude, as did John M u i r m o r e than a century a g o (1864),' that Sisupala is, as solidly b y nature as he is ephemerally in f o r m , a hero " o n the side of R u d r a - S i v a , " a transformation o f this Rudra-Siva w h o s e o w n incarnation is a n other of the p o e m ' s f e a r s o m e heroes, A s v a t t h a m a n . ' A n d this is of great interest because the o n e w h o delivers h i m f r o m his superfluous a r m s a n d e y e , a n d with w h o m he will n o n e theless remain t o the end in a state o f violent hostility, is K f n a Vignu, a g o d o f a completely different sort. In m o r e than o n e regard the " o p p o s i t e " o f Rudra-Siva, he will even b e , in the Hindu trinity, his p o l a r partner. Sisupala is thus f o u n d , f r o m his earliest y o u t h , in c o n t r a d i c t o r y relationships with the t w o great g o d s .

' Edward W. Hopkins, Epic Mythology, ' 1. 1497 (van Buitenen p. 100). ' See below, chap. IV. * Original Sanskrit Texts, IV, 170-180. M / , pp. 213-222.

pp. 220, 221.

57

Sisupala A t the same time that, miraculously, b y the mere touch of K r s n a - V i j i j u , he is restored to human shape, Sisupala receives from the same Kf$na a true " f a t e , " which by defining a postponement completes what the unknown V o i c e had imposed o n him at birth. T h e V o i c e h a d said that death would c o m e to him from his very normalizer, to be precise, that his normalizer "would be his d e a t h . " W h e n it is discovered that the normalizer is K f s n a - V i j n u , the latter undertakes to delay this death. H e does not define the reprieve in terms of absolute or lived time, he does not say, for example, " a hundred y e a r s " o r "three average human lives"; rather he sets down a kind of sliding scale which ties the young being's life span to his behavior: " I will tolerate, without killing him, a hundred offenses, aparadhasatam, a n y of which would deserve d e a t h . " T h i s number can reassure the mother; even between people w h o hate each other, to commit a hundred offenses each of which merits death requires a certain amount of time, and especially since the interested party will be forewarned, it will be up to him not to exhaust his credit and to avoid overstepping the limit by a hundred and first offense. In fact it comes out in the episode of B o o k T w o that Sisupala has wasted no time; he has carried o n like a prodigal son, squandering his store of impunity, and he is still y o u n g when here, before us, he overdraws his account, by an offense which will bring on his death. It is n o less remarkable that the b o o n granted him concerning the length of his life should be limited and conditioned by a counting of aparadhah, that is, of facinora committed against someone. A final remark will serve to tie together the t w o preceding statements. It is at the mother's request that Kj-jna grants this gift to the baby, and b y asking for it m o r e o v e r in a very general w a y (to tolerate his offenses, without specifying a number) she shows that she has n o doubt of the enmity that will prevail between normalizer a n d normalizee, the latter's agressiveness being exerted consistently at the expense of the former. Has she recognized R u d r a S i v a in the one as she knows that the other is V i j o u ? In any case, one could not wish for a better expression of the "conflict of divinities" which, f r o m the foreordained immunity until the hundredth offense, will dominate the career of Siupala.

58

Sisupala 3. THE OFFENSES ^

Let US return to the b i o g r a p h y o f the h e r o . T h e texts are n o t prolix either a b o u t his exploits o r his crimes: undoubtedly they were the subject o f specific, well-known tales, and only allusions are made to them here. T h e exploits of Sisupala must h a v e been n u m e r o u s , since he c o m m a n d e d the armies o f a n o t h e r king of w h o m it is said expressly that h e h a d conquered a large part of the world (574): . ,, . ' . The mighty king Sisupala, having indeed g o n e over c o m p e t e l y to this Jarasandha's side, has b e c o m e his marshal [sendpatih). Regarding the hundred personal affronts deserving o f death, vadharha (1517), which K f j i j a has undertaken to forgive, w e d o not h a v e the complete list either. A t the m o m e n t of the final settling of accounts, Krsija gives merely a sampling o f them, recalling o n l y five, in five slokas. A l l h a v e been c o m m i t t e d against m e m b e r s o f Kfjija's family, the Y a d a v a s , but in view of familial solidarity they ought t o be considered as in effect directed against him a n d c o n s e quently charged to the current account of patience on which the offender keeps drawing (1516). W h a t are these examples (1566-1572)7 1. " K n o w i n g that w e h a d g o n e to the city o f Pragjyoti?a, this fiend, w h o is o u r cousin, b u r n e d down D v a r a k a ( = D v a r a v a t l , o u r capital], k i n g s . " 2. " W h i l e the b a r o n s o f the B h o j a s were at play on M o u n t Raivataka, he slew and captured them, then returned to his city." 3 . " M a l e v o l e n t l y , he stole the horse that w a s set free at the Horse Sacrifice a n d surrounded b y guards to disrupt m y father's s a c r i f i c e . " 4. " W h e n she w a s journeying t o the country of the Sauviras to b e given in marriage, the misguided fool abducted the unwilling wife-to-be o f the glorious B a b h r u . " 5. "Hiding beneath his wizardry, the fiendish offender o f his uncle abducted B h a d r a of Visala, the intended bride of the Karu^al For the s a k e o f m y father's sister I h a v e endured very great suffering; but fortunately n o w this is taking place in the
59

Sisupala presence of all the kings. For y o u are n o w witnesses of the allsurpassing offense against m e ; learn also n o w the offenses he has perpetrated against m e in c o n c e a l m e n t . " It is easy to verify that these sample offenses are distributed, in the order II (first and second offenses), I (third offense), and III (fourth and fifth offenses), across the f r a m e w o r k of the three f u n c tions, and constitute a new example of the theme of the "three sins of the w a r r i o r " : In 1 and 2 , Sisupala, instead of fairly and openly giving battle, waits until he k n o w s a king is absent to burn d o w n his capital, and surprises rajanyas in the midst of disporting themselves to m a s s a c r e or kidnap them: this cowardice is on the same level as that of the second sin of Indra and Herakles slaying an adversary b y a foul trick, instead of confronting h i m in equal c o m b a t . In 3 , Sisupala attacks the king in the area of religion b y preventing him f r o m celebrating the most solemri of royal sacrifices. In 4 and 5 , Sisupala abducts a noble married w o m a n i n 5 , disguising himself as her h u s b a n d c o m m i t t i n g a sexual sin entirely similar to the third sin of Indra, a n d as serious as the third sin of Herakles. T h e great similarity of the t w o first and the t w o last offenses m a k e s it p r o b a b l e that this list has been inflatedIndia has little taste f o r c o n c i s e n e s s a n d that m o r e originally each type of sin was illustrated b y only one e x a m p l e . T a k i n g this t a c k , it is tempting to suppose also that the n u m b e r " o n e h u n d r e d " has been substituted, for the s a m e reason, f o r the simple n u m b e r " t h r e e , " and that w h a t is presented here as a sampling of the o f f e n s e s o r rather w h a t this sampling was b e f o r e the development of the three crimes into fiveoriginally constituted their c o m p l e t e i n v e n t o r y . In any case, directly or indirectly, all these sins are directed against the king. T h e first three, those of the second and first function, are direct, attacking the king in his capital, his servants, his religion; the two sexual sins attack w o m e n belonging to the king's family or placed under his p r o t e c t i o n . Rhetorically speaking, theref o r e , in this final quarrel where Sisupala claims to defend r o y a l

60

Sisupala

majesty and where he tries, we shall see, t o incite the assembly of kings against K f j i j a and the P a n d a v a s , this enumeration of crimes c o m m i t t e d against a king, in the three functional areas of royal a c tivity, is very timely, a n d will in the end have on the audience the effect which Kf?;ia is hoping f o r .

4. SiSuPALA

AND THE KINGS

T h e dispute during which at first Bhlgma, then K f p a himself, reveal the past a n d unveil the nature of their adversary, develops at length a n d occasions several speeches b y Sisupala. W h i l e they do not b e c o m e m o r e and m o r e violent, f o r the first is already extremely s o , they rather lead gradually up t o the desperate defiance at the end. T h e i r subject is, f r o m beginning to e n d , the defense of the m a j esty of kings, purported to h a v e been violated because the supplementary arghya h a s been accorded n o t t o o n e of t h e m , but to K f $ n a , w h o is n o king: Sisupala m a k e s himself the c h a m p i o n of this outraged assembly. T h e theme is stated f r o m the outset ( 1 3 3 8 ) , when Bhl^ma hears him s a y : " T h i s Vargneya does not deserve regal h o n o r as though he were a king, K a u r a v y a , while great-spirited lords of the earth are present I" It is o n dharma that he bases himself, he says quickly, in a h a u g h t y , didactic tone, to the Panc^avas w h o are astounded at this effrontery ( 1 3 4 0 ) : " Y o u are children, y o u don't k n o w ! For the L a w is subtle, Pan(^avas!" A n d the f l o o d is loosed ( 1 3 4 2 ) : " H o w c a n the D a s a r h a , w h o is n o king, merit precedence over all the kings of the earth so that he should b e honored b y you?"

61

Sisupala G r o w i n g angrier, he lists the kings a n d other heroes w h o are present, a n d praises their virtuesbeginning with this very BhT$ma w h o m he a t t a c k s as if guilty of lese majesty; h o w , he a s k s , can they distinguish a n d h o n o r Kr?na when there are present A s v a t t h a m a n , D u r y o d h a n a , K f p a , D r u m a , K a r n a , a n d m a n y others ( 1 3 4 7 1353)7 "If y o u must h o n o r M a d h u s u d a n a , w h y bring these kings h e r e t o insult them, B h a r a t a ? It w a s not out of fear f o r the great-spirited K a u n t e y a that we all offered him tribute, n o r out of greed or to flatter h i m . He wanted the sovereignty a n d proceeded according to L a w ; so we gave him tribute a n d n o w he does not count usl W h a t but contempt m o v e s y o u , if in an assembly of kings y o u h o n o r Kr?na with the guest gift, while he has not attained to the title? . . . N o t only is there delivered an insult to these Indras of kings, the Kurus h a v e also shown y o u up f o r what y o u o b viously a r e , J a n a r d a n a . A s a marriage is to a eunuch, as a show is to a blind m a n , so is this royal h o n o r to y o u M a d h u sudana, w h o are n o k i n g ! " T h e exposition is instructive b y its very m o n o t o n y : it reveals a dominating concept of the thought and ideology of Sisupala. BhTma's reply is grandiose. H e rejects, without deigning to discuss it, this limited conception o f dharma, he has everything: "It is in the full knowledge o f his f a m e , his b r a v e r y , a n d his triumph that we offer the h o n o r . . . . O f b r a h m i n s he is the elder in knowledge, of b a r o n s the superior in strength, a n d b o t h these grounds to h o n o r G o v i n d a are found firm. K n o w l edge o f the Vedas a n d their b r a n c h e s , and boundless might as w e l l w h o in the world of m e n possesses these so distinguishedly if not K e s a v a ? " ' "
1. 1384-1387 (van Buitenen p. 95). The Poona edition, which is quoted here in translation, rightly omits the first line, which introduces the vaisyas and sudras into the matter.

g W I f' ' f

:T

opposing to it the

greater truth: Kr$na is indeed m o r e than a king, he is everything,

62

Sisupala But Sisupala does not relent, a n d the assembly of the kings begins t o react. F o r all of BhTma's saying, " L o o k at these m a n y kings older than y o u a r e : they consent to the honor paid K f s p a , and y o u should likewise forbear i t " ( 1 3 7 2 ) , the audience is b e c o m ing more a n d m o r e susceptible t o this royalist demagogy which Sisupala pours forth in eloquent torrents. S a h a d e v a , the youngest o f the P a n d a v a s , is soon obliged t o threaten t o put his foot on the head of anyone w h o would challenge the decision, and at the sight of his foot none of the kings dares utter a word ( 1 4 0 2 - 1 4 0 5 ) . But when Sisupala leaves the hall, they all follow him, and their wrath is great. O n e of them, SunTtha, incites them t o attack those w h o have tried t o humiliate them, and they make ready t o prevent the sacrifice, yajnopaghdtdya "When ( 1 4 1 0 - 1 4 1 2 ) , so that, says the poet, they were being restrained by their friends, their ap-

pearance w a s like that of roaring lions that are dragged a w a y from their r a w meat. Kfija then understood that the invincible sea of kings, surrounded b y billowing troops, w a s making a covenant for w a r . " T h i n g s do not c o m e to such a pass, however, a n d B h i j m a , the N e s t o r o f this epic, has good reason t o say "Let these kings bark like a pack of dogs around a sleeping lion. . . . " A n d he hints at something quite interesting, which will lead us quickly towards the end, the death of Sisupala: this fine devotion to kings, this intransigence about the rights of kings, are they genuine? N o , says Bhl$ma, repeating the image of dogs; K f $ n a is for the moment like a sleeping lion, and before he wakes, the king o f Cedi makes lions out of all these dogs. But in reality, unconsciously [acetanah, 1 4 2 7 ) , " . . . he desires with all his being to lead them all t o the abode o f Y a m a . . . 1" A n d this accusation, which matches one of the well-known cruelties of Jarasandha, the king w h o m Sisupala has served as commander-in-chief, must have substance, for Sisupala protests vigorously ( 1 4 3 3 ) :

63

Sisupala

" H o w is it y o u are not ashamed o f yourself, decrepit defiler of y o u r family, while y o u frighten all these kings with your many threats?" In the last speech which he will give, in the face of the fate that awaits h i m , he will take up again the theme o f offended royal dignity, a n d after a n o t h e r catalogue o f kings w h o deserve to be honored, he will conclude b y repeating the theme in the interrogative (1540-1541): " W h y , " he will say to BhT?ma, " W h y d o y o u fail to praise such kings as S a l y a a n d others, if as a l w a y s y o u r heart is set on praising, B h l j m a ? " In the m o m e n t s preceding the death of this overreacher, there occurs in the kings a change, a reversal. Kr$na has presented his grievances, h a s recalled the hundred offenses of which he has given five examples and which are affronts to the majesty a n d status of a king, and has called them all to witness the hundred a n d first which has been c o m m i t t e d against h i m . T h e o u t c o m e is this (1575): All the assembled kings, upon hearing this and m o r e f r o m V a s u d e v a , n o w began to revile the Cedi king. In fact they w a t c h without serious reaction the execution of Sisupalaand w e shall see presently the r e m a r k a b l e m o d e of this death. Immediately after, when the b o d y has been r e m o v e d , Y u dhijthira celebrates his rajasuya before the assembly of kings, as if n o incident h a d marred the festivities. In the e n d , he dismisses his guests, including Kr?na, with h o n o r , setting d o w n the official v e r sion in his final proclamation (1604): " A l l these kings have c o m e to us in a spirit of friendship." T h u s , in short, the rights o f kings have been the subject of Sisupala's protest; afterwards the kings themselves, their loyalty and their choice h a v e been at stake in the rhetorical debate; a n d finally, after coming close to a n ill-timed insurrection, the kings h a v e done what w a s expected o f them, that f o r which they had been invited: their consenting presence h a s fully validated the rite.

64

Sisupala
5. THE END OF SISUPALA; SISUPALA A N D KRSNA

W e left Krjija a n d Sisupala, incarnate Vi$nu a n d the "little S i v a , " at the m o m e n t when Kfgna announces that the present offense, the hundred a n d first, is n o longer covered b y his promise of f o r b e a r a n c e a n d will n o t be tolerated. Sisupala replies ( 1 5 7 9 ) : "Forgive m e , if y o u have that m u c h faith, or don't, Kfjija, w h a t could possibly befall m e f r o m y o u , h o w e v e r angry o r friendly?" Defiance of the C o m m a n d e r ? Resignation to fate? T h e e n d of a g o o d loser? In a n y case, f r o m this m o m e n t o n , Kr?na's mind is m a d e u p . A c c o r d i n g t o the Calcutta edition, he " t h i n k s " of the cakra {manasd 'cintayac cakram), the discus, his infallible w e a p o n that h a s already punished the excesses o f so m a n y d e m o n s . T h e discus right a w a y appears a n d positions itself in his h a n d . A t this solemn m o m e n t Kr?na explains the situation once m o r e , justifying his a c t i o n . T h e n he acts ( 1 5 8 2 - 1 5 8 9 ) : " ["Let the kings hear w h y I have put up with this: I h a v e h a d t o forgive a hundred o f his offenses, at his m o t h e r ' s r e quest. W h a t she asked of m e , I have given, a n d the tally is c o m p l e t e . N o w I shall slay h i m b e f o r e the eyes o f all y o u earthl o r d s . " S o saying, at that m o m e n t the best of the Y a d u s , ] scourge of his enemies, irately cut off his head with his discus. T h e strong-armed king fell like a tree that is struck b y a thunderbolt. T h e r e u p o n the kings watched a sublime radiance rise forth f r o m the b o d y of the king of the Cedis, which, great king, w a s like the sun rising up f r o m the s k y ; a n d that radiance greeted lotus-eyed K f na, h o n o r e d b y the world, a n d entered h i m , O king. W h e n they s a w that, all the kings deemed it a miracle that that radiance entered the strong-armed m a n , that greatest of m e n . In a cloudless s k y heaven rained forth a n d blazing lightning struck and the earth trembled, w h e n Kr?oa
' ' The Poona edition rejects the end of Kr^ija's speech and the following line.

65

Sisupala slew the C a i d y a . T h e r e were kings there w h o did not s a y a w o r d . . . .'^ T h u s , at the m o m e n t o f the death of this m a d m a n w h o h a s never ceased, throughout his life, to pile u p offenses a n d crimes against Krn3' a n d w h o has just showered h i m once again with insolence, the best part o f himself, his tejaPi agryam, leaves his beheaded b o d y in the f o r m of a brilliant light a n d enters into his executioner, merging with h i m . It is indeed a miraculous spectacle, adbhutam, as the kings w h o a r e present all agree. H o w is this miracle to b e explained? T h e editors of the Mahabharata see n o difficulty here: Krna-Vinu is the god w h o encompasses all, o f w h o m all beings, despite appearances, a r e parts. His e n e m y Sisupala w a s therefore, in spite of himself, a part of this total Being. T h e total being h a s simply wished to recover the part, a n d o n e m a y suppose that he h a s attracted h i m b y some sort of hypnosis. Just before entering into the b o d y of his killer, it seems that Sisupala h a s understood the meaning o f the a c t : his tejas salutes the g o d , vavande tat tada tejo vivesa ca. B u t until then he had n o t been in o n the secret. During the final quarrel, h e h a s been seized b y a kind of intoxication, a n irresistible need to reenter the w o m b o f the incarnate A l l , a surprising variation o n the maternal w o m b o f the psychoanalysts. Consciously, h e h a s rushed to his destruction, h a s p r o v o k e d it, discarding all recourse. Unconsciously, it w a s something else: he w a s obeying the call, the will of KrnaVi?nu. Bhlma, the wise a n d experienced old m a n , h a d made a correct diagnosis w h e n , some pages earlier, he ended his a c c o u n t of the birth a n d childhood o f Sisupala with these w o r d s , which attempted to explain to the Pan^avas the p a r o x y s m of violence to which the challenger a b a n d o n e d himself ( 1 5 2 1 - 1 5 2 2 ) : " H e o f a certainty is a particle of the glory of Hari, stronga r m e d prince, a n d widely f a m o u s Hari w a n t s to recover it.
Some of the icings to be sure, the text goes on (1590-1591), do indeed show their anger, wringing their hands and biting their lips, but they do not act, approval prevails and everything soon quiets down.

66

Sisupala

That is why this evil-minded king of Cedis roars fiercely like a tiger, tiger of the Kurus, without worrying about any of us." This is in fact why he plunges into the hundred and first misdeed, which he could easily have avoided or held back. At the very time when he cries out his indifference to what Kfspa will or will not dothese, as we saw, are his last wordshe is possessed by an unconscious need to make an end of it, to lose himself in the being whom he insults. The Greek tragedians did not have to deal with this type of drama, but it is on a par with the loftiest situations which they encountered: Prometheus standing up to Zeus, Oedipus obstinately delving into his destiny. Sisupala is not a normal man; only thanks to Kfi:ia, to Vif^iu, has he been freed from the bodily monstrosity that revealed him as a little Siva. But, from the instant of this boon, the child's mother and Kf?na himself have foreseen the future: from this humanized Siva to Vi5i;u incarnate, there will be, by an irresistible bent of natureone might readily say, of t h e o l o g y nothing but a series of insults, aggressions, and crimes; and Kf^na has determined, in his generous wisdom, to tolerate one hundred of them. In fact, there is no other aspect to their relationship: Sisupalaon his own behalf and undoubtedly on that of Jarasandha whose armies he commandspersecutes Kf?ria and his family, and Kfjna, the divine Krgpa, until the credit is exhausted, endures, withdraws, retreats, even abandons his capital before this madman. And, in the end, we see that underneath this evil-minded and perverse conduct, Sisupala hoped in the depth of his being only to be reunited with Kf$pa-Vinu, only to be one with him, like a Saint Paul who would have awaited death and the hereafter to find his road to Damascus. More mystical than the epic, more willing to meditate on the sublime absurdities of theology, the Puranas have repeated, exploited, and clarified its matter. In the Vi^nu Purdna, for example, the belief in metempsychosis allows the conflict to be prolonged:

67

Sisupala f r o m the standpoint o f reincarnation, Sisupala is apparently a repeat offender with a checkered past. In previous lives, he has been the demon Hiranyakasipu, and thereafter the demon R a v a n a , w h o m Vi^nu killed in t w o of his incarnations. But it is in his new life as Sisupala that he has nursed against Kr?na, the incarnation of V i j n u , the most violent hatred. A n d precisely because o f this v i o lence, events this time around turn out differently, the routine of reincarnation h a s stopped, a n d another p h e n o m e n o n o c c u r s . In fact, all through his mature life Sisupala has only thought, spitefully to b e sure, but in a n y case exclusively, of Vi^nu; thanks to this obsession, in the end he is f o u n d ready, not f o r a n o t h e r r a n d o m transmigration, but f o r the transformation which w e h a v e witnessed. T h e Vi^nu Puratiia e x p l a i n s " that, at the instant w h e n he was killed b y V i j n u , he was exposed f o r w h o he w a s , in his true nature; his furious hatred then e v a p o r a t e d , at the same time as the stock of sins he had a c c u m u l a t e d , as if at will, w a s literally c o n sumed b y his venerable adversary. T h i s made possible the h a p p y , unexpected denouement: total, definitive union o f Sisupala and Krsna-Vijnu, the reentry o f the rebellious part into the immensely benevolent w h o l e . T h e reader h a s surely felt, granted all the differences imposed b y divergence in time, place, civilization, and belief systems, h o w much this complex career, replete with strangeness, parallels that of S t a r k a S r . W e should n o w give m o r e precision to this impression.
" IV, 15, 1-S.

68

Sisupala

I?^ ?l

Vijiju as the man-lion ( N a r a s i m h a ) slays the d e m o n Hiranyakasipu, an earlier incarnation of Sisupala (relief f r o m EUora, India).

69

/// STARKADR A N D SISUPALA

1. COMPARISON OF THE LEGENDS OF STARKADR AND SISUPALA

T h e stories of S t a r k a 3 r - S t a r c a t h e r u s and of Sisupala are readily arranged in parallel tables:

I 1. Starcatherus himself (in S a x o ) , or else the advance replica of S t a r k a S r , w h o is his h o m o n y m o u s grandfather (in the saga), is born outside the pale of h u m a n nature, a six- or eight-armed giant. 2 . W i t h n o explanation of h o w o r even w h y , the god T h o r relieves Starcatherus of his supernumerary a r m s and reduces him to h u m a n shape ( S a x o ) ; or T h o r slays the grandfather S t a r k a S r , but the m a r k s of the amputated a r m s linger on the otherwise 71

I
1 . Sisupala is born outside of h u m a n nature, with four arms and three eyes, the latter trait (as well as his n a m e ) marking him as b e longing to the god R u d r a Siva. 2 . He is restored to h u m a n shape (two arms d r o p a w a y , eye vanishes) at the touch of Kr$i:ia-Vinu, w h o , a c c o r d ing to a V o i c e heard at his birth, will also be the agent of his death.

StarkaSr and Sisupala

n o r m a l body of the grandson S t a r k a S r (saga).

II
1 . T h e r e a f t e r , it is another g o d , O t h i n u s , and he alone, w h o concerns himself with h i m and determines his fate ( S a x o ) ; or else this fate is fixed, in an antagonistic deb a t e , by the two gods O d i n and T h o r (saga); 2 . In either case, the essential terms are that the hero will live three h u m a n lifetimes, but will c o m m i t a crime in each.

11
1 . A t that m o m e n t w h e n he makes the small monster into a m a n , K r ^ n a - V i j n u declares his destiny:

2 . since it is he, Kr?na, w h o is called upon to slay him, he consents to let pass unpunished one hundred offenses, each of which w o u l d merit death, thus acknowledging as inevitable that the humanized monster will c o m mit offenses; at the hundred and first will c o m e the e n d . III Sisupala: 1 . b e c o m e s the general of J a r a s a n d h a , the conquering king w h o s e armies subdue nearly the entire w o r l d ; presumably he is, as general, the agent of at least several of these n u m e r o u s victories; 2 . at the same time, he adds up and pours on the offenses against K r j n a and his family, so that his credit of impunity is rapidly ex-

Ill T h i s triple life is, accordingly: 1 . filled with martial exploits.

2 . vitiated o n l y b y the three foreordained crimes.

72

StarkaSr and Sisupala

3 . which are distributed among the three functions (first, then second, then third).

hausted; in the final indictment, Kr?na cites, as typical examples, five of these hundred offenses, 3 . which are distributed among the three functions (two in the second function, one in the first, two in the third). IV In the final scene of his life, where Sisupala is presented at length: 1 . he makes himself the theorist and the determined, aggressive defender of royal majesty;

IV 1 . The plot of Starcatherus develops particularly in his relations with King Frotho and his descendants, and its driving force is an uncompromising and aggressive reverence for royal majesty; imposing his exacting ideal of this majesty, he reprimands kings and their offspring; 2 . and yet his three crimes, bad exceptions to a string of uniformly good deeds, are committed against kings, his kings.

2 . and yet, an allusion of Bhl?ma and the animated reaction of Sisupala himself lead one to believe that this attitude is destined only to plunge to their deaths the kings who are present; moreover, the five offenses enumerated by Krna injure, in various ways, a king.

Having committed the third and last of the foreordained crimes.

V Having reached the number of one hundred offenses exempted from punishment because of the promise,
73

Starkaar cind Sisupala 1. Starcatherus wishes to die, and to h a v e himself b e headed chooses Hatherus, a y o u n g n o b l e m a n w h o has m o r e o v e r revenge to take on h i m , a n d whose n a m e and characteristics indicate that he is, in h u m a n f o r m , the g o d H o S r , very close to" Odin; 2 . he heaps his g o o d will upon this y o u t h , a n d just before having himself killed b y him, shows him the means (which the other, mistrusting, does not use) of gaining invulnerability b y passing quickly between his trunk and severed head b e f o r e they fall to the ground. 1. Sisupala, in a sort o f m a d ness, c o n d e m n s himself b y the hundred a n d first offense to die beheaded at the hand of Krna-Vi?i;iu;

2 . at the very m o m e n t when Kr?na-Vi5nu has just decapitated h i m , his spiritual energy, attracted b y his killer, enters into the latter in the f o r m o f light.

H o w are w e to interpret this parallelism?

2.

COMMON

INHERITANCE?

In principle, accordances observed between the traditions of t w o human groups historically separate, but sprung f r o m a single prehistoric g r o u p , c a n b e explained in four w a y s : either b y c h a n c e , or b y innate a n d constant characteristics of the h u m a n spirit, o r b y direct or indirect b o r r o w i n g , o r b y the preservation of a c o m m o n inheritance. T h e first t w o explanations are here out of the question. T h e two tales which w e h a v e c o m p a r e d are t o o c o m p l e x , and articulate in the same order t o o m a n y peculiar a n d specific ideas, f o r such a structure plausibly to h a v e been created t w i c e . Furthermore, no inherent need in the h u m a n mind links themes as clearly independent as those which are brought together h e r e : . w h a t innate
74

StarkaSr a n d Sisupala

connection is there between the fact that a monstrous giant, with too m a n y arms, is restored to h u m a n f o r m (or that the descendant of a n o t h e r giant has a h u m a n f o r m , but is congenitally m a r k e d with such scars), and the fact that this giant or his descendant appoints himself c h a m p i o n of royal majesty? O r between this m o n strosity, corrected or reduced to its hereditary m a r k s , and a life either m a r k e d off or measured by a predetermined n u m b e r of crimes? A n d one c a n pose the same question f o r practically all the episodes, taken t w o b y t w o . T h e explanation by b o r r o w i n g is equally unlikely: the b o r r o w ing could only be indirect, and o n e does not see w h a t intermediaries, peoples o r individuals, could h a v e effected it; neither the S c y t h i a n s , n o r the Slavs, nor the T u r k s had this lofty ideal of the "kingly f u n c t i o n , " and geographically, in the vast area which separates India and S c a n d i n a v i a , no story has been found which could pass for a variant, even a very deformed o n e , of one o r the other of these t w o so similar biographies. Further, we are dealing here not with a folktale pattern easily introduced into a n y civilization, but with an original narrative at o n c e heroic and m y t h o l o g i c a l , which gives rather the impression of being a w o r k of learned literature a n d such w o r k s do not travel easily. Finally and a b o v e all, what w e observe in c o m m o n between the t w o tales is the opposite of w h a t is preserved, in fact it is exactly what is most easily lost, in a direct or indirect b o r r o w i n g : save f o r the monstrous birth, no episode appears exactly the same in the two cases, with the same picturesque details; nothing in one of the t w o stories c a n be a m e r e c o p y of what it is in the other. T h u s , the w a y s in which S t a r catherus and Sisupala find themselves restored to human shape are completely different: in o n e case a violent operation, in the other a spontaneous process; and so with the agents of this miracle: T h o r is the constant e n e m y of giants, Krna is the cousin of the small m o n ster. T h e connection established, in b o t h cases, between length of life and a certain n u m b e r of crimes does not have the same f o r m . T h e pairs of gods, openly o r implicitly antagonistic, T h o r and O d i n , R u d r a - S i v a and Krna-Vi$nu, cannot be translations one of the o t h e r . T h e circumstances in which Starcatherus and Sisupala
75

StarkaSr and Sisupala

give their sermons on the majesty of kings h a v e nothing in c o m m o n : the o n e prevents his king f r o m hazarding himself against an enemy w h o is n o king, then b e c o m e s tutor of the royal children; the other protests against an h o n o r paid before kings to o n e w h o is not a king. T o be sure the violent, wounding rhetoric of the two characters finds at times rather similar expressions, but their orientations are different: Starcatherus inveighs against Ingellus in order to reform h i m , Sisupala reviles Kr$na to humiliate h i m . Even in the list of sins according to the three functions, the correspondences of each sin to its function a r e not congruent: at the third level, Sisupala's lust is sexual, that of Starcatherus is, so to speak, m o n e t a r y ; at the second level, Starcatherus flees on the battlefield, Sisupala profits basely f r o m the absence of a king b y sacking his town; and at the first level, Sisupala hinders a king f r o m sacrificing, S t a r k a S r - S t a r c a t h e r u s furnishes the king, his master, as the victim in a h u m a n sacrifice. T h e impulses which drive the t w o h e r o e s o n e triply old, the other in full s t r e n g t h t o their executioners d o not have the same source: Sisupala acts in a sort of madness; Starcatherus h a s decided, c a l m l y , to put a n end to what a M a l l a r m e a n might well describe as " t r o p de v i e " ; if it is indeed the god H o S r w h o lurks in the person of Hatherus, Starcatherus' killer, he has nothing in c o m m o n , at first sight, with Vi?i;iu, a n d the decapitation scene, calm a n d serene in S a x o , is a climax of violence in the Mahabharata. Finally, the last scenes h a v e undoubtedly similar values, but only similar: to interpret matters in the best light, Starcatherus, in a gesture o f benevolence, wishes to transfer to the friend w h o beheads him something of himself which will assure him invulnerability; Sisupala, suddenly captivated b y the enemy w h o beheads h i m , wishes to merge, and in fact does dissolve into him in the f o r m o f a flame escaping f r o m his b o d y . T h u s , in every episode, the circumstances, a n d often the relationships o f the characters, differ f r o m one story to the other. T h e agreement, palpable a n d striking, is elsewhere: in the c o m m o n ideas which underpin entirely parallel plots couched in generally different narratives. Such a situation would suffice to discourage

76

StarkaSr and Sisupala

the hypothesis of a loan, even if it were geographically c o n c e i v a b l e . T h e r e remains that of t w o evolutions starting f r o m a c o m m o n original. A s a first a p p r o x i m a t i o n , we can establish this f r a m e w o r k as f o l l o w s : I 1 - 2 . A being, w h o will be a hero, is b o r n outside of h u m a n f o r m , with monstrosities, superfluous organs, which relate him to the most disquieting element in m y t h o l o g y ; but this deformity is corrected, and the infant is restored to h u m a n shape either b y the act or b y the touch of the god w h o is n o r m a l l y the adversary of demonical beings. V a r i a n t : a being, w h o will be a h e r o , is b o r n as the p o s t h u m o u s and h o m o n y m o u s grandson of such a m o n s t e r w h o has been not " p r u n e d " but slain b y the god inimical to d e m o n s (giants), and bears the hereditary m a r k s of the limbs cut f r o m his grandfather.

II
1 . T w o gods explicitly ( T h o r and O d i n , Kr?na-Vi$nu, all in h u m a n f o r m ) or implicitly (Rudra-Siva), f r o m without (through decisions) o r within (through his own nature), vie f o r the hero or c o n f r o n t each other over h i m : the one harboring a weakness f o r the sort of m o n s t e r which, although c o r r e c t e d , the hero continues to carry within h i m , and the other whose calling is to subdue or destroy such monsters. 2 . T h e upshot for the hero is the a n n o u n c e m e n t of a fate linking his longevity to the c o m p l e t i o n of a specific number of crimes, either that he will be allowed to go on living as long as he does not exceed this n u m b e r , or that he is granted a prolonged but limited (thrice normal) life span, while being compelled to c o m m i t one crime in each segment.

Ill
T h e life thus ordainedflexible or multipleis (1) full of exploits, (2) highlighted by the predestined crimes, and (3) these

77

StarkaSr and Sisupala

crimes (or the most characteristic a m o n g them) o c c u r successively at each of the three functional levels.

W
T h e w a r r i o r on w h o m this ambiguous destiny weighs (1) p r o fesses to h o n o r and defend the rights and the m a j e s t y of kings, and (2) nevertheless offends a king b y each of his crimes. V T h e predestined n u m b e r of crimes having b e e n c o m m i t t e d , (1) the w a r r i o r brings on his o w n death, and b y request or b y c o m m i t ting an additional offense, has himself beheaded b y a god w h o is either identical with the one w h o determined the length of his life or is theologically v e r y close to h i m . (2) A t the m o m e n t of decapitation, he transfers (or desires to transfer) to his killer an essential part of his inner being.

3. R U D R A A N D

VISNU

T h r o w n b a c k thus u p o n the hypothesis of a c o m m o n inheritance, the interpretation meets with a certain n u m b e r of p r o b l e m s , some proposed b y the divergences, others b y the very parallels themselves. T h e overriding p r o b l e m concerns the Scandinavian a n d Indian divinities, m o r e precisely the pairs of divinities w h o intervene in the hero's life, O d i n and T h o r , Rudra-Siva and K r s n a Vinu. T h e s e dyads are, at first glance, far r e m o v e d f r o m each other: are not the magical sovereign O d i n a n d T h o r the c h a m p i o n a b o v e all, in contrast to the opulent a n d sensual V a n i r , the first and second entries on the canonical list of the gods of the three funct i o n s ? ' R u d r a and Vinu, in contrast, well attested in the R g V e d a , neither associate with nor c o n f r o n t each other, and do not f o r m a n y structure;^ it is only Hinduism that will develop their opposi' Gods of the Ancient Northmen (1973), chap. 1; ME I, p. 288 and n. 1. ^ Another component of Siva, Sarva (important hymns in the Atharva-Veda), is Indo-Iranian. That still other components may have come from the civilization of

78

StarkaSr and Sisupala tion as destroyer and savior in the periodical v^forld crises; in a n y case, at n o time are they defined b y any connection with t w o different levels of the trifunctional structure: the Vedic V i j n u is a b o v e all an associate of Indra at the second level, a n d the p o l y m o r p h o u s activity of Rudra does not allow of expression within the f r a m e w o r k of this structure; as healer, as herbalist, he operates on the third level, and as archer, alone o r in his plural f o r m Rudrdh, also on the second, while nothing seems to orient h i m t o w a r d the sovereign level. H o w is o n e to understand that pairs of such divergent m a k e u p c a n be injected with equal ease and co-exist c o m f o r t a b l y within the same plot? ii Even if we were forced to dwell u p o n this view, the difficulty w o u l d not be as great as it seems: one w o u l d in fact c o n c e i v e the plot as having implied only that the hero w a s s o m e h o w spreadeagled between two opposing rival divinities, the m o t i v e f o r this opposition mattering little a n d being liable to change, with no h a r m d o n e , in the course of time. O r i g i n a l l y , f o r example, the two divinities might have been w h a t they still are in S c a n d i n a v i a , those of the t w o highest functional levels (magical sovereign and warrior), while in post-Vedic India, where the living theology no longer thought in terms of the trifunctional f r a m e w o r k , they were replaced b y the pair w h o s e conflict w a s at that time the most o b v i o u s and interesting f o r men, that of Siva and Vi^pu. Sure enough. But internal criticism would easily raise o b j e c t i o n s : it is clear that T h o r a n d O d i n s u p p o s e d l y old in the S c a n d i n a v i a n n a r r a t i v e d o not c o n t e n d f o r S t a r k a S r merely as " c h a m p i o n " and "magical s o v e r e i g n . " A c c o r d i n g to the saga, each of the t w o gods grants gifts and determines fates, and Odin's magic hardly has occasion to appear, save in the m e t a m o r p h o s e s of the c o r d and the w a n d which strangle and pierce V i k a r on the occasion of the first f e l o n y . A m o n g O d i n ' s
Mohenjo-Daro is possible, although in this case more sanguine assertions than proofs are presented; see most recently Asko Parpola, Seppo Koskenniemi, Simo Parpola, and Pentti Aalto, Decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian Inscriptions of the Indus Civilization (1969), pp. 5 - 6 and nn. 10-21; Progress in the Decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian Indus Script (1969), pp. 9-11, 15-18 (and 18-20, Krfpal) and nn. 9-22, 2 3 - 5 0 . Cf. below, p. 84, n. 7.

79

StarkaSr a n d Sisupala

gifts, only poetry could b e strictly connnected with his magical function; all the rest, prolonged life, victory in every battle, the f a v o r o f the great, personal wealth, e t c . , a r e located elsewhere. Finally, f r o m O d i n as sovereign o n e would expect s o m e p r o m o t i o n of his protege on the scale o f p o w e r ; on the c o n t r a r y S t a r k a S r remains constantly and systematically at the second r a n k , a n d though h e holds to the creed o f royal majesty, he does not himself pretend to it. H e reforms, avenges, a n d exceptionally, in his three facinora, slays kings, but he never seeks to replace t h e m . A s f o r the Indian legend, nothing allows o n e to think that, at an earlier stage, the t w o g o d s w h o oppose each o t h e r concerning Sisupala h a d been the canonical patrons o f the first t w o functions, the Vedic and the pre-Vedic V a r u n a a n d Indra. If Varuna's development has greatly reduced his importance a n d deprived him of his functional r a n k , Indra o n the c o n t r a r y has remained alive and has even extended his p o w e r in epic m y t h o l o g y w h e r e he is the king of the g o d s a n d has not been shorn o f his o w n adventures: w h y , in this particular case, should he h a v e given w a y to Vi$nu7 Having discarded this simpHstic solution, w e must return to the texts themselves, to observation o f the modus operandi w h i c h they attribute to the t w o g o d s . First, let us consider the Indian tale from the point o f view o f the ordinary m y t h o l o g y of the epic where it is f o u n d . R u d r a - S i v a , we have said, w o r k s implicity, f r o m within Sisupala. T h e child is b o r n m o n s t r o u s , in the god's image, and he bears a n a m e that is like the diminutive of pasupati, a distinctive epithet o f the g o d . B y this affinity, almost possession, he is b o u n d to oppose Kr?na-Vi5nu a n d to die at his hand, as the V o i c e heard at his birth, a n d the miracle w o r k e d upon K r j n a ' s knees, interpreted consistently, declare f o r h i m . T h i s is k n o w n well b y K f n a , w h o with the b a b y still o n his lap foresees that he will h a v e to receive a n d tolerate f r o m h i m a total o f a hundred offenses. Besides these Rudraic traits, Sisupala carries m o r e o v e r the heredity, o r at least the ancestry o f a d e m o n .

80

StarkaSr a n d Sisupala

since he isalready in the M a h a b h a r a t a t h e reincarnation of the c h a r a c t e r w h o appears successively as H i r a n y a k a s i p u a n d R a v a n a , t w o terrible d e m o n s w h o s e destruction necessitated prior i n c a r n a tions o f Vinu, and the first of w h o m , it has been said, "represents Sivaism."^ T h i s dual nature, which m a k e s h i m a little Siva a n d at the s a m e time a demonic being, governs everything else, a n d particularly the actions of the gods in the s t o r y . Siva, w h o is himself not d e m o n i a c a l , but assumes, in the life o f the universe, the disagreeable but necessary function of destroyer, liquidator, thus the " p r i mus m o t o r " of regeneration, nonetheless h a s a m a r k e d predilection f o r great d e m o n s . O p p o s i n g h i m , Vinu always bides his time, a n d w h e n it c o m e s , puts an end to the outrage of a victorious d e m o n w h o m his colleague has put up with, sometimes at the price of b e ing the first to suffer f r o m it. Here o n e m a y read with profit the end of the excellent description c o m p o s e d nearly t w o centuries ago b y a virtually forgotten observer, the C o l o n e l de Poller, o f the relations between Siva a n d the d e m o n s , o r as he calls t h e m , Mhadaio [ M a h a deva, Siva] a n d the Daints [daityas, d e m o n s ] . " " M o s t o f the time, according t o the tales, the disciples of this Deiotas [devata, divinity] n a m e d Can [ganas, t r o o p s o f spirits] are the Daints. R a v e n , tyrant of L a n c a , w h o s e crimes and oppression o c casioned the seventh incarnation o f Vi?nu, w a s a zealous a d mirer of M h a d a i o . H e offered him his head in sacrifice. T h e D e i o t a s repaid h i m with ten m o r e of t h e m , a n d this D a i n t s having again sacrificed them to his celestial p a t r o n , the latter, m o v e d b y gratitude f o r such constant d e v o t i o n , thought h e
^Edward. W. Hopkins, op. cit., p. 211. " Mythologie des Indous, travaillee par Mme la Chnesse de Polier, sur des manuscrits authentiques apportes de I'lnde par feu M. le Colonel de Polier, Membre de la Societe asiatique de Calcutta, Roudolstadt and Paris, 2 vols. (1809) (see below. Appendix). The colonel had collected the material around 1780 from his informant the Pundit Ramacandra ("Ramtchund"); his cousin presented it in the form of Ramtchund's explanations, set off by judicious questions or remarks from his pupil; see ME I, pp. 4 2 - 4 4 . The passage quoted here is in I, 221-223.

81

StarkaSr and Sisupala could or\ly acquit himself t o w a r d s his devotee b y endowir\g him with the property such that to w h a t e v e r degree a limb should be cut from h i m , it w o u l d reappear instantly, and that he could not be put to death save until nine hundred million nine hundred thousand heads should be cut f r o m h i m , the which rendered the defeat of this monster so difficult that it w a s necessary for Vi?nu himself to be incarnated to purge the earth of h i m . " "I had thought until n o w , " said M o n s i e u r de Polier, " t h a t the multitude of heads and arms with which y o u r great deiotas are represented was their exclusive a t t r i b u t e . " " N o , " answered the T e a c h e r , "this is not at all o n e of the m a r k s of their superiority, for the D a i n t s in the first three epochs are almost all e n d o w e d with heads and a r m s infinitely, and nearly all with invulnerability; and although these prerogatives are most of the time the gifts of M h a d a i o , nevertheless their extraordinary strength, the attribute of their gigantic race, gives them already so much pride, a m b i t i o n , and means of doing evil that there is n o o n e but Vi?nu w h o could correct or destroy t h e m . T h e R a j a h Bhanasser, in his devotions addressed to M h a daio, had so often repeated the offering of his head, and the recompense accorded b y the D e i o t a s had also been so often renewed, that the wearied M h a d a i o at last entreated his serv a n t to m o d e r a t e his zeal, b y which he h a d acquired such an excess of strength and pride that after having subjugated the earth and the heavens, he complained that there n o longer existed any being against w h o m he could try his strength. T o u c h e d by his misery, M h a d a i o consoled him b y predicting that Vi^nu in o n e of his incarnations w o u l d do him the h o n o r of fighting with h i m . Indeed the battle t o o k place, a n d the Daints, losing one after another of his heads and arms, also lost his pride and b e c a m e a sincere devotee of V i n u . " " F r o m these tales it s e e m s , " said M . de Polier, "that M h a daio is the protector and a v o w e d friend of the D a i n t s . " " A t least," replied the Pundit, "in n o n e of the generally admitted tales does o n e see him incarnated as Vinu for the purpose of destroying this evil race. A n d although his votaries

82

StarkaSr and Sisupala claim that h e has appeared to his devotees in a thousand and eight different f o r m s , nonetheless one finds in the tales which comprise the account of the P u r a n a s n o detailed history of these appearances, n o r the character which the m y t h o l o g y attributes to a true incarnation a n d which is, as I h a v e told y o u , the birth of the D e i o t a s in a h u m a n o r animal b o d y to fulfil a general aim important t o the well-being of m a n k i n d and directly influence the events a n d a c t i o n s which restore order a n d virtue on the earth. In judging in this regard the appearances of M h a d a i o , o n e sees that they a r e only transitory, restricted t o his devotees, and that they appear rather transformations o r m e t a m o r p h o s e s o f a magician than incarnations o f a d i v i n i t y . " T h i s presentation, consistent with the epic a n d Puraijic m y t h o l o g y , expresses the essence a n d sufficiently explains the roles a n d relationships of the hero a n d the t w o g o d s . But that c a n n o t be enough f o r u s . W e must g o b a c k further, albeit hypothetically, since the c o m p a r i s o n with the saga of Starcatherus proves that the material of the story of Sisupala considerably antedates the version which w e read in the epic. Let us note first that it is n o t so certain, at least in settings other than those where the Vedic h y m n s a n d prose treatises were c o m posed, that the opposition o f R u d r a a n d Vi?nu w a s not already present as a structure. In an earlier w o r k , w e h a v e seen in outline, beneath the heroic transposition presented b y the Mahabharata, a m y t h o l o g y which is v e r y old and m o r e complete than the Vedic one, entaihng f o r example a n e s c h a t o l o g y : the destruction, then salvaging of the Kuru dynasty h a v e been overlaid on a m y t h of c o s mic crisisthe end of o n e world a n d the beginning of a n o t h e r w h o s e pre-Vedic character is guaranteed b y Iranian a n d especially S c a n d i n a v i a n parallels; its agents a r e A s v a t t h a m a n f o r the destruction and Krna f o r the salvation, that is clearly R u d r a - S i v a and Vi^pu i n c a r n a t e . ' In the Vedic h y m n s themselves, although R u d r a ( o n e of the most important future c o m p o n e n t s of Siva) is not set dramatically in opposition, or theologically in diptych with
= ME I, pp. 208-245.

83

StarkaSr a n d Sisupala

V i j o u , the functions of the t w o gods a r e nevertheless contradict o r y , and in a w a y which prefigures the epic version. T h e main service which Vi?nu renders to Indra, whose assistant he is, a n d also to other gods and even t o m a n k i n d sprung f r o m M a n u , is, b y steps beginning with the f a m o u s "three steps" which h e takes in so m a n y mythological a n d ritual contexts, to give them their w o r k i n g o r living space, as if this acreage (root ma-) would add t o their domain, to the domain of O r d e r , portions of space which at first eluded them.* In this role, he is quite the opposite of the Vedic Rudra, w h o s e traits were disentangled b y the careful study of Ernst A r b m a n : ' R u d r a is the patron of all that has not yet been domesticated b y m a n o r society, hence the master all at once of the hazards a n d risks inherent in the wilderness of the vast unexplored c o u n t r y which surrounds the little h a u n t s of m e n , their n a r r o w roads a n d vulnerable crossroads; the master o f the b u s h , with its aberrant population o f ascetics as well as brigands, an extension of the c h a o s at the fringe and sometimes even at the heart of civilized lands, with its monsters, its m y r i a d plants, the powers of poison a n d cure it holds in store; the master, m o r e generally, o f w h a t at a n y time and under a n y circumstances o f life is analogous to the wild, o f all that m e n w a n t to m a k e their o w n but have n o t yet brought to pass, and which holds the m y s t e r y a n d ambiguity of the un-begun: the new dish o r linen, the meal that is only barely prepared, the enterprise that is only planned. S u c h seems t o h a v e been the original nature of this Rudra whose n a m e is best explained b y the root o f the Latin rudis "rough, unpolished," and w h o is easily split up into an infinity of Rudras each attached to such a r o a d , o b j e c t , e t c . C o n cealed in the forest o r on the m o u n t a i n , he is at the same time the persecutor whose lethal a r r o w arrives f r o m s o m e u n k n o w n direction, a n d the k n o w e r of remedies, of herbs which destroy illness. N o t evil, b u t m o r a l l y neutral, at o n c e powerful and undetermined.

* "Vifpu et les Mar(it a travers la reforme zoroastrienne," Journal asiatique CCXLII (1953), 1 - 2 5 . ' Rudra, Untersuchungen zum altindischen Glauben und Kultus (1922); cf. Archaic Roman Religion (1970), pp. 418-419.

84

S t a r k a 6 r a n d Sisupala

If these characteristics o f V i j i j u and Rudra are valid for the Vedic texts, it is p r o b a b l e that in m o r e ancient times, during a n d before the migrations which led bands of Indo-Europeans to the Five Rivers, the t w o divinities conceived in this w a y were even m o r e i m p o r t a n t : Ind(a)ra gave v i c t o r y to the c o n q u e r o r s , but it w a s Vi?nu w h o opened the w a y for h i m , a n d through h i m , opened the w a y f o r them through the u n k n o w n , b a r b a r o u s realm w h e r e , besides d e m o n s , there already lived a god of their tribe, the alarming and necessary R u d r a . Well before the composition of the Sabhdparvan, before the amplification a n d elevation of R u d r a - S i v a and Visnu b y the classical m y t h o l o g y , at a time when the epic material m a y well h a v e been a "fifth V e d a , " the story of Siupala could therefore have existed essentially as w e read it, presenting the same gods. B o m with those superfluous arms a n d eye, Sisupala is the product of an exuberance, an excess of nature; he reproduces the figure o f R u d r a - S i v a , and a b o v e all, Rudra-Siva can t a k e pleasure in h i m : he is of his d o m a i n . Vi?nu tames him b y his mere touch, that is, he adapts him, at least in physical appearance, to life in society, making o f him a n o r m a l h u m a n being. But within, he is not transformed f o r all that, and the conflict goes o n between this incorrigible outsider and the saving, restoring, regulating god, until the m o m e n t when it is Vinu, the civilized o n e , w h o prevails, and emerging f r o m his long f o r b e a r a n c e , puts an end to the challenger's perpetual aggression. But, at this very instant, the challenger is enlightened, the outsider is converted and b e c o m e s a part of Vi$nu, as all land wrested f r o m the bush b e c o m e s a portion o f the village o r the k i n g d o m .

4.

ODIN AND THOR

Let us imagine the reverse, an ideology where the disquieting Rudra would d o m i n a t e this c o n f r o n t a t i o n and would h a v e the last w o r d in it, where R u d r a would b e m o r e prestigious if not m o r e powerful than V i $ n u a n d w e shall b e very close t o the explanation of the career of S t a r c a t h e r u s . 85

StarkaSr and Sisupala

Spending m a n y years exploring all o v e r the Indo-European w o r l d mythological derivatives, as well as d e f o r m a t i o n s , of the trifunctional structure, I h a v e t o o exclusively defined O d i n as a S c a n dinavian V a r u n a . S o he is, t o b e sure, a n d in the Harbardsljdd f o r example, his opposition to T h o r , with the often offensive stichom a c h y which expresses it, is well illuminated b y the Vedic texts where V a r u n a a n d Indra boastingly c o n f r o n t each other, the magical a n d terrible sovereign on o n e side, the prestigious c h a m p i o n on the other. But the rich nature of O d i n is n o t exhausted b y this formula.' Within the trifunctional structure itself, I myself have m a n y times pointed out the e v o l u t i o n , peculiar t o the G e r m a n i c world, b y which w a r h a s , so to speak, overflowed f r o m the warrior level to the sovereign level: m u c h m o r e than T h o r , O d i n concerns himself with battle a n d c o m b a t a n t s , with the fighting aristocracy at the very least; T h o r is rather the solitary, irresistible c h a m p i o n , a sort o f V a y u o r B h i m a whose chief exploit, moreoverstorm, thunder a n d r a i n a t t r a c t s t o h i m the worship of the peasant, while O d i n is interested in the people in a r m s (which w a s the n o r m a l state of m a n y a G e r m a n i c society) a n d in the c o m m a n d e r of the a r m y . T h e r e is a kind of slippage in the terms of the c a n o n i c a l list of the S c a n d i n a v i a n gods, c o m p a r e d with those of the Vedic h y m n s a n d rituals:' (1) Varuna Odin f Indra (2) 1 Vayu (3) ^ fThor fertility g o d s ) \ fertility gods (2) a n d (3) (3) ) (1) a n d (2)

* Gods of the Ancient Northmen (1973), chap. 2. ' Cf. "The Rigsjjula and Indo-European Social Structure" in Gods of the Ancient Northmen, pp. 118-125.

86

StarkaSr a n d Sisupala

But this is not yet a l l . Following J a k o b Wilhelm H a u e r (1927), Rudolf O t t o (1932) a n d J a n de Vries (1957) h a v e listed an i m pressive n u m b e r of traits, physical a n d mental, o f c h a r a c t e r a n d b e h a v i o r , b y which O d i n is rather h o m o l o g o u s with Rudra.^" N o t all a r e c o n v i n c i n g , s o m e are not even e x a c t , but important ones rem a i n : b o t h a r e tireless wanderers, they like t o appear to m e n only in disguise, unrecognizable, O d i n with a hat pulled d o w n t o his eyes, R u d r a with his u?nT?a falling o v e r his face; O d i n is the master of the runes a s Rudra is kavi; a n d a b o v e all the b a n d s of Rudra's devotees, b o u n d b y a v o w , endowed with powers a n d privileges, recall sometimes the berserkir, sometimes the einherjar of O d i n . T h i s sovereign god, this magician, unarguably has o n e o f his bases in the mysterious region where the savage borders o n the civilized. Like R u d r a - S i v a , he is often, in terms of ordinary rules, even imm o r a l a n d T h o r is n o t shy a b o u t so telling him w h e n they trade charges. Like Rudra-Siva, he has his taste f o r h u m a n sacrifice, particularly the self-sacrifice of his v o t a r i e s . " M o r e generally, like R u d r a - S i v a , he has in h i m something almost d e m o n i c : his friendship a n d weakness f o r Loki a r e well k n o w n ; but Loki is the malicious rogue w h o , o n e fine d a y , in arranging the murder o f Baldr, takes on the dimensions o f a "spirit of evil," of the greatest e v i l . " A m o n g the N o r t h G e r m a n i c s , d e m o n s primarily appear a s the giants. W i t h them t o o , O d i n has m o r e than o n e c o n n e c t i o n . O n his father's side he is descended, through very few intermediate generations, f r o m a rather singular giant, a s a matter o f fact the primordial giant, Y m i r , a n d his m o t h e r is the very daughter o f a giant with the disquieting n a m e B6l{)orn, 'Spine o f w o e . ' M a n y times he evinces a strangely conciliatory, pacifist feeling regarding the worst giants, a n d it then requires the intervention of T h o r t o extricate

^ Jakob Wilhelm Hauer, Der Vratya, Untersuchungen iiber nichtbrahmanische Religion Altindiens, I (1927), 189-240 ("Die Vratya als sivaitische Bacchanten"); Rudolf Otto, Gottheit und Gottheiten der Arier {1932), pp. 58-60; Jan de Vries, Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte' (1957), pp. 9 5 - 9 6 . Cf. "Hanging and Drowning," appendix I to From Myth to Fiction (1973). " See Dumezil, Loki (Paris, 1948); German edition, 1959.

87

Starkadr and Sisupala

h i m , b y killing the giant, f r o m the predicament in which this disposition has placed h i m , along with the other gods: thus he has led Hrungnir within the walls of the / E s i r , and the giant threatens to w a l k off with everything, provisions and the most beautiful goddesses, and he w o u l d do it did not T h o r , invoked in extremis b y the gods, i n t e r v e n e . " All this is truly Sivaistic. Let us read again Poller's d e s c r i p t i o n : " A f a m o u s D a i n t s , n a m e d Basmagut [ = ? ] , w a s curious to k n o w which of the three D e i o t a s [ B r a h m a , Vi^nu, Siva] surpassed him in greatness and strength. He consulted N a r d m a n [ N a r a d a m u n i ] , w h o replied that it was M h a d a i o [ M a h a deva = R u d r a - S i v a ] . . . . Basmagut, wishing to profit from the instructions of N a r d m a n , began his sacrifice [to M h a d a i o , by mutilating himself]. T h e D e i o t a s , flattered b y the zeal and earnestness which the D a i n t s showed in his service, appeared to him a c c o m panied b y P a r b u t t y [ParvatT]. A t the mere sight of M h a d a i o , not only was the mutilated b o d y of the D a i n t s returned to its natural state, but he received also f r o m the D e i o t a s the p o w e r of reducing to ashes any o b j e c t s on which he placed his hands with the intention of consuming them. M e a n w h i l e the sight and the charms of P a r b u t t y inspired in the D a i n t s the most violent passion, and this being, as ungrateful as he was wicked, s a w n o other m e a n s of ridding himself of an i n c o n v e nient spouse than to use against M h a d a i o himself the gift which he had received f r o m h i m . T h e D e i o t a s , w h o perceives the intentions of B a s m a g u t , evades him, but the D a i n t s pursues h i m . B y n o w M h a d a i o , nearly being caught, k n o w s n o m o r e h o w to escape h i m , and in the anguish w h i c h he feels sees no other recourse than to repair to Vi^nu w h o , immediately assuming the shape of P a r b u t t y , appears b e f o r e the D a i n t s ; a n d , pretending to be susceptible to his advances, assures him that she prefers him to her lout of a h u s b a n d , w h o is forever
Skdldskaparmal, 25 ( = Edda Snorra Sturlusonar, ed. Finnur Jonsson [1931], pp. 100-103); cf. The Destiny of the Warrior (1970), pp. 157-160. '" I, 221-223 (see above, p. 81, n. 4)

88

StarkaSr and Sisupala

drunk, surrounded b y snakes, and apt to inspire disgust rather than l o v e . "Nevertheless," adds the false P a r b u t t y , " h e has in his w a y of dancing such an irresistible c h a r m that then all his ugliness vanishes to m y e y e s . " A t these words B a s m a g u t , transported with j o y o v e r the f a v o r a b l e inclination that P a r b u t t y showed h i m , w a n t s to win further f a v o r in her eyes and insists that she teach h i m the dance she is speaking of. S h e agrees and the lesson begins. But V i j i j u , in the guise of the D e i o t a n y [goddess], takes c a r e to thicken the M a y a [the mayd] o r cloud t h r o w n o v e r the D a i n t s ' senses, so that he completely forgets the deadly gift he received f r o m M h a d a i o , and has no thought but to follow and imitate the m o v e m e n t s of the f a k e P a r b u t t y . H e sees her carelessly put a h a n d on her h e a d , does the s a m e , and instantly reduces himself to ashes. H o w e v e r satisfied Vi^iju was to have delivered his colleague f r o m the danger to w h i c h the latter h a d exposed himself, he reproached him f o r his imprudence. "I a g r e e , " answered M h a d a i o , "I c a n n o t resist the devotions of m y w o r shippers, although I k n o w full well that most of the time they m a k e very ill use of m y f a v o r s . B u t , " he added, "I place m y trust in y o u , y o u r indulgence supports m y w e a k n e s s , it does not permit me to suffer f r o m m y o w n i m p r o v i d e n c e . " A f t e r doing this h o m a g e to Vi?iju, he intoned a h y m n in praise of him. A s opposed to O d i n , T h o r , all of a piece, is rigor itself. His relationships with the giants are summed up in one w o r d : he exterminates them b y his extreme strength, aided only occasionally b y the ruse of a c o m p a n i o n , Loki or T h j a l f i . His constant mission is to save the gods and the world b y destroying this b r o o d . A Vi?nu minus the c h a r m , he performs it without subtlety or c o m p r o m i s e . W e see h o w , though it does not m a t c h the relationship of R u d r a - S i v a and V i j n u , that of O d i n and T h o r covers to an extent the same ground. T h e overriding difference is that V i ^ n u i n the only sense that matters hereis superior to R u d r a - S i v a , even c o n stituting his ultimate recourse, while O d i n , notwithstanding his imprudences with the giants, is superior to T h o r , hierarchically speak-

89

StarkaSr and Sisupala

ing and apparently also in the degree of esteem accorded him b y h u m a n society. His c o m p l e x i t y , his magical k n o w l e d g e , the posth u m o u s happiness he assures his followers in V a l h o l l , all m a k e him theologically m o r e interesting. T h o r is invoked in present dangers, h o n o r e d on high-seat pillars as the watchful guardian of dwellings, given thanks for the rain that fertilizes the fields, but he does not have at his disposal the large assortment of f a v o r s , especially the m o r e mysterious ones, which enable O d i n , with all his s h o r t c o m ings, to remain until R a g n a r o k the highest g o d , the true sovereign. T h e s e observations allow us to understand the role of the divine pair in the story of S t a r k a S r . B y the mere fact that S t a r k a S r is a giant or the grandson of a giant, he has T h o r against h i m . M o r e o v e r , it is natural that the god w h o everywhere reestablishes the threatened order does not tolerate his m o n s t r o s i t y . O d i n on the other h a n d takes offense neither at membership in the race of giants n o r at the traces left behind b y extra a r m s : just as he rides an eightlegged steed born of a giant's h o r s e , " in the s a m e w a y he can m a k e use of this disturbing superman, and to this end t a k e s him to a certain extent under his protection; he relies on him f o r a questionable deed, a h u m a n sacrifice w h o s e victim, a king, is not consenting, and he rewards this crime with the gift of three lives. O u r observations also allow us to specify at w h a t points, regarding the role of the gods, a n d consequently that of the h e r o , the stories of S t a r k a S r and Sisupala agree, and where they diverge. If for convenience we call O d i n and Rudra-Siva the " d a r k g o d s , " and T h o r a n d Vinu the "light g o d s , " each of the two heroes, b y nature, belongs entirely to the dark god and is opposed b y the light g o d . But the structures are almost reversed b y the fact that in S c a n d i n a via the d a r k god holds the first place, being m o r e important in this
" Cylfaginning, 26 ( = Edda Snorra, ed. F. Jonsson, pp. 45-47); see Jan de Vries, Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte', II (1957), 63-64, and Mircea Eliade, Le Chamanisme^ (1969), pp. 300, 302, 304 n. 3 (on the horse Sleipnir), 364-365 (on eight-legged horses in Siberia, Japan, etc.). Besides StarkaSr, Sleipnir is the only example in the Scandinavian myths of a being endowed with an abnormal number of limbs.

| | f ' ^; | * | ;X |

90

StarkaSr and Sisupala

life and especially in that to c o m e , and that consequently his f a v o r is the m o r e desirable, the light god having only an immediate and limited range; whereas in the Indian legend it is the light god w h o is in the spotlight a n d directs the g a m e , and w h o s e f a v o r in this life and in the hereafter is m o s t fervently sought, while the d a r k god acts o n l y implicitly, without showing himself, through the " R u d r a i c " nature of the h e r o . T h e result is that S t a r k a S r is, on the whole, a g o o d h e r o , Sisupala an evil o n e . Obedient to the theology, the reader gives his s y m p a t h y to S t a r k a S r , and withholds it f r o m Sisupala. T h i s orientation continues in the conclusion of the t w o tales. T h e god into w h o m , at the instant of his decapitation, the h e r o transfuses (or wishes to transfuse) the m o s t valuable part of himself is in India the light god, in S c a n d i n a v i a , if not the dark god himself (Odin), then at l e a s t d o w n g r a d e d to a y o u n g m a n a god of his circle, and one of the closest (HoSr); the highest happiness consists, on one side, in merging with V i i p u , on the other in rejoining the w o r l d of O d i n .

5.

THE ROLES

OF THE GODS I N THE TWO

LEGENDS

T w o superimposed tables will usefully summarize the f o r e g o ing considerations b y assigning to each of the h o m o l o g o u s gods his corresponding part in the c h a r a c t e r and b e h a v i o r of the h e r o . A f t e r the gigantic and m o n s t r o u s (with supernumerary arms) birth ( S a x o ) or descent (saga) of the h e r o , Odin: I. *H6Sr: Thor: T h o r restores the hero t o h u m a n

91

Starkadr arid Sisupala

Odin:

*H63r:

Thor: f o r m either directly, b y a m p u t a tion ( S a x o ) , o r indirectly, via the killing of his homonymous grandfather (saga).

II.

O d i n grants the hero his three lives and imposes on him the three crimes, with other, g o o d lots ( S a x o ) ; or: O d i n grants the hero three lives with o t h e r , g o o d lots (saga).

and T h o r imposes on the hero the three crimes, along with other evil lots (saga).

III.

T h r o u g h one of his gifts, O d i n is responsible f o r the hero's m a n y victories ( S a x o & saga).

a n d , through o n e of his lots, T h o r is responsible f o r the hero's terrible w o u n d s (saga).

O d i n is responsible f o r the three crimes (distributed across the three

92

StarkaSr a n d Sisupala

Odin: functions) and particularly the first, which he orders, directs and c o m pletes ( S a x o ) ; or: the first of them (the only one recounted in the saga) is ordered, directed and c o m pleted b y O d i n (saga). I V . A s god of kings, O d i n is undoubtedly responsible f o r the hero's royalist ideology, violated only in the three crimes (in S a x o and partly the saga). V.

*H65r:

Thor:

T h o r is responsible for the three crimes.

T h e third crime d o n e , the hero urges Hatherus to behead h i m , a n d wishes to transmit to Hatherus a p o w e r of his being by having him pass between his head a n d torso (Saxo)

93

StarkaSr and Sisupala

[Rudra-Siva, implicitly]: R . , in his preceding incarnations, h a s protected the d e m o n of w h o m the hero is the last incarnation. T h e hero is b o r n in the monstrous shape of R. (extra arms and eye) a n d receives the n a m e Sisupala, a caique on R.'s epithet

Pasu-pati;

Krsi^a, b y his touch, restores the b a b y to h u m a n shape.

II.

T h e hero's " R u d r a i c " tendency destines him to offend Kr?na, and K r j n a grants the hero impunity which will guarantee his life up to the hundredth offense.

III. T h r o u g h the protection he accords to the king w h o s e general the hero is, R . is responsible for the hero's multiple victories, m a n y of which are w o n at the e x pense of Krspa. T h r o u g h the hero's " R u d r a i c " orientation, R . is responsible for the quick accomplishment of the hundred offenses against Krs^ta, particularly the five characteristic ones (distributed over the three functions).

94

StarkaSr and Sisupala

[ R u d r a - S i v a , implicitly]: IV. V. [see the following chapter] T h e hundred offenses accomplished, the hero b y a hundred a n d first offense p r o v o k e s K r j n a into beheading h i m , a n d , emerging f r o m his decapitated b o d y , the hero's spiritual energy flows into K r ? n a in the f o r m of light.

T h e reader will n o t e that one section of this table, the fourth, remains obscure. It will be m a d e clear in the next chapter, b y further considerations, but h o w e v e r it m a y be explained, and setting aside the role of the gods, the fact itself is certain: Sisupala and S t a r k a S r appear as the defenders of the rights and the majesty of kings, and yet turn their crimes against these rights and this m a j esty. If, as we have been led to admit, these t w o figures and their histories g o b a c k to a time when the ancestors of the G e r m a n i c s and those of the Indie peoples were neighbors s o m e w h e r e between the Baltic and the Black S e a , this fact is i m p o r t a n t . It reveals a feature of the r o y a l ideology of the most ancient Indo-Europeans, or at least a part of t h e m : the c h a m p i o n ' s a m b i g u o u s attitude toward the king, o r as T a c i t u s w o u l d h a v e said, of the dux t o w a r d s the rex, h a d already produced epic tales. T o be sure, in the versions we read, kingship is adjusted according to place and time. T h e Frotho w h o m Starcatherus p r o tects, whose children he reforms, the W i c a r u s and O l o Vegetus w h o m he betrays and kills, are modelled either on the Danish kings of the twelfth and thirteenth c e n t u r i e s , " or on the Viking kings w h o
' * f r o m Myth to Fiction (1973), introduction to Appendix 2 ("Gram").

95

Starkadr a n d Sisupala

had prospered during the preceding centuries; a n d these f o r m s of kingship, especially the first, a r e more majestic, m o r e firmly established, than those described in the Germania. T h e royalty w h o s e prestige Sisupala defends is epic kingship, w h i c h w e do not see taking shape under o u r eyes like that of V a l d e m a r (India has n o history), but which is certainly quite different, but also more solemn and imperial, than w h a t w e c a n glimpse of Vedic kingships. But these changes are expected; to survive the course of time, a mythical o r legendary record of kingship is inevitably a n d c o n stantly c o l o r e d b y prevailing tastes, f r o m o n e century a n d one period t o a n o t h e r . A l l that the comparison of the t w o stories compels us to admit is that, from Indo-European times, with a m o r e archaic a n d undoubtedly fragile, as well as m o r e magical status, kingship w a s considered the highest value, in n o w a y c o m p a r a b l e with other levels of society, which latter m a y h a v e been m o r e powerful and even threatening in practice, but w e r e ideologically inferior. W h a t is so surprising in this? D i d not every Vedic a n d Scandinavian petty king, w h a t e v e r his w e a k n e s s , have as his patron g o d the all-powerful master of the universe, V a r u p a o r Odin? A s f o r the fact itself that a complex and subtle royal ideology, laden with legends, h a d existed a m o n g the Indo-Europeans before their dispersal a n d had survived in the " d a u g h t e r " societies, this h a s been established b y previous s t u d i e s ; ' ' the present o n e merely supports it with a new example. I shall be content with directing the reader to a n o t h e r study,'* to the astonishing correspondence of the Indian Y a y a t i , with his sons, his daughter MadhavT and his ephemeral sons-in-law, and the Irish Eochaid Feidlech, with his sons, his daughter M e d b a n d his unstable sons-in-law. If the G e r m a n s h a v e lost o r n o t k n o w n the w o r d *reg- and given the king a different n a m e , they have nonetheless preserved, as w e see here, c o m p l e x legends which illustrate aspects of the kingly function.
' ' T o mention only accordances between the Vedic rdjan and the Roman reg-, see Archaic Roman Religion (1970), pp. 224-228 (the asvamedha and the October Horse), pp. 583-585 (the rex, the Brahman, and the flamines maiores). The Destiny of a King (1973). 96


v -

JARASANDHA
'. ^ '

1.

ODIN,

RUDRA-SIVA

AND THE SACRIFICED

KINGS

"

It is o b v i o u s that the relationships between the hero a n d the kings a r e the most coherent in the Scandinavian s t o r y . Starcatherus is not a king himself, he serves kings. His lofty ideal of the kingly function is that of a high-level servant, equally c a p a b l e , according to circumstances, of serving as his master's b o d y g u a r d o r as tutor o f his children. Even in the three crimes which he is b o u n d to c o m m i t he never evinces the slightest wish to usurp: in the murder of V i k a r he merely helps O d i n , a n d if he kills O l o Vegetus, his failing is o n e o f venality, not o f a m b i t i o n . Sisupala, on the c o n t r a r y , is a king, a king a m o n g those gathered around the son of Pan<^u f o r the rajasuya. From the scene he m a k e s when Krsna/ w h o is n o king, finds himself singled out f o r special h o n o r s , o n e h a s the impression that he feels in the first place personally offended, a n d that he generalizes his grievance, speaking in the n a m e of all the assembled kings, merely as a device rather generally used in such situations. Likewise, if the five exemplary crimes which Kr?na singles out are aimed against kings, n o n e is the chief crime of regicide. His "first-function c r i m e " does affect the king in the d o m a i n of the sacred, o n the occasion of a sacrifice which would h a v e increased the king's prestige a n d which he m a k e s impossible b y stealing the 97

Jarasandha

victim, but this victim is only a horse. S t a r c a t h e r u s , in contrast, in t w o of his crimes, kills a king w h o is his master, a n d the first of the crimes consists in " s e n d i n g " O d i n , at his insistence. King V i k a r , that is, sacrificing the latter b y m e a n s of a deception in which S t a r catherus is the god's a c c o m p l i c e . T h u s w e are led to think that the S c a n d i n a v i a n version, o n these t w o points, is m o r e c o n s e r v a t i v e t h e m o r e s o since h u m a n sacrifice, attested in S c a n d i n a v i a until the c o n v e r s i o n to Christianity, is certainly something archaic, and hence, when it is found in a s t o r y , there is little chance of its having been added after the f a c t . But w e h a v e p r o o f that India, o n these same t w o points, has in fact modified the plot, and w e c a n understand the cause of these changes: the history of Sisupala must n o t b e considered a l o n e , it f o r m s the second panel of a diptych of which the first is n o less interesting. Sisupala's verbal a t t a c k , at the very m o m e n t w h e n Y u d h i j t h i r a is at last a b o u t to celebrate his rdjasuya, is in fact o n l y the second a n d last obstacle confronting the c e r e m o n y . T h e r e has been a n o t h e r one, just before the beginning of the preparations. When Yudhisthira deems that the m o m e n t has c o m e to celebrate this sacrifice, understood here, w e recall, a s an imperial act conferring on the sacrificer primacy over all kings, he consults K r j n a , w h o approves it, but w a r n s h i m of a p r o b l e m . T h e r e is a n o t h e r king, namely Jarasandha of M a g a d h a , w h o h a s already realized in practice, without sacrifice, the object of the rdjasuya, a n d h a s subjugated most of the kings.' A n d h o w has he gained this success? Certainly his general has h a d n o small part in it (574):^ " A n o t h e r king, the mighty Sisupala, h a s gone over c o m pletely to his side a n d h a s indeed, wise prince, b e c o m e his marshal." T h u s , though a king, Sisupala finds here, in the service of a n o t h e r king, the r a n k a n d function which Starcatherus holds under several kings.
^Mahabharata, pp. 57-66 (si. 559-767). ^ Reminding one of the words of Marshal Joffre, when some people disputed his credentials as the victor of the Marne: "They don't know who won the battle? I know well enough who would have lost it!"

Jarasandha

Krna then resumes the history of these c a m p a i g n s , several of v^hich have been directed against the Y a d a v a s K r j n a ' s f a m i l y and o n e of which h a s even forced them to leave the c o u n t r y , a n d he names the great warriors w h o m J a r a s a n d h a has h a d at his c o m m a n d ; to this point w e have only the description of a c o n q u e r o r , like so m a n y others, w h o m Yudhi$thira must eliminate if he wishes to b e able to celebrate his imperial sacrifice. But J a r a s a n d h a is unique. H i s victories, ensured b y his general, h a v e a solemn f o u n dation a n d a cruel o u t c o m e ( 6 2 7 - 6 2 9 ) : " A f t e r he h a d defeated them all, he imprisoned the kings in his mountain c o r r a l , G i r i v r a j a , as a lion imprisons great elephants in a c a v e of the H i m a l a y a . King J a r a s a n d h a w a n t s t o sacrifice the lords of the earth. . . . " Sacrifice t o what god? T o R u d r a - S i v a , to M a h a d e v a , t o w h o m he o w e s his victories ( 6 2 9 ) : " . . . f o r it w a s after he h a d worshiped the G r e a t G o d that he defeated the kings o n the battlefield." T h u s , b o t h allies will turn a profit: t o J a r a s a n d h a will g o the samrajya, supreme kingship; to the g o d , as victims, the kings. T h e r e f o r e , concludes K r j n a , Yudhigfhira should destroy J a r a s a n dha f o r t w o reasons: o n e the personal interest in his o w n rajasuya which J a r a s a n d h a , while he lives, m a k e s impossible; the other, o n e of general m o r a l i t y , the deliverance of the kings w h o a w a i t , penned up like cattle, the time o f their sacrifice. A s is frequent in the Mahabharata, this revelation occasions between Y u d h i j t h i r a a n d K r ? n a a lengthy discussion, in which BhTma gets involved. Krna does n o t conceal the fact that the e x pedition will be difficult: o n e hundred dynasties h a v e b e e n unable to withstand this a m b i t i o u s empire-builder; the most sumptuous gifts have not averted a n y of his a t t a c k s . A n d he supplies; a n important piece o f information ( 6 5 8 - 6 5 9 ) : " W h a t j o y of life is left t o the kings w h o a r e sprinkled and cleansed in the house of Pasupati [ = Siva] as sacrificial a n i m a l s , bull of the Bharatas? . . . Eighty-six kings, king,
99

Jarasandha

have been led to their jail b y J a r a s a n d h a ; king, fourteen are left, a n d then he will begin his a t r o c i t y ! " A n d Krna concludes ( 6 5 9 ) : " H e w h o frustrated h i m in this would achieve a blazing f a m e . A n d he w h o defeats Jarasandha will certainly b e c o m e Sovereign." Y u d h i j t h i r a hesitates, A r j u n a encourages h i m , Kr?na insists. T h e n Y u d h i j f h i r a poses the question w e are waiting f o r . W h o is this J a r a s a n d h a ? W h a t gives h i m his p o w e r , such p o w e r that he has been able to take on Krsna himself without perishing? But before hearing Kr$na's a c c o u n t , let us observe that Jarasandha fills the e m p t y slot which remained in Sisupala's a c c o r d a n c e s with S t a r k aSr. A s does the Scandinavian hero with O d i n , Jarasandha lives at least implicitly under contract to R u d r a - S i v a - P a s u p a t i . T h e g o d assures him conquests a n d empire, a n d he will sacrifice to h i m n o t o n e king but a hundred of them, f o r w e a r e in India which is ena m o r e d of large numbers a n d speaks here of h e c a t o m b s , much as we h a v e heard Krna promise to forgive his nephew a hundred o f fenses. T h i s is h o w K r j n a satisfies Yudhigfhira's curiosity.

2.

JARASANDHA

AND S1UPALA

T h e r e w a s a n erstwhile king of M a g a d h a , n a m e d B f h a d r a t h a , a great c h a m p i o n and w a r l o r d . He married twin sisters, the rich and beautiful daughters of the king of Kasi, a n d in this double passion c o m m i t t e d a verbal blunder (693): T h i s bull a m o n g m e n m a d e a c o m p a c t with hiis wives in their presence, that he would never offend them b y preferring one to the other. Yet in vain did the king take his abundant pleasure with his two wives: he did not succeed in getting himself an heir. H e went into the forest to find a hermit w h o , like the dervishes in oriental tales.

100

Jarasandha

gave him a single m a n g o fruit, ekam dmraphalam,

a n d dismissed

him saying that his wish would b e fulfilled ( 6 9 8 - 7 0 7 ) . Returning t o his palace, he recalled the promise h e h a d made t o the t w o queens, divided the fruit, gave a half to each o n e , a n d waited. T h e t w o halffruits accomplished w h a t he h a d b e e n incapable o f : to his great j o y , the queens c o n c e i v e d . W h e n their time h a d c o m e , they gave b i r t h each t o a live half of a b o y . T h e p o o r w o m e n t o o k counsel, a n d the teratological specimens were c o n d e m n e d . T h e midwives wrapped them up carefully, left b y the b a c k d o o r , threw a w a y their unpleasant burdens, a n d c a m e hastily b a c k inside. A little later, a Rdk^ast, that is, a kind of ogress-demon, n a m e d J a r a l i t e r a l l y " O l d A g e " w h o w a s prowling in the neighborh o o d , f o u n d the t w o half-bodies at a crossroads. It w a s a tempting m e a l . S h e grabbed t h e m , and in order to carry them off m o r e easily, j o i n e d the t w o halves. A m a r v e l : they were instantly welded together, producing a well-formed a n d already prodigiously strong b o y , w h o rumbled like a cloud full of rain, a n d w o u l d not let h i m self b e taken a w a y . Alerted b y the c o m m o t i o n , the king c a m e out with the w o m e n - f o l k , as well as the queens, their breasts h e a v y with useless milk. T h e demoness then reflected that, living well in the d o m a i n of this king w h o s o ardently desired a son, she would be urigracious to eat this o n e up o n h i m . S h e thus decided to fast this time a r o u n d a n d , addressing B r h a d r a t h a , recounted the miracle to h i m , ascribing to herself a f a v o r a b l e part in it. T h e king forthwith declared a feast in h o n o r o f the Rdk^asi, a n d n a m e d the child Jardsamdha, because h e h a d been "put together, unified (samdhd-) b y J a r a . " Mysteriously informed of the event, the ascetic w h o had provided the m a n g o c a m e t o the p a l a c e a n d a n n o u n c e d the child's future. T h r o u g h a shower o f similes, w e learn that he will h a v e n o equal in b r a v e r y , strength a n d p o w e r , a n d that all kings will o b e y h i m . M o r e o v e r , he will b e invulnerable t o w e a p o n s , even those hurled b y gods, a n d a b o v e all, "transcending all the worlds with his might, the M a g a d h a n shall with his o w n eyes behold R u d r a , the G r e a t G o d , the D e s t r o y e r of the T h r e e Cities, he w h o is Hara" (748-749).

101

Jarasandha

T h e child g r o w s a n d b e c o m e s a m a n ; his father dies a n d goes to h e a v e n . H e succeeds h i m a n d the hermit's p r o p h e c y c o m e s true: n o b o d y c a n withstand his conquests, a n d w e k n o w besidesthe C a l c u t t a text recalls it h e r e t h a t , his son-in-law having been killed b y the elder b r o t h e r of Krgna, his wrath is directed preferentially against that f a m i l y , against the sons of V a s u d e v a , f o r w h o m he m a k e s life u n b e a r a b l e . A f t e r this a c c o u n t , a n d with some reluctance, Yudhigthira lets himself b e c o n v i n c e d : he must, b y liquidating J a r a s a n d h a , rescue the royal victims a n d m a k e possible the

rajasuya.
Let us pause o n c e m o r e t o observe the great s y m m e t r y that e x ists between the t w o heroes, the king a n d his general, b o t h m o n strous at birth a n d b o t h restored to h u m a n f o r m at the touch o f a supernatural being. Sisupala comes into the w o r l d with a superabundant b o d y : t w o a r m s t o o m a n y , o n e eye t o o m a n y ; if not t w o men in o n e , he is at least m o r e than o n e m a n . In order to draw f r o m h i m a h u m a n like the rest of us, one must m a k e the third e y e disappear a n d half of the a r m s drop a w a y . Jarasandha c o m e s into the w o r l d in t w o halves, each with only half the limbs a n d organs of a n o r m a l h u m a n : a single e y e , a single a r m , a n d so o n down t o the details of his innards a n d the t w o extremities o f his digestive system: a h a l f - s t o m a c h , a half-mouth, o n e single b u t t o c k . T o draw a n o r m a l h u m a n f r o m h i m , w h a t is needed is n o t pruning but welding. T h e magical surgery is therefore the inverse of, but h a s the same effect as that which Kr$na performs on Sisupala: in each case a m o n s t e r e i t h e r b y surplus o r deficitis, a s S a x o says, reduced to h u m a n measure. T h e miracle o c c u r s . W h a t is its origin, w h o is responsible f o r it? T h e text names Fate, daiva, the king's l u c k , bhagya, of w h i c h the ^flfcsasf has been only the m e a n s , the r a n d o m agent, hetumatra. But behind the screen of Fate? O n e detail is n o t e w o r t h y : it is at the meeting of four roads that the elements of the synthesis fall into the hands of the demoness w h o feeds o n flesh a n d b l o o d , a n d it is here, in o n e o f Rudra's favorite domains, that the marvel occurs. U n doubtedly this is the beginning of the relationships w h i c h will unite

102

Jarasandha

Rudra-Siva and the y o u n g prince, ties more public than those which unite R u d r a and Sisupala, w h o , marked at birth with the stigmata of Rudra, was transformed in a place where R u d r a could not intervene: the lap of Kr$na-Vi?nu. T h u s we have everything, in the story of Jarasandha, that is directly useful for understanding the I n d o - S c a n d i n a v i a n problem we are considering. But the end is interesting as it confirms that the authors have consciously established an inverted symmetry between Jarasandha and Sisupala. T h i s symmetry entails c o m m o n points, between which the action develops in opposite w a y s . T h e t w o c o m m o n points are: the " R u d r a i c " character of Jarasandha and Sisupala and the hostility evinced by both against Kr$na-Vi$nu, and the decisive intervention of Kr?na in the destruction of each of them, each time after a debate over the rights of kings. But just as at their births the "pruning" of one matched the "welding" of the other, we see between these fixed points only differences and contrasts. T h e following list summarizes the principal ones: 1. K f na does not himself slay Jarasandha, he has him killed by B h l m a , while he restrains B h l m a f r o m killing Sisupala, reserving this execution for himself. 2 . It is K f j n a w h o comes to Jarasandha with B h l m a and A r juna, and w h o provokes him and demands a duel, while Sisupala provokes Kf$ria a m o n g the Pa^idavas. 3 . K r j i j a makes himself, in the name of royal solidarity and the morality of the k?atriyas, the defender of kings abused by Jarasandha, while it is Sisupala w h o , in the name of majesty and rights of kings, defends the kings allegedly offended by the h o m a g e paid to K f ? i j a . 4 . T h e " R u d r a i c " Jarasandha remains loyal to his god until the end, upholding and defending the cruel v o w he has m a d e to him, and after his death has no "Vi?^iuite" enlightenment, while Sisupala is converted in the instant that follows his death, and merges lovingly with the god w h o executed him.

103

Jarasandha

Seen in this light, the "death of J a r a s a n d h a " can still b e of interest t o the reader.^

3.

T H E END OF J A R A S A N D H A

Yudhithira's wavering h a s e n d e d a n h o n o r a b l e hesitation, since this " M i t r a i c " king h a s been especially apprehensive of shedding the b l o o d of others. In the end he capitulates a n d leaves t o ICrna the task o f organizing the raid b y which, he says, " J a r a s a n dha will be slain, the kings saved, the rajasuya secured" (nihatasca

jarasandhah

mok$itasca mahik^itah rajasuyasca me

labdhah).

Kr$na takes with him BhTma a n d A r j u n a , a n d disguised as " a c complished b r a h m i n s " ("graduates," snataka), they go to the c o u n try of M a g a d h a a n d arrive b e f o r e its capital, G i r i v r a j a . T h e y get in not b y the d o o r but b y scaling the walls a n d breaking a venerated (caitya) m o n u m e n t found there, then they a d v a n c e with haughty mien toward the p a l a c e . T h e king receives them, but he is n o t fooled b y their disguises, a n d s o o n he shames them o v e r their deception: w h a t do these jewels m e a n on hands that s h o w the m a r k s of bowstrings? W h y pretend t o b e brahmins when they radiate the elan o f katriyas? H e calls on them t o reveal themselves f o r what they a r e . W i t h growing insolence, Krna answers. T h e y are in a n y case authentic snatakas, he says, f o r not o n l y b r a h m i n s , but ksatriyas a n d vaisyas t o o c a n take the v o w s o f snatakas. T h e n he admits implicitly that they are k j a t r i y a s b y saying that what counts a m o n g k j a t r i y a s is n o t their words but their deeds. Finally he e x plains their b e h a v i o r : if they got into the city b y the m o n u m e n t , it is because o n e gets into a friend's house b y the n o r m a l entrance, and into a n enemy's b y a deceptive o n e . Jarasandha is surprised: he has n o recollection of having b e e n at w a r o r having h a d "hostile relations" with t h e m . W h y d o they regard h i m , innocent as he is, a s an e n e m y ? K r ? n a has a ready
^Mahabharata, pp. 67-75 (si. 768-982).

ill

104

Jarasandha

a n s w e r . T h e head of a r o y a l line has sent them, with g o o d r e a s o n : when o n e keeps captive, as he does, princes f r o m the entire w o r l d , when o n e has c o m m i t t e d this cruel sin {tad dgah kruram mistreat honest kings? But ( 8 6 2 - 8 6 5 , 8 7 8 - 8 7 9 ) , " . . . having imprisoned the kings y o u w a n t to sacrifice them t o R u d r a ! T h e evil y o u have done, B a r h a d r a t h i , might well affect us; f o r w e follow the L a w a n d are c a p a b l e of e n f o r c ing it. N e v e r h a s there been witness t o h u m a n sacrifice: h o w then can y o u wish to sacrifice m e n to the G o d - W h o - A p p e a s e s [Rudra-Siva]? A b a r o n yourself, y o u give fellow b a r o n s the n a m e of beasts! . . ." " W e w h o want to rescue the kings from y o u a r e n o t selfstyled b r a h m i n s . I a m Sauri Hj-jlkesa, and these c h a m p i o n s are t w o Paijc^avas. W e a r e challenging y o u , king. S t a n d firm a n d fight us, M a g a d h a n . Either set free all the kings, o r g o yourself to Y a m a ' s a b o d e ! " J a r a s a n d h a does not lose his c o m p o s u r e a n d is n o t without defense. Never, he says, has he sent to his dungeon a king w h o m he has not first vanquished; is it not the l a w , the dharma of the katriya to fight, to win a n d then to do with the c o n q u e r e d w h a t e v e r he pleases, kdmatahl Finally, a n d here is the m a i n point, (882): , . . utpddya, 861), h o w can he pretend to be innocent? H o w does a king dare to

" I h a v e fetched these kings f o r the G o d . Should / n o w , K r j i j a , let go o f them, while remembering fully the life-rule of the b a r o n a g e ? " His mind is m a d e u p : at the head o f an a r m y against a n a r m y , o r m a n against m a n , alone against o n e o r t w o o r three, he is ready for b a t t l e . H e has his son S a h a d e v a invested a s king a n d collects himself b y calling to mind t w o c h a m p i o n s w h o h a v e lately contributed to his triumphs. O n his side, K r j n a does not forget B r a h m a ' s declaration: not at the hand o f a m e m b e r of his family must J a r a s a n d h a perish. T h e r e f o r e he will refrain. Besides, a little later, when he asks

105

Jarasandha Jarasandha which adversary he chooses f o r himself, the king designates BhTma. T h e court chaplain blesses his king, K r ? n a blesses his c h a m p i o n , a n d there begins a spectacular duel, which lasts fourteen d a y s . O n the fourteenth d a y , Jarasandha s h o w s signs of tiring, and Kr?na urges BhTma t o let loose all his strength ( 9 2 9 - 9 3 1 ) : T h u s spoken t o , powerful BhTma, e n e m y - t a m e r , lifted high the mighty Jarasandha and hurled h i m a r o u n d ; when he h a d hurled h i m a hundred times, bull o f the B h a r a t a s , he threw him down, b r o k e his b a c k with his knees, pounded h i m a n d bellowed forth. A s Jarasandha w a s being pounded a n d the Pan<?ava roared, there w a s a tumultuous din that terrified all creatures. All the M a g a d h a n s reeled a n d their w o m e n aborted. . . But K f j n a loses n o time. H e places his t w o c o m p a n i o n s in the chariot o f the vanquished king, a n d himself goes to rescue the kings, his relatives {aropya bhratarau caiva mok^ayam asa bandhavan) ( 9 3 5 ) t h e last w o r d indicating that the m a j o r i t y of the eighty-six captive kings c a m e f r o m the clan of the Y a d a v a s , the o b ject o f Jarasandha's hatred, o r f r o m allied dynasties. Freed f r o m a terrible danger, (mok^itah mahato bhaydt), the kings shower their rescuer with gifts. Kr?na in his turn m o u n t s the king's c h a r i o t n o ordinary c o n v e y a n c e , since after using it in a f a m o u s battle against the d e m o n s , Indra h a d given it to V a s u Uparicara," a n d the latter in his turn h a d presented it to Jarasandha's father. Seeing Kr?na leaving, the rescued kings request his orders. T h e y receive only o n e : to repair to the court o f Yudhi?thira and attend the r o y a l sacrifice he is about to offer. T h e y c o n s e n t a n d we must thus assume that they will b e part o f that a m o r p h o u s crowd of royalty which the erstwhile general o f their f o r m e r persecutor will b y his demagoguery nearly succeed in turning against their rescuer. W i t h o u t doubt there is n o need to keep the line rejected b y the P o o n a edition, where BhTma n o t o n l y crushes his exhausted, dazed adversary under his knees, but also, rending h i m in t w o f r o m head
" The Destiny of a King (1973), pp. 60-62.

106

Jarasandha

to f o o t , restores h i m to the bipartite state of his birth: this must b e the ingenious invention o f an interpolator.^ W h a t e v e r it is, J a r a s a n dha's end has m o r e nobility than that of Sisupala: without madness, without intoxication, he foresees his death, consecrates his s o n , and fights t o the end of his strength. H e does not even call upon the g o d , in the defense of whose just offerings, as well as his cruel right to serve them up t o h i m , h e resolutely believes; m o r e over, every time Kf5i;ia decides t o h a v e done with a n adversary w h o has been protected a n d exploited b y Rudra-Siva, the latter, ungrateful a n d helpless, fails t o intervene. T h i s story thus replicates that of Sisupala with n o t a b l e inversions. It also completes the Indian accordances with the story of StarkaSr. H o w is this situation t o b e interpreted? T h e m o s t p r o b a b l e explanation is that w e are dealing, in India, with a literary process, an artificial duplication o r reiteration. T h e fertile imagination of the Indian scholars has p r o b a b l y provided a " c a s t i n g , " a " m i n i a t u r e " replica of what the traditional story of the monster entailed "in excess," "in full"; and it probably built out this replica b y reserving f o r it, and b y amplifying, the crime which a m o n g the S c a n dinavians appears at the head of the three facinora, as the facinus of the first function: the king taken as victim, f o r a sacrifice offered to the o n e w e have tagged the " d a r k g o d . " Perhaps it is a result of this duplication that Sisupala has later been presented himself, in his o w n s t o r y , a s a king a m o n g kings, remaining like Starcatherus subordinate, a "general," only in the tale o f Jarasandha.

4.

APORIA

W i t h the Indie dossier n o w c o m p l e t e , w e are in a position t o add a f e w remarks t o the Indo-Scandinavian c o m p a r i s o n which w e outlined in the last chapter. T w o will b e inconsequential, but the last will plunge us into a q u a n d a r y which the attentive reader m a y h a v e noticed before.
= See below, p. 150.

, ,

107

Jarasandha 1 . T h e description o f Jarasandha's crime should be taken literally. Supported b y the parallel Scandinavian tradition, this crime attests that h u m a n sacrifices were still practiced in earliest India. Surely the legend of Sunahsepa, several traditions a b o u t M a n u , and the theory of the purusamedha speak in f a v o r of its existence. But it is generally agreed that, in the f o r m in which it is described, the puru$amedha is a theoretical construct intended merely as a n extension of the upper end of the sacrificial roster; and if not the wretched tale of the y o u n g Sunahsepa, then at least the a c c o u n t s of the h u m a n sacrifices which M a n u shows himself ready to p e r f o r m in his obedience c a n also b e pious inventions m e a n t to illustrate his total absorption in sraddhd;'' hence there h a s been interminable quibbling on the part of those w h o feel that it disgraces A r y a n India to h a v e h a d its origins in kriira, in cruelty. T h e parallelism b e tween the sacrifices planned b y J a r a s a n d h a e v e n if he is, under this n a m e , a late-comer in the s t o r y a n d the sacrifice procured b y S t a r k a S r guarantees the former the reality which the latter certainly h a s : A d a m of Bremen still k n e w , b y eyewitness testimony, that in Uppsala at festivals every ninth year there were hanged n o t only dogs a n d horses, but m e n as well, a n d from T a c i t u s ' Germania to the Ynglingasaga, there a r e numerous attestations of h u m a n victims, offered particularly to " M e r c u r i u s " (that is, *Wddanaz) o n the continent, a n d to O d i n in the Swedish U p p l a n d . 2 . In the S c a n d i n a v i a n s t o r y , the initiative f o r the sacrifice in which V i k a r is the victim comes f r o m the g o d , O d i n . He has waited patiently, through the years. T h e n , after he has been an undeniable help to S t a r k a S r in the scene of the setting of fates, a n d this in the presence of the beneficiary, he demands of h i m , a s p a y m e n t , that he " d i s p a t c h " his king t o h i m . In the story of J a r a s a n d h a the m a n ner of agreement between the g o d and the m a n is not described, a n d w e c a n n o t s a y whether the initiative c a m e f r o m o n e o r the other. But n o m a t t e r ; even if J a r a s a n d h a unilaterally resolved t o
' Idees romaines (1969), pp. 56-57.

108

Jarasandha promise a hundred kings to R u d r a - S i v a , it w a s because he k n e w that R u d r a generally pays well. T h e r e w a s at least a tacit understanding of the do ut des k i n d , based o n the reliable taste of the god for the b l o o d of m e n . 3 . T h e victims J a r a s a n d h a destines f o r Rudra a r e n o t just a n y m e n , b u t , like V i k a r , kings. This very congruence uncovers a difficulty. In S c a n d i n a v i a , all is clear: the demand expressed b y O d i n that K i n g V i k a r b e sacrificed to h i m is immediately understandable since O d i n , in the last analysis, only reclaims what is his, calling to himself o n e of his o w n . A s the sovereign g o d , m o r e precisely the king o f the gods, he h a s a n affinity, a natural intimacy with earthly kings. It is not the same in India. R u d r a has n o special connection with r o y a l t y , a n d in terms of h u m a n victims has n o reason to prefer kings. O n e c a n of course suppose that h e is gratified that Jarasandha reserves f o r him the highest level o f society, but his theological definition entails n o such lofty restriction. O n e even gets the feeling that the specification of r o y a l victims is forced on Jarasandha only by the circumstances in which they are promised: since he wishes to subjugate kingdoms, he offers the actual masters of these realms to the g o d w h o can help h i m . T h i s is so true that Kr?na/ when he reproaches the king of M a g a d h a f o r having made this b l o o d y p r o m ise, divides his complaint into t w o sections, t w o f o r m u l a e , b e tween which the m a t t e r o f r o y a l t y is deemphasized a n d lost in m o r e general rules: (1) h u m a n sacrifices, he says, a r e criminal under a n y circumstances; (2) a savanna must n o t h a r m his savarna, a person o f the same caste. A n d Kf?na does not even h a v e in mind the possibility that the t w o parts of his complaint might b e inseparable, and that, sacrificing m e n to R u d r a , o n e should b e obliged to seize kings a s victims: because in reality n o such obligation exists and Jarasandha remains entirely responsible f o r the choice. Nonetheless, given the close similarity of the stories of Jarasandha a n d Sisupala, o n e is forced to admit that the stipulation of r o y a l t y is essential in the m a t t e r . Sisupala acting as passionate defender of the majesty o f kings on the o n e h a n d , a n d Jarasandha

Jarasandha

(whose general Sisupala is) capturing kings as o n e traps animals, to sacrifice them cruelly to a g o d , jointly piece together the contradict o r y state of affairs which is laid out m o r e simply in the tale of S t a r k a S r : S t a r k a S r , t o o , is the defender of royal m a j e s t y , and yet it is against this v e r y m a j e s t y that he c o m m i t s the facinora to w h i c h he is d o o m e d , beginning with the sacrificial murder of V i k a r . But it is easily seen that the necessity f o r this situation, o b v i o u s f o r S t a r k a S r , is not so for the t w o Indie figures, neither f o r J a r a s a n d h a n o r for Sisupala. T h e reason f o r this lack of a c c o r d a n c e is undoubtedly to be sought in the fact that Odin and T h o r are sensed to be included in the trifunctional structure, while Rudra and Vi?i;iu are outside it. T h e typological affinity of Rudra and O d i n has been explored in the previous chapter, but O d i n is n o m o r e reducible to this type than to the V a r u ^ a - t y p e , a n d the t w o types which he combines in himself cannot be sundered, so that the divine pair w h o c o n f r o n t each other over S t a r k a S r is at o n c e the pair of " d a r k g o d " and "light g o d " (in which it corresponds in fact to the pair Rudra-Vinu) a n d the pair of first-function and second-function g o d s . B o t h at o n c e , because, let us reiterate, in the S c a n d i n a v i a n theology the t w o pairs have been fused into one o r , no doubt m o r e precisely, because the second has been fused with the first. In India the same is not the case. If the Vedic Vi?^iu, b y the service rendered to Indra b y his steps and his assistance, belongs preferentially to the second function, he spills outside it to the extent that he also serves M a n u , a n d the sacrificer, and the gods in general; R u d r a , in the h y m n s and later, eludes still m o r e completely a n y attempt to fix him in the trifunctional structure. In S c a n dinavia, Vi?i:iu's strict counterpart, V i S a r , is very close to T h o r "the strongest of the gods after T h o r " b u t V i S a r is h o m o l o g o u s with Vi?nu ordy in the e s c h a t o l o g y : ' until the end of the w o r l d , in every case, the rescuer is simply T h o r , the c a n o n i c a l god of the seco n d function; and the counterpart of S i v a is not so m u c h O d i n as
' "Le dieu scandinave Vifiarr," Revue de I'histoire des religions, (1965), 1-13; ME I, 230-237. CCXVIII

110

Jarasandha one aspect of the complex O d i n , and not the m o s t important aspect, since O d i n remains a b o v e all, as sovereign-magician, a figure of the first function. If this is indeed the cause of the divergence which detains u s and n o other is a p p a r e n t w e find ourselves in a veritable a p o r i a . If, setting aside the i m p o r t a n c e of kings (extolled and assassinated), we h a v e been able to clarify the rest of the tale of S t a r k a S r b y the related stories of Sisupala and J a r a s a n d h a , it has been on condition that w e retain f r o m the pair O d i n - T h o r only its aspect of " d a r k g o d " - " l i g h t g o d , " which a l o n e allows it to be c o m p a r e d with the pair R u d r a - V i j n u . But we c a n use the S c a n d i n a v i a n story to vindicate the i m p o r t a n c e of kings (exalted and persecuted) in the t w o Indie stories only b y resorting to the other aspect of the O d i n - T h o r pair ( " f i r s t - f u n c t i o n " - " s e c o n d - f u n c t i o n g o d " ) , of w h i c h there is no trace in the pair R u d r a - V i j n u . Let us state at o n c e that w e are not in a position to reduce this difficulty, and that the third point of c o m p a r i s o n which remains f o r us to consider, the story of Herakles, will rather add to it, since the two divinities we shall see confronting each other over the Greek hero are themselves defined, in this particular situation, only by their connection with the first t w o levels of the trifunctional structure. But b e f o r e thus extending o u r inquiry, we should examine a last c o m m o n element in the Scandinavian and Indie stories.

111

THE W O M A N AND THE ANCESTORS

t

1.

MASCULINE

RIVALRIES

In a previous study, several examples h a v e been given o f w h a t o n e might call almost a l a w , o n e of those which the authors o f the Mahabharata m a d e f o r themselves in their w o r k of transposing into epic a v e r y old m y t h o l o g y . C o m p o s i n g the character a n d b e h a v i o r of their heroes after the image o f the gods w h o s e i n c a r n a tions o r sons they a r e , they have preserved between these heroes the relationships, particularly those o f hierarchy, alliance, a n d enm i t y , w h i c h existed a m o n g those g o d s . T h e y h a v e m o r e o v e r s o m e times translated these conceptual relationships into terms of kingship o r a g e , transforming f o r example the strictly h o m o g e n e o u s group o f gods o f the three functions into the five P a n ^ a v a b r o t h e r s o n e just sovereign, t w o w a r r i o r s , t w o humble twins k n o w l edgeable in matters of husbandryand giving t o these five b r o t h e r s a s their c o m m o n spouse D r a u p a d I , the heroine transposed f r o m the single, multifaceted goddess w h o m the theology tended t o associate with the entirety o f the gods of the three f u n c t i o n s . ' T h i s blueprint w h i c h guided t h e m , whose principle they stated but w h o s e details they did n o t reveal, left them the task of supplying, o f inventing h u m a n , novelistic, publishable justifications f o r
' See the discussion of Stig Wikander's discovery in ME I, p. 46 and n. 1; pp. 53-65, 103-109.

The Woman and the Ancestors such predetermined relationships. For e x a m p l e , if DraupadT h a s five husbands, a scandal a m o n g the A r y a n s , it is, n o longer f r o m the point of view of the transposition but f r o m that of the epic plot, the nasty consequence of an imprudent w o r d uttered b y the m o t h e r of the Pariijlavas. A single one of the brothers had w o n the girl in a svayamvara and had returned with her to the forest, to the spot where his m o t h e r a n d brothers awaited h i m . W h i l e a p p r o a c h i n g , he cried out j o y o u s l y : " H e r e are the a l m s ! " Before seeing h i m , and believing that he a n n o u n c e d some actually divisible a l m s , the m o t h e r hastened to remind him of his d u t y : " P o s s e s s it," she said, "in c o m m o n , y o u r brothers a n d y o u . " A mother's w o r d must b e d o n e , she herself c a n change nothing: thus the five P a i j ^ a v a s had to share a single wife a n d give t o their children a single m o t h e r ; to this end they concluded a scrupulous agreement whcih they o b s e r v e d and which spared them a n y jealousy.^ T h e enmity w h i c h exists between Kfgna a n d Sisupala o c c a sions a description of the s a m e sort. T h e two figures oppose each o t h e r because o n e is Vi^iju incarnate, while the other is a triply " R u d r a i c " being, b o t h b y the deformities which disfigure h i m a t birth (three eyes and four arms) and b y his deeply d e m o n i c nature, since he is the last of the incarnations of a d e m o n w h o , at least in the preceding o n e , was the follower and protege of R u d r a - S i v a , a n d in addition b y the post of general which he takes in the service of king J a r a s a n d h a , w h o is also a devotee, and a cruel o n e , of R u d r a S i v a . Furthermore, as it a l w a y s turns out w h e n Vi?pu c o n f r o n t s R u d r a - S i v a or a " R u d r a i c " figure, the initiative in the hostilities is not taken b y Kf?i:ia, but b y Sisupala. O n all these points the transposition has respected the m a i n lines of the theology of the t w o divinities.^
^ Ibid., pp. 110-117. ^ [1977) It has been objected that Sisupala's sixth offense against Kf$i;ia is not homogeneous with the first five. To be sure, and perhaps I should have emphasized the difference between these treatments of the same theme: Herakles and Starcatherus perish because of the last of the three sins which they have committed and which are distributed across the three functions (likewise Indra's progressive decline is completed with and by his third, third-function sin). The fate that falls upon Sisupala is more complex: one after another he commits the hundred sins which, at his 114

The Woman and the Ancestors But this w a s not enough f r o m the standpoint of the plot, insofar a s Kr$na, n o less that Siupala, is presented as h u m a n . T h e i r innate opposition, glimpsed in outline, has therefore been reinf o r c e d a n d even o v e r s h a d o w e d b y a n e n m i t y w h o s e cause is f o r tuitous a n d earthly, a masculine rivalry o v e r a pretty girl. T h e story will b e often retold in the P u r a n a s , but in the Mahabharata a precise allusion is made to it in the course o f the very scene where w e learn that Sisupala is o n his w a y to exceeding, against Kr$na a n d his f a m i l y , his credit of o n e hundred tolerated offenses, a n d that consequently Krgna will find himself free to slay h i m . Kf^na himself, in a next-to-last speech, explains this strange situation t o the kings t o justify the beheading which is in the offing. But he ends b y hurling at his prospective victim a n e w shot, and a cruel o n e : " F o r the s a k e o f m y father's sister I h a v e endured v e r y great suffering; but fortunately n o w this is taking place in the presence o f all the kings. F o r y o u a r e n o w witnesses o f the a l l surpassing offense against m e ; learn also n o w the offenses he has perpetrated against m e in concealment (parokfatn). T h i s present offense I c a n n o longer f o r b e a r , a n d his insolence amidst the full circle o f kings deserves death. T h i s f o o l , w h o must want t o die, o n c e proposed himself f o r RukminI, but the f o o l n o m o r e obtained her than a sQdra a hearing of the V e d a ! " In the a s s e m b l y , whose opinion is shifting b a c k against the aggressor, the b l o w hits h o m e . Here is the last retort of Sisupala, w h o k n o w s he is d o o m e d a n d shouts, with a defiant laugh: " H a v e y o u n o s h a m e at all, Kr^na^ that y o u b r o a d c a s t in assemblies, particularly before these kings, that y o u r R u k m i n I w a s a n o t h e r m a n ' s first? F o r w h a t self-respecting m a n but y o u w o u l d broadcast to the strict that his wife h a d belonged t o
birth, were not imposed on, but granted to, or rather tolerated of him (p. 58), and of which the five examples excerpted from the total by his accuser are well distributed across the three functions; but, by the very fact that they have been forgiven in advance, they call forth no sanctions. Consequently, in order to undo him, a supplemental sin is necessary, outside the series and extra-functional, some act of high treason directly attacking Kfjija-Visiju. This enrichment of the theme does not alter its significance, but enhances it with all the mystical power inherent in the figure

of Krwa.

lis

The Woman and the Ancestors another, M a d h u s u d a n a ? Forgive m e , if y o u have that much faith, or don't, K r j n a , what could possibly befall m e f r o m y o u , h o w e v e r angry o r friendly?" T h i s rivalry o f t w o men is well k n o w n to us f r o m elsewhere. BhT?maka w a s king of K u n d i n a , in the c o u n t r y of the V i d a r b h a s . H e h a d a son, R u k m i n , and a very beautiful daughter, RukminT. Kr^pa loved RukminT, a n d RukminT loved h i m . Holding a grudge against K f n a , R u k m i n did not wish her to b e given to h i m . H e h a d him put off, then, urged on b y J a r a s a n d h a , BhTjmaka a n d R u k m i n , father a n d s o n , gave RukmiijT to Sisupala. A s if nothing h a d h a p pened, K f sna c a m e to attend his rival's wedding, abducted the girl in the middle of the c e r e m o n y , and married h e r . T h u s RukminT b e c a m e what she will remain, the wife of Kr$i?a, of w h o m it is said, b y the c o n v e n t i o n s of transposition, that she w a s the incarnation o f the goddess LakjmT, the wife of Vijijiu. Such is the conflict of passions which replicates the antagonism in the theological descriptions a n d which apparently suffices, f r o m the h u m a n point of view, to explain the inimical relationship of K f j n a a n d Sisupala; m a n y novels, in all literatures, are made of such stuff. O n e will n o t e that each of the two men c a n b e considered p r o v o k e d b y the other: K r j i j a , since her parents have given to his rival the girl w h o m he loved a n d w h o loved him in return; Sisupala since, having legally and correctly received the girl, he has seen her spirited a w a y b y his rival. W i t h o u t pretending to pass judgment in such a delicate affair, w e will n o t e nevertheless that in sequence, a n d according to the u n written l a w of lovers, the first a n d genuinely offended one w a s Krna. Usually the " s e c o n d c a u s e s , " which the authors of the Mahabharata have superimposed o n the deep causes arising f r o m the translation of a m y t h o l o g y into epic, betray themselves as ad hoc inventions, often mediocre a n d i n c o m m e n s u r a t e with what is presented as their c o n s e q u e n c e . T h i s is the case, for example, with the rash w o r d of the P a n d a v a s ' m o t h e r , w h e r e b y the virtuous D r a u padT finds herself committed to a p o l y a n d r o u s marriage. O n e might think that it is so also for the conflict of Kf?ija a n d Sisupala over

116

T h e W o m a n a n d the A n c e s t o r s

RukminI, although here the cause h a s the same weight as the effect, a n d the winning o f R u k m i n I b y abduction corresponds well to Krna's pattern. But the c o m p a r i s o n of the tales of Sisupala and S t a r k a S r which w e are pursuing adds a n important f a c t o r t o the p r o b l e m . W e recall h o w the beginning of the Gautrekssaga, a n d the texts which repeat o r gloss this passage, report at the same time the birth of S t a r k a S r and the hostility w h i c h T h o r bears h i m . Let us reread these important lines:" . , i

S t a r k a S r [Aludrengr, the first S t a r k a S r ] w a s a v e r y c r a f t y (hundviss) giant w h o h a d eight a r m s . F r o m Alfheim h e t o o k Alfhildr, the daughter of King A l f r . King A l f r then called u p o n T h o r , that Alfhildr should c o m e b a c k . T h e n T h o r slew S t a r k a S r , a n d carried Alfhildr h o m e t o her father, a n d she w a s then with child. S h e b o r e a s o n , w h o w a s called S t o r v i r k r , w h o h a s been mentioned; he w a s a m a n of h a n d s o m e l o o k s , a l though of b l a c k hair, bigger and stronger than other m e n . . . . T o this S t o r v i r k r a n d his legitimate wife, the daughter o f an earl of H a l o g a l a n d , w a s b o r n the second S t a r k a S r , the hero of the saga. W e recall also that in a later episode, the saga h a s something m o r e , a n d perhaps different, to s a y : a clear allusion is m a d e to a m a s c u l i n e o n e dare n o t say r o m a n t i c r i v a l r y between the m o n strous giant and T h o r . A t the m o m e n t when T h o r a n d O d i n , in the assembly of the solemnly gathered gods, contradictorily determine the fate o f the second S t a r k a S r , T h o r declares himself f r o m the beginning against the b o y , and reveals his g r i e v a n c e s : ' T h e n T h o r began t o speak a n d said: "Alfhildr, the m o t h e r of S t a r k a S r ' s father, chose as father t o her s o n a very c r a f t y giant rather than T h o r of the JEsir, a n d I declare this f o r S t a r k aSr, that he shall have neither son n o r daughter, a n d so shall his line e n d . "
"Above, p. 12.
5

'

''f V

'

Above, p. 14.

T h e W o m a n a n d the A n c e s t o r s

Is the schematic account of the beginning of the Gautrekssaga incomplete? D o the t w o passages refer to t w o v a r i a n t s , o n e w h e r e T h o r intervened, disinterestedly, only at the request o f Alfhildr's father, the other where he avenged himself on a successful rival? In a n y case this second text exists, and describes a situation similar t o , and partially the converse of, the o n e which opposes Sisupala a n d Kv?na o v e r RukmiijI: first, the giant a n d the g o d b o t h desire the girl; second, the giant takes her, with her consent; third, the g o d kills the giant, retakes the girl and returns h e r to her father; b u t fourth, the god remains offended that the other h a d been preferred to him to the point of begetting in his place. T h e revenge he c h o o s e s is well suited to the nature of this resentment: he punishes the guilty ones through their grandson, w h o m he c o n d e m n s to h a v e n o p r o geny, to b e the last of his race. T h u s in S c a n d i n a v i a as in India a second cause overlies the deep cause, independent of logic a n d selfsufficient: it is the generalized, unexceptioned hostility of T h o r against all that c o m e s f r o m giants. T h e god's attitude toward the hero is justified b y a novelistic incident, a variation on a theme which literatures never tire of presenting to a n o less indefatigable public: t w o men a n d a w o m a n . In b o t h cases, in S c a n d i n a v i a a n d in India, the g o d ends b y slaying his rival; only in the saga the rival is not the hero of the story but his grandfather, a n d the killing follows on the heels of the offense; in the Mahabharata, Krjria's rival is Sisupala himself a n d the killing is long postponed (but note that at least it follows immediately the reminder which K f s o a gives of their rivalry). In both cases, the g o d " r e c o v e r s " the girl; only in the Scandinavian tale it is f o r her father a n d not f o r himself, a n d the girl is pregnant; in the Mahabharata it is during the wedding c e r e m o n y , before R u k m i n i has really fallen into Sisupala's p o w e r , that Krija gets hold of her, still virgin, a n d marries h e r . T h i s last disparity is m o r e o v e r only the natural consequence of another, m o r e important o n e : it is the giant, the first S t a r k a S r , w h o m Alfhildr h a s chosen, spurning the g o d T h o r , while it is the incarnate g o d K f j n a w h o m RukmipT prefers t o the " R u d r a i c " a n d demonical Sisupala.

118

T h e W o m a n and the A n c e s t o r s

O n e should therefore hesitate to discard the novelistic prelude of the s a g a a s I h a v e lately done m y s e l f f o r the a priori reason that ' w o m a n t r o u b l e " is alien to T h o r ' s c h a r a c t e r . It m a y be on the c o n t r a r y that, in this piece of literature, the god w h o is n o r m a l l y a b o v e h u m a n w e a k n e s s e s l o v e , desire, j e a l o u s y s h o w s himself b y virtue of a very ancient tradition singularly unequal to himself.

2.

REINCARNATED

DEMON

AND GRANDSON

OF A GIANT

T h i s consideration constrains us not to reject summarily the o t h e r strange feature of the saga version: the duality of S t a r k a S r , a grandfather and a g r a n d s o n . T o be sure, it could be easily imagined that a sagamadr, bothered b y a tradition which insisted on the birth in the f o r m of a giant and monster of a hero w h o s e life, apart f r o m three incidents, is a n d should b e edifying, has split up the c h a r a c ter, relegating the repugnant elements to a first S t a r k a S r and reserving f o r a second o n e , his entirely h u m a n grandson, the reasons the reader h a s f o r admiring h i m . H o w e v e r , things m a y h a v e gone the other w a y ; S a x o m a y h a v e simplified a n initially more c o m p l e x situation. A n d here again it is the saga's version which reinforces, against S a x o , the c o m p a r i s o n with the Indie a c c o u n t . T h e hostility which exists between K r j p a a n d Sisupala is n o t hereditary: K f j n a has had n o quarrel with the father, n o r with a grandfather, of the little m o n s t e r . B u t , as w e have seen, neither is it without precedent. T h e Indian notion of reincarnation simply replaces heredity and gives it a cosmic dimension: Sisupala is but the latest f o r m taken b y the d e m o n w h o w a s , in the last "crises" in which Visnu had to intervene, Hiranyakasipu a n d R a v a p a f i g u r e s w h o , like J a r a s a n d h a , long enjoyed the protection of R u d r a - S i v a , but w h o in the e n d , like J a r a s a n d h a , a n d occasionally f o r having m a d e themselves intolerable to Rudra-Siva himself, found themselves a b a n d o n e d b y their p r o t e c t o r . Let us q u o t e o n c e again
6

The Destiny of the Warrior (1970), p. 9 3 .

119

T h e W o m a n a n d the A n c e s t o r s

C o l o n e l de Polier, in the pages which open his resume of the Rdmdyana, or rather the account of it which his Indian tutor, R a m t c h o u n d , is supposed to give h i m . T h u s o n R a v a n a : ' " R a v e n w a s ruler of the isle of L a n c a , o r C e y l o n . Like all the a m b i t i o u s D a i n t s [ d e m o n s ] , he aspired to the conquest o f Paradise, a n d to succeed in this he h a d devoted o n e hundred years o f his long life to worshipping M h a d a i o [ M a h a d e v a , R u d r a - S i v a ] a n d h a d obtained f r o m this D e i o t a s , b y sacrificing his head to h i m , n o t only the n o r m a l recompense of ten more heads a n d as m a n y a r m s , but also the privilege of being unable to be put to death unless there should b e cut f r o m h i m a million h e a d s . " " B u t he h a d only ten of t h e m , " said M . de Polier. " H e h a d only ten at a t i m e , " replied the teacher, " b u t they would regrow to the extent that they were cut off, the which rendered his defeat so difficult that there w a s n o one but V i j n u w h o could destroy h i m . N o t content with the extraordinary gifts he had received f r o m M h a d a i o , he coerced B i r m a h , b y threatening to kill h i m , to b e s t o w on h i m a net a n d a javelin, miraculous w e a p o n s which the terror-stricken B i r m a h granted him although he foresaw the evil use which he would m a k e of these gifts, in addition to which this giant h a d also such p r o digious strength that, wishing o n e d a y to a w a k e n M h a d a i o f r o m o n e of his trances, he transported with o n e hand this D e i o t a s a n d his residence onto the summit of M o u n t H e r m a n t chel, the a b o d e of the father of P a r b u t t y [ParvatT, the wife of Rudra-Siva). D r u n k with his p o w e r , his strength a n d the privileges M h a d a i o h a d granted h i m , the pride a n d ambition of the Daints grew p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y , a n d he n o longer dreamt o f a n y thing but making himself master of the w h o l e universe. H e h a d already subdued the earth a n d Paradise, he h a d e n c r o a c h e d upon hell, a n d b y his tyranny he b e c a m e the object of such universal terror and hatred that B i r m a h a n d M h a d a i o themselves, alarmed at the abuse he had m a d e of the supernatural
' Cf. above, p. 81, n. 4. This passage in I, 292-294.

120

T h e W o m a n a n d the A n c e s t o r s

a n d miraculous gifts they had given him, awaited with as much impatience as the lesser Deiotas the m o m e n t when the foretold incarnation of Vi^ou would c o m e to pass. T h e impiety and the crimes of R a v e n at last fill the term fixed b y the decrees of fate as the time f o r his punishment, and everything heralds the great event which must bring to an end the reign of vice, restore virtue on earth and m a k e manifest the exclusive p o w e r of V i $ n u . "
:-.

'jj!....

V ; .

,>.

It is this R a v a n a w h o , slain b y Vi?nu in the guise of R a m a , will b e reincarnated as Sisupala and so will for the last time c o n f r o n t V i ? n u , w h o has b e c o m e K f ^ n a . It is doubtful, in spite of Celtic evidence, whether one should trace b a c k to Indo-European times the belief in metempsychosis, in successive reincarnations. In any case it is alien to the G e r m a n i c w o r l d . But continuity in family lines, functionally speaking, plays the same role. It has long been noted that one of the name-giving patterns observed in certain periods by the S c a n d i n a v i a n s , as well as b y numerous other peoples, was to n a m e n e w b o r n children after close ancestors:* n o doubt they thought in this w a y to be doing a little m o r e than reviving a m e m o r y or an image; even rationalized to the extreme, such a practice at least charts for the n e w b o r n a lifeplan, an imitation which, if adopted and carried out b y the n a m e s a k e , in the last analysis reanimates the deceased himself. Is it not this belief that has been able to justify the coexistence of S t a r k a S r , father of S t o r v i r k r , and S t a r k a S r , son of S t o r v i r k r , and at the s a m e time, the t w o interventions of T h o r , killing the o n e and persecuting the other? T h i s diachronic timing of happenings, this prenatal stage at least gives the hero's life story a scope c o m p a r a b l e with, although less cosmic than, that conferred on Sisupala by his demonic past and his prior encounters in other lives with the same g o d . T h e s e last c o m p a r i s o n s to be sure leave with n o ready answer the p r o b l e m of the relative value of the t w o versions of the birth of S t a r k a S r . If they restore between them the b a l a n c e of c h a n c e ,
* Mythes et dieux des Germains, pp. 61-62; K. A. Eckhardt, Irdische Unsterblichkeit, germanischer Glaube an die Wiederverkorperung in der Sippe (1937).

121

T h e W o m a n and the A n c e s t o r s

which until n o w has leaned to the side of S a x o at the expense of the saga, they do not allow us to decide. Is it necessary to prefer one o r the other, S a x o or the saga? O r must we suppose that each one c o n tinues w h a t were already, from earliest times, " v a r i a n t s " ? For the first of the two themes we h a v e been e x a m i n i n g t h e resentment of a god against the son of a w o m a n w h o has preferred a rival to h i m t h e legend of Herakles will, h o w e v e r , r e c o m m e n d a decision against S a x o , in f a v o r of the sagamadr. B u t , in the G r e e k legend, the genders of the deities are reversed in relation to their roles: it is a goddess, H e r a , w h o persecutes the son w h o m her less than faithful spouse, Z e u s , has chosen to obtain through the services of h e r involuntary rival A l k m e n e , the wife of A m p h i t r y o n .

122

HERAKLES
1. THE FAILINGS OF HERAKLES

In 1 9 5 6 I gave reasons, which still seem valid, to consider the life of Herakles, like that of S t a r k a S r - S t a r c a t h e r u s , n o t a s the huge a n d fortuitous accretion of specific legends, independent and selfsufficient, each tied to a t o w n , province, l a k e , o r forest, the e x ploits o f a s t r o n g m a n , but m o r e as a structure w h o s e general design is simple and which has only served as a f r a m e w o r k w e a l t h attracting w e a l t h f o r a variety of legends, local or otherwise, c o n cerning the Strong M a n . ' T h i s general f r a m e w o r k is that of the "three sins of the h e r o , " and I h a v e recalled at the outset of this study w h a t these sins a r e , each o n e c o m m i t t e d against the principle of one o f the three IndoEuropean functions:^ since m y Aspects de la fonction guerriere the dossier has n o t c h a n g e d . Herakles performs his feats in three groups, each ending with the "functional s i n " a n d the corresponding penalty or consequence, w h i c h affect first the hero's sanity, next his bodily health, a n d finally his life. M o r e o v e r the penalties are not cumulative, a n d the first t w o cease to operate o n c e sufficient expiation has been effected. T h e intervals filled with exploits
' The Destiny of the Warrior [1970], pp. 9 6 - 9 7 . For the systematization of the Library of Apollodorus (II, 4,8-7,7), see ibid. p. 102 n. 6. ^ Cf. above, pp. 1 - 6 .

123

Herakles

are distributed thus: the first runs f r o m the hero's birth to his hesitation before the c o m m a n d of Zeus, with madness as p e n a l t y ; ' the second extends f r o m his insubordination to the treacherous murder of a surprised e n e m y , with physical disease as its penalty; the third goes f r o m this murder to his scandalous adultery, w i t h the consequence of an unhealable burn and his voluntary death. Within the first of these three groups appears, as a sub-group, the collection of ten o r twelve great L a b o r s , w h i c h has itself served to lodge sub-labors, and which is the only partial structure that can be discerned within the large framework. As for the sins, the biography of Herakles presents m o r e than o n e deed which we would be inclined, even in G r e e k terms, to classify as such, but the fact is that only these three h a v e been fastened on b y the gods a n d had a destructive effect on the guilty p a r t y . T h e parallel with the three sins of Starcatherus is a c c o m p a n i e d b y other a c c o r d a n c e s in the careers of the t w o heroes. T h e main ones were pointed out in 1 9 5 6 , but the investigation of Sisupala reveals their full importance. T h e y c o n c e r n , on the one h a n d , the hero's birth and his resulting position in the trifunctional structure, especially the c o n t r a r y relationships which it establishes between him and t w o rival divinities; and on the other hand his death.

2.

HERA,

ATHENA

AND

HERAKLES

T h e birth of Herakles is recounted b y D i o d o r u s SiculuS (IV, 9 , 2 - 3 ) after recalling that on b o t h sides the hero " o w e s his birth to the
' [1982] Several writers who have referred to the book seem to have understood the first fault of Herakles to be the killing of his children in his madness. This is not quite right: his failing is having disobeyed the command of Zeus by hesitating to go into Eurystheus' service, and thus compromising the agreement reached between Zeus and Hera regarding a matter of kingship; the punis^jmefit consisted in a madness whose result, calling for expiation, was the murder of his children.

124

Herakles

greatest o f the g o d s " : Zeus is his father, a n d his m o t h e r A l k m e n e descends f r o m Perseus, the son of Zeus a n d D a n a e : 2. . . . T h e prowess which w a s found in him w a s not only to be seen in his deeds, but w a s also recognized even before his birth. For when Zeus l a y with A l k m e n e he m a d e the night three times its n o r m a l length (xpiTcA-aaiav rfiv VI^KTO i t o i f i a a i ) and b y the magnitude of the time expended on the procreation (TQ) TtXyjflei ToC npbq rfiv itaiSoTtoifav dvaA,co6^VTOG xp6vo\i) he presaged the exceptional might of the child which would b e begotten (TtpOCTtinfjvai TTIV OiteppoXfiv xf\q TOC yevvritJri-

aon^vou {)(ii\ir\q).

3 . A n d , in general, he did n o t effect this union f r o m the desire of l o v e , as he did in the case of other w o m e n , but rather only for the s a k e of procreation {zf\q naibonodaq xdpiv). C o n sequently, desiring to give legality to his e m b r a c e s , he did n o t choose to offer violence to A l k m e n e , a n d yet he could n o t hope to persuade her because of her chastity (oco(ppooi5vr|); a n d s o , deciding to use deception, he deceived A l k m e n e b y assuming in every respect the shape of A m p h i t r y o n . Herakles is thus neither monster n o r g i a n t e v e n if speculations on his m o r e than h u m a n size h a v e n o t been l a c k i n g b u t , like Starcatherus, h e has in him a certain excess, 6jrepPoA,r|, a surplus of strength in relation to other m e n , resulting f r o m a watered-down f o r m of triplicity: Zeus spent three nights begetting h i m , thus allowing for this single insemination a n a m o u n t of sperm which seems, even for a g o d , to h a v e been considerable. T h e position of Herakles in relation to the first a n d second functions, a n d particularly in relation to the t w o goddesses w h o preside over them (Diodorus, I V , 9 , 4 - 8 ) : 4. W h e n the natural time of pregnancy h a d passed, Z e u s , w h o s e mind w a s fixed on the birth o f Herakles, a n n o u n c e d in advance in the presence of all the gods that it w a s his intention to m a k e the child w h o should b e b o r n that day king (rtoifiCTai ^aaikia) over the decendants o f Perseus; whereupon Hera, w h o w a s filled with jealousy (^riXoTUTCoOaav), using a s her

125

Herakles

helper Eileithyia her daughter, checked the birth-pains of Alkmene and brought Eurystheus forth to the light before his full time. 5 . Zeus, however, though he had been outgeneralled, wished both to fulfill his promise and to take thought for the future fame (^7ti9ave{a) of Herakles; consequently, they say, he persuaded Hera to agree that Eurystheus should be king as he had promised, but that Herakles should serve Eurystheus and perform twelve labors, these to be whatever Eurystheus should prescribe, and that after he had done so he should receive the gift of immortality (PaaxX^a |j^v 67tdp^ai Koxd rnv i6{av indaxsaw EupDcnJ^a, T6V 8' 'HpaK>,^a Texayn^vov i)n6 T6V EiipucnS^a xeX^crai 6c&6eKafiiSXouqoui; fiv 6 EdpucnSet)? TipoCTxd^Ti, Kol xoCxo jipd^ovxa xu%eiv rf\q di&avacslaq). 6. After Alkmene had brought forth the babe, fearful of Hera's jealousy (^T|Xoxi)7t{av) she exposed it at a place which to this time is called after him the Field of Herakles. Now at this very time Athena, approaching the spot in the company of Hera (Kai9' 6v 8r\ xp6vov 'AiSriva jiexd Tf{q "Hpai; TtpoaioOaa) and being amazed at the natural vigor of the child (iSaundaaaa xoC naiSiou xf^v (ptSoiv), persuaded Hera to offer it the breast (duv^Ttexcre XT)V "Hpav xfjv r3r|A,r|v i^TiOCTxeTv). But when the boy tugged upon her breast with greater violence than would be expected at his age, Hera was unable to endure the pain and cast the babe from her (f) n^v Hpa SiaXyfiaacja x6 Pp^cpo? ppiv|/ev), whereupon Athena took it to its mother and urged her to rear it ('Ai9riva 8k K o n i a a a a a0x6 npbq zr\v HT|T^pa xp^<peiv TtapEKeXsuaaxo). 7. And anyone may well be surprised at the unexpected turn of the affair (x6 xi]q TiepiTtexela? napdSo^ov); for the mother whose duty it was to love (ax^pyEiv 6(pe{A.OD<Ta) her own offspring was trying to destroy it while she who cherished towards it a stepmother's hatred, in ignorance saved the life of one who was her natural enemy { 8i' fiyvoiav Saco^e x6 xfj (pi3cjei TioX^iaiov). Various forms are taken, especially during Herakles' youth, by the enmity of Hera and the solicitude of Athena. If we stick with

126

Herakles

the text of D i o d o r u s , it is Hera w h o sends the t w o serpents w h i c h the infant strangles in his cradle, thus, it w a s c l a i m e d , winning his heroic n a m e : " H e w h o owes his glory (KX^OI;) to H e r a " (10, 1); it is H e r a t o o w h o strikes h i m with madness b e c a u s e he hesitates t o o long to enter the service of Eurystheus (11, 1). W h e r e v a r i o u s gods a r m a n d equip Herakles, it is A t h e n a w h o presents the first gift, a peplos (14, 3). Later, a c c o r d i n g t o the Library of A p o l l o d o r u s , it is to h e r , n o doubt as his m o s t trusted friend, that Herakles hands over t h e apples of the Hesperides, which the goddess immediately returns t o their place (II, 5, 11). T h e t w o goddesses clearly h a v e here the contrasting values a t tributed t o them also in the legend of the judgment of Paris:^ Hera is the sovereign, w h o s e first c o n c e r n is t o exclude A l k m e n e ' s son f r o m r o y a l t y a n d t o reduce h i m t h i s is the gist of the c o m p r o m i s e she a c c e p t s t o the role of c h a m p i o n , obedient t o the king. A t h e n a immediately takes t h e future hero under her p r o t e c t i o n , rescues h i m when he is only a n a b a n d o n e d b a b y , sees to his outfitting, a n d f o l l o w s h i m discreetly in his l a b o r s . T h e t w o goddesses, to b e sure, d o n o t c o m b a t each o t h e r , they even w a l k together, b u t their h a r m o n y is only o u t w a r d . T h i s is no longer the aUiance into w h i c h they w e r e driven, in the legend of the shepherd prince Paris, b y their c o m m o n e n m i t y t o w a r d A p h r o d i t e ; they play antagonistic roles, a n d the virgin A t h e n a does n o t hesitate to trick H e r a , t o get her t o nurse with her o w n milk the child w h o m the fearful A l k m e n e h a d exposed in the c o u n t r y s i d e . T h i s scene of the goddess saving a n d nursing the child w h o m she will thereafter persecute, a n d w h o begins b y biting her, recalls, functionally speaking, the initially a m biguous relationship of Sisupala a n d Kyj^ia: placed on the god's knees, the little m o n s t e r receives h u m a n f o r m , he is saved; b u t at the s a m e time the plan of a long hostility is laid. A s f o r the attitude of the hero himself t o w a r d the t w o higher f u n c t i o n s t h e kingship f r o m w h i c h he h a s been excluded, a n d the " l a b o r s , " that is, essentially, fights, to w h i c h he h a s been c o n * ME I, pp. 5 8 0 - 5 8 6 . ,., , i'^...li. y,.

127

Herakles

signedit is m o r e d r a m a t i c than that of S t a r k a 3 r - S t a r c a t h e r u s , w h o , b o m far f r o m any throne, confines himself (outside of his three sins, directed against them) to serving kings ostentatiously; and m o r e pathetic t o o than Sisupala's, a king w h o voluntarily b e c o m e s the general of a n o t h e r king. Herakles' first sin is precisely to hesitate, despite the c o m m a n d of Zeus, despite the warning of Delphi, to b e c o m e the c h a m p i o n of King Eurystheus: he judges him and k n o w s himself to be superior to h i m . But after his first punishment he submits, seeks and receives the king's orders, irpoCTT d y n o T a , left to e n j o y n o w and then the bitter satisfaction he gets f r o m the spectacle of his mediocre master: v a s e paintings h a v e p o p ularized the scene where he brings b a c k to the king the wild b o a r of E r y m a n t h u s ; he carries the b o a r alive on his shoulders; panicstricken, the king hides in a barrel ((poPrnSelg GKPUYEV
XOXKOCV

nWov;

tambv eiq

D i o d o r u s , I V , 1 2 , 2 ) . But never, either during o r the

after the long term of the l a b o r s , does he raise a h a n d against the king, n o r attempt to replace him; and never, throughout journeys where he redresses so m a n y wrongs and punishes so m a n y evil men, does he propose to b e c o m e king himself: he lends, and if need be, imposes his services, sometimes gets a reward f o r t h e m , then takes his l e a v e .

3.

THE

END OF H E R A K L E S ;

HERAKLES AND

HERA

T h e D e a t h of Herakles, Hera reconciled (Diodorus, IV, 3 8 , 3-5; 39, 2 - 3 ) : A f t e r his adultery, Herakles is trapped in the c l o a k dipped in the b l o o d of Nessos. Informed of her husband's passion f o r lole, Deianeira recalled the present the dying C e n t a u r had given her. H a d he not told her that, if her h u s b a n d c a m e to neglect her, to rekindle his passion she need only h a v e him put on a cloth rubbed in his blood? W h a t she did not k n o w w a s that in the Centaur's b l o o d lingered the poison of the a r r o w which which Herakles had pierced h i m . T h u s she sent, saturated with w h a t she thought w a s a

128

Herakles

love p o t i o n , the sacrificial cloak that Herakles h a d asked for. He put it on, and activated b y his b o d y ' s heat, the poison began to devour him. In the grip of the growing, intolerable pain, the hero sent t w o of his c o m p a n i o n s to consult f o r a third time the oracle of Delphi, a n d A p o l l o responded, "Let Herakles be taken up to M o u n t O e t a in all his w a r r i o r gear, and let a pyre be erected next to h i m ; f o r the rest, Zeus will p r o v i d e . " 4 . N o w w h e n lolaiis had carried out these orders and h a d withdrawn to a distance to see w h a t w o u l d take place, H e r a kles, having a b a n d o n e d hope f o r himself, ascended the pyre and asked each o n e w h o c a m e up to him to put torch to the p y r e . A n d when n o one h a d the courage to o b e y h i m P h i l o k t e tes alone w a s prevailed upon; and he, having received in return f o r his c o m p l i a n c e the gift of the b o w a n d a r r o w s of Herakles, lighted the p y r e . A n d immediately lightning also fell f r o m the heavens a n d the pyre w a s w h o l l y c o n s u m e d . 5 . A f t e r this, w h e n the c o m p a n i o n s of lolaus c a m e to gather up the b o n e s of Herakles a n d f o u n d not a single b o n e a n y w h e r e , they assumed that, in a c c o r d a n c e with the words of the oracle, he had passed f r o m a m o n g men into the c o m p a n y of the gods. A f t e r a few r e m a r k s on the establishment of the first cults of Herakles ( 3 9 , 1), D i o d o r u s makes us p a r t a k e of the secrets of Olympus: 2 . W e should add to w h a t has been said a b o u t Herakles, that after his a p o t h e o s i s Zeus persuaded Hera to adopt him as her son (uiorcou^CTacnJai) and henceforth f o r all time to cherish him with a m o t h e r ' s l o v e , and this a d o p t i o n , they say, t o o k place in the following m a n n e r . Hera lay upon a bed, and drawing Herakles close to her b o d y then let him fall through her garments to the ground, imitating in this w a y the actual birth. . . . 3 . H e r a , the m y t h s relate, after she had adopted Herakles in this fashion, j o i n e d him in marriage to H e b e , regarding w h o m the poet speaks in the " N e k y i a " :

129

Herakles

Herakles meets up with G e r a s ( O l d A g e ) , o n e of the m a n y guises in which death dogged him throughout his heroic career ( c o m p a r e the premature senex Starcatherus, in spite of his three lives).

130

Herakles

I s a w the shade of Herakles, b u t f o r Himself he takes delight of feasts a m o n g T h e i m m o r t a l gods a n d f o r his wife he h a s T h e shapely-ankled H e b e . '

4.

HERAKLES,

STARKADR,

AND SISUPALA

T h e r e are immediately perceptible analogies with the end of Starcatherus, a n d others with the e n d of Sisupala, with the peculiarly G r e e k addition o f the important t h e m e of the p y r e a n d t h e
apotheosis.

'^Hr--'.

? : /

Like the S c a n d i n a v i a n h e r o , the G r e e k o n e determines to die, seeks a killer, a n d finds h i m in the person of a n innocent w a r r i o r , w h o acts, t o b e sure, out of devotion, but w h o s e service h e r e w a r d s : Starcatherus returns t o Hatherus the b l o o d price he h a d received f o r killing h i s father and offers a s well t o ensure his invulnerability, b y a m e a n s which the latter finds suspect a n d does n o t use; Herakles hands o v e r t o Philoktetes a r r o w s t o w h o s e great a n d f e a r s o m e p o w e r the future, a n d S o p h o c l e s , will testify: they alone will m a k e possible v i c t o r y over the T r o j a n s , b u t first one of them will poison its possessor a n d cause the G r e e k s t o a b a n d o n h i m , a l o n e , on an island. A s with the Indian Sisupala, his death completely reconciles the hero with the divinity w h o h a s been, b y his own fault in India, in spite of him in G r e e c e , his e n e m y . India goes s o f a r as to h a v e the very being of Sisupala absorbed into the divinity; the m o r e rational Greece speaks o f a c o n t r a c t which transforms enmity into adoption and filiation, with a scenario simulating n o t a fusion but a birth, and which is f u t h e r m o r e completed immediately b y the wedding to H e b e , daughter of the inimical goddess, in the sort o f union which is at o n c e most intimate a n d least miraculous, n a m e l y marriage. It seems impossible t o attribute to c h a n c e s o m a n y similarities which appear on b o t h sides in the same order. But this affirmation
' [1982] On Deianeira and the marriages of Herakles in general, see my Manages indo-europeens (Paris: Payot, 1979), pp. 5 9 - 6 3 .

131

Herakles

m a r k s the limit of our grasp. T h e divinities w h o c o n f r o n t each other o v e r Herakles under the fairly passive supervision of Z e u s , his protectress and his persecutor, intervene, as in the legend of the shepherd Paris, strictly as p a t r o n s of the first t w o functions: the Sovereign w h o withholds from Herakles the expected kingship and subordinates him to a king, a n d the W a r r i o r e s s w h o in his person foresees, loves a n d favors the courageous victor of labors and fights. N o feature sets them in opposition in the guise of w h a t we have termed, in c o n n e c t i o n with the other t w o heroes, the " d a r k divinity" and the "light divinity." T h u s we find ourselves faced with a paradoxical situation, with S c a n d i n a v i a able to provide only a typologically middle term, and not a geographically intermediate o n e . W e leave the reader before this a p o r i a , which will perhaps lead other minds to a m o r e subtle analysis of one or m o r e of the divine pairs, but which f o r the present does not a l l o w comparison of the Greek a n d Indie pairs: GREECE H e r a , 1st function SCANDINAVIA ^Ist function Odin^ V'dark divinity" 'li Rudra, "dark divinity" A t h e n a , 2nd function 2nd function INDIA

"light divinity"

Kf^na-Vi^riu, "light divinity"

T h e comparativist can only entrust to Hellenists, those w h o control the vast literary, archeological, and philosophical mass of data on Herakles, the task not only of resolving this aporia but of making use of the a c c o r d a n c e s it provides t h e m . It seems that Herakles, well b e f o r e being torn in his will, courtesy of P r o d i k o s , between the attractions of vice and virtue, had f o u n d himself the

132

Herakles passive a n d impotent p a w n in another rivalry, this o n e f r o m the beginning already in his Indo-European p r o t o t y p e . T h i s rivalry of divine powers secured f o r h i m a happy end, but at first, f r o m deed to misdeed a n d misdeed to deed, m a d e h i m r o a m throughout the islands a n d peninsulas of the Mediterranean, while b y similar fate his "lost b r o t h e r s " traversed other climes, one the vast lands stretching f r o m the B o s p o r u s to the fjords o f N o r w a y , the other the m o s a i c of the realms of India. Perhaps, though, we will b e allowed a c o m m e n t , if n o t a suggestion. D o e s n o t the parable of P r o d i k o s confer on the conflict which Herakles is embroiled in something o f the v a l u e , entirely m o r a l a n d not at all functional, which opposes the implicit Rudra a n d the explicit Kr^na-Vi^nu with respect to Sisupala? Perhaps this parable, w h i c h M a r c e l Detienne has already m a n a g e d to push b a c k in t i m e , ' continues an interpretation of the pathetic son of A l k m e n e which is even older than the P y t h a g o r e a n Herakles a n d the antecedents that c a n b e postulated f o r h i m . Perhaps H e r a a n d A t h e n a , interpretationes Graecae of the IndoEuropean divinities o f the pre-Heraclean s t o r y , have diluted the m o r e complex type, closer to the Scandinavian version, of these divinities, a n d the elements thus lost h a v e run a g r o u n d , o r flourished, under the philosophical rubrics of G o o d a n d Evil, Vice a n d Virtue.'
' "Heracles, heros pythagoricien," Revue de I'histoire des religions, 158 (1960), 2 1 - 5 3 , with extensive bibliography. ' [1982J Neither in this chapter, nor in The Destiny of the Warrior which it summarizes, have I maintained that all of Herakles, with his complex character, his adventures, his posthumous hero-god status, and his cults, fits into the framework of the "three functional sins of the warrior"; Herakles is neither StarkaSr nor Sisupala, and each of these heroes has his own personality. I wished only to make it probable that this framework, although attested as such, in full, only in the summaries of Diodorus and the Library, was ancient and Indo-European, and that the Heraklean material, vast and open-ended, found it ready to be assimilated and integrated. Indeed I foresaw that there would be Greek specialists who would accuse me of an imperialism which I do not practice. It was even a pleasant surprise for me to have so long to wait (Aspects de la fonction guerriire, the first version of The Destiny of the Warrior, dates from 1956). Finally, after 25 years, my wait is over. In the article "H^racl^s" which Nicole Loraux compiled for the Dictionnaire des mythologies (Flammarion, 1981), one reads (1: 497b) that "Herakles cannot be reduced either to the Dorian hero of Wilamowitz, or to the vegetation daimon dear to

133

Herakles J. Harrison, or to the Dumezilian warrior with his three sins." Where did I make this distressing "reduction"? Although several passages in her article suggest that she would be of some help, no one requires Loraux to associate herself with comparative studies for which she clearly has no taste, but since she feels obliged to pronounce sentence, should she not keep up with current developments? In 1981 she was still familiar only with The Destiny of the Warrior ("the book as a whole sheds more light on the figure of Herakles than the pages explicitly devoted to his three sins, which, by attempting to prove too much, are not very convincing"), and she was unaware of Mythe et epopie //including the present workwith the confirmations and mediations, as well as new problems, added to the dossier by the legend of Sisupala.

134

Summary
In the three w o r k s w e have c o m p a r e d , what might be called the isothemes, or boundaries a m o n g congruences and divergences, a r e not all drawn in the same w a y . T h e largest bundle of isothemes joins on o n e side G r e e c e a n d S c a n d i n a v i a , against India on the other. 1 . T h e divinities w h o oppose one a n o t h e r on the subject of Herakles and S t a r k a S r are those of the first and second functions, while K f j o a - V i j i j u a n d R u d r a - S i v a do not fit into the trifunctional structure and are c o m p a r a b l e with O d i n and T h o r o n l y in other aspects. 2 . T h e divinity with w h o m Herakles is reconciled after his death is Hera, the wife of the sovereign Zeus; the o n e w h o lurks behind Hatherus a n d w h o benefits (or could do so) f r o m Sisupala's last gift is H o S r , v e r y close to O d i n , the god at once sovereign and " d a r k " (in the sense w e h a v e given this term). O n the other hand Sisupala, at the instant of his death, is reconciled with the " l i g h t " divinity, IQ-5i:ia-Viiju, a n d merges with h i m . 3 . Herakles a n d S t a r k a S r are sympathetic heroes, the first having n o " d e m o n i c " c o m p o n e n t , the second having lost along with his monstrousness w h a t e v e r " g i g a n t i c " elements resulted f r o m his birth. Sisupala, on the other h a n d , until the conversion that takes place at the m o m e n t of his death, remains the being, at o n c e demonic a n d Sivaistic, w h i c h he h a s been f r o m birth. 4 . Neither Herakles n o r S t a r k a S r has p r o v o k e d the divinity w h o persecutes h i m : they suffer his e n m i t y , the cause of which

135

Summary antedates their birth. Sisupala on the c o n t r a r y never ceases until the end to try the patience of K r j n a - V i j n u , w h o in fact does n o t persecute h i m , but finally punishes h i m . 5 . H o w e v e r important the activity o f the divinities w h o are in conflict o v e r Herakles and S t a r k a S r , still it is the hero himself w h o is interesting, and o n c e past the beginnings the deities fade into the b a c k g r o u n d , though they are felt to be present and watchful. It is Krsna-Vijou on the c o n t r a r y w h o is the main c h a r a c t e r , Sisupala being only an episodic figure, a sort of incorrigible Indian Loki, in the only thing that is really important, the career of the incarnate god. 6. Consequently the reader comes out on the side of neither O d i n n o r T h o r , but of StarkaSr; he is certainly not f o r Hera, rather for A t h e n a , but a b o v e all f o r Herakles himself, a n d f o r A t h e n a o n ly to the extent that she helps him. In contrast, f r o m o n e e n d of the story to the other w e are f o r a n d with Krsna-Vijnu. 7. In particular, the v o l u n t a r y deaths o f Herakles a n d StarkaSr are g o o d a n d serene, despite the ordeals which cause t h e m t h e decrepitude o f age a n d his remorse f r o m his third crime for S t a r k a S r , and the insufferable burning which results f r o m his third crime f o r Herakles. Sisupala's death is on the c o n t r a r y the climax of a frenzied delirium. 8 . O n l y the stories of Herakles a n d S t a r k a S r introduce the figure of the y o u n g m a n w h o m the hero entreats to liberate him from lifea noble a c t , to b e sure, but o n e which is nonetheless remunerated. 9 . In these t w o cases alone, the offer o r final gift is a m b i g u o u s : Hatherus is suspicious, a n d we will never k n o w if he had reason to be; the poisoned arrows given b y Herakles will w o u n d Philoktetes incurably.' 1 0 . T h e general type o f Herakles and S t a r k a S r is the same: redresser of wrongs, wandering h e r o , given to toil, n6voq. 1 1 . Consequently each is an educator: in S a x o , the episode of Frotho's children restored to virtue b y Starcatherus has n o other
' [ 1 9 7 7 ] On the variants of Philoctetes' wound, see P. Vidal-Naquet, "Philoct^te et I'^phebie," Annates E.S.C. 26 (1971), 625 (Sophocles) and 630 (Servius, ad Aen. 3.402). 136

Summary meanir\g, a n d Herakles is k n o w n t o h a v e a role in the upbringing, as well as protection, o f young G r e e k s . 1 2 . S t a r k a S r has a reputation as a great skald, the f o r e m o s t of the skalds; tradition attributes to h i m p o e m s on his o w n deeds a n d the mythic battle o f B r a v a l l a , a n d , in the saga as in S a x o , the "gift of p o e t r y " has been conferred on him b y O d i n . T h e association o f the Muses and Herakles

(noucriKdi; (ivf|p, Hercules Musarum;

and al-

ready o n sixth-century vases 'HpOKA-fji; )a)9ap(p66<;, Herakles the pupil o f Linos) is ancient, undoubtedly older than the iconographic attestations and the Pythagorean speculations. But other a c c o r d a n c e s bring together India a n d S c a n d i n a v i a in contrast t o G r e e c e , a n d sometimes spectacularly s o . T h u s : 1. Sisupala and S t a r k a S r a r e b o r n with monstrosities which are corrected, before their careers begin, b y one of the t w o divinities concerned. Herakles has n o birth defects. 2 . India and S c a n d i n a v i a place i m p o r t a n c e on royal ideology, stressing the attitudes o f the t w o heroes toward kingship a n d providing emphatic statements o n the subject. T h e G r e e k legend outlines the theme in the beginning (the opposition o f Eurystheus and Herakles) but does not dwell on it. 3 . T h e faults o f Sisupala a n d S t a r k a S r are f o r e o r d a i n e d : i m posed o n the o n e at birth b y his demonic nature a n d ancestry, o n the other b y the " l o t s " annunciated, according t o the v a r i a n t s , b y either O d i n o r T h o r . Herakles c o m m i t s his three crimes freely. 4 . T a k i n g into account that the legend o f Jarasandha c o m pletes that o f Sisupala, India a n d S c a n d i n a v i a charge their heroes, implying criminality, with o n e o r m o r e human sacrifices, the sacrifice o f o n e or m o r e kings offered o r promised t o the " d a r k " divinity w h o demands t h e m . N o t h i n g like this occurs in the long career o f Herakles. 5 . T h e m a n n e r o f death is the same f o r S t a r k a S r and Sisupala: e a c h has himself beheaded, o n e with c o m p o s u r e and on his o w n r e quest, the other in a giddiness of aggression. Herakles mounts a pyre. 6. S t a r k a S r , like Sisupala, has t o d o with only t w o opposing divinities ( * H 6 3 r being functionally indistinguishable f r o m O d i n ) ,

Summary with n o higher judge: T h i s is natural a n d u n a v o i d a b l e in S c a n dinavia, where O d i n is the highest, sovereign g o d ; in India o n e might have expected, overarching the opposition of Rudra-Siva and Vinu, some intervention, some "plan" of B r a h m a , but there is n o n e . O n the c o n t r a r y , a b o v e Hera a n d A t h e n a w h o vie f o r Herakles, there is Zeus, w h o s e paternal c o n c e r n , though frustrated, nonetheless carries the d a y . T h i s complication of the pattern, m a d e possible in Greece b y the fact that the functional divinities a r e here goddesses (as in the parallel case of the legend of the shepherd Paris), adds to the interest a n d p a t h o s of the life of Herakles. Finally, other correspondences d r a w together India a n d G r e e c e , and separate them from S c a n d i n a v i a . 1. Formally, the three functional failings of Sisupala a n d T h e second Herakles a r e close in kind. T h e third is one of sexual libido f o r each of them, while f o r S t a r k a S r it is auri sacra fames. failure consists of a n u n w o r t h y b e t r a y a l of a w a r r i o r b o t h in the case of Herakles, w h o surprises a n d throws d o w n Iphitos instead of fighting h i m , a n d in that of Sisupala, w h o twice profits f r o m a king's absence to harass his t o w n o r his officers, whereas f o r Stark a S r it consists of a shameful flight on the battlefield. T h e first failing offends a g o d in the case of Herakles w h o resists the c o m m a n d of Zeus, a n d a sacrificer in the case of Sisupala, w h o b y stealing the horse planned as a n offering b y a king, strikes a b l o w at a n act of worship, whereas in StarkaSr's case it results f r o m a n excess of obligingness towards a g o d (it is true that on this point the legend of J a r a s a n d h a , c o m p l e m e n t a r y to that of Sisupala, juxtaposes c o n versely S c a n d i n a v i a a n d India). 2 . In consequence of this first difference, Sisupala a n d H e r a kles (in the latter case even though A p h r o d i t e does n o t intervene as such in a career dedicated to Hera a n d A t h e n a alone) h a v e n o enmity, quite the c o n t r a r y , against the third function in its sensuous aspect, while S t a r k a S r , w h o s e entire destiny is fixed b y O d i n and T h o r , c o n d e m n s this kind of weakness, a n d in S a x o m a k e s clear his contempt a n d distaste f o r " F r o , " the Freyr of Uppsala, a n d his " e f f e m i n a t e " festivals.

138

Summary T h i s v a r y i n g distribution of similarities a n d differences, let us n o t e in passing, is a powerful argument in f a v o r of the hypothesis of a c o m m o n inheritance f r o m a n Indo-European original. T h e fact that the Scandinavian f o r m of the tale is, in m a n y respects, intermediate between the G r e e k a n d Indie f o r m s , should b e b o r n e in m i n d . C o m p a r i s o n of the three tales helps in defining the position of the three heroes in the varying theological f r a m e w o r k s in which they a r e included. A s f o r S c a n d i n a v i a , it is n o w clear that I w a s m i s t a k e n , in 1 9 5 6 , in trying t o understand StarkaQr ( o r rather Starcatherus, as the evidence w a s all drawn f r o m S a x o ) as a " h e r o of T h o r , " c o n trastable with the w e l l - k n o w n O d i n i c heroes, SigurSr, Helgi, a n d the others. It is elsewhere, in the Gesta Danorum, in B o o k V I I , as has b e e n well s h o w n b y Paul Herrmann,^ that a " h e r o of T h o r " is to b e f o u n d , in the person of Haldanus B i a r g r a m m u s . S t a r k a S r himself is a n O d i n i c h e r o , but of a rare type (in fact he is the only example), linked to the dark aspects of this complex g o d . T h e nobility o f SigurSr is spotless, while O d i n f r o m the beginning m a k e s S t a r k a S r his a c c o m p l i c e . H a n d s o m e , brilliant, y o u n g , well-loved, winning his fame in his natural e n v i r o n m e n t , until his tragic death SigurSr heaps up exploits, not " l a b o r s , " while S t a r k a S r , a b n o r mally laden with y e a r s a n d disfigured b y huge a n d irmumerable w o u n d s , solitary a n d forbidding, wanders across the w o r l d , in pain a n d suffering like Herakles.
.t.i"- > i . . ,

Regarding G r e e c e , Herakles certainly continues t o appear, in terms o f this study, a s w h a t he seems t o b e , a second-function h e r o , on the order of the Vedic Indra a n d even m o r e , n o d o u b t , on the o r der of the other Indo-Iranian p a t r o n of the w a r r i o r function, V a y u , and his epic transformation BhTma. But the S c a n d i n a v i a n parallel compels us t o p a y m o r e attention to his touching relationship with Zeus, a n d at the s a m e time to emphasize the originality of G r e e c e . A s e c o n d d r a m a , in the w o r l d of the gods, duplicates the hero's trying career. Zeus, his father, desires the happiness of a son with
^ Kommentar, pp. 479-481.

139

Summary w h o s e begetting he has taken especial pains, a n d yet causes at first, if n o t his unhappiness, at least his Ttdvog, in a long series of physical a n d m o r a l trials. Zeus, king of the gods, destines him to a splendid kingship a m o n g m e n , but is forced to compel him into the service o f a grotesque king. Zeus, master of the fates, is m a d e to feel in this m o s t important case the limits of his m a s t e r y , the risk that lies in setting his decrees into f o r m u l a e : the formula turns against his intention, against his protege. A n d since every sequence of tragedies must end with some less weighty d r a m a , the final a p o theosis of Herakles is also the e n d f o r the time b e i n g o f a n o t h e r dispute, the eternal conjugal strife of inconstant Z e u s a n d his illresigned spouse. T h e Indian Sisupala, at least in the f o r m in w h i c h w e k n o w his legend, is m o r e difficult to place. T h e overriding fact is his c o m plete c h a n g e o v e r f r o m g o o d to evil, o r rather the total elimination of the g o o d elements which f o r m e d the essence o f his p r o t o t y p e where the sins, the three sins, were only a glaring exception. B u t , thanks to the c o n s o l a t o r y philosophy of Vigou, the thinkers a n d artists of India h a v e m a d e of this very debasement the stuff o f a sublime " m y s t e r y " : the excess of hatred transformed at the m o m e n t of death into the fullness o f love; an individual d e m o n i c life losing itself, with no expiatory stage, in the ocean of the divine life. A s f o r the three functional sins of Indra in the MarkandeyaPurdna, it n o w seems likely that they have to do with a secondary realization, a n artificial extension to m y t h o l o g y , o f the epic theme of the "three sins of the w a r r i o r , " detached f r o m the structure of which it f o r m e d a part since Indo-European times, a n d whence the tale of Sisupala is derived directly. H a v e other Indo-European peoples besides the Indians, S c a n dinavians, a n d Greeks preserved, b y transforming it in other w a y s , the epic structure w e h a v e been considering? U p to the present, after quite a few soundings, the a n s w e r remains negative. G i v e n the c o n s e r v a t i s m of the R o m a n s a n d the mythical origin of the a c c o u n t s f r o m which they compiled their oldest h i s t o r y , o n e might

140

Summary

expect to find a m o n g them a variant attached to the third king, Tullus Hostihus, w h o characteristically represents the second function, rei militaris institutor, as his predecessors R o m u l u s and N u m a do the first function, o n e founding his w h o l e career o n the divine signa. the other establishing sacra a n d leges. But n o : Tullus t o be sure is in trouble with Jupiter, w h o ends b y blasting h i m , a n d he carries m a n y a v i c t o r y , but M a r s does n o t intervene in his life. It is all the gods, collectively, w h o m he scorns a n d neglects, and M a r s does n o t contend with Jupiter f o r h i m , n o r f a v o r h i m against Jupiter. A s f o r the numerous great warriors of the Irish legends, n o n e is the subject of a tale w h i c h , nearly o r r e m o t e l y , recalls those which w e h a v e been studying.^ In the story of S t a r k a S r - S t a r c a t h e r u s and in that of Sisupala, as w e have stressed, the a m b i g u o u s relationship of the hero and r o y a l t y is o b v i o u s , giving rise n o t only to deeds, but to theoretical discourses on the m a j e s t y o f kings. T h i s similarity between the G e r manics a n d the Indians is n o t e w o r t h y . A d d e d to it is a n o t h e r , m e n tioned in the first v o l u m e of Mythe et epopee, in c o n n e c t i o n with the g o d Heimdallr a n d Bhima, the heroic transposition in the Mahabharata'^ o f the sky-god D y a u h Heimdallr, like BhT?ma, is a " f r a m i n g f i g u r e , " in the sense that he is the "first" a n d " l a s t " in time: in mythical time in the case of Heimdallr, w h o is b o r n b e f o r e a n d dies after all the gods; in "historical" time in that of Bhlma, w h o belongs to a n earlier generation
^ [1982] This statement has been brilliantly contradicted by David J. Cohen, Celtica 12 (1977), 112-124. In the Buile Suibhne, the life of the errant warrior Suibhne Geilt is punctuated by two actual failings and one false accusation which leads to his death: he offends St. Ronan; he flees from the battlefield of Magh Rath; accused of adultery, he dies a violent death in the house of St. Moling, but not before receiving the last rites from the saint's hands. The gathering of attestations of this theme goes on. Daniel Dubuisson has found an inportant one in the structure of the second Indian epic: see "Trois theses sur le Ramayana," Annales E.S.C. 34 (1979), 464-489 ("the three failings," pp. 466-474; "from three failings to three functions," pp. 474-477). Other versions, in other Indo-European societies, are presently being analyzed. * ME I, pp. 182-190.

Summary than the protagonists of the Mahabharata, but w h o thanks to a

special privilege lives through as m a n y generations a s he wishes a n d dies after them in the great transposed eschatological b a t t l e a t least after those of them (all the " g o o d " ones save the five P a n d a v a s , a n d all the " e v i l " ones) w h o must die there. Both o f them, t o o , maintain the same kind of relationship with r o y a l t y . BhT^ma, b y his right of seniority, ought to b e king: he renounces this right a n d m a k e s himself the guardian o f the dynasty, marrying off the princes and assuring the c o m i n g of each generation into the w o r l d , then the education of the king a n d his b r o t h e r s . Heimdallr, n o t withstanding his temporal priority, is not the king of the gods, which title belongs to O d i n . B u t , in h u m a n f o r m and under the n a m e of Rigr ("king," not in G e r m a n i c , but in Irish), he ensures successively through three generations the birth of the ancestors o f the three social Estates (slaves, peasants, n o b l e warriors), a n d f r o m the children of the latterancestors of the jarlarhe selects a b o y to w h o m he gives individual tutoring, passes o n particularly a m a g ical knowledge, a n d confers the n a m e of Kon-ungr ("king" in O l d Icelandic, but not in Irish), a n d w h o b e c o m e s indeed the prototype of kings. W e see that in these t w o cases, in the tales of the "first" hero a n d the "second-function h e r o , " the Scandinavians a n d the Indians bring in royalty in order to describe its relation to what, being closest to it, could but does n o t enter into conflict with it: Heimdallr a n d BhTma avail themselves of their priority only to "prepare" kings; Starcatherus a n d Sisupala theorize about a n d extol royal p o w e r , a n d , save f o r the sins imposed o n them b y fate o r their nature, respect a n d defend it a m o n g , before, a n d if need b e against kings. In other w o r d s , in b o t h cases it is lateral aspects of kingship which are considered: not its w o r k i n g s , but its c o n n e c tions either with what precedes it m y t h i c a l l y H e a v e n before the sovereign gods, Janus before Jupiter, e t c . o r with what actually follows it in the social o r d e r o r , a s T a c i t u s says, the dux next to the rex.

142

Summary Let us a v o i d premature conclusions: the c o m p a r a t i v e exploitation of legends h a s only begun. B u t let us note that the I n d o - G e r m a n i c isothemes seem t o m a r k off a n o t h e r domain than that a c c o m p a n y i n g the Indo-Celto-Italic isolexeme of the n a m e of the king (Skt. rdj-, Celt, rig-, L a t . reg-): Vi^hether in institutions o r in other kinds of epic tales ( o n e o f which is the subject o f a separate treatm e n t ) ' it is the w o r k i n g s , the c h a n c e s , a n d the internal o r external risks of kingship which m a k e f o r c o m p a r i s o n a m o n g the "*regIn a n y case it is certainly n o t b y c h a n c e that, on the o n e h a n d , the didactic section of the tale of S t a r k a S r (assuredly o l d , a n d c o n firmed b y Beowulf), that is, the scene where S t a r c a t h e r u s b y h i s e x h o r t a t i o n s transforms the m o c k king Ingellus into a real king, h a s acquired a length which seems at first inordinate; n o r that, o n the other h a n d , the story of Sisupala, with its c o m p l e m e n t , the story of J a r a s a n d h a , h a s been used b y the a u t h o r s of the Mahabharata on the o c c a s i o n of the rajasuya, o r royal c o n s e c r a t i o n , of Y u d h i j f h i r a , these t w o heroes constituting the t w o obstacles to this c o n s e c r a tion, o n e a s rival, the other a s o b j e c t o r . P e r h a p s it is even thanks to its c o n n e c t i o n with royal rituals that this material in b o t h instances has been preserved since prehistory. O u r final c o m m e n t will b e to emphasize that a n e w e x a m p l e of " I n d o - E u r o p e a n literature," specifically Indo-European epic literature, h a s c o m e t o be added to a n already well-stocked file: it is i m possible to believe that t h e three tales w e h a v e considered were c o m p o s e d independently, starting simply f r o m the s a m e preserved Indo-European " i d e o l o g y , " a n d that their continued similarity is the result of s e c o n d a r y c o n v e r g e n c e . It is a b o v e all the S c a n d i n a v i a n tradition which h a s m a d e this result possible, reminding us that this same tradition, c o m p a r e d with those of several other Indo-European peoples, a n d especially
= The Destiny of a King (1973).

societies."

143

Summary the Indie b r a n e h , has enabled us to glimpse a n u m b e r of aneient epie-mythieal tales. W e n o w k n o w of a " w o r l d d r a m a " (the death of Baldr a n d R a g n a r o k and the central plot o f the Mahabharata),^ as well as the " h i s t o r y " o f the f o r m a t i o n of a w h o l e soeiety b y the w a r a n d subsequent reeonciliation o f the representatives of the first two functions with those of the third ( y ^ s i r and V a n i r ; P r o t o R o m a n s and Sabines; devas and A s v i n s ) / with the latter extending to the creation and dismemberment of the monster Drunkenness (Kvasir, M a d a ) . ' A n d a m o n g other m o r e properly epic stories, there is the o n e whose existence Stig W i k a n d e r established b y j u x taposing the antecedents, circumstances, a n d episodes of the S c a n dinavian battle of Bravellir (Bravalla) with a series of precise a n d important features in the Indie battle of K u r u k j e t r a , features o f which the central plot o f the M a h a b h a r a t a gives n o a c c o u n t . '
* ME I, pp. 208-240. ''Archaic Romarj Religion (1970), pp. 6 6 - 7 3 ; ME I, pp. 288-290. "Loki (Paris, 1948), pp. 97-106 (German edition [1959], pp. 67-74). ' See "Frin Brivalla till Kurukshetra," Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 74 (1960), 183-193; cf. ME I, pp. 255-257.

144

Appendix Excerpts from the "Mythology of the Hindus" by the Canoness de Polier
In the interest o f rescuing f r o m oblivion the " M y t h o l o g y o f the H i n d u s , " ' I reproduce the pages containing the description of the deaths of Jarasandha^ a n d of Sisupala.' N o doubt the reader will prefer to see f o r himself the changes the legends have undergone in this first presentation of the Mahabharata in a Western language.

1.

JARASANDHA

[Yudhijthira has just informed Kr?na that h e intends t o celeb r a t e a rajasuya a n d that he needs his help to fulfil the difficult conditions o f this undertaking.] " W h a t then," asked M r . de Polier, "is this R a i s o o - y u c [ = raja-

suya]!"
" T h i s c e r e m o n y , " answered the teacher [ R a m t c h u n d , Poller's instructor], "also called the festival of the R a j a h s , could b e celebrated o n l y b y a ruler w h o h a d vanquished and subdued all the
' A b o v e , p. 81, n. 4. 'ViU ^ I, 603-614; cf. above, pp. 97-107. ' I, 614-619; cf. above, chap. 11.

145

Appendix o t h e r sovereigns of the w o r l d . It was necessary for all the R a j a h s of the universe, willingly or by f o r c e , to be gathered together at the residence of the one w h o held the R a i s o o - y u c . A n d this c e r e m o n y had so m a n y requirements that Judister [Yudhi?thira], although he had been reestablished in p o w e r , could never h a v e brought it to pass without the aid of Chrisnen [Krnal- But although the son of Basdaio [ V a s u d e v a ] , b y reading these letters of his proteges, already k n e w what he had to d o , he still wished to appear to take counsel. T h u s , calling u p o n O u d h o [ U d d h a v a ] , he asked him f o r his advice. 'Since the P a n d o s [ P a n d a v a s ] , ' he told h i m , 'have begun the preparations f o r the R a i s o o - y u c o n l y in the belief that I would help them, and since it is time f o r the R a j a h s held in chains, w h o have claimed m y protection, to be delivered, do y o u think, O u d h o , that by yielding to the wish of m y cousins these two objects might be achieved?' O u d h o , animated b y a prophetic spirit, knew the intentions of the head of the Yadus [ Y a d a v a s ] . T h u s he answered, ' T h e difficulties to be encountered in the celebration of the R a i s o o - y u c cannot have escaped the insight of s o wise a prince as Judister; he has certainly realized that b y his forces alone he could not subdue the R a j a h s of the four quarters of the universe. Nevertheless he is preparing his c e r e m o n y in the firm belief that with y o u r powerful aid his undertaking will have a happy o u t c o m e . T h e r e f o r e , O Chrisnen, I advise you to accede to his invitation, the more so because, as the time has c o m e to rescue the captives w h o groan under the chains of Jerashind [Jarasandha], the yuc [yajna 'sacrifice'] a n n o u n c e d by Judister will be the occasion of his punishment because, t o o proud to accept the invitation of the head of the P a n d o s , it will be necessary to f o r c e him into it, and w h a t e v e r trust he has hitherto placed in his strength, which surpasses that of ten thousand elephants, and in his invulnerability, I foresee nevertheless that Bhim [ B h I m a ] , the second of the P a n d o s , his equal in every respect, supported b y y o u , will inevitably defeat him, and thus the t w o objectives which concern y o u will be a c h i e v e d . ' "

146

Appendix

" B u t w h y , " asked M r . de Polier, " h a d Chrisnen spared Jerashind until then? C o u l d he not have taken his life as he had so m a n y others?" " O f course he c o u l d , " answered the teacher, " b u t Chrisnen, as a divine being, k n e w the decrees of fate; he k n e w the date set f o r Jerashind's death, and that he could be killed only by B h i m and at a time w h e n h e , Chrisnen, w a s present; this is w h y n o t o n l y did he not kill him himself, but he even prevented Bulhader [ B a l a d e v a , o r B a l a r a m a , Kfsija's b r o t h e r ] f r o m killing h i m . A n d O u d h o , inspired as he w a s , w h o also k n e w these facts, could predict the o u t c o m e with c e r t a i n t y . B e that as it m a y , all the Y a d u s applauded the advice that he gave to Basdaio's son. A n d so the latter ordered preparations to be m a d e immediately, a n d on the following day m a d e his departure with great p o m p and magnificence, a c c o m p a n i e d b y the noblest chiefs of his tribe a n d a large corps of troops, and followed b y a multitude of elephants a n d c a m e l s carrying the baggage, and a n u m b e r of chariots laden with thrones, crowns and all sorts of a r m s . Messengers preceded Chrisnen, charged with a n n o u n c i n g to the R a j a h s held captive b y Jerashind that he w a s c o m i n g to their aid. Crossing in this w a y the m o d e r n kingdom of Soorethe [ S u r a ? t r a ] , he c a m e u p o n the borders of M e e v a t [ M e e r a t h ? ] , where he f o u n d the R a j a h Judister advancing to meet h i m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y M u n i s , B r a h m i n s , and choirs of instrumental a n d vocal music, w h o preceded a large a n d brilliant procession. A l t h o u g h the son of Basdaio, being y o u n g e r than Judister, a l w a y s insisted on tendering him the respect due his age, this R a j a h hastened to anticipate h i m , a n d falling d o w n at his feet, he sprinkled his hands with the tears of j o y that he w a s m a d e to shed b y the f a v o r that the A v a t a r [Kf?^ia, the incarnation of Vinu] had granted h i m . Chrisnen raised h i m ^nd e m b r a c e d h i m , a n d gave a most kindly w e l c o m e to his four other cousins, a n d then, finishing with the amenities w h i c h he customarily s h o w e d to the Rishis, M u n i s and B r a h m i n s , he went on with them to Aindraprest [Indraprastha] or Delhi, the capital of Judister's c o u n t r y . . . .

147

Appendix

A few days after Chrisnen's arrival, the head of the P a n d o s c o n v e n e d an assembly of the four castes, attended b y the most celebrated B r a h m i n s . Addressing himself to Chrisnen, w h o w a s presiding, he told him 'that b y his arrival in Aindraprest, he felt himself already raised to the heavens and c a p a b l e of a n y undertaking; that in daring to c o n c e i v e the grand design of celebrating the R a i s o o - y u c , he h a d relied on the constant affection which the son of Basdaio had always deigned to b e s t o w u p o n the P a n d o s ; that, although he k n e w that in the eyes of the c r e a t o r of the universe all men were equal in w o r t h , yet he believed that those w h o , feeling the need which they had for divine assistance, requested it with faith and humility, w o u l d h a v e the g o o d fortune of o b t a i n i n g it.' Judister's words seemed to please the A v a t a r . He assured him that his trust w o u l d not be disappointed and that the c r e a t o r of the universe w o u l d accord him his protection. 'I see,' he added, 'that y o u have already prepared the things necessary f o r the sacrifice, but at present it is necessary to see about assembling here the m o n a r c h s and warriors of the four corners of the w o r l d , and it is for y o u r four brothers, w h o s e v a l o r sets them a b o v e all the D e i o t a s [devatds, divinities], to bring them to Aindraprest. T h e r e f o r e let Bhim go to the west, A r j o o n [Arjuna] to the n o r t h , Schecdaio [ S a h a d e v a ] to the south, and N a k u l [Nakula] to the east. A s for y o u , Judister, awaiting their return, put all in readiness t o begin your y u c ' T h e victories of the four P a n d o s being as rapid as w a s their travel, they s o o n returned, followed b y all the rulers w h o m they h a d defeated, and bringing with them an e n o r m o u s b o o t y and w e a l t h . But Jerashind had w i t h s t o o d them, he alone could not be subdued. Judister, dismayed and seeing in this the ruination of his w h o l e plan, made k n o w n to Chrisnen all the anguish which the thought produced in h i m . O u d h o , w h o was present at the c o n v e r sation of the t w o cousins, began to speak. 'I h a v e a l w a y s been of the opinion,' said he, 'that Jerashind c a n n o t b e c o n q u e r e d as o t h e r R a j a h s . T o draw him into a single c o m b a t o n e must use strategy. T h u s , let Chrisnen, Bhim and A r j o o n call upon him in the guise

148

Appendix

of Z e n n a d a r s [astrologers]. H e fias n o equal in generosity: o p e n handedness, he says, is the p r i m a r y duty of a ruler; all perishes in this w o r l d , but the n a m e of a free-spending m a n will live f o r e v e r . ' " " H e could afford to b e , " interrupted M r . de Polier, "since he had expropriated the wealth of 2 0 , 8 0 0 R a j a s . " " A l s o , " the teacher went o n , " O u d h o assured them that this renown l a y so close t o his heart that, b y introducir\g themselves to him as p o o r B r a h m i n s , they would be sure not only o f being a d mitted, but o f obtaining everything they might a s k of h i m . Chrisnen approved of O u d h o ' s advice, and the three cousins, in the dress of Z e n n a d a r s , b e t o o k themselves to M o g a h [ M a g a d h a ] . T h e y were introduced to the R a j a h , w h o knew as s o o n as he s a w t h e m , b y their speech and b y the distinguishing m a r k s of Kattris [k^atriyas], that these three strangers were n o B r a h m i n s . Despite this he w e l c o m e d them as such, and said to them, ' O B r a h m i n s , w h a t d o y o u wish o f m e ? W h a t e v e r y o u ask of m e , f r o m the smallest gift t o that of a k i n g d o m , y o u shall not leave here w i t h o u t o b taining it, a n d though I a m c o n v i n c e d that y o u are n o Z e n n a d a r s , this thought will have n o more influence upon m e than the arguments o f S o u c k e r [Sukra] upon B a l y [ B a l i ] . S o speak fearlessly!' Chrisnen then stepped f o r w a r d a n d requested a s a m g r a m [sarfigrdma], o r single c o m b a t , adding 'Since y o u k n o w that w e a r e not B r a h m i n s , learn t o o that here is B h i m , the second o f the P a n d o s , A r j o o n his b r o t h e r , a n d I their cousin.' A t these w o r d s Jerashind turned t o his courtiers and smiled c o n t e m p t u o u s l y , exclaiming, 'I admire the insolence of this churl, w h o m I have often put to flight, and w h o , t o o h a p p y to save his life, still dares t o p r o v o k e m e into a n o t h e r b a t t l e . V e r y well, I accept, I grant a s a m g r a m . Y o u have escaped m y hand only b y abandoning M a t h r a [the town o f M a thura], a n d saving yourself in the sea, but where will y o u hide now? A n d y e t , ' he added, 'it is t o o l o a t h s o m e f o r m e t o d o battle with a mortal w h o m I h a v e already defeated; A r j o o n is t o o y o u n g and delicate, n o doubt he does not pretend t o the h o n o r o f fighting with me; B h i m , w h o is stronger, is the o n l y o n e o f y o u w o r t h y of attempting it, if he h a s the courage. Let h i m b e given other clothing.

149

Appendix

and c h o o s e arms which he c a n u s e . ' Bhim chose a c l u b , Jerashind had o n e brought t o h i m , a n d the t w o c h a m p i o n s , followed b y Chrisnen a n d A r j o o n , went t o the battleground, surrounded b y the R a j a h ' s troops and a multitude o f o n l o o k e r s . Before beginning, Jerashind addressed to himself the N e m e s k a r [namaskdra], o r reverence, that is due G o d , then he

kissed his o w n h a n d . T h e r e u p o n he a d v a n c e d against B h i m , and the event began, their clubs striking each other with such violence that the vault of heaven reverberated with the s o u n d they m a d e . T h e clubs were soon b r o k e n to splinters, a n d they h a d t o t a k e recourse t o spears, to swords, a n d to axes. W i t h all these a r m s reduced to pieces, the t w o c o m b a t a n t s resorted to fisticuffs, again with such an even skill that o n e might have thought they h a d h a d the same master in the art o f fighting. A f t e r battling in this w a y f o r the entire d a y without the least advantage o n either side, in the evening the three cousins and Jerashind ate together a n d slept under the s a m e r o o f . T w e n t y - s e v e n days h a d already passed in this m a n ner, when B h i m gave a signal t o Chrisnen that h e believed he w a s exposed t o t o o m u c h danger, f o r this fight w a s beginning to exceed his strength a n d his ribs were b r o k e n a n d bruised f r o m the blows he was receiving, while he, Chrisnen, a mere s p e c t a t o r , h a d not taken the least hurt. He added that a s f o r himself, were it n o t f o r the s h a m e of admitting he w a s b e a t e n , he w o u l d gladly give up this battle. Arjoon, understanding the silent words o f his b r o t h e r , b e c a m e pale with fright, but Chrisnen, replying t o B h i m b y signs even m o r e expressive than his o w n , reproached h i m f o r his discouragement a n d lack of faith just when success w a s in his grasp. T h e n , getting up a n d plucking a blade o f grass, h e t o o k it b y the stem a n d tore it f r o m b o t t o m t o t o p , showing B h i m h o w on the next d a y he should split the b o d y o f his a d v e r s a r y . Bhim, understanding his divine p r o t e c t o r , suddenly felt his strength

renewed. Filled with a n e w vigor, on beginning the battle the next d a y , he threw Jerashind t o the ground, a n d b e f o r e he could r e c o v e r , t o o k o n e of his legs in each hand a n d split his b o d y to the top of his head, a s Chrisnen h a d torn the b l a d e of g r a s s . "

150

Appendix

" B u t h o w w a s it that Jerashind, until then s o equal in strength, ll of a sudden b e c a m e so inferior?" asked M r . de P o l i e r . " A c c o r d i n g to the explanations of the B r a h m i n s , " replied the

eacher, "Jerashind, k n o w i n g his h o r o s c o p e , k n e w the o n l y w a y in

which he c o u l d b e slain. He understood that Chrisnen's sign had

ndicated it to B h i m . T h i s knowledge m a d e his b l o o d freeze in his

veins, weakening him to the point of a m a n in his last m o m e n t s .

T h u s all the credit for his defeat rests solely with the divine A v a t a r .

But as it w a s Bhim w h o w a s the instrument which he used, in the

eyes of m o r t a l s it w a s he w h o received the h o n o r of the v i c t o r y .

Chrisnen and A r j o o n applauded, the D e i o t a s threw flowers at h i m , overeign w h o m they had believed invincible, stood motionless.

while the people and the a r m y , astounded at the death of their

T h e son of B a s d a i o lost n o time in crowning Jerashind's son king,

and ordered him to release his father's captives. T h e n , a c c o m o o k o n c e again the r o a d to Aindraprest where all the B r a h m i n s Kurus, K a u r a v a s ] , Dirtratch [ D h r t a r a s f r a ] , Biskum [BhT?ma], a n d [Duryodhana] himself had come there; Birmah,

panied b y the new R a j a h of M o g a h and this brilliant e n t o u r a g e , he

a n d the R a j a h s of the world were gathered. T h e lords of the C o r o s

Durdjohn

M h a d a i o [ B r a h m a , M a h a d e v a or S i v a ] , all the celestial hierarchies

with their heads, the birds and animals of every species were

gathered there. For save f o r the t w o R a i s o o - y u c celebrated b y King he lord of the seas, n o one had ever seen the like of that w h i c h ; /i^;,

Ainder [ I n d r a ] , the lord of h e a v e n , a n d b y King Baren [ V a r u n a ] ,

udister w a s a b o u t to celebrate. All m a n k i n d w a s in astonishment

and a d m i r a t i o n at the profusion of gold a n d riches used in the or-

n a m e n t s , the vessels and the raiments f o r the sacrifice, but a few

sages, seeing Chrisnen presiding over this festival, understood the

reason w h y it surpassed those which had been seen b e f o r e . "

2.

SISUPXLA

J '

" W i t h everything ready, and the various offices to b e fulfilled

: ii,-.

during the ceremonies assigned, the rite began with a sacrifice;

151

Appendix

Judister, dressed in a splendid tunic, placiAg a golden c o r d in the hands of the Z e n n a d a r s , holding in his o w n the Cusa [kusa] o r sacred grass, advances t o w a r d the altar, offers the o b l a t i o n , a n d while p r o n o u n c i n g the n a m e of N a r r e y e [ N a r a y a n a ] , which m e a n s spirit o r divine breath, his glances turn t o w a r d Chrisnen, with the smile expressing the gratitude w h i c h , attributing all the success of his undertaking to the presence of his divine p r o t e c t o r , also regards him as the p r i m a r y object of his love and his offering; with this preliminary act accomplished, before c o m m e n c i n g the individual pujas [non-sanguinary offerings], Judister addresses the heads of his family, asking them to decide the important question of w h o , in this august c e r e m o n y , should h a v e the h o n o r of the first of these sacrifices? N o one answers, then S c h e c d a i o , the fourth of the P a n dos, arises a n d observes in a modest and respectful t o n e that in a s k ing this question his elder b r o t h e r already k n o w s its answer, f o r , h e goes o n , 'there can be n o doubt in this respect, and since Chrisnen is in this assembly, the first puja should be addressed to h i m , as the V e d s [Vedas] say expressly that an o b l a t i o n presented to him has the s a m e virtue as a sacrifice offered to all the D e i o t a s , just as in watering the root of a tree o n e gives life to the smallest of its leaves.' Chrisnen, the speaker continued, 'is the c r e a t o r , the preserver, the destroyer of the universe, in his oneness he is all, the earth and all the creatures are the b o d y of which he alone is the soul and the spirit. A s f o r m e , ' S c h e c d a i o added, 'I shall a l w a y s worship only him.' Full of his subject, he was a b o u t t o continue his discourse, but Chrisnen restrained h i m . Nevertheless, the m a j o r i t y of the assembly applauded w h a t he had just said, and Judister, satisfied of the decision which he had wished f o r , washed the feet of Chrisnen a n d poured this s a m e water o v e r his h e a d and his eyes, after w h i c h , setting b e f o r e him the splendid raiments, gems, precious chains and all the paraphernalia of the p u j a , he set a b o u t the beginning of it b y prostrating himself at the feet of his divine p r o t e c t o r . But while the lord of the P a n d o s w a s b u s y with these holy offices, the Deiotas intoned the h y m n s to B h a g a v a t , and the pious men said their prayers, a loud m u r m u r arose in the a s e m b l y , several prideful R a j a h s grumbling at the preeminence accorded to
152

Appendix

the

son

of

Basdaio.

More

incensed

than

the

rest,

Souspal

[Sisupala], R a j a h of Chanderi, s t o o d out because of his anger. He had never forgotten the a b d u c t i o n of R o u k m a n i [RukmiijI] and his shameful defeat, and his only wish w a s to avenge himself. T h e resentment which he h a r b o r e d m a d e this new triumph of his rival insufferable to h i m . Rising f r o m his place, with rage in his heart and fury in his eyes, he interrupted the celebration of the p u j a : ' H o w , ' he cried out a r r o g a n t l y , 'how c a n the B r a h m i n s tolerate such abuse? W h a t then are the titles, the station, the nobility of Chrisnen that he merits this preeminence in such an august assembly, filled with t h e noblest individuals, the m o s t learned Z e n n a d a r s , the lowest of w h o m is m o r e qualified than he? D o y o u not k n o w , ' he continued, 'that the Y a d u s are accursed, that they shall never w e a r the diadem, that n o n o b l e r a n k can be accorded to that c o n t e m p t ible creature w h o deserted M a t h r a to seek a refuge in the middle of the sea, to establish there a den of bandits scattered a n d fled f r o m all corners of the earth, at w h o s e head he claims to launch a new religion?' T h e audacity with which Souspal disturbed the majestic cerem o n y , and the outrageous claims he showered u p o n Chrisnen, began to agitate the spectators. But Basdaio's son stilled them b y his signals and prevented them f r o m interrupting his e n e m y . Yet his insolence grew to the point where several members of the assembly, unable to suffer it any longer and finding it indecent, u n w o r t h y of themselves, and even criminal to listen to his b l a s p h e m y , left the enclosure where he w a s speaking, while B h i m and his brothers l o o k e d for their w e a p o n s in order to punish Souspal, w h o f o r his part w a s getting ready to fight. T h u s everything f o r e b o d e d a scene of confusion a n d h o r r o r w h i c h b y interrupting the sacrifice w o u l d h a v e prevented the celebration of the R a i s o o - y u c itself. But Chrisnen, n o w intervening m o r e directly, f o r b a d e the P a n d o s all physical recourse, ordering them to prevent all that might precipitate it, and addressing Souspal, told h i m that, in view of the c i r c u m stances, he w o u l d tolerate f r o m h i m o n e hundred m o r e insults, with the warning that when this n u m b e r was exhausted he would punish h i m himself. T h i s m a g n a n i m i t y of Basdaio's son, far f r o m

Appendix stopping the prideful R a j a h , incited him all the m o r e , and he quickly exceeded the prescribed limit. T h e n Chrisnen, giving free reign to his righteousness, threw at him his ring Sudarsun [Sudarsana, the discus of Vignu], w h i c h at one s t r o k e cut off his head, f r o m which issued a f l a m e w h i c h seemed f o r a few m o m e n t s to hover in the air, after which it entered at last into the m o u t h of the A v a t a r , while the servants and troups of Souspal fled in the greatest disorder." " T e l l m e then, teacher, w h a t w a s this f l a m e ? " asked M r . de Polier. "It w a s , " answered the teacher, " t h e soul of the R a j a h . D y i n g directly at the h a n d of the A v a t a r , it received his grace and w a s freed f r o m reincarnations to return to B a i k u n t [ V a i k u p f h a , Vi?nu's paradise] and take the place it h a d held as the doorkeeper of Vi?iju." " T h e n S o u s p a l , " replied M r . de Polier, " w a s one of the m a n i festations of those doorkeepers condemned b y the curse of the Rishis to be reincarnated three times on e a r t h ? " "Precisely,"said the teacher. " W e h a v e seen them reincarnated in the bodies of Herncashup [Hiranyakasipu] a n d H e m a c h u s [Hiraiiiyak^a], t w o Daints [daityas, demons] w h o were b r o t h e r s , w h o occasioned t w o a v a t a r s o r incarnations of V i j i j u , o n e as a wild b o a r and the other as a m a n - l i o n . T h e i r second incarnation w a s in the bodies of R a v e n [ R a v a n a ] and K u n t c h b e c k a r e n [ K u m b h a k a r n a ] ; that necessitated the incarnation of R a m t c h u n d [ R a m a ] . A n d finally, in the third, they fought against the incarnation of Vi?riu [as Kfi:ia] and were freed b y him f r o m the bodies of Souspal and his brother D e n t h e b e k , in w h i c h they finished the term of their transmigrations."

154