Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship

Bruce Lincoln

THEORIZING MYTH Narrative> Ideology> and Scholarship

The University of Chicago Press Chicago & London

Bruce Lincoln is professor of the history of religions at the University of Chicago. He is the author of seven books, most recently Death, Wat; a11d Sacrifice and Autho1·ity: Comtruction and Con·osion, both published by the University of Chicago Press. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 1999 by The University of Chicago All rights reserved . Published 1999 08

07

06

05

04

03

02 01

2

3

4

5

ISBN: 0 -226-48201 -4 (cloth) l SBN: 0 -226-48202-2 (paper)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lincoln, Bruce. T heorizing myth :narrative, ideology, and scholarship/ Bruce Lincoln. p. em. Includes bibliographical references and index . ISBN 0-226-48201 -4 (cloth: all

l3

"CI ...

.-..... 1:

u

1'€

0

l ::..."'

~ ...~ "g ::l

:::s

+ +

+++

~

~ ~ ~

+ ++

+++++

Chapte1· One

voices most o ften characterize it as unprincipled and treacherous. But it can also be depicted as an effective instrument thro ugh which sympathetic figures struggle against serio us obstacles to accomplish reasonable, even admi rable goals, as when H ennes seeks to level an uneven playing field against Apollo, or when Patroclus works to calm Eurypylus and soothe his pains. So much for logos. What of the term with which it is so often contrasted in scholarly literature? What sorts of speech does mythos denote in the earliest texts? In H esiod this word occurs six times and , with one exception (to which we shall return), always denotes the rough speech of headstrong men, who are proud of their strength and bent on victory at all costs. T hus, for example, there is a moment when Zeus asks the O uranidsthe incarnations of warrior might- to pit their "great force and irresistible hands" against the Titans and to help him fight "for victory and power." 35 Altho ugh the T itans are their own brothers, the Omanids agree, and their pledge of support is termed a mythos.36 Similarly, when Gaia proposes to her children that they take the adamantine sickle she has newly devised and usc it to castrate their tyrannous father, at first the young gods are speechless with dread. Then, becoming bold , great Cronus, devious in his cun ning, Responded quickly with these mythoi: " Mother, I promise I will bring this deed to fulfillment. I have no regard for our father, he of the evil name, For he fiTst contrived unseemly deeds." 37 In both these instances, speakers commi t themselves to a violent struggle and, what is more, a struggle against their own kin. Facing these cruel realities without illusion o r sugarcoating, they pledge to fight and win, confident in their bodies' force. In deeds, moreover, they make good on th eir commitments: their speech is raw and crude, but true. In this, as in their physical might, they resemble nothing so much as the hawk in a story H esiod relates, directly he has finished telling Perses the log os of world ages. Now I will teiJ a fable to the kings, and tl1ey will tl1ink on tl1emselves. Thus tl1e hawk addressed the nightingale, she of tl1e dappled tl1roat, Bearing her in his claws high in the clouds, after having laid hold of her. She, stuck benveen his talons, piteously Wept, and forcefully he spoke tl1is mythos to her: "Good lady, why do you screech? One who is far your better has you. You will go where I take you, you who are a singer.

12

The Prehistory of Mythos and Logos

I will make you my di nner or let you go if I wish. Senseless is he who wishes to pit himself against tl1ose who are more powerful: He deprives himselfofvictory and suffers pai ns in disgrace." T hus spoke tl1e swift-flying hawk, tl1e bird oflong wings.3B The hawk and tl1e nightingale stand in stark contrast: male versus female (such are the gende rs of ilie nouns irex and aedon ), predator versus prey, high versus low, stronger (areion, kreisson) versus weaker, the arrogant and brutal versus tl1e frightened, but attractive ("she of tl1e dappled th roat") . Regarding thei r speech, the difl:erences are also patent. The nightingale, famous tl1roughout the world fo r the beauty and mournful quality of her song, is said to weep piteously (eleon ... myreto), altl1ough the hawk- brute tl1at he is-characterizes her cry as little more tl1an a screech (lelekas) .39 In contrast, the hawk speaks fo rcefully (epikrateos), witho ut euphemism or grace, describing a cruel world with more candor than tact. His discourse is typical of tl1ose most confident in tl1eir power, and confiden t also in the right of the powerful to prevail. The text labels it mythos. If mythoi on the battlefield have this character, mythoi uttered in agonistic assembles are somewhat more complex, for tl1ey come in "straight" and "crooked" varieties (fig. 1.2 ). Straight mythoi resemble those spoken Forms of speech used in conflict

Spheres of appropriate use

Subtypes

A

~

Log~

War

Law

Other

~

Straig ht (ithus)

Forms w ith Which the Strong Prevail and Define Their Triumph as Justice

Crooked (skolios)

Forms with Which the Weak Can Prevail an d Have Their Triumph Defined as Sneaky or Unj ust

Figm·e 1.2 The relations of mythos and logos in Hesiod.

13

Chapter One

The P1·e/;istm·y of Mythos a11d Logos

in combat. Sometimes they take the form of upright pronouncements by honest judges and witnesses; alternatively, they may appear as the unvarnished assertions of men who believe their strength, position in society, and/or the justice of their cause entitle them to prevail.40 In contrast, acts of perjury and corrupt judgments constitute crooked mythoi. U nprincipled and untrue, tl1ey permit tl1e worse sort of case and the worse sort of man to prevail: tl1at is, within legal contexts they fimction much as logoi do elsewhere. T hat such tlungs are possible Hesiod knows fro m experience, and he describes how his brotl1er, Perses, swore false oaths and bribed greedy kings in order to cheat him of his inheritance. Faced with this situation , tl1e poet calls on Perses to mend Ius ways and implores the kings to "straighten out the mythoi. " 41 He also laments tl1at such occurrences, virtually unheard of in better times, are becoming tl1e rule among men of the present Race oflron.

that end, he spoke as one inspired by the Muses, deploying tl1e verbal gifts given him by these mysterious goddesses. We began our discussion by considering the way they described their own powers of speech, but we have not yet paid attention to the way ilieir discourse is fi·amed in the text.

There will be no favor shown to the person who is true to his oath, nor to him who is just, Nor to the good man; ramer, men glorify arrogance [hybris] And tl1e doer of evils. They take justice into tl1eir own hands, and there is no Shame. H e who is evil will damage tl1e better man, Speaking with crooked mythoi as he takes tl1e oatl1. 42

The goddesses first spoke forth this mythos to me, T he Olympian Muses, daughters of aegis-bearing Zeus: "You field-dwelling shepherds are a bad, shameful lot, notl1ing but bellies. We know how to recount [legein] many falsehoods like real th ings, and We know how to proclaim truths when we wish." 44 This is the only time the word mythos appears in Hesiod outside a context of battle or assembly, and the on ly time such a discourse passes tlu·ough a female's moutl1 (table 1.4 ). Its usc, moreover, is pointed and precise, for with it the text resolves a serious logical conundrum. Thus, if we treat lines 27-28 as a proposition {P} having two parts: {Pd (= the Muses' assertion "we can speak truths"), and (P2 } (="We can tell lies resembling tru tl1s"), two hypotl1escs are possible regarding {P}. l. (P } is true, in which case both {Pd and {P 2 } are true. Accordingly, any utterance of the Muses-including {P}-may be true or false.

Our stance toward {P l and all Musely utterances must tl1erefore be one of doubt and suspicion. 2. {P} is f.:'llsc, in which case th ree alternatives are open: (a) Both {Pd and {P 2 } are false (-(PJ} and -{P2 }): The Muses can speak neither trutl1 nor falsehood; (b) + {P 1 } and - {P2 }: They can speak truth, but not falsehood; (c) -{ P 1 } and + {P2 }: They can speak falsehood, but not truth. If ( P} itself is false, however, we can eliminate the first two of tl1ese alternatives, for the Muses' ability to speak falsehood is demonsu·ated in tl1is very instance. We then must concl ude the Muses-and poets inspired by tl1em, Hesiod included-speak ta lsehoods only. Our stance in this instance will be not doubt, but active disbelief and rejection.

The picture Hesiod paints is intentionally bleak, consistent witl1 tl1e goal of his world ages discourse, a discourse the text identifies as logos, tl1ereby framing it as a "plausible falsehood" told for su·ategic purpose and rhetorical efl:ect. Here, Hesiod recounts to Perses a devolutionary narrative, ending witl1 men of me Iron Race, who cheat one anotl1er and give false testimony, and among whom "a brallier is not dear, as he formerly was." 43 Such people, he continues, can look forward to nothing but suffering, misery, and desu·uction at the hand of Zeus. Slyly and audaciously, he thus ( mis )represents his own particular interests as if they were universal, suggesting to Perses that should he "set straight" his crooked mythoi and settle tl1cir dispute on terms more favorable to tl1e poet, he will not only restore their proper brotherly relations but in so doing he will also reverse tl1e most fearful tendencies oftl1eir age and help check humanity's slide toward perdition. The logos of tl1e world ages is ilius o ne of tl1e instruments tl1rough which Hesiod hoped to overcome a man who had bested him in legal struggle, a man better connected, more powerful, and more ruthless than he. Toward

To avoid the profoundly destabilizing consequences of hypothesis (2c), one would like to confirm hypothesis ( 1 ). As we saw, however, hypotl1esis (1) can neither be proven nor disproven on the basis ofinternal evidence and logical intercncc. What is more, any attempt to act on it leads to its own undoing. At this impasse, the authorial voice intervenes decisively and

14

15

The Prehistm·y of Mythos nud Logos

+

+

identifies (PI as a rnythos, which is to say, an unvarn ished truth advanced by powerful figures, who speak in a manner both gruff and aggressive. 4 5

v +

+

t
. s:u § 7:l ~ ';l~ ~ ·~ ~ u

.S ~

!t"' by their families, in d1eir nations" (my emphasis) . Similar statements are made about the lines of Ham and Shem at 10.20 and 10.31. In contrast to tl1e Tower of Babel narrative, which follows immediately, Genesis 10 presents linguistic differentiation as an organic process of growtl1 and

78

79

II

Chapter Fotw

Mt•. ]oues)s Myth ofOrigim

division rather than the result of human arrogance and divine intervention.12 It treats languages, like the people and nations that speak them, as part of fami lies that ramify over time as members separate themselves fi·om one another spatially, genealogically, culturally, and linguistically. History is understood as this process of division, expansion, and individuation. Although the biblical text does not make the point, it invites those sufficiently speculative in temperament to believe that, at the level of thought, comparative inquiries can reverse tl1e en tropic effects of history. For by disclosing tl1e deep similarities of languages tl1at lie beneath their superficial differences, one can restore the unity people enjoyed in Noah's time. That Noah spoke Hebrew seemed obvious to all, as was the transmission of that language through the line of his eldest son, Shem. But because Genesis 10 treats Noah's sons in reverse order of their birtl1, slu·ewd exegetes perceived tl1e possibility of recalibrating the ethnic hierarchy and shifting primacy from Shem and the center to Japhetl1 and the north. This seems to be the reason why Goropius, when making his case for the D utch, used a host of strained, but ingenious arguments, to equate Dutch witl1 tile virtually unattested languages of the Cimbri and tl1e Cimmerians. Why was this so importan t? Because if successful, he could tllen use tl1e phonological features oftl1ese names to attach his people- those formerly known as Dutch, now rechristened CimbrijCimmerijGomeri-to tl1e biblical figure of Gomer. The payofl' is clear when one recognizes tl1at Gomer is tl1e first ofNoah's grandchildren to be named in the biblical text (Gn 10.2), as well as Japheth's first born. 13 At a minimum he stands as the oldest, highestranking member of tile nortl1ern family. And if Japheth is understood to outrank Shem, then Gomer emerges as the noblest of tilem all.

ous Samuel Bochardus, who favored the Pha:nicians, satisfy him. Wherefore, taking anotl1er path, he postu lated some sort of common language, which he called "Scythian," as the mother of the Greek, tl1e Latin, the German and the Persian from wh.ich tl1ese ' like dialects, would start. He did not tl1ink therefore that the Latins had taken from tl1e Greeks, nor tl1e latter fi·om the Germans, those things tl1at tl1ey have in common witl1 each otl1er but tl1at [all] came from the same origin, that is Scythian. As t11ese attempts of his became known to the public at large, they seemed wonderful to many because of tl1ei r novelty itself. . .. 14

IV As long as scholars kept trumpeting tl1e claims of th eir own nations and languages, tl1ere was bOLmd to be conflict among tllem. Alliances could be forged, however, by using categories and terms tllat united some of the contestants. It was tl1is tl1at Marcus Zuerius Boxh orn (16 12-53) sought to accomplish in work tl1at was summarized by a colleague.

)

)

Boxhorn's "Scythians" were an attractive choice for many reasons. First, being unconnected to any contemporary peoples of Europe, they could encompass all without privileging any. Second, they occupied a crucial position in the geographic imaginary of antiquity from Herodotus down through Aristotle, who constituted Greece as the ideal center mediating between barbarians of the north (Scythians) and tllose of the soutl1 (Libyans and/or Egyptians).15 Any latter-day champion of the north might thus be drawn to the Scythians. In tl1e si.xtll century, Cassiodorus and Jordanes had already connected tl1em to tl1e Gotl1s and Germans, and Snorri took tl1e names "Scythia" and "Sweden" to be cognate and claimed that people reterred to tl1e latter as "home of men," while tl1e former was " home of tl1e gods." 16 Although Boxhorn never published his proposed book, "The Scytluan Origins of the Peoples and Languages of Europe," he disseminated his views in lectures, discussions, and other writings, particularly a lengthy pamphlet ofl647. Thereafter, well into the eighteentll century the "Scyt11ian tl1esis" was the standard form in which claims of northern origins and privilege were encoded. Among iliose who rallied to tl1is slogan were many Dutch scholars (Georg Horn, Claude de Saumise ), along with Swedes (Andreas Jager), Germans (Georg Caspar Kirchmayer, G. W. Leibniz-who termed "Scytl1ia" vagina populorum ), and occasional otl1ersY Even Sir William Jones was tempted by it when he first broached the question oflinguistic reconstruction in a much-discussed letter of 1779 .1s

v

He o bserved tllat innumerable words were common to tl1e Germans, the Latins, the Greeks and other nations throughout Europe. He conjectured tllerefore that that resemblance started from a common source, tllat is, fro m tile common origin of all those peoples. The attempts ofJohannes Goropius Becanus and Adrian Schriekius displeased him, nor did tile machinations of the illustri-

Jones is often credited witll having been the first to form ulate what would later become known as tl1e "Indo-European" thesis. As most historians of linguistics have come to realize, however, Jones did not inaugurate this thesis in any radical fashion. Ratller, he marked an important moment in a

80

81

Chaptet· Fottr

M1·. ]ones's Myth ofOrigiw

lo ng d iscussion, stretching fi·om Snorri and Giraldus Cambrensis through Goropius, Myli us, Boxhorn, Filippo Sassetti (1540-88), Leibniz, Father Ca:urdoux (1691- 1779), Lord Mon boddo (1714-99), and numerous others. 19

of human genius, aboundi ng in natural wonders, and infinitely diversified in tl1e forms of religion and government, in tl1e laws, manners, customs and languages as well as in the features and complexions of men.23

Jones was not simply repackaging the Scythian thesis, however, as some have claimed. 20 H e was familiar with that theor y but u·eated it with caution on th e one and only occasion he discussed it. I n the 1779 letter where he showed fa miliarity with the argume nt, he pronounced research in this area "very obscure and uncertain." 21 From what I can tell, Jones was not particularly enamored o f the north, still less of narratives about Nordic origins. Rath er, his preference was for the hot over th e cold, and he mapped this dicho tomy on an east-west axis, not north-south . Consider his remarks on the superiority of Asian to European poetry, written in 1772. " Whether it be that the immoderate heat disposes the Eastern people to a Life of in dolence, which gives th em fu ll leisure to cultivate their talents, or whether the sun has a real influence o n the imagination ... wh atever be th e cause, it has always been remarked, that the Asiaticks excell the inhabitan ts of our colder regions in the liveliness of their fancy, and the richness of their invention." 22 Jones's romanticization of Asia is evident in another passage of considerable historic importance: the opening words in the first of his "Anniversary Discourses," the annual lecnu·es he gave as preside nt of the Asiatic Society. The date was 15 January 1784. T he place, the Grand Jury Room of the High Court of Bengal, in Calcutta. Twenty- tline men gathered there following Jones's invitation to join him in creating an institutio n to support, advance, and dissemi nate the study of all things Asian. "Gentlemen," he began. When I was at sea last August , on my voyage to tl1is country, which l had long ardently desired to visit, I found one evenin g, on inspecting tl1e observations of th e day, tl1at India lay before us, an d Persia on our left whilst a breeze fi·om Arabia blew nearly on our stern. A situation so pleasing in itself, and to me so new, could not fail to awaken a trai n of reflections in a mi nd, which had early been accustomed to contemplate with delight the eventful histories and agreeable fictions of tllis eastern world. It gave me inexpressible pleasure to fin d myself in tl1e midst of so noble an amphitl1eatre almost encircled by tl1e vast regions of Asia, which has ever been esteemed tl1e nurse of sciences, the inventress of delightful and useful arts, tl1e scene of glorious actions, fertile in the productions

82

As interesting as tl1is paean to the Asian continent is the equally del irious reminiscence with which it begins: India to tile east in front of him, Arabia to the west at his rear, and Persia to tl1e nortl1 on his left hand. Mr. Jones

tancied himself at the center of the world: a situation that gave him almost unspeakable pleasure.

VI Sir William Jones (1746-94) was a man of extraordinary accomplishmen ts.24 Already as a student at Oxford (1764 - 68) he established hi mself as one of the world's fo remost linguists, with a splendid grasp of Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Turkish, along witl1 a knowledge of Persian and Arabicsecond to none in Europe. As a scholar, poet, translator, and as an original politic.al th inker, sympathetic to the most liberal causes of his day, he won tile friendship and admiration of Samuel Johnson, Benjamin Franklin, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Edm und Burke, and many otl1ers while also earning high praise from the kings of England and Denmark. Ad mitted to t11e Royal Society of London and to exclusive circles of artists and intellectuals, he was still unable to make an adequate living. And so he sntdied the law (177073), took up a second career, became a leading jurist, and-were t11at not enough - acq uired a knowledge ofWelsh while on the court circuit. Ultima~ely~ he won appointment as a justice on the High Court of Bengal, whtch ts how he came to be on board HMS Crocodile en route for I ndia in that rapturous August of 1783. Disembarki ng in Calcutta, he was hailed as a godsend: the genius who would bring order to a host of disconnected inq uiries tl1at a group of talented and energetic young colleagues, such as Natluniel Halhed (17511830) and Charles Wilkins (1749 - 1836), had already undertaken .2s When Jones announced his intention to form a leamed society on the model of that in London, tl1e elite of British I ndia responded with enthusiasm . When he spoke, they listened and took his words as gospel. And when he ar~-anged for twenty-seven papers presented at early meetings of the society, mcluding eleven of his own, to be bound and shipped to Europe as the first volume of Asiatick Researches (1788), tl1e book provoked a sensation.26 Most celebrated of all was his hypothesis about the relation and com mon 83

Chapter Four

M1·. Jones )s Myth of Origins

origins ofEmopean languages, Sanskrit, and Persian. This was not so much a novel idea as a more nuanced version of a long-standing hypothesis, now endowed with unprecedented authority and powerful institutional backing. Sir William was the right man in the right time and place: that which he said was- or was taken to be-very much the right thing. His accomplishments and large body of admirers notwithstanding, Jones's reputation has slipped in recent years, particularly since Edward Said traced the genealogy of Orientalism- that is, an acquisitive, dominating, classifying, and distorting exercise of knowledge and power in th e service of Western imperial interests- directly to Sir William's door. 27 There is trutl1 in tl1is, just as there is in the older, more idealized portrait, which is to say that botl1 readings are partial and neither is complete. One aspect of Said's partiality (and an aspect tl1at discloses unexpected results) becomes apparent in an act of misquotation. His text reads as follows.

srrange items. Where did they come from? And how did they come to interest so enlightened a fellow as Sir William Jones?

Immediately upon his arrival there to take up a post with tl1e East India Company, [Jones] began the course of personal study tl1at was to gather in, to rope off, to domesticate the Orient and tl1ereby turn it into a province ofEuropean learning. For his personal work, entitled "Objects of Enquiry During My Residence in Asia" he enumerated among tl1e topics of his investigation "tl1e Laws of tl1e Hindus and Mohammedans, Modern Politics and Geography of Hindustan, Best Mode of Governing Bengal, AJ:itl1metic and Geometry, and Mixed Sciences of tl1e Asiaticks, Medicine, C hemistry, Surgery, and Al1atomy of the Indians, Natural Productions oflndia, Poetry, Rhetoric and Morality of Asia, Music oftl1e Eastern Nations, Trade, Manufacture, Agriculture, and Commerce of India," and so fortl1. 2s The use of quotation marks and lack of ellipsis make it look as if Said cites a continuous passage. In fact it is an enumerated list that Jones drew up for himself on board the Crocodile. What is more, seven of its sixteen members are omitted from Said's rendition, including those tl1at appear in the second , third, and fourth positions. Of less interest to Said tl1an tl1ey were to Jones, tl1ese items are: The objects of enquiry during my residence in Asia The laws of the Hindus and Mahomedans. The history of tl1e ancient world. Proofs and ill ustrations of scripture. Traditions concerning tl1e deluge, etc. 29

1. 2. 3. 4.

84

VII When Jones took up the study oflaw in September 1770, he suspended his other researches, and for tl1e next seven years he read no serio us books save those on legal topics. To tl1.is rule, however, he admitted a single exception: Jacob Bryant's three-volume Analysis of Ancient Mythology (1774 - 76 ). 30 So intrigued was he by tl1is now-forgotten opus that he quickly arranged a two-day visit with its author, in the wake of which he exclaimed, "I love the man and am wonderfully diverted witl1 his book." 31 Bryant (1715- 1804) was a complicated figure, part polymath and part dilettante, who compared languages and mythologies with more verve than rigor even by tl1e lax standards of his day. His goal was to reconstruct the prehistory of mankind and to confirm the account of Scripture, and like others who shared this ambition, he took the etlmology of Ge nesis 10 as his point of departure. In orthodox fashion, he granted a nominal primacy to the line of Shem, which included the nation of Israel and was responsible for all true, monotl1eistic religions thereafter. His prime interest, however, fell on Ham, fi:om whom he traced virtually all tl1e pagan peoples of antiquity and all polytheistic mythologies. Accordingly, he described how countless tribes and nations descended from Ham, some moving south and west via Phoenicia and Egypt, some nortl1 and east via Scytl1.ia. Over time, their languages and religions became ever more diverse and degraded, but everywhere fi·om Iberia to India, Bryant recognized tl1ree data iliat he constituted as evidence of tl1ese peoples' original identity, language, and religion. T hese were narratives of the Flood, legendary kings whose names resembled Noah's, and pantl1eons with prominent solar deities whose names resembled Ham's. T hese were all of tl1e line of Han1, who was held by his posterity in tl1e highest veneration. They called him Amon: and having in process of time raised him to a divinity, they worshiped him as the Sun : and from this worship tl1ey were styled Amonians .... As tl1e Al11onians betook tl1emselves to regions widely separated ; we shall find in every place, where tl1ey settled , tl1e same worship and ceremonies, and the same history of their ancestors. T here will also appear a great simi litude in the n ames of tl1eir cities and temples: so tl1at we may be assured , that the whole was tl1e operation of one and the same people. 32 85

Chapter Fo1~1·

Mr. ]ones)s Myth oj'01·igius

In effect, Bryant attempted to reorder the hierarchized ethnography encoded in the familiar narrative ofNoah's three sons, as had Boxhorn before him (fig. 4.1). His book gained a wide reading and provoked mixed reactions. Some admired the scope of his intellectual ambitions and his creative use of mythological evidence. Others were appalled at his etymological incompetence. 33 Jones seems to have had reactions ofboth sorts but was sufficiently fascinated by Bryant's endeavor that he chose to pursue it !limself, as reflected in the agenda he drew up aboard the Crocodile.

the characters of all pagan deities tended to melt into o ne another, for in India as in Rome these gods "mean only the powers of nature, principally those of the Sun , expressed in a variety of ways and by a multitude of fanciful names." 37 It is hard for a modern scholar not to hear anticipations of Friedrich Max Miiller in tl1is concl usion, and Max Mi.iller took more from Jones tl1an he ever acknowledged. 38 Jones, in turn, was dependent on Bryant and said so directly in the conclusion toward which his entire essay was organized: "We shall, perhaps, agree at last with Mr. Bryant, tl1at Egyptians) Indians) Greeks) and I talians) proceeded originally from one central place, and tl1at the same people carried their religion and sciences into China and japan: may we not add, even to Mexico and Peru?"39 This was the first time in Jones's published writi ngs that he posited "one central place" of origin fo r the religions, languages, and peoples of antiquity. In tl1e closing pages of his essay, he took pains to rebut the views of his friend Lord Monboddo, who in 1774 had offered a soutl1ern alternative to Boxhorn's Scythian thesis, treating Egypt as the cradle of all lan guages and civilizations. 4° Fo r the ti me being, however, Jones offered no positive thesis of his own. That tl1e gods of Greece, India, and Rome were interrelated he took as proven: "B ut whjch was the original system and which the copy, I will not presume to decide; nor are we likely, I believe, to be soon furn ished with sufficient grounds for a decision." 41 H is position was both modest and prudent, but perhaps also coy. Witl1i n a short time he would change it completely.

Genesis 10 . 1

Boxhorn's "Scythians"

1 Shem/center ~ 1 Japheth/nor.th

Bryant's "Amonians:;---....

/

1 Ham/Dispersed in all direCtiO;); 2 H am/sout h ~2 She m /cen te~ 2 Shem/Remaining in center 3 Japheth/north 3 Ham/south

Figure 4 .1 Reworking the biblical order of peoples, as encoded in the list of Noah's three sons.

Shortly after arriving in India (25 September 1783), Jones tu rned to that project. The fint result was his essay "On the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India" (1784), in which he used his new knowledge of Hindu deities to advance some twenty-two comparisons, virtually all ill-founded. 34 Appropriately enough, he started with Janus, Roman god of beginnings, whom he identified witl1 the Sanskrit Gane~a on the strength of superficial phonological and phenomenological resemblances. This warm-up exercise completed, he turned to ilie most important case, to which he devoted his lengthiest discussion. Here, drawing on Bryan t and adding his own convol uted arguments, Jones equated Saturn , oldest oftl1e Ro man gods, with Sanskrit Manu, survivor of ilie flood, whose byname Satya-vrata justified the comparison. Apparently, Jones took ilie name Manu to con tain t\>vo elements (Ma-nu), ilie latter of which he connected to Noah, Greek Minos (Mi-no-s), and Arabic Nuh. Saturn's connection to tl1e Golden Age also provided grist for the mill, since the first of the four Inclic world ages was sometimes known as tl1e Satya Yuga. And even though the Bible knows no such system, Jones perceived a set of four world ages, tl1e first of which ended witl1 Noah, tl1e Flood, and "ilie mad introduction of idolatry at Babel)" while the second began with Shem, Ham, and tl1e scattering of nations. 35 Were doubts possible about which version of tl1ese events and figures was oldest and most autl1entic, Sir William kindly laid them to rest, ruling in favor oftl1e BibJe.36 Jones also found solar deities in abu ndance and went so far as to say that

86

VIII This brings liS to me historic night-2 February 1786-when Jones delivered l1is "Third Atmiversary Discourse" to thirty-five members of the Asiatic Society and uttered the most memorable sentence of his life, which laid me basis for Indo-European studies. Endlessly cited, it bears repetition once more. The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiqujty, is of a 'vvonderful structure; more perfect tl1an the Greek) more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, botl1 in the roots of verbs and in me forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, tlut no philologer could examine them aU tlu·ee, witl1out believing tl1em to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: tl1ere is a similar rea-

87

Chaptu· Four

Mr. Joucs 's Myth ofOrigiw

son , though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick and the Celticll, though blended witl1 a very different idiom, had the same origin witl1 Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same fam ily, if this were the place fo r discussing any question concerning tl1e antiquities of Penia. 42

N

Linguists hold Jones's formulation in high esteem for its attention to issues of morphology as well as those of phonology and lexicography and for its prudent refusal to engage the question of where the posited "common source" might be located . Many view this sentence as the line of demarcation between prescientific speculation and a discipline with sound comparative and historic metl1ods, as later developed by Rasmus Rask (17871832), Jacob Grimm (1785-1863), Franz Bopp (1791- 1867), Adalbert Kuhn ( 1812-81 ), August Schleicher (1821- 68 ), Antoine Meillet (18661936), Emile Benveniste (1902-76), and otl1ers whose labors were stimulated by Sir William's suggestion. 43 Were this sentence all tlut existed and had it no implications beyond the realm of linguistics, all might be well and good. But it is also important-as well as disquieting-to consider Jones's theorization in its full breadth, where issues of myth, history, geography, race, progress, civilizational accomplishment and prestige, religion, and biblical authority all commingle freely. Recognizing this begins witl1 a sketch of tl1e intricate architecture undergirding tl1e Aruuversary Discourses. Jones delivered eleven such lectures between tl1e society's founding in 1784 and 1794, tl1e year ofhis deatl1. The first two were devoted to organizational and programmatic questions, and the last two seem to have gone beyond his initial plans. At the heart of tl1e series stand seven talks, which he explicitly framed as a set, devoted to resolution of a single great problem and meant to be taken togetl1er. Five were devoted to tl1e principal nations of Asia, tl1e sixtl1 to marginal populations, and the last offered summary and conclusions (fig. 4.2). 44 In each of the addresses treating individual nations tl1e discussion followed a consistent pattern, covering geography, history, and cultural accomplishments in sequence. With regard to the last, Jones focused on four specific domains: (a) language and letters, (b) philosophy and religion, (c) architecture and sculptme, (d ) science and arts. In his discussions of culture, Sir William offered not just description but also evaluation, basing his judgments on what he took to be levels of accomplishent and the extent to which one civilization influenced or was influenced by others. Consistently his remarks were crisp, confident, and supported by a wealth of detailed information, much of it specious, irrelevant, or botl1. Notwithstanding his confidence, it is obvious that the 88

TARTARS

w

PERSIANS

CHINESE

E

INDIANS

s FigUl'e 4.2 Peoples treated in Jo nes's third through ninth Anniversary Discourses

(1786 - 92).

q~a~1tity and quality of his knowledge varied widely, and he consistently pnv1leged the areas he knew best. Thus, language came first in his order of presentation, received fu llest treatme nt, and yielded results tl1at affected his jud~ment in all otl~er domains. Similarly, he treated India first among tl1e. nat1ons, evaluated 1t most favorably, and used it as the standard against whJCh he measured all otl1ers. The famous sentence, treating the perfection of the Sanskrit language and its relation to numerous others, th us stands as tl1e first piece of his evaluative project. Persia, the object of Sir William's earliest researches and possessor of languages closely related to Sanskrit, was also accorded privileged status. In contrast, he judged the Arabs de~ciel~t in all regards save tl1eir language, which is ancien t and precise but lnfenor to Sanskrit in several respects and 'vvhich also had little influence on otl1ers .. Thi~ s~t tl1e Arabs above the Tartars, however, 'vVho ranked high only for then· ongmal religion, a primitive monotheism that tl1ey rapidly aban89

Chapter Four

M1·. ]rmes)s Myth of Origim

Table 4.1 Evaluation and Ranking of Civilizational Accomplishments in Sir William Jones's Anniversary Discourses

1110ve he accomplished by denying virtually all Clunese cultural accomplishments tl1at could not be traced to India through Buddhism. Indians, .Persians, and Chinese were tlms all part o f the "Hindu race." Having reduced lus original group of five great civilizations to three in this fasluon, Jones took up tl1e question of lesser peoples-"borderers, mountaineers, and islanders"-in his eighth discourse, wluch derived all of its subjects (Phoenicians, Etluopians, Egyptians, Mghans, Gypsies, etc.) from tl1e set of tl1ree primordial nations. Here, one case of particular interest arose, mat oflsrael, but it is easier to see its importance after a few more pieces of me argument are put in place. Starting witl1 tl1e sixtl1 discourse, Jones provided a spatial locus for tl1e ancestral language of Sanskrit, Persian, and so on and for tl1e people who spoke tl1is originary tongue. H e reached his concl usion on tl1e basis of geography and geometry, invoking me prestige oftl1e center. " We may therefore hold tl1is proposition firmly established , that Iran or Persia in its largest sense, was me true center of languages, and of arts; which, instead of travelling westward only, as it has been fa ncifully supposed, or eastward, as might with equal reason have been asserted , were expanded in aUdirections to all tl1e regions of tl1e world, in wluch tl1e Hindu race had settled under various denominations." s2 Not content to make Iran tl1e homeland of one family of languages and people, Jones went on to insist tl1at the two otl1er families- Arab and Tartar-were also present in Iranian territory at me dawn of time. All o f this set tl1e stage for tl1e grand conclusions he oftered in tl1e "Nintl1 Anniversary Discow·se," "On tl1e Origin and Fanlliies of Nations" (23 February 1792). Here, Jones gestured toward Lim1aeus and Newton as models of scienticity and sum marized me results of me preceding lectures, giving particular emphasis to lus reconstruction of me tlu·ee primordial races. 53 Rapidly, however, he moved to bring tl1ese findings into alignment witl1 two texts he deemed aumoritative: Genesis l - 11 and Jacob Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology. Toward tl1e first, Jones's attitude was contradictory, not to say disingenuous. Initially he postured, speaking of me Hebrew Bible as the most ancient of all lustoric sow-ces, but one open to tl1e same kind of doubt and criticism as any otl1er.54 In fact, however, since childhood he had been convinced of me inspired , inerrant nature of Scripture, and tl1e ultimate goal toward which he organized his lectures was "scientific" validation oftl1e Genesis accou nt. 5 5 In tl1is he took his lead from Bryant, as he proudly acknowledged at me start of me third and conclusion of tl1e nintl1 discourses. Even so, tl1e position he adopted vis-a-vis Bryant had its com-

Language and Letters Hindus Persians Arabs Tartars Chinese

P hilosophy Sculpnue and and Religion Architecture

+ +

+ + +

+ +

Science and Arts

+

+

cloned . Bringing up the rear were the Chinese, abo ut whom Jones fo und nothing either original or admirable (table 4.1 and appendix table 4.A.l). In his critical remarks Jones showed great assurance and little restraint. Before Muhammed, fo r instance, Arabic religion was characterized by " a stupi.d idolatry," 4 5 and Arab manners "were by no means favom able to the cultivation of a?'ts."46 Tartar literature "presents us witl1 a deplorable void, or witl1 a prospect as barren and dreary as that of their deserts." 47 As for poetry, "we find no genuine specimens ascribed to them, except some horrible warsongs." 4 8 China, most remarkably, is said to have had no ancient monuments and no originality in religion or science. Although tl1eir poems were " beautifully pathetick," when it came to painting, sculpture, architecture, and arts of imagination, " they seem (like otl1er Asiaticl?s) to have no idea." 49 Jones's attitude toward India and Persia, however, was strikingly different. Sanskrit was "exquisitely refined," Indian arts were "universally celebrated," their poetry was "magnificent and sublime in tl1e highest degree." so Citing Newton, he treated tl1e primeval Persian religion as oldest and noblest of all. 5 1 In general, when treating India and Iran, he conveyed tl1e impression of incomprehensible pleninlde, as opposed to m e impoverishment of Arabs, Tartars, and Chinese.

IX Beyond his evaluative project, Jones wished to reconstruct prehistory, and on tl'lis front he let his conclusions emerge gradually. The first piece of his argument came with tl1e linguistic analysis he offered for India (first topic, first nation) wim the celebrated sentence. The next major piece came in the "Sixtl1 Amuversary Discourse," where he connected tl1e peoples oflndia and Iran on me basis of tl1eir linguistic, religious, and artistic similarities. In tl1e sevenm discourse, he added China to tl1is same grouping, a 90

91

Chapter Fom'

Mr. ]ones 1s Myth ofOrigim

plexities. He regarded Bryant's views as preferable to all others but regrettably compromised by Bryant's ignoran ce o f all Asian languages save Hebrew. Accordingly, Sir William made it his task to correct and perfect the work of his esteemed predecessor.56 It was in this spirit that he identified the three primo rdial races his research had "independently" discovered as descending fi·o m Noah's sons (table 4 .2 ) and equated one of them with Bryant's beloved Amonians. 57 Later authors would also equate them witl1 the system o f Aryan s, Semites, and Turanians that was mentioned in chapter 3.

and Euplu·ates, and between tl1e Caucasus and tl1e Ganges. 59 T his division of peoples was permanent, and no amount of research would succeed in restori ng tl1e unity that was sundered or in recovering tl1e original language.60

X

Although Jones based most of his conclusions on linguistic analysis, he seems to have believed that the differences among these peoples were simultaneously linguistic, cultural, and physiologic or racial, the groups being totally separate " in language, manners, and features." 58 Although all descended from Noah , circa 1200 B.C.E., they separated at Babel, which he located at tl1e center ofiran (itselftl1e central realm ), between tl1e Oxus

In the ninth discourse Jones did not speak much about the character of tl1e three races, but one brief remark suggests tl1at he took them to be quite diflerent . T his is the passage in which he endorsed Bryant's view of the A.Jnonians: those whom Jo nes tended to call " the Hindu race" while remaining open to such alternatives as C ushian, Casdean, and Scythian. 61 Others of later date would know tl1em as "Aryans" and "Indo-European s." "Having arrived by a different patl1 at tl1e same conclusion with Mr. Bryant as to one of tl1ose fam ilies, the most in genious and enterprising of tl1e three, but arrogant, cruel, and idolatrous, which we botl1 conclude to be various shoots fro m tl1e Hamian or Amonian branch, I shall add but little to In}' tormer observations on his profound and agreeable work . . . ." 62 This characterization suggests a contrast to anotl1er group: tl1e border people whom Jones chose to discuss at tl1e conclusion of his eightl1 discourse, diametrically opposite the position accorded the Indian s and tl1e last people he would treat before moving to his summation. T hey were descendants of Shem, and their language showed their affinity to tl1e Arabs, tl1ough their " manners, literature, and history" were "wonderfully distinguished from the rest of mankind." 63 Jones's treatment of the Jews differentiates tl1em radically from their Amonian counterparts on two criteria (monotheism as opposed to idolatry and history as opposed to mytl1), while associating the two peoples on another (arrogance). Regarding ingenuity, enterprise, and cruelty he was silent, but in other respects his description was hardly neutral. Taking his lead from Isaac Barrow (163077), a tl1eologian and matl1ematician whom he regarded as one of the deepest minds of his age, Sir William wrote as fo1Jows.64 " Barrow loads them witl1 tl1e severe, but just, epitl1ets of malignant , unsocial, obstinate, distrustfu l, sordid , chan geable, tu rbulent; and describes them as fu riously zealous in succouring tl1eir own countrymen, but implacably hostile to other nations; yet, witl1 all tl1e sottish perverseness, the stupid arrogance, and the brutal atrocity of their character, they had the peculiar merit, among all races of men under heaven, of preserving a rational and pure system of devotion in the midst of wild polytl1eism , inhuman or obscene rites, and a dark labyrintl1 of errours produced by ignorance and su pported by interested fraud ." 65

92

93

Table 4.2 Sir William Jones's Identification of His T hree Primordial Races with the So ns of Noah, as Presented in H is " Ninth Anniversary Discourse, On tl1e Origin and Families of N ations" Noah's Sons

Ham

Sh em

Descendant peoples (certain )

Indians Persians Romans Greeks Goths Old Egyptians Cushitic peoples o f Afi·ica Phoenicians Phrygians Scandinavians

Jews Arabs Assyrians Speakers of Syriac Abyssinians

Descendant peoples (likely)

C hinese Japanese Ancient peoples o f Mexico and Peru

Cultural accomplishments

Invented writing, astronomy, Indic calendar, mythology

Composed the most ancient work of history

Japhet Tartars Slavs Peoples of northern E urope and Asia

No liberal arts No usc o f letters

Chapter Fom·

Mr. ]ones>s Myth of Origius

XI It has not been my goal in the preceding discussion to impugn the reputation of a rightly celebrated individual. Rather, I hoped to establish some points that go beyond matters ad hominem. First, the hypothesis for which Sir William Jones is most famous had deep antecedents and was always problematic. Most immediately, Jones was influenced by Jacob Bryant's biblioccntric attempt to trace all world mytl1ology back to Ham and all right religion to Shem. Behind Bryant stood a host of otl1ers, from Snorri and Girald us to Mylius, Boxhorn, Leibniz, and others, who participated in a discourse tl1at constituted mytl1s, languages, geographies, and ancient accounts, particularly Genesis 10- 11, as tl1e evidence from which to construct an account of human origins, descent, and interrelatio n. While their often baroque discussions remained focused on tl1cse data and tl1e most distant past, their actual center of interest was transparently elsewhere. Throughout tl1is whole body ofliterature one perceives ongoing attempts -alternately subtle, crude, ingenious, and outrageous-to recalibrate prejudicially tl1e relative djgnity and stature of peoples, nations, and races in their present moment of enunciation. Sir William Jones is an important, but also a convenient and instructive, figu re in tl1e history of this discourse. Conventional accounts, which have their own mythic or epic structure, make his celebrated sentence the moment when earlier fantasies and intuitions achieved tl1e rigoro us formulation tl1at marked and permitted tl1e beginning of science. A more critical genealogy of the discourse need not minimize his gifts no r impeach his motives while treating Sir Willjam's genius, stature, and organizational and promotional talents as crucial factors tl1at helped legitimate an enterprise in which various forms of chauvinism (racist, nationaljst, anti-Semitic, colonialist, and imperialist) were-and remained-implicit. It is not hard to reemplot the story in tl1e genres of tragedy and horror, as Leon Poliakov, Maurice Olender, George Mosse, Klaus von See, and others have done, by following the discourse's nineteentl1- and twentieth-century peregrinations, when Bryant's Amonians and Jo nes's "Hindu race" acquired tl1e name of "Aryans." 6 6 Since tl1e atrocities of tl1e Nazis in the Second World War, the term "Aryan" has virtually disappeared fro m polite conversation. Scholars who wish to pursue tl1e old discourse while marki ng t heir distance from its less savory aspects now use the term "(Proto-)Indo-European," also a coinage of the nineteenth century. In doing so, many sincerely believe tl1ey have

thereby sanitized tl1e discourse and solved its problems, but tl1ings are not so simple. Often such euphemizing attempts arc incomplete, superficial, evasive, and disingenuously amnesiac. Even when tl10roughly and thoughtfully executed, tl1ey can still render subtextual tl1e racist and nationalist agendas tl1at tl1e discourse of Aryans- which persists in covert cells and lurid newsletters-prefers to make explicit and salient and that certain readers easily supply where authors would suppress it. To be sure, neither Jones nor anyone else was wrong to perceive strong and systematic similarities among Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and the rest. The question is what one makes of tl1ese similarities, and one steps onto a slippery slope whenever analysis moves from the descriptive to the historic plane of linguistics. In specific, reconstructing a "proto language" is an exercise tl1at invites one to inJagine speakers of that protolanguage, a community of such people, then a place for tl1at commu nity, a time in hjstory, distinguishing characteristics, and a set of contrastive relations witl1 otl1er protocommunities where otl1er protolanguages were spoken. 67 For all of tllis, need it be said, there is no sound evidentiary warrant. It was not as a student of language, moreover, that Jones entered this discourse but ratl1er as a student of myth and religion. Bryant's work was his inspiration and model, and his first attempt was tl1e 1784 essay "On the Gods of Greece, Italy, and L1dia." Although Jones broadened his perspective in the anniversary discourses, he contin ued to work with presuppositions and constructs taken from Bryant and other of his antecedents. It is also worth noting that altl1ough Jones adopted the stance and the voice of an incomparably erudite scholar in tl1e strictest Englightcnment fashion , the story he to ld was patently mytl1ic. Witl1in the an niversary djscourses, Jones narrated his own quest fo r the origin of languages and the ancient center from which peoples dispersed. Still, as objects of experience and of"scientific" knowledge, primordial origins and perfect centers remain notoriously elusive. They are constituted as objects of discourse, not knowledge, by bricoleurs who collect shards of information and prior narratives, from which they confect tl1e fictions that satisfy thei r otl1erwise unattainable desires while doing their ideological work. When students of mytl1-even eminent ones, like Sir William Jones, Snorri Sturluson, or Friedrich Max Mi.iller-succumb to tl1is temptation and engage in a discourse of origins and centers, the resul ts are particularly iron ic. In effect, they enter a recursive spiral, spi nni ng their own myths wh ile they si ncerely believe themselves to be interpreting myths of others, others who may even be tl1e product of their imagination and discourse.

94

95

APPENDIX Table 4.A.l Sir William Jones's Characterizations of Asian Peoples

Third discourse, on the Hindus (2 Feb. 1786)

Language and Letters

Philosophy and Religion

Sculpture and Architecture

The Sanscrit language, what· ever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either. .. .

Of the Indian Religion and Philosophy, I shall here say but little; because a full account of each would require a separate volume: it will be sufficient in this dissertation to assume, what might be proved beyond controversy, that we now live among the adorers of those very deities, who were worshipped under different names in old Greece and Italy, and among the professors of those philosophical tenets, which the Ionick and Attick writers illustrated with all the beauties oftheir melodious language . ...

The remains of architecture and swlpture in India ... seem to prove an early con· nection between this country and Africa: tl1e pyramids of Egypt, the colossal statues described by Pausanias and others, the Sphinx ....

Nor can I help believing, although the polished and elegant Dtvanagari may not be so ancient as the monumental characters in the caverns of ]arasandha, that the square Chaldaick letters, in which most Hebrew books are cop· ied, were originally the same, or derived from the same prototype ... the Phenician, from which the Greek and Ro· man alphabets were formed by various changes and inversions, had a similar origin, there can be little doubt.

Fourth cliscourse,

on the Arabs (15 Feb. 1787)

The Arabick language . .. is unquestionably one of the most ancient in the world, so it yields to none ever spoken by mortals in the number of its words and the precision of its phrases; but it is equally true and wonderful, that it bears not the least resem· blance, either in words or the structure of them, to the San· scrit, or great parent of the Indian dialects.

Their Vedas, as tar as we can judge from that compendium of them, which is called Upanishat, abound with noble speculations in metaphysicks, and fine discourses on the being and attributes of God.

We

may safely pronounce,

d1at before the M ohammedan

revolution, the noble and learned Arabs were Theists, but that a stupid idolatry prevailed among the lower orders of ilie people. I find no trace among them, till their emigration, of any Philosophy but Ethicks; and even their system of morals, gener· ous and enlarged as it seems to have been in the minds of a few illustrious chieftains, was on the whole miserably depraved for a century at least before Muhammed.

Fc\v moownents of antiqu\1:)' are p reserved in Arabia, and

ofdlosc few the best accounts are very uncertain . . . .

Science and Arts The labors of the I ndian loom and needle have been universally celebrated.. .. We arc told by the Greciatl writers, tlut the Indians were tl1e wisest of nations; and in moral wisdom, they were cer· tainly eminent .... If their numerous works on Grammar, Logick, Rhctorick, Musick, all which are extant and accessible, were explained in some language generally known, it would be found, that they had yet higher pretensions to the praise of a fertile and inventive genius. Their lighter Poems are lively and elegant; their Epick, mag· nificent and sublime in the highest degree

>he manncn of ~\\c Hcj4zi Arabs wh\c:h have continued,

we know, from the time of Solomon to the present age, were by no means favourable to the cultivation of arts; and, as to sciences, we have no rea· son to believe, that they were acquainted with any.

Table 4 .A.l (Continued)

Fifth discourse, on the Tartars (21 Feb. 1788)

Sixth discourse, on the Persians (19 Feb. 1789)

Language and Letters

Philosophy and Religion

Sculpture and Architecture

Our first inquiry, concerning the languages and letters of the Tartars, presents us with a deplorable void, or with a prospect as barren and dreary as that of their deserts. The Tartars, in general, had no literature: (in this point all authorities appear to concur) the Iitrcs had no letters: the Hum, according to Procopius, had not even heard of them.

We are told by Abu'lghazi, that the primitive religion of human creatures, or the pure adoration of One Creator, prevailed in Tartary during the first generations from Yifet [i.e., Japhet], but was extinct before the birth of Oghliz, who restored it in his dominions; that, some ages after him, the Mongols and the Tttrcs relapsed into gross idolatry.... Of any Philosophy, except natural Ethicks, which the rudest society requires and experience teaches, we find no more vestiges in Asiatick Scythia than in ancient Arabia.

The only great monuments of Tartarian antiquity arc a line of ramparts on the west and cast of the Caspian . ... Even if we should admit, that the Eigh1iris ... were in some very early age a literary and polished nation, it would prove nothing in fuvour of the Huns, Tttrcs, Mongals, and other savages to the north of Pekin, who seem in all ages, before Muhammed, to have been equally ferocious and illiterate.

T he primeval religion of Iran .. . was that, which Newton calls the oldest (and it may justly be called the noblest) of all religions . .. the first monarch of I rim and of the whole earth was Mahabad, a word apparently Sanscrit, who divided people into four orders, the religiou.s, the military, the commercial, and the servile, to which he assigned names unquestionably the same in their origin 'vith those now applied to the four primary classes of the Hindm. They added, that He received from the creator, and promulgated among men, a sacred book in a heavenly lang1tage, . . . we can hardly doubt, that the first corruption of the purest and oldest religion was the system of Indian Theology, invented by the Brahmans and prevalent in these territories, where the book of Mahabad or Menu is at this hour the standard of all religious and moral duties.

On the ancient monuments of Persian sculpture and architecture we have already made such observations, as were sufficient for our purpose; nor will you be surprized at the diversity between the figures at Elephanta, which are manifestly Hindr. and those at Persepolis, which arc merely Sabian, if you concur with me in believing, that the Takhti Jemshid was erected after tl1e time of Cayumcrs, when the Br~ihmans had migrated !Tom Iran, and when their intricate mythology had been superseded by the simpler adoration of the planets and of fire .

The oldest discoverable languages of Persia were Chaldaick and Sanscrit ... but all had perhaps a mixture of Tartarian ... so that the three fumilics, whose lineage we have examined in former discourses, had left visible traces of themselves in Iran, long before the Tartars and Arabs had rushed from their deserts, and returned to that very country, from which in all probability they originally proceeded ....

Science and Arts From ancient monuments, therefore, we have no proof, that the Tartars were themselves well-instructed, much less that they instructed the world; nor have we any stronger reason to conclude from their general manners and character, that they had made an early proficiency in arts and scimces: even of poetry, the most universal and most natural of the fine arts, we find no genuine specimens ascribed to them, except some horrible warsongs expressed in Persian by Ali ofYczd.

the sciences or arts of the old Persians, l have little to say; and no complete evidence of them seems to exist.

1\s to

5

Nietzsche's "Blond Beast"

I Toward the end of chapter 3, I promised to give fuller consideration to Nietzsche's later writings and to explore the way he refashioned the con trast of Aryan and Semite, such that C hristianity, even more than Judaism, could play the part of the Aryan's foil. In order to do so, I want to foc us on what is perhaps the most notorious phrase in all Nietzsche's writings"the blond beast"- which occurs five ti mes, four in On the Genealogy of Momls (1886) and once in TJVilight of the Idols (1888). It first makes its appearance in a passage where Nietzsche described an ancient type of warrior nobles who, in thei r behavior toward peoples they (and he) regarded as their inferiors, are not much better than uncaged beasts of prey. There they savor a freedom from all social constrain ts, they compensate themselves in the wilderness for the tension engendered by protracted confinement and enclosure within the peace of society, they go baclz to the innocent conscience of the beast of prey, as triumphant monsters who perhaps emerge fro m a disgusting procession of murder, arson, rape, and tortu re, exhilarated and undisturbed of soul, as if it were no more than a students' prank, convinced they have provided the poets with a lot more material for song and praise. One cannot fai l to see at the bottom of all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid blond beast [clie prachtvotle ... blonde Bestie] prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to erupt from ti me to time, the animal has to get out agai n and go back to the wilderness: the Roman, Ara-

101

Chn.pte1· Five

Nietzsche's «Blond Ben.st»

bian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Viki ngs-they all sh ared ti-lls need. It is tl1e noble races [die vornehmen Rassen] tl1at have left behind them the concept "barbarian" wherever they have gon e .. .. 1

While Nietzsche acknowledged tl1is redefinition of values as the fo undation of culture, he denounced it as a disaster:

Here, Nietzsche listed six examples oflus "blond beast," and the structure of his sentence divides tl1em in two unequal groups. Thus, all eilinonyms occur in adjectival form , tl1e first four of which modify a single noun: "Roman, Arabian, Germanic, and Japanese nobility," tl1at is, tl1e ruling stratum of these vario us peoples. The final two ethnonyms get tl1eir own nominal titles, however: Homeric heroes and Scandinavian Vikings. The argument then proceeds by expanding on the examples of Greeks and Gennans: Pericles specially commends tl1e rhathymia of tl1e Atheniansilieir indifference to and contempt for security, body, life, comfort, their hair-raising cheerfulness and profound joy in all destruction , in all tl1e voluptuousness of victory and cruelty-all tl1is came togetl1er in tl1e mi nds of those who suffered from it, in tl1e image of the "barbarian," tl1e "evil enemy," perhaps as ilie "Gotl1s," tl1e "Vandals." The deep and icy mistrust the German [der D eutsche] still arouses today whenever he gets into a position of power is an echo of iliat inextinguishable horror witl1 which Europe observed fo r centuries that raging of ilie blond Germa~uc beast [dem Wuthm der blondm germanischen Bestie] ( altl1ough between the old Germanic u·ibes and us Germans [zwischen alten Germanen und uns Deutschen] tl1ere exists hardly a conceptual relationship, let alone one of blood). 2

These bearers of the oppressive instincts that tl1irst for reprisal, tl1e descenda11ts of every kind ofEuropean a11d non-European slavery, a11d especially of tl1e entire pre-Aryan populace [alle1' vorarischen Bevolkerung in Sonderheit]- tl1e y represent tl1e regression of mankind! These "instruments of culture" a~·e a disgrace to man and ratl1er an accusation and cow1terargument against "culture" in general! One may be quite justified in continuin g to fear tl1e blond beast at tl1e core of all noble races [der blonden Bestie auf dem Grunde alter V01' nehmen Rassen] and in being on one's gua~·d against it: but who would not a hundred times sooner fear where one ca11 also admire tl1a11 not fear but be permanently condemned to tl1e repellent sight of tl1e ill-constituted, dwarfed, atrophied, and poisoned? And is tl1at not our fate? 4

Later in tl1e Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche traced ilie origins of ilie state to "some pack of blond beasts of prey, a conqueror and master race [irgendein Rudel blonder R aubthiere, eine Eroberer- und H erren-Rasse] wluch, organized for war and witl1 tl1e ability to organize, tmhesitatingly lays its terrible claws upon a populace perhaps u·emendously superior in numbers but still formless a11d nomad." 3 To every action, h owever, tl1ere is a reaction. Fueled by ressentiment, the weak/meek underlings whom tl1e warrior nobles consu·ued as "bad" (bose) turned tl1e tables by defining their oppressors as "evil" (ubel) while appropriating ilie term "good" for tllemselves a11d tl1eir characteristically modest and timid demeanor. Through this revolution in moral discourse, they devalued a11d tamed the noble races.

It is probably asking too much to expect strict propositional consistency in t11ese intemperate remarks, which are more polemic provocation tl1an rigorous exposition: heavy artillery, as N ietzsche put it, or "philosophizing witl1 a hammer." Still, several points are clear. First, the blond beast phrase marks a privileged type of humanity that is itself construed not as one specific race but as a category tl1at encompasses multiple races, each of iliem noble and conquering (eine vornehme Rasse or eine Erobere1'- und HerrenRasse). Second, t he ancient Aryans are a particularly important, but not tl1e only, example of tl1is type. Altl1ough four of ilie six examples cited (Romans, Germans, Greeks, and Vikings) vvould have been classified as Aryan, a term Nietzsche used already in his earliest writings, as we saw in chapter 3, he carefully constructed the category of ilie blond beast to include Arabs and Japanese, so tlut it was broader than a strictly racial entity and was defined by a characteristic disposition and pattern of actions ratl1er than any somatotype. Having served this role, however, his two non-Arya11 examples disappeared from Ius text and received no furtl1er consideration . Ratl1er, his detailed discussions were all devoted to ilie Greeks and the Germans, especially the latter. 5 Third , Nietzsche posited a historic rupture that separates ilie fierce blond beast peoples from tl1eir railier patl1etic descendants. Along tl1ese lines, he drew a particularly sharp distinction between the ancient and modern Germans, whom he referred to as die Germanen and die Deutschen, a distinction often lost in tra11slation. Fourtl1, tl1e state was created by blond beasts through a violent process and is a disquieting

102

103

Chapter Five

Nietzsche's «Blond Benst»

entity; nonetheless, it remains preferable to culture as we now know it. Finally, the conquered peoples who took revenge on their conquerors by revising morality and founding culture are identified with pre-Aryan, but not specifically Semitic, races.

the way, were definitely a blond race; it is wrong to associate traces of an essentially dark-haired people which appear on the more careful ethnographical maps of Germany with any sort of Celtic origin or blood-mixture, as Virchow still does: it is rather the preAryan people of Germany who emerge in these places. (The same is true of virtually all Europe: tile suppressed race has graduall y recovered the upper hand again, in coloring, shortness of skull, perhaps even in tl1e intellectual and social instincts: who can say wbetl1er modern democracy, even more modern anarchism and especially mat inclination for "commune,, for the most primitive form of society, which is now shared by all the socialists of Europe, does not signify in the main a tremendous counterattaclz- and tl1at tl1e conqueror and master race, the Aryan [die Eroberer- u.nd Herren-Rasse, die de1· Arier ], is not succumbing physiologically too? ) 10

II The blond beast is more than a flamboyant and regrettable, but ultimately insignificant, rhetorical gesture. Rather, it figured prominently in Nietzsche's later writings, and until 1945 it was as highly favored by Nazi ideologists as it is now generally ignored by those who make Nietzsche their model and icon of critical thinking. 6 Given the postmodcrn vogue for Nietzsche, it is hard to remember how much labor it took to salvage his reputation after the war, a task shouldered in tl1e English-speaking world largely by Walter Kaufmann? "The 'blond beast' is not a racial concept," Kaufi11at1n pronounced magisterially, "and does not refer to the 'Nordic race' of which the Nazis later made so much. Nietzsche specifically refers to Arabs and Japanese, Romans and Greeks, no less than ancient Teutonic tribes, when he first introduces tl1is notorious term -and the 'blandness' presumably refers to the beast, tl1e lion, ratl1er than tl1e kind of man." 8 In later editions of his book, Kaufmann ceased referring to tl1e blond beast phrase as "notorious," having convinced himself of its innocuousness.9 If tile "blond" in question were only a lion, one could conclude mat Nazis and otl1ers abusively read race-which was their issue ratl1er than Nietzsche's-into passages where it had no place. The lion tl1eory, however, will not hold. Nietzsche was quite clear about what blond hair meant and to whom it belonged. Early in the Genealogy of Morals (I §5 ), a few paragraphs before the beast first appears (I §11 ), he spoke of "tl1e blond, tl1at is Aryan, conqueror race" (der herrschendgewordnen blonden, namlich arischen Eroberer-Rasse) while engaging in some etymological play mat is as revealing as it is philologically dubious. T he Latin malus ["bad") (beside which I set melas ["black"]) may designate tl1e common man as tile dark-colored, above all as tl1e black-haired man ("hie niger est-"), as tile pre-Aryan occupant of the soil of Italy who was distinguished most obviously from tl1e blond, tl1at is Arycu1, conqueror race by his color; Gaelic, at any rate, offers us a precisely similar case- fin (for example in tl1e name Fin-Gal), the distinguished word for nobility, finally for the good, noble, pure, originally meant tile blond-headed, in contradistinction to the dark, black-haired aboriginal inhabitants. T he Celts, by

In tllis passage, Nietzsche used two thin and misguided pieces of "evidence"-the phonologically impossible comparison of Latin malus ("bad" ) to Greek -melas ("black"), and the tendentious translation o flrish jimt as "blond" rather than "fair, slurring, brilliant"-as tile basis tor some far-ranging conclusions. 11 Seenlingly, on tl1is fragile basis, he equated blond hair with Aryan conquerors and the moral good, dark hair witl1 tl1eir opposite: not Semites, but sickly pre-Aryans of unspecified sort. The dosing sentence of the passage is also worth attention. Disarmingly framed as a parenthesis, it contains Nietzsche's racial receding of political movements he viewed with distaste: democracy, anarcllism, socialism, and communism , all of which he depicted as tl1e revenge of short-skulled , dark-haired, pre-Arycu1 masses. 12 Tucked into these lines is also a clue to the context in which Nietzsche became concerned with the significance of blond hair. This is the passing mention of RudolfVirchow (1821-1902), a leading anthropologist, physiologist, and patl1ologist of his day, a liberal member of the imperial Reichstag, and a founder of the Berliner Gesellschaft fi.ir Anthropologie, Etllnologie, und Urgeschichte. To appreciate the significcu1ce of the reference, we must go back to 1871, when the dean ofFrench antlu·opologists, Armand de Quatrefages (1810- 92), outraged by atrocities committed in tile Frat1Co-Prussian Wcu· (particularly the bombcu·dment of his own anthropological museum ), wrote a polemical tract arguing that the Prussians were so clearly barbaric tl1ey could not be considered Aryan. Ratl1er, they must be "Siavo-Finns," mat is, the group tl1at the Comte de Gobineau

104

105

Chapte1· Five

Nietzschc,s ((Blond Beast»

(1816-82) identified as the original, pre-Aryan population of Europe and part of the "yellow race." Properly Germanic and Aryan peoples, in Quatrefages's view, were restricted to southern Germany. 13 Seeking to refute this on strictly empirical grounds, Virchow tried to organize a craniological survey of the entire German army, testing the "cephalic index" (i.e. , the ratio of the head's height to its width), which Anders Retzius (1796- 1860) had established as the primary test ofthe Aryan race. When th is proved unfeasible, he shifted his attention to another group - schoolchildren - and to another index of racial identity that could be more easily measured. Toward this end, he adopted the proposal of Carl Gustav Carus ( 1789- 1869), who first argued that Aryans could be identified not onl y by dolicocephalic (i.e., long) skulls, but also by their blond hai r and blue eyes. 14 Throughout the 1870s and 1880s Virchow labored, gatherin g information on nearly seven million children throughout Germany and another eight million in Austria, Switzerland, and Belgium. His study was the first time hair color held a salient position in "scientific" studies of race, and he published his results in stages, culminating in a final report to the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1885, one year before Nietzsche began speaking of the blond beast. 15 His data were scrupulously assembled and provoked considerable discussion . Inter aJia, they showed a greater incidence of blond hai r in the north than in the south and west of Germany, which Virchow took to refi.lte Quatrefages's charges. The incidence of persons with dark hair was higher in all regions than had been anticipated, however, and this Virchow compared with similar distributions in France, attributing dark hair in most instances to "Celtic blood." 16 It was on this last point that Nietzsche, who showed significant interest in questions of race, eugenics, prehistory, and physical anthropology in the 1880s, sought to engage VirchowP Specifically, his views show the influence ofTheodor Poesche's Die Arier ( 1878 ), the o nl y book in his personal library devoted to the Aryan question. 18 Following Cants, Poesche defined Aryans explicitly as "the blond race" (die blonde Race), and he furtl1er maintained that their conquests demonstrated a law of history consonant witl1 the pattern of European colonialism: tl1at is, light races always triumph over tl1eir darker brethren. Beginning from Poesche, Nietzsche developed a maddeningly complex and contrary argument, which at one point o r another challenged aJl whom he engaged in conversation. He tl1us po inted out tl1at Celts, being Aryan, were also blond, which meant, pace Virchow (and pace German national

pride), the dark-haired peoples of Germany ought be considered preAryan, much as Quatrefages asserted. If Nietzsche admired the Aryans, however, it was not for their high level of civilization, as did Quatrefages. Ramer, pace the Frenchman, it was precisely tl1e barbarian qualities of tl1e Aryans-tl1eir exercise of a will to power unconstrained by good and evil-tl1at he most highly val ued. Ancient Germans had such freedom and energy, he argued, but modern Germans did not, having become ever less A.ryan and ever less barbaric. Like Gobineau, he offered a narrative of decadence and regret, and he took the growing numbers of non blond Germans as an indication that, pace Poesche, the darker people were winning. Elsewhere, Nietzsche bad entertained-tl1is ti me, pace Gobineau, Wagner, and the Bayreuth circle-tl1at racial mixture could have beneficial effects. 19 In me passage under consideration, however, his stance was much more unequivocally hostile, as he warned against tl1e renascent pre-Aryans, witl1 their distinctive dark hair, tl1eir attitude of ressentiment, and tl1eir dangerous politics.

As Anacleto Verrecchia and Cristiano Grottanelli have recognized, the translation tl1at fell into Nietzsche's hands was the 1876 edition of Louis Jacolliot ( 1837- 90).22 In contrast to the pioneering version of Sir William

106

107

III Some months after completing On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche discovered the LaJVs of Manu (Maniiva Dharmasiistra), an ancient Indian treatise on ethics, religion, and social structme tl1at excited him greatly.20 In a letter of31 May 1888 to Peter Gast, he waxed enthusiastic. I owe to these last weeks a very important lesson: I found Mantt )s book of laws in a French translation done in India under strict supervision from the most eminent priests and scholars there. This absol utely Aryan work, a priestly codex of morality based on tl1e Vedas, on tl1e idea of caste and very ancient tradition-not pessimistic, albeit very sacerdotal-supplements my views on religion in me most remarkable way. I confess to having the impression that everything else tl1at we have by way of moral lawgiving seems to me an imitation and even a caricann·e of it-preeminently, Egypticism does; but even Plato seems to me in all the main points simply to have been well instructed by a Brahmin. It makes the Jews look like a C handala race which learns fro m its masters the principles of making a priestly caste tl1e master which organizes a people. 21

Chapw· Fi11e

Nietzsche)s «Blond Beast»

Jones (1794) and aU subsequent translations, this curious work was based on Tamil rather than Sanskrit texts, which Jaco lliot- following the southern pandits with whom he studied-mistakenly took to be the most ancient and authentic. His copious notes also develop an extravagantly idiosyncratic argument, which unfolds in several stages. Thus, h e idealized the original religion and culture in India and took the caste system to be a secondary development. In his view, tl1e discourse and practices constitutive of caste were fostered by Brahmans and >vere tl1e means through which they assumed direction of civil, political, and religious life, red ucing others to subordinate status. Of tl1ose victimized tl1rough caste, none suffered so much as the outcastes or pariahs termed Cat).s Gel'man Wn1· Gorl

Other of de Vries's works are less scrupulo us. Welt ric1' Germanen ( 1934) carries a swastika on its cover and celebrates the race of blue-eyed, blondhaired warriors. Onze voorouders (1942 ) was required reading for Dutch schoolchildren under the occupation and was designed to teach them reverence for the Teutonic ancestors they shared with their German brethren. D e Vries's Germanophilia was both personal and pro fessional. Days after the Nazi conquest, he was one of four university professors who met with the new Reichsko mmissar (the infamous Artm Seyss-Inquart) and o ffered to establish a Nederlandsche Kultuurllame1' that would regulate Dutch arts and learning under the new regime, including censorship functions. Once formed, this institution was run by the German propaganda ministry and had de Vries as its last president. After the war, he was removed from the Dutch university system as a resu lt of his collaboration, and he spent his time revising Altgermanische R eligionsgeschichte (2d ed. , 1957) to give Dumczil 's theories a much more salient position. Also noteworthy is the Swedish Indo-Europeanist Stig Wikander (1908- 83 ), who remained a close thend and made fundamental contributions to Dumezil's thought over a period of five decades. 28 Initially, the two met at Uppsala University, where H o fler and Dumczil both taught (1928- 31 and 1931-33, respectively) while Wikander was preparing his dissertatio n under the direction ofH. S. Nyberg (1889 - 1974 ). All these men were interested in the warrior bands ofAryan peoples, and in the 1930s all were given to right-wing politics. T hus, Wikander helped organize Fri Opposition> a strongly nationalist, anti-Bolshevik publication, often favorable to Hitler and Franco and verging at times on anti-Semitism .29 Hofler, as we have seen, was an enthusiastic Nazi, while Nyberg defined himself as a "radical conservative," and Dumezil was close to the Action Fran~aise. Wikander gratefully acknowledged the influence of his three senior colleagues in his thesis, witl1 tl1e chilling title "Der arische Mannerbund" (1938 ), where he applied Hofler's theories to properly Aryan (i.e., IndoIranian) materials. 30 Altl10ugh his attempt proved highly controversial, at Nyberg's urging the thesis was approved. 31 Then, pursuing H o fler's invitation to collaborate on a history oflndo-European social forms, with particular attention to the Nietzschean theme of the Aryans' role in creating tl1e state,32 Wikander left Sweden fo r a period in Munich, where be sat in on Hofler's " Werewolf-Seminar" 33 and flirted witl1 the idea of preparing an expanded edition of his thesis for publication by tl1e SS A11nenerbe. 34 It was not just tl1ose on the right or those outside France who mixed scholarship and politics. "Did Henri Hubert want to rehabilitate pagan-

ism?" Eribon asks, invoking tl1is prominent member of Durkheim's circle, "Or simply to study it?" 35 As Ivan Strenski has made clear, however, Hubert's interest in pagan antiquity was anything but simple.36 Best known as co-author of tl1e Essai sur le sac7'ifice (where he and Marcel Mauss treated Aryan and Semitic examples witl1 studied evenhandedness),37 Hubert (1872- 1927) was charged with reviewing all books on race fo r UAnnee sociologique. Using this position to advance his views as a socialist, a republican, and a Dreyfusard, he systematically combated all attempts to provide racism and anti-Semitism with scholarly apparatus, language, and legitimacy. Regard ing European prehistor y, his area of special expertise, Hubert advanced a set of provocative theses. First, he saw Celtic civilization as having played a similar foundational role for Europe north of tl1e Mediterranean, as Greece and Rome played for tl1e south. In contrast, he considered the ancient Germans to have been relatively limited in tl1ei r territorial distribution and cul tural influence, suggesting tl1at German cultu re was itselfprofoundly influenced by tl1at of the Celts. Finally, Hubert argued tl1at the Germans were not Indo-Europeans at all. Ratl1er, he took tl1e sound shifts and morphological simplifications tl1at distinguish Germanic from otl1er Indo-European languages as evidence that tl1e Proto-Indo-European Ursprache entered German soil from outside and was powerfu lly transformed by the indigenous, non -Ar ya n popu lation who adopted it tl1ere. These views he made public in a series of lectures at the Ecole du Louvre at a time when French postwar power and confidence were at their height (1923 - 1925). It is difficult not to read these lectures as a paean to French civilization and a stinging rebuke to German nationalism of the viillzisch sort. 38 Although Dumezil was fam iliar with Hubert's work and knew its relevance to his own, he studiously avoided him and refused to attend his lectures. Only when his thesis supervisor, Antoi ne Meillet, insisted he give Hubert a copy of his dissertation, "Le Festin d'immortalitc" (1924 ), did he reluctantly do so. The result was a bitter encounter, in the wake ofwh.ich Dumezil left France, convinced tl1at Hubert's opposition and Meillet's wavering support meant there would be no employment for him at home.39

If Eribon seems naive on tl1e matter of scholarly milieu, he has still done us great service in otl1er ways. In his eagerness to refute Ginzburg and Momigliano, he uncovered evidence tl1at offers a clearer view ofDumezil's

126

127

III

Chapter Six

Dttmezit>s Germa1~ Wm· God

political opinions th an we ever hoped to possess. T his is the group of pseudonymous articles Dumczil published in two right-wing papers, Candide and Le Jour> upon renu·ning to France after teaching in Turkey and Sweden (the articles date 1933- 35). Writing as "Georges Marcenay," he praised Mussolini's Italy and urged France to align itself with II Duce, so that together they might check the growth of German power. 40 As Eribon rightly concludes, these articles show Dumczil to have been "profascist and antiNazi" in tl10se years. 41 The question is whether he advanced tl1ese views in publications bearing his own name or whether- as Eribon would have it -he " neutralized his political judgments regarding contemporary events, because he was writing works of science." 42 To pursue this question, I propose to consider a very specific and highly charged datum : the novel interpretation D tunezil offered for the god Tyr in his 1940 volume, Mitra- Varuna. 43 Previously, virtually all specialists agreed that Tyr was a god of war,44 as could be seen in the description of him as "boldest and most courageous" of tl1e Old Norse deities,4 5 his epithet " battle god," 46 the Romans' assimilatio n of him to Mars,47 and use of tl1e spear-shaped ru ne that bears his name (j) as a charm for victory. 48 In contrast, Dumezil stressed the sole myth told ofTyr, which Snorri Stllrluson preserved in two variants, tl1e shorter of which reads as follows.

he fulfilled literally while evading its spirit. Citing otl1er myths tl1at connect 66inn's loss of an eye and his knowledge of magic, Dumezil took these tWO deities as a couple - one-eyed magician and one-handed jurist- who defined tl1e two sides of Indo-European sovereignty, as did comparable figures in Roman, Irish, and Indic myths. Throughout tl1e years, this reconstruction of "le manchot et le borgne" (the one-eyed and the one-handed) remained a centerpiece of Du mezil's tl1eory, although he abandoned first the Indic, tl1en tl1e Irish side of his comparison. 50 One tl1Us might raise questions about his use of comparative metl10d, and several scholars have done so. 5 1 At present, however, I prefer to focus on tl1e Germanic evidence and to emphasize some details in Snorri's text. First, Snorri explicitly frames his account as an example of Tyr's courage, not his fidelity or legal acumen.52 Second, in tl1e longer version, he specifies why tl1e gods became frightened by tl1e wolf: "The gods raised the wolf at home, and only Tyr had the courage to go to tl1e wolf and give it food. And when tl1e gods saw how much he grew each day, and all tl1e prophecies said he migh t be destined to do tl1em harm, then tl1ey adopted a plan." 53 Finally, tl1e wolf himself loses a bodily member, complementing tl1e losses suffered by 6oinn and Tyr. "Then tl1e wolf answered: ' It seems to me tl1ere's no renown to be had from that ribbon, even if I tear asunder so ti"tin a band. But if it is made witl1 craft, even though it may seem small, that band won>t come off my foot. ' " 54 These details lead me to see this mytl1, pace Dumezil, as the realization of a familiar sociogonic theme, in which each of the three functions originates from tl1e loss of a body part tl1at encodes tl1e characteristic activity of tl1e people associated witl1 that fu nction while also assigning tl1em a place in a vertical hierarchy. 55 Thus, tl1e loss of an eye gives rise to tl1e top-ranked sovereign function, represented by 6oinn ; tl1e loss of a hand, to tl1e intermediate warrior function, represented by Tyr; and the loss of a foot, to the lowly third function, represented by the Fenris Wolf. Here, the mytl1 derogatorily emphasizes the lower order's propensity for consumption (rather tl1an production), depicting the wolf's appetite and capacity for growtl1 as tl1e tl1reat the gods check witl1 tl1eir defining powers ofn·ickery, magic, and force.

There is a god named Tyr. He is the boldest and most courageous, and he gives much counsel regarding victory in battles. It is good for valiant men to call on him. T here is tl1e expression that he who is "Tyr-valiant" surpasses otl1er men and does not sit arou nd idly. He was so wise that one who is wise is said to be "Tyr-sage." T his is one mark of his boldness: When the gods enticed tl1e Fenris Wolf to let tl1em put the fetter "Gieipnir" on him, the wolf did not trust tl1em to let him tl·ee until they laid Tyr's hand in his moutl1 as a pledge. Then, when the gods would not set hi m loose, he bit Tyr's hand off at tl1e point which is now called tl1e "wolf-point" [i.e., tl1e wrist], and Tyr is one- handed, and is not called a man of peace. 49 T he longer version adds several significant details. First, "Gieipnir " is a magic fetter, fashioned at 66im1's instructions to be delicate in appearance, but enormously strong. This was of interest to D umezil, who understood 6oinn as a master of magic, particularly the power to bind. Conversely, he saw Tyr as a master oflaw, stressing tl1at in this episode Tyr contributed to tl1e gods' success not by any martial powers but by making a contract that

Several other Germanic narratives realize this same tl1eme, though differing in tl1eir details. 56 In place of an eye, one sometimes finds tl1e head or other

128

129

IV

Chapter Six

Dmnezil's Germ au Wm· God

parts thereof; in place o f a hand , the arm; and in place of a foo t, the leg or another part of the lower body. But whenever a character loses an arm or hand , it is a warrior who does so. Consider, for example, the "Saga of Egil One-H and" (Egilssaga einhenda), a fabulous tale composed in Iceland in the th irteenth century. The story begins when a giant captures the saga's hero, shackles his feet , and forces him to tend the giant 's goatsY O ne evening, however, Egil finds a cat, hides it under his clo thes, and brings it back to the giant's cave, where he lets the giant glimpse its eyes and persuades him these are "golden eyes" that let him see at night. Then, when the giant desires these precio us orbs, Egil o ffers to install them if only he is freed from the fetters on his feet. The giant obliges, then submits to brutal surgery: "Egil picked up a do ublebladed dart and thrust it into the giant's eyes so that they fell out and lay o n his cheekbones." 58 And after a struggle, in which he loses an ear and the giant a hand, Egil makes good his escape. Later, Egil battles a second giant and cu ts o ff his biceps, losing his own hand in the process . In the fi nal episode, a dwarf heals Egil's wound and fashions for him a sword-cumprosthesis tl1at lets him fight witl1 unparalleled ski ll. 5 9 Notwithstanding tl1e multiplication of severed mem bers an d possible influence fro m other traditions (Odysseus, N uad u ), the saga's pattern is clear enough. The injury to his feet makes Egil a servant and herdsman, tl1e loss of his hand makes him a warrior, and the giant's desire fo r magical power leads him to lose his eyes.60 Again , tl1ere is the great Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf, whose three monsters succumb to wounds of different sorts. Grendel's arm is ripped from his shoulder, Grendel 's mother is decapitated, and the dragon is stabbed in the underbelly (niooor hwene). Each wound, moreover, correspo nds to the status of the victor who dealt it, for Beowulf is a warrior champion when he wrenches off Grendel's arm, but the king's adoptive son when he takes tl1e mother's head. Wiglaf, in contrast , is one liegeman among many, an untried youth in his first adventure, when he strikes the dragon's vitals, after Beowulf ( by now a king) struck its head wiili no results. 61 T hese same associations also struct11re the preliminary attacks that prompt each combat. Thus, Grendel devours a soldier " feet and hands" (fet ond fo lma), Grendel's mother tears tl1e head o ff H rotl1gar's foremost noble (aldorpegn), and the dragon's assault is provoked by a servant (peow), who violates the monster's mound and steals a precio us cup.62 T he same pattern is expressed o nce more in the gifts that reward each combat. H rothgar gives Beowu lf warrio r goods-" horses and weapons" (wicga

ond wrepna)- after he has slain Grendel; to these he adds advice about good kings and bad following the victory over Grendel's mother. In con rrast, Wiglafwi ns the dragon's gold, rings, jewels, and treasure. 63 Finally, there is Waltha1'ius) a mi nor epic of tl1e nintl1 or te nth century, written in Latin but based on older Burgundian materials, to which Donald Ward and U do Strutynski have called attention.64 Here o ne fi nds an interesting inversion of tl1e pattern, since it is a king, Guntharius, who loses his leg and the king's liegeman, H agano, who loses an eye, along with his lip and six teeth . The text explains th is reversal, however, telling how GLultharius deserves demotion because greed and weakness made him unwortl1y, and Haga no's bravery and righteousness made hi m the king's superior. Of prime interest to us, however, is the detail that remains constant. Here, as in all otl1er examples, it is the loss of an arm that marks the warrior: Waltl1arius, the champion of the story.65 Not:witl1standing thei r other diffe rences, all tl1ese texts describe how a hierarchic arrangemen t of three functions is inscribed on the body through a set of three wounds. A wound to the head or eye marks tl1ose who are sovereign (by virtue of royalty, sacrality, knowledge, magic, and/or righteousness), a wound to tile ha nd or arm marks those of martial power, and wounds to the lower body mar k low-ranki ng persons, whose appetites for food or wealth may be perceived as ignoble or dangerous and who are reduced to positio ns of servile captivi ty (table 6.1 ). At tl1is point,· an intr iguing question arises. Not only is Tyr's position in the mytl1 of his encounter with the wolf perfectly consistent with the old interpretation of hi m as a war god, but such an interpretation also makes tlayot) arc mentioned at lines 263-64 , witl1 implicit comparison to lines 35-39. YllQUof.IOL is not arrested in Homer but occurs in the Homeric Hynm to Hermes 426, and D elphic Oracle 473 .4 (1-J . W. Parke and D. E. W. Wo n ncll, 17Je Delphic Om cle [O xford: Blackwell, 1956], p. 192), witl1 reference to divine proclamations of truth, as has been noted by Jose A. Fernandez Delgado, Los Ornwlos y Hes{odo: Poes{a omlmn1ttica y gnomica griegas (Salamanca: Universidad de Extrcmadura, 1986 ), pp . 40 and 4 8- 49 . 5. ln the stemma reconstructed by West, p . 6 0, tl1ere are four main manuscript families: B, a (subdivided into n and v), b, and k (su bdivided into K and u). Oftl1ese, B and u arc frngmentary and do not include line 28. T he variant reading 1J.U9ftaaa 9at is found in all the remaining fami lies, save n (which consists of two manuscripts). Earlier editors preferred YTJQUaa aflat on tl1c principle of lcctio difjicilio1; a decisio n tl1at was confirmed by tl1c discovery of two papyri oftl1e second and third centuries (West's n 1 and n 2 ), in which tl1is reading was preserved . 6. Wm·ks and Days (lines 8-10):

"Dcr frtihgricchischc Worrgebrauch von Logos und Aletl1eia," A1·chiv fiir Begt·ijfsgesciJichte 4 ( 19~9): 82 - 112, who begins with this observation: "Im Epos ist d ieses Wort [logos) noch

Ze\x; i>lJ!tPQ&J.IETl)C;, ot; i>neQ-ra-ra OOOIJ.a-ra vaict, xA.u9L iorov OLOOV -re,liix n o' i9uve flEJ.llOTat; TUVT)' f:yro lit xe n eQOll ETllTU)lO J.IU9qcratJ.IT)V. 7. Note also that the Muses inspire two sorts of men, w ho speak two d ifferent sorts of speech: kings, w ho speak in assembly and deliver legal judg ments (Theogony 81- 9 3), and po ets, who sing the deeds of gods and heroes, providing diversion from hu man griefs (Theogo11y 94 - 104). Cf. the Homct·ic Hynm to the M11ses attd Apollo, lines 2 - 4 . 8. O n the earliest uses of logos, the most tho ro ugh discussion to date is H erbert Boed er,

218

wemg gebrauchlich. Die sparlichen Belcgc ncnnen cs nur im Zusammenhang von Bezauberung, Ablenkung und Irrefiihrung" (p. 82). Also of interest arc Henri Fournier Les Verbes "di1·c" engrec ancien (Paris: Klincksicck, 1946); and Claude Calame, '"Mythe' ~t 'rite' en Grcce: Des categories indigenes?" Kemos4 ( 1991 ): 179-204. 9. Works nud Days 106: "€-rEQOV -rot f:yro A.Oyov EXXOQUq>OOaOJ." Leclerc, Ln. Parole chez Hesiodc, p. 34, trnnslates logos "t·l:citfictif" on the basis of this passage. On H csiod's account of the world ages ( Wm·ksaud Days 106- 201 ), sec Jean-Pierre Vernant, Mythe et pmsee chez /es Crees (Paris: Maspero, 1974), 1: 13-79; and K. Matthicssen, " Form und Funktion des Weltaltermythos bei Hcsiod," in G. W. Bowersock ct al., cds., Arktouros: Hellmic Stltdies Prese11 ted to Bernard K11ox (Berlin: Walter de Gruytcr, 1979), pp. 25-32. I 0. Conceivably, this is a grammatical echo of a hint the M uses d rop regarding the inexhaustibility oflinguistic invention: "We know how to recount many falsehoods t11at arc like truthfi.1l tl1ings" (tO)lEv IJ!euoea rroAA.a Atyew i:-rU)lotatv 6)1oia, Theogony 27). Along similar line~, R.1flaelc Pcttazzoni was fond of quoting North American legends of a storytelling contest m wh1ch Coyote bested the gods, his false tales being infinitely more numerous than their l i mit~ stock ?f divine truths. R. Pettazzoni, "The Truth of Myth," in Essays i1t the H istory of Rehgtmls (Letdcn: E.]. Brill, 1967), p. 12. 11. 17JCOgOIIJ 226 - 29: Ai>-raQ "EQtt; a-ruy&QllTEX& ~tev n ovov aA.ytvocv-ra J\~911V T& J\L)lOV xai "A.A.ye a liOXQUO&VTO 'Y'crJ.ltvat; -re Maxat; -re 6votX; -r' 'AvliQox-raa iat; -re Neixca -rc 'i'eUiiea -re A6yotX; -r' A)lq>tA.A.oyiat; -re 12. Works fl'ld Dnys 78: "~ICOOea e· Olf.IUAlOU'.ai!E:yae~ov &yetQav 7taVT£ati!OVlTJ, Tl AEATJXtXT] I)' EVxeecri· xal ali>OO' 6 xaxoc; TOV aeeiova cpiii-ra 11U8otcrt oxoA.tOic; E:venrov, f:nll>' oexov O~!EiTat. 43. Works and Days 184: "ouM xacrtyYT]TOtoe; alytoxoto· "7t0l1!EV£atl!6vt', a-rQepac; Ticro xal iiAA.rov ~!UOov iixoue, o'i oeo cpeQTEQOi eiot, ou I>' arcTOAE~!O..ou l.to~ OQ't'lE7telUt, xai tJOt crx.~7tTQOV eliov McpvTJ
26. Pa.rmcnides, Fragment B8.1-2: "J.lOVoc; o' en ~lU8or; ooo'io I t..elrrETat cOr; EC!Ttll.'' 27. On Empcdoclcs, see Antonio Capizzi, " Trasposizione del Jessica america in Parmenide ed Empcdocle," Qj1adenJi m·biua.ti di culmm classica 54 (1987): 107- 18; S. Panagiotou, "Empcdoclcs on His Own Divinity," Mt1cmosyne 36 (1983): 276-85; K. E. Staugaard, "Empedoklcs, «physiologos>>ellcr poet?" Museum Twmlatmm (1980): 23 - 38. 28. Empedoclcs, Fragment B62.1-3:

n

~lOATC~ o' OJ.lilight of the Idols, "The ' Improvers' of Mankind," §3: " Ersichtlich sind wir hier nicht mch r unter Thierbandigcrn: cine hundcrt Mal mildere und vcrnunftigere Art Mensch ist die Voraussctzung, um auch nur den Plan eine r solchcn Zlichnmg zu concipircn. Man a tilmet auf, aus der christlichcn Krankcn- und Kcrkerluft in dicse geslindere, hohere, weitere Welt cinzutrctcn . Wic armsclig ist das , Neue Testament" gcgen Manu, wie schlccht riecht cs!" The insult couched in olfactory terms draws on anti-Semitic conventions. Cf. The Ami-Christ §46: "One would no more choose to associate with 'first Christians' than one would with Polish Jcws: not that one would need to prove so much as a single point against thcm .. . . Ncitl1er of them smell very pleasant" (p. 173, ellipsis in the original). [Wir wtirden uns ,crstc Christen" so wenig wie polnische Juden z um Umgang wahlen: nicht dass man gcgen sic auch nur cincn Einwand notl1ig hatte . ... Sic riechen bcidc nicht gut.] It is also interesting to compare Nietzsche's valorization of Mrmu over tl1c New Testament with the judgment )acolliot voices about tl1c Hebrew Bible: "We know nothing more interesting than to read Mm111 with the Bible in front of us. The latter book, a code of pillage and debauchery, which never knew the immortality of the soul, can not sustain the tiniest comparison witl1 the ancient law book of the Hindus." [Nous ne savons ricn de plus intcressant que de lire Manou avec Ia Bible sous les yeux. Cc dernic r livre, code du pillage c t de Ia dcbauche, qui n'a point conm1 l'immortalite de l'amc, nc pcut soutcnir Ia plus petite comparaison avec le vieux livre de Ia loi des lndous.] Les Ugislatenrs religieux, p. 54. 27. 11vilightofthe Idols, "The 'Improvers' of Mankind," §4. 28. Ibid.: " D as Christcnthum, aus jlidischer Wurzcl und nur vcrstiindlich als Gcwiichs diescs Bodcns, stellt die Gegcnbcwcgung gcgen jedc Moral der Zlichn111g, dcr Rasse, des Privilegiums dar:- es ist die rmtiarische Religion par excellence: das C hristenthum die Umwcrtllllng allcr arischcn Wertl1c, dcr Sieg dcr Tschandala-Wcrthc, das Evangcliu m den Armen, den Nicdrigen geprcdigt, der Gesammt-Aufstand alles Nicdcrgctretcncn, Elcndcn, Missratl1cnen, Schlcchtwcggckommencn gcgen die , Rassc'- die unsterblichc TschandalaRachc als R eligion der Liebe." Cf. The A1~ti-Christ §§55- 57. 29. For some good discussions, sec Orsucci, Orimt- Okzident, pp. 279- 340; and the essays collected in Jacob Golomb, cd., Nietzsche rmd jewish Culture (London: Routledge, 1997), csp. those of Steven Aschheim (pp. 3- 20), H ubert Cancik (55- 75 ), and Sander Gilman (76-100), which are preferable to the longer, but less probing, treatment of Weaver Santaniello, Nietzsche, God, rmd the jews (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), or Sarah Kofman, Le Mep1·is des juift: Nietzsche, les juift, l'anti-st!mitisme (Paris: Galilee, 1994). 30. Dc tlcf Brennecke, "Die blonde Bcstic: Yom Missvcrstandnis cines Schlagworts,"

Nietzsche Studien 5 ( 1976): 111-45. Sec also Klaus von Sec, " Die An f.i nge des rassistischen Germancnkultcs: (a) N i ctzsche- H crrcnr:~sse und , blonde Bcstic"," in his Detttsche Germanen-ldeologie (Frankfi.1rt am Main: Athcnaum, 1970), pp. 53 - 56, rcpr. (with minor modifications) in Brwbm ; Germane, A rie1·: Die Suche 11ach der Idcntitiit ncr D eu.tschw (H eidelberg: Carl Winter, 1994), pp. 287-89. 31. T hus, in Grimm's Worw·buch of the German language (1860), he observed "auch gilt blm1n nur vom haar dcr mensch en, nicht dcr thicrc, das pfcrd, der lowe hciszcn nie blo11d." Brennecke fou nd some exceptions to this rule, but tl1cy arc metaphoric extensions of the normal usage. 32. Poeschc, Die A1·ier, p. 12. 33. Tacitus, Gcrmanin4 : "I pse eorum opinionibus accedo, qui Gcrmaniac populos m1llis al.iis aliarum nationum conubiis infcctos propriam ct sinceram et tann1111 sui similem gentem cxtitisse arbitrannn·. undc habitus quoque corporum, tamquam [ms. variant: quamquam] in tanto hominum numcro, idem omnibus: truces et cacrulei oculi, rutilae comac , magna corpora ct tan tum ad impetum valida. laboris atquc opcrum non eadem paticntia, minjmcque sitim aesn1mquc tolcrare, frigora atque incdiam caclo solovc assucvcrunt." 34. On Nazi fctishization of the Tacitcan text, see Allan Lund, Gemtanmineologie im Nationa/.soz ialismm: Z rw R ezeptio1~ der 'Germn11ia' des Tacitus im " Drittcll l{eich" ( Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1995). T he issue of blond hair is treated at pp. 34- 35, 73- 74. For an example from that period, see Wilhelm Sicglin, Die blo11dm Hnnre der i11dog ermrmischen Volkc1· des Altu·t11ms- Ei11e Sammltmg der amikm Zeugnisse als Beit:mg z tw htdogerma~tmfmge (Munich:). F. Le hmann , 1935). 35. Gem1a11ia gemmlis 2.5-14:

On Celtis's importance, sec Kenneth C. Schel lhase, Thcittts in R ena issance Political Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 31- 39. More broadly, sec Ulrich Muh lack, "Die Gcrmania im deutschen Nationalbewusstsci11 vor dem 19. Jahrhundcrt," in Herbert Jank.uhn and Dieter Timpe, cds. , Beitriige z rm1 Ve1'Stii11d11is der Ge1"111flllifl des Tacitt~s (Gottingen: Vandcnhocck and Ruprecht, 1989), I : 128- 54; and Luciano Canfora, " Tacito c Ia ,riscopcrta dcgli antichi Germani": dal II al III Reich," in Levie del c/assicismo (Rome: Laterza, 1989), pp. 30- 62. 36. Eduard Norden , Diegerma11iscbe Urgeschichte in Ta citus Germa11ia (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1920), csp. pp. 42-84. It is probably worth mentioning tl1at Norden was a djstinguished German Jewish classicist, whose inquiry into Tacitus was surely prompted by the fctishized status this text held and the triumphalist readings it was given. For his trouble, he was deprived of his right to teach under National Socialism. His analyses have been pursued and extended by Klaus von Sec, " Ocr Germane als Barbar," ]nhrbt~chfttl' i11tcmntio11ale Ge,·1/lflltistik 13 ( 198 1): 42 - 72; Allan Lund, Zttm Gemlflnenbild der Riimer: Ei11e Ei11jt"ilmmg in die antike Etlmographie (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1990); and Klaus Bringmann, "Topoi in der taciteischen Germania," in Jan kuhn and Timpe, Beit1·iige z11m Verstiind1tis der Germmtia, pp. 59 - 78. 37. "BouOivoL 5& EevoA: Bryn Mawr Latin Commentaries, 1989). 66. Alfi·ed Rosenberg, D cr Myth11sd es 20.]nhrhtmderts: Eiue Werttmg der seelisch-geistigen Gestn.l tcnknmpfc tmserer Zeit (Munich: H oheneichcn Verlag, 1935); Martin Ninck, Woda11 tmdgerm auische Schicksalsgla ttbe (Jena: Eugcn Diederich, 1935 ); C. G. Jung, " Wotan," originally published in 1936, now available in his Collected Works (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 10:179-9 3. 67. Bloch's review appeared in Revue historiqttc 188 (1940 ): 274 -76. DumeziJmadc much of it when responding to Ginzburg . 68. Here Dumczil expanded upon a line of anai)'Sis that was introduced in the fi nal year of the first World War and was much more influential on French than on German scholars (for obvious reasons): Joseph Vendryes, "Lcs Correspondences de vocabulai re entre l'indoiranicn ct l'italo-ccltiquc," Memoit·es de Ia Societe de ling11istique de Pa1·is 20 ( 191 8 ): 265-86. 69. Dumczil, Mythcs et dieux des Germni m, pp. 153-54. Usc of tl1c Latin terminology rex and dux derives fi·o m and alludes to Tacin1s, Gennmtia, chap. 7. 70 . Dumczil, Mythcs et dieux des Germaim, p. 155. 7 1. Ibid., p. J 56. 72. Ibid., p. 36 . 73 . Tbid., pp. 37-42. His tortuo us argument may be summarized as follows: (1) The stories Saxo tells of Mithothyn and OUcrus ( 1.7 ~ n d 3.4, respectively) arc fundame ntally tl1e s~mc, (2) Ollcrus is a Latinizcd form o f Old Norse Ullr, (3) Ull r is very little attested among the continental Germans, (4 ) in the souili , U llr 's place is taken by *Tiw~z, (5) Tyr is the Old Norse form of *Tiw~z, (6 ) the Romans equated *11 waz with Mars, (7) a third-century inscription mentions a Mars T hincsus, (8) Thincsus refers to the Germanic thi11g, i.e., the popular assembly ~n d place of d isputation, (9 ) the name Mithot hyn means "the judge." Some of tl1csc points are unexceptionable (2 , 3, 5, 6 ), and some open to discussion ( 1, 8). Otl1ers arc unlikely ( 4, 9 ) or given disproportionate importance (7). 74 . Dumczil, Mitm- Vartma, pp. 152 - 59. T he phrases I have used in the above description come directly from tl1e text: The O dinic system is thus described as "1m «collfusionism e•, tm «m m11isme» pe1·m n.llc11te" (p . 1 57), "«/'econ omic mou vm ltc et totnlitn.ire» patromtec par *Wii6anaz" (p. 157), "lc regime commtmisn.nt . .. apte satisfail·e ct COittmir In ptebe" (p. 155), "mtc morale heroi"que et muicapitaliste" (157). The Mithothynic has: "propt·iete mo1·ce/ie, stn.ble, IJcreditait·e" (p. 157), "proprieti avec compematiott precise" (p. 157), " tme t•epartitioll nussi rigom ·cuse et aussi claire que posssible des biem" (p. 157), "«/'economic stable ct liberate• pnt~·otmee par *Tiwaz" (p . 156 ), " Ia p1·oprietc hereditaire, le bie~~ fa m ilial" (p. 158). In /,es Dieux souvemins des b td o-Europeens ( 1977), this system ofcontrasts has been reworked to place the opposition of private property and communism at its center (pp. 200- 202) . 75. Mitm- Vnrmm, pp. 157- 59 . H is statement about the Slavs is guarded but suggestively open-ended : "Or chez lcs Slaves, jusqu'cn plcinc cpoque historiquc, Ont existe des fo rmes de pro prictc collective avec redistribution pc riodiquc; Ia mytho logic de Ia souvcraincte

dcvait sc modeler sur ces pratiques, et il ct1t etc d'autant plus intcressant de Ia connattrc que lcs dcposiraircs humains de Ia souvcrainetc paraisscnt avoir etc, chez les Slaves, particuliercmcnt insrables. Mais tout ccla est irrcmediablemcnt perdu" (p. 159). 76. For a discussion of iliis com sc and its relation to Mit1-n.- Vnnmn, see DumcziJ, Ent~·cticm twcc Didier Et·ibon, pp. 67-68. 77. Earlier, not only Mithotl1yn played this role but also Ullr, whom Dumezil imaginatively associated with the emergence of parliamentary institutions among the "good Germans" of England and Scandinavia: "L'opposition de ccs deux conceptions du pouvoir souvcrain semble fond amen talc dans Ia vic des peuplcs gcrmaniqucs: si lcs socictcs scandinavcs ct anglosaxonncs ont, trcs tot, assure Ia suprematie d'UIIr, ct d u tiJiug, ct du parlcmcnt, et du droit precis, lcs Gcrmains continentaux, ont gardc Ia nostalgic du pur Wotan" (Mythes et dieux des Genua im, p. 42). 78. Sec the litcranu·e cited above, n . 44 . 79. Dumczil , Mitra-Vamna, pp. 149-50: "Quel genre de rapports *Tfwaz-Mars soutient-il avec Ia gucrre? D'abord des rapports qui nc sont pas cxdusifs, car il a d'autres activitcs: il est q ualifie sur plusicurs inscriptions de 17;incsus; il est done st'lrement, en depit d 'interminables discussions, protccteur du thi11g (allemand Diug), du peuplc assemble en corps pour juger et decider. Mais en dehors de ccttc imporrantc fonction civile, dans Ia gucrrc mcmc, *Tfwaz-Mars rcstc juristc .... II y a bien des manicrcs d'ctrc dicu de Ia gucrrc, et *Ti111nz en dcfinit une qui scrait trcs mal exprimcc par les etiquettes «dicu gucrricn>, «dicu combattant»; lc legitime patron du combat en tant que coups assencs, c'cst *17nmmz, le champion (cf. MytiJes et dicux des Germ aim, chap. VII), lc modele de Ia force physique, cclui q ue lcs Romains ont traduit en Hercules. *Tiwnz est autre chose: lc juriste de Ia gucrrc, ct en mcmc temps unc manicre de diplomate. . . ." Although this passage refers to "plusieurs inscriptions," there is o nly one, found at H ousesteads, Northumberland, dating from 22535 C. E. R. G. Collingwood and R. P. Wright, 1'11e R oma11ltJ.Jc1·iptiom of Britai11, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), no. 1593. Dumczil was criticized o n this poinr and corrected himself in later publications. 80 . Dumczil, Mit1·a-Varmlfl, pp. 166-67. 8 L. Also relevant is Dumczil's view of Freyr, about whom he rhapsodized : " 11 y a unc mystique, unc mytl10logic de Ia rr.rcJJeologie ojferts It Prr.ttl Collrr.rt (Lausanne: E. de Boccard, 1976), pp. 19 3-95· and Y. Vernicre, "La Lu ne, reservoir des ames," in Frans:ois Jouan, cd., Mort et flcondite ddm les

277

Notes to Pages 166-1 69

Notes to Pages 169-175

mythologies (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1986}, pp. 101- 8 . The most important primary source is Plutarch, De facie;,, orbe ltmae, esp. 942ef, 943a, 945cd; cf. De Pytbiae ornculis 397c, De defecw oraculum416de. 29. De Pythiae ornculis 404e: "·.C>V ... 9eov xero~.u:vov Tti n uelQ nQOc; axo~v. xa900c; ~:\.~~ xQi'jTOl oe:\.~vn rreoc; oljJ1v." Cf. De sera tmmitlis vindicta 566 be, De Pythiae orncttlis 400d and 404d; and sec further Giulja Sissa, " Lunar Pythia," in Gt·eek Virgi11ity (Cambridge, MA:

things mirthless · mouth, reaches over a thousand . •.unadorned • and un per fi.tmc d W·it 11 a ravmg years Wtth her, vo1ce, thanks to the god" ' ' ', , · (:!:inu!."-a f' o•c' J.IQlVOJ.IC'v(l) , OTOJ.IOTl xa9"HQQXMo.lTOV aye:>..a~Ta XQl axaHromaTa xal OJ1UQlOTO cp9eyyOJ.IEVI1 XlAl(JJV i:Tiiiv El;txvchal Tii cprovn OHl Tov 9eov.] 42. On the relation between the Pythia's virginity and her mantic speech, sec Sissa Greek Virgi11ity, pp. 7-70. '

H arvard University Press, 1990), pp. 25-32. 30. On the hicrarchizing dimension of taxonomic systems, sec Bruce Lincoln, Discourse atld the Coustruction of Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989}, pp. 131-41. 31. Plutarch served in this capacity from c. 90 c.B. until his death in 125. Sec further Guy Soury, " Piutarquc, prcu·c de Dclphes, !'inspiration prophctiq ue," Jtcvue des &tudes gt·eques 55 ( 1942): 50-69; Robert Flacelicre, "Piutarquc ct Ia Pythic," lteJitte des etttdes greques 56 ( 1943): 72-ll l, "Piutarque, apologiste de Delphcs," L'fl1jormatioll litterain 5 (1953 ): 97- 103; and M. L. Danicli, "Piutarco a Delli: Note sulla rcligiositil plutarchca," Nt~ovo Didaskalion 15 ( 1965 ): 5-23. 32. Plutarch describes the problems Delphi experienced during his lifetime at De Pythiae orawlis 397d, 402b, 407d, 408bc, and De defect~~ omettlomm 414b. H e proudly mentions the program of rebuilding at De Pythiac omculis 409a and takes some personal credit for this at 409bc. 33. T he earliest sources have only one, and multiple Sibyls arc first mentioned by Heraelides of Pontus, who names Erythrae, Marpessus, and Delphi. Varro's list often is often taken as canonic, but others note even more. Sec the discussion of Parke, Sibyls a11d Sibylli11e p,·oph-

ecy, pp. 23- 46. 34. "l:l~UAAO i) 'EQueeala E;~lroaev hrt6:\.lyov arrolieovTa TiiiV XlAl
214 - 15; usc of term "Aryan race," 61. See also fndo-European peoples; PreAryan population Asia: H erder's theory of origins in, 54 -55; Jones's characterization of peoples of, 96-100; o rigin of important language fam ily in (Jones), 54-55, 82-83; Wagner's tracing of Germans origin to, 6061 Association: in narrative of the Phaedms, 154 - 55; in taxonomy of the Sybil's death, 166 Barrow, Isaac, 9 3 Bayreuth circle, 60 - 61, 66, llO, 120 The Bet/ Ctwve (Herrnstein and Murray), 123 Benveniste, Emile, 88, 145 Beowulf, 130 - 31 Bcrosus, 48 - 49 Bias of Priene, 26 Bible, the: Enlightenment veiled critiques of, 49; interest of northern Europeans in (1640s), 49; Wulfila's Gothic translation of New Testament, 49. Sec also Book of Genesis The Birth of Tragedy (Nietzsche): German culture and politics in, 62-63; mythic narratives in, 61-62, 65; Prometheus myth, 64-65 Bloch, Marc, 133 Blond beast (Nietzsche), xi, 101-4, 106, 109-11, 118-20

291

hlffc.\;

buie...: Book of Genesis: absence of Tuyscon in , 49; lk)rant 's reordering of ethnography of~ 85 - 116; jones's link of primordial races with ethnology of, 91 - 93; preconceptions of Herder and jones based on, 54 - 55; theory of human origins from peo ple in, 79-80, 94 Ropp, Franz, 56, 66, 88, 143 Boudinoi people (Herodotus), 112 Boxho rn, Marcus Zuerius, 80 - 8 1 Brandon,S. G. F., 71 Brcal, Michel, 73 Brennecke, Detlcf, I J I Bryanr, jacob, 85- 87,91 - 92,94,95 Bunse n, Christian , 66 Burnouf, Eugene, 66, 73 Caillois, Roger, 143 Carus, Carl Gustav, I 06 Celtis, Conrad , I ll Celts: as blond Aryans (Nietzsche), 106 Cephalic index , 106 Chamberlain , Houston Stewart, 6 1 Childe, V. Gordon , 215 Christianit)r: as anti-Aryan religion (Nictz· schc ), I 09, 120; Feucrbach 's analysis, 57; implied as myth, SO; Jewish roots as source of (Nietzsche), J 09 - 10 Chronolog)': alignment of biblical and In· dian ( jones), 193 - 95 Clcdonomancy, 164, 165 Cornford, Francis, 7 1 Crevatin , F1~1nco, 213 Critias, 36-3 7 Cu lture: Ann ius's forged text describing German , 48 - 49; cultural relativism ( Herder), 52 - 53; misrepresented as nature in the Tni11, 147- 49 Cullllre, 01~11: myth as (Xenophanes), 2830; Socrates in , 38; in 'T11cogouy and Odyssey, 19-25 de Benoist , Abin, 12 1, 137 De Pytbiac 11mculis ( Plutarch), 160-64 de Saumise, Claude, 8 1 Detienne, Marcel, 7 Dmtscbc Mytholo,l}ic (). and W. Grimm), 56 - 57 de Vries, jan, 73, 125 - 26 DiodorusSiculus, 113- 14

Discrim inatio n: binary oppositions as instruments of, 11 8 - 19, 142; in mythic form of taxonomy, 147- 49 Dubuisson, Daniel , xi Dumczil, Georges, 73; career and contribu· tion; of, !23 - 24; criticism of, 145 - 46; as "Georges Marcenay," 128; hallmarks of Indo· European myth and religion, xi; influence on L{:vi-Strauss and Eliade, 142; studies of myths, 14 1 Durkhcim , Emile, 70 , 146 - 47 Egil One-Hand, 130 Egoism: of Jews (~eucrbach ), 57- 58; Wag· ncr's usc of theme, 58 - 59 Eliadc, Mircca: contributions to studies of myt hs, 141 ; criticism o t~ 145; influences on thought of, 142; usc of comparative mythology, 73 Eliot, T. S., 71, 160 Empedoclcs of Acragas, 31- 32, 156-58 Enlightenment, the: criticism of mythic po· etry, 50 - 5 1; criticism of the Bible, 49 ; Hamann's opposition to values of, 5 1 Eribon, Didier, 125, 127- 28 17Je Essence ofChristia11ity (Fcuerbach ), 5758 Etudes intfo-em·opteucs, 12 1, 123 European people: acceptance by northern people of ideas in Gcmm11ia, 48; inter· est of northern people in the Bible, 49; physical and personality characteristics attributed to northern, 110- 18; physical and personality characteristics aw·ibuted to southern, 114 - 15; theories oflan· guagc origins of northern, 78- 79. Sec also German people Evola, julius, 143 Extispicy (reading of organs), 163, 165

Fnbulac: Greek and Ro man post-Plato view of, 47; o f Roman stories, x Feist, Sigmund, 215 Fcucrbach, Ludwig, 57- 58 Folk, 122 Footnotes: role in scholarly text, 208 - 9; triumphant over myth , 21 J Fmw 'l11cm·ics of Myth iu 'llllmtietb·CenttH·y History (Strcnski ), xi Frazer, James George, 70- 72

292

Gayre, Roberr, 123 Gellner, Ernest, 71- 72 Genesis. See Book of Genesis Gcmmuin gcnemlis (Celtis), 111 Gemmuia (Tacitus), 47-48, 78, Ill Germanic mythology: Dumczil's o·catmcnt of, 128- 36; myth ofTyr, 128-29, 131, 134-36; narratives about loss of body parts, 129-32; 6oinn, 131, 1 33; politi· cal subtcxts of Dumczil's treatment of, 136- 37 German people: accepting idea of Asian origin, 55 - 56; Ann ius's fu rgcd text about culture of, 48 - 49; as descendants of blond Aryans (Pocschc), I 12; idea of national identity, 55, 210; as northern people, 113; Ooinn as inspiring force tor (Dumczil), 131; origins of( Hu bert), 127; Tacitus's description of, I 13 Gimbutas, Marija , 215 Ginzburg, Carlo, 125 Giraldus Cambrensis, 77-78 Gobi neau, Artur (count), 6 1, 105-6 G01·gias, 33 - 34 Goropianism, 78 Goropi us, Johannes Becanus, 78, 80 Greater Brmdahisu, 183-88 Greek tragedy: Nietzsche's history ot: 6263 Grimm, jacob, 56-57, 88,2 10 Grimm , Wilhelm, 56 , 210 Gn~nbcch , Vilhclm, 73 Grottancl i, Cristiano, I 07 Gucnon, Rene, 143 Giintcrt, Hermann, 73 Glinther, Hans F. K., 75, 122 Hair: blond and dark hair in Virchow's re· search, 106; differences in colo r related to location, 112-13; significance of blond (Nietzsche), 104 - 5; warning abom dark-haired people (Nietzsche), 106 - 7 Halhcd, Nathaniel, 83 Hamann, johann Georg, 51 - 52 Harrison, jane Ellen, 7 1 Haudry, Jean, 12 1- 22, 137 Hauer, jacob Wilhelm, 73 Havelock, Eric, 217 n . l (chap. 1) Hegel , G. W. F., 72

1-lcpatoscop)' (reading oflivcrs), 163, 164, 165 Die Hcmbkrmj't des Fcucrs rmtf tics Gottcrtmuks ( Kuhn ), 64 Heraclidcs of Pontus, 168-69 Heraclitus, 26 - 27 Herder, Johann Gottfi·icd: ideas about language, 69; notion of Volk, 74; system in /dew, 52-54; theorizing myth , 211; theory of Asian origins, 54 - 57 ll erodotus, I 12 Herrnstein , Richard, 123 Hcsiod : f·orms o f speech usc by, 3- 8, 1118; 771cogou.r, 3-8, 23 - 25; Works m1tf Days, 4 - 8; Xcnophancs' criticism of, 29 Hierarch)': in classification (Durkheim ), 147; contested in myth of Primordial Ox, 183 - 88; in myth ofYayati, 203 -6; in rhc Pbnedms, J 53 - 55, I SS; within taxonomy ofdivinatory practices, 16669 H immlcr, Heinrich, 125 Hirt, Hermann , 2 14 Hitler, Adolph: association with god 6oinn, 134; repudiation of Locarno Pact, 267n.82 Ho fler, Otto, 73, 125- 26 Ho mer: accusations agai nst, 33- 34; forms of speech used by, 10- 18; Gorgias's accusations against, 33-34; logoi ot: 8; Xcnophanes' criticism ot~ 29 Homeric Hy11111 to Hermes, 9 Hooke, S. H., 71 Ho rn, Georg, 8 1 Hubert, Henri, 126 - 27

Idem zm· Philosophic tier Gcscbicbtc der Meuscbbeit ( Herder), 52-56 Ideology: in Hcsiod's Thcogo11y, 23-25; Indo-European tripartite ( Dumczil), 124-25, 142 - 43, 145; myth in narra· tivc form as, xii, 147- 49; Nietzsche's recoding of political, 104 -5; as part of scholarship, 207-8; theory of an unknown Sophist, 34 -36 Iliatf ( Ho mer): usc oflogoi in, 9- 10; usc of mythos/mytiJeomai in, I 7-18 India: as Aryan homeland (Schlegel ), 56; German interest in, 55-56; myth limit· ing advancement of (Max Mii ller), 67

293

Index Indo-European languages: Giraldus's thesis, 77- 78; phonology and morphology, 68-69; relation among, 212 Indo-European mythology: Dumczil's work as scholarly basis for, xi, 123-37; sntdies reconstituting, 121-23 Indo-European peoples: contributors to Dumczil's thought about, 125- 26; of Dumczil, 142, 145- 46; Dumczil's studies of, 123-27; Dumczil's three-function theory, 124, 128-3 1, 142- 43; ofEiiadc, 142 - 43; Jacolliot's interpretation of origins, 108; Jones's thesis, 81- 82; postwar discourse about, xiv; as replacement for Aryans, 94 - 95; superiority of(de Benoist, Haudry, Pearson), 137; theorizing about issues related to, 216 Institute for the Study of Man, 122 Intt·odu ctiou tll)JJistoil·c dtt Drmcmarc (Mallet), 50 Jacolliot, Louis, 107-9 Jager, Andreas, 8 1 Jakobson, Roman, 143, 147 jews: contrasted with Greeks (Fcuerbach ), 57; in diaspora (Herder), 56; egoism of ( Feuerbach), 57-58; H erder's discussion of, 56; Jones's treatment of, 93; as less dangero us form of C hristian (Nietzsche), 109-10; in Nazi myths, 75. See also Anti -Semi tism Jo nes, Sir William, xi, 68, 74; agenda for study while in India, 84, 86; on common source of languages, xi, 54,83 - 84, 87- 90, 95; duties and projects in India, 192; Indo-European thesis of, 81-82; influence of Bryant on, 85-87, 91-95; remarks on Asia, 82- 83; study of Sanskrit, 192-93; on superiority of Asian poetry, 82; theory of civilizational accomplishments, 87-91 ]ottr11nl ofbuio-Em·opean Studies) 122-23 Jung, C. G., 73, 143 Kaufmann, Walter, 104, 111 Kerenyi, Karolyi, 73 Kirchmaycr, George Caspar, 81 Koppers, Wilhelm , 215 Kosinna, Gustaf, 214 Kuhn , Adalbert, 64, 88

L1ng, Andrew, 70 Language families: distinguishing between Ar)•an, Semitic, and Turanian ( Max Miillcr), 67-68 Languages: compared to mythologies (Bryant), 85; Goropianism fallacy, 78; Hamann's theory of, 51-52; IndoEuropean phonology and morphology, 68- 69; Jews' lack of own (Wagner), 58; jones's thesis of com mon origin of, xi, 54, 83 - 84, 87-88; lexical comparisons (Giraldus), 77-78; linguistic taxonomy of Max Miillcr, 67- 69; origin o f (Herder), 69; origins of northern, 78 - 81; in quest for symbols of a nation-state, x; recovery of unrecorded, 24 1 n. 87; relation among Indo-European, 212; seeking links to Greek and Larin, 78-79; Snorri's idea of, 77-79; Sophists' questions about , 33; Stamm[JfiUIII model, 212-13; wave model (Trubctzkoy), 212. Sec also Indo-European languages; Origins of languages; Sanskrit language; Tamil language Laws of Mauu: jo nes's usc of text, 193- 95; Nict7..schc 's usc of Jacolliot's translation, xj, 107- 9 Lcibniz, G. W., 81 Levi-Strauss, Claude, ll8, 124; influence of Dumczil on, 142- 43; writings on and treatment of myth, 141 , 149,210 Linguistics: binary oppositions, 147; in context of Dumczil's Indo-European reconstruction, 143, 145; distinction between languages with and without inflection, 67; Dumczil's interest in, 143; of Giraldus, 77-78; introduction of synellronic, 69; Jones as authority on, 83; Jones's analysis of Asian peoples', 90 93, 96 - 100; Levi-Strauss's theory of languages, 143, 145; l'rague school of, 143, 145, 147; Procopius's reconstruction of prehistoric peoples', 2 13 - 14; reconstruction of protolanguagc, 95; Saussure's contribution to, 143; as science, 212; Snorri's evidence ofTrojans' migration to the north, 77. See also Languages; Oppositions Livy, 113 Logos/logoi: in ancient texts, 10; contrasted

294

Index: with mythos/mytboi in Hesiod, 13-15; Democrirus, 30; Empedoclcs, 31; Gorgias's usc of, 33-34; in Greek epic, x; Heraclitus, 27; Hcsiod, 5-8, 11-14; Homer, 8-14; interpretations of, 10, 12; Plato's usc of, 38-41; pre-Socratic philosophers, 29-32; Xcnophancs, 28 Lommd, Herman, 73

Mytbos/mytboi: contrasted

Macpherson, James, 50-51, 211 Malinowski, Bronislaw, 71-72 Mallet, Paul Henri, 50 Mat1kind Q;tm-terly, 123 Martin, Richard, 17 Maurras, Charles, 125 Mauss, Marcel, 70, 127, 146-47 Max Miillcr, Friedrich, 66 -71, 87 Meillct, Antoine, 73, 88, 127 Metempsychosis: Empedocles' theory of, 31-32, 156 -58; l'indar, 156; Plato, 158-59 Mculi, Karl, 73 Meyer, Gerhard, 78 Mitra·Vamna (Dumezil), 128, 134 Momigliano, Arnalda, 125 Monboddo, James Burnett (lord), 87 Morgan, Michael, 155-56 Much, Matthaus, 214 Much, R.udolf, 73 Mllllcr, rriedrich Max. See Max Miillcr, Friedrich Murray, Charles, 123 Mylius, Abraham, 79 Mythes et Dieux des Gemznim ( Dumczil), 131, 133- 34 Mythologies dn XXe siccle (Dubuisson), xi Mythology: Br)•ant's analysis of ancient, 85, 91, 94; compared to languages (Bryant), 85; Nazism and Germanic (Dumczil), 131, 133 -34; post-World War li sn1dy of, 141 ; story of Siegfried in Wagner's Ring cycle, 59-60; Trojan migration to the north (Snorri), 77; Wieland the Smith, 59. See also Germanic mythology; I ndo-European mythology Mythology, comparative: in France, 73; Ku hn as advocate of, 64; linking philoiO!,'Y and anthropology (D umczil), 73; of Max Miillcr, 66-71 ; in twentiethcentury Europe, 73-74

\\~th

logos/logoi

in Hcsiod, 13- 15; crafted by poets (Plato), 42; Dcmocritus's usc ofmytboplnsteolltes ( myth fubricators), 29-30; Empcdoclcs, 3 1-32; Gorgias, 34; Greek and R.oman post-l'lato view of, 47; in Greek epic, x; Hcsiod, 12-18, 23; Ho mer, 17-18, 22-23; Pannenidcs, 30; Pindar, 27; Plato's criticism of poets' usc of, 38- 42; pre-Socratic philosophers, 29 - 30; straight and crooked, 1 3- 14; Xcnophanes, 28-29 Myths: Aryan (Max MUller), 67- 68; Aryan or Indo-European in examples ot~ xi-xii; atLitude of romantics toward, 50; criticism from philosophcs of the Enlightenment, 49 -50; defining Germanic VO/k (Grimm), 56-57; denoting style o f narrative discourse, ix; in discourse related to Aryans, 74 - 75; in H erder's system, 52- 53; as ideology in narrative form, ri-xii, 147-49; jones as student of, 95; Malinowski's view, 72; in narrative form as ideology, 147-59; Nietzsche's usc of theme, 61-62; noticed by scholars interested in beliefs and customs, 69 -70; of the Phaedt·w, 151-56; philological and anthropological approaches, 69 - 71; Plato's role in changing perception of, 37-42; post-Plato treatment of, 47; post-World War II studies o f; 141; recalibration of, 149-56; relative validity and authority, ix ; as stories of primitive people, 70; students of myths spinning myths, 95-96, 215; theories and approaches to (1725- 1980), 143-44; translated from Norse Eddas, 50; view during Renaissance of Greek culntre of, x, 47-48; Wagner's reconncction of Volk to, 57-59; Xcnophanes' interpretation of, 28-29. See also Mythology; Mythology, comparative Nanni, Giovanni. Sec Ann ius ofVitcrbo (Giovanni Nanni) Nationalism: in construction of German national identity, 55, 210; interest stimulated by Genuanin, 78; Ossian in context of, 51; search for nation-state identity, x; stimulated by publications of Mallet and

295

Index Nationalism (contimtcd) Macpherson, 51; in twentieth-century Europe, 73 Nazi movement: Chamberlain's text as foundation for, 61; Gunther's role in thought of, 122; 6ilinn as force in, 131 ; scholars involved with, xiv; scholars opposing, 215; themes of myths used by, 75; thesis of Indo-European homeland, 121 ; usc of idea of blond beast, 104, 119-20 71Je NeJll Patriot, 122 Nietzsche, Friedrich: the blond beast in writings and discussions of, xi, 101-4, 106, 109, 118 ; myth in writings of, 61-66; warnings about dark-haired pre-Aryans, 107 Norden, Eduard, 111- 12 Norse Eddas: myths from, 49 - 50; Snorri's Prose Edda, 76-78 Northern League for Pan-Nordic Friendship, 122 Northem World, 122 T11e No~·tiJ/ander, 122 Nouvelle ecole (de Benoist), 121, 123 Nyberg, H. S., 73, 126 Odyssey ( Homer): praise of poets and theory of poetry, 19- 22; usc of logos/logoi in, 8- 9; usc of mythos in, 17-23 "On the Chronology of the Hindus" (Jones), 193- 206 On the Genealogy of Momls (Nietzsche), 66, 101- 5 "On the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India" (Jones), 86 - 87 Oppositions: binary (Jakobson), 147; employed by Levi-Strauss, 118; in Gatttrek's Saga, 175- 82; between myth and music (Nietzsche), 62; in narrative of the Phaedms, 154 -55; Nazi themes of Aryan and Jew, 75; in Old Norse text in the 01·k~teyinggasaga, 172 - 75; in Old Norse text ofNjoril and Skaili , 171-72; between Semites and Aryans, 57- 68, 142 Origins o f languages: Jones's hypothesis about European, 54, 83-84, 87- 90, 9 5; theories of medieval intellectuals, 76 - 78; theories of northern Europeans,

78- 79; theory of Scythian as common, 81 Origins of peoples: Box horn's theory of Scythian, 80 - 81; Herder's theory of Asian, 54-55; Jacolliot's interpretation, 108; theories about Aryans, 214- 15; theory of Genesis as single poi nt of, 79-80 Ornithomancy, 164, 165 Ossian: Macpherson's fraud, 21 l ; poetry attributed to, 50 -5 1 Otto, Walter, 73 Parke, H. W., l 64 Parmenides, 30 Pausanias, 160 Pearson, Roger, 122-23, 137 Penka, Karl, 214 Petronius, 160 Pbn.edms (Plato): contrast between Socrates' two speeches in , 39- 40; as example of processes in mythic genre, 151-56 Philology: Max Muller's use of older myth based, 69 -7 1; paradigm shift to anthropology from, 70-71. See also Languages; Linguistics Philosopher-kings: as instmctors of poets (Plato ), 42; in the Pbn.edms, 153-56 , 158; scrutiny of poets' myths, 42 Philosophy: of Enlightenment philosophes, 50; philosophers in real-life hierarchy, l 58-59; philosophers using mythoi i11 \vtitings, 39 -42; as regime of truth (Plato), 42; use of logos and mytbos in pre-Socratic, 29-32 Phlegon ofTralles, 163-65 Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius, 47-48. See also Pius II (pope) Pindar, 156, 158 Pioneer Fund, 122 Pius II (pope), 48 Plato: analysis of the Phaedms, 151-56; champion of Athenian aristocracy, 37; criticism of philosophers trafficking in mythoi, 39; recognition of value of myths and poets, 40; use of his attitude toward myth , 209 - 10 Plutarch: account of the Sybil of Delphi, 160 - 64; eschatology of, 166

296

b tdex Poeschc, Theodor, 106, 111, 112 Poetry: in Athens at end of fifth century, 37; attributed to Ossian, 50-51; Gorgias's view of, 33; Max MUller's conception, 67; Plato's campaign against poets and, 38-40; retheorized mythic, 51; Xenophanes' criticism of, 38 Poets: attacks in pre-Socratic writings on, 26 - 27; Heraclitus's criticism of, 26-27; Plato's recognition of value of, 40 - 42; roles different from philosopher-kings (Plato), 42 Prasch, Johann Ludwig, 78 Pre-Aryan population: Slavo-Finns as (Q uatrefages), 105 -6; warning about dark-haired German people as (Nietzsche), 107 Primiti11e Cln.ssi.ficn.tion (Durkheim/ Mauss), 146- 47 Procopius, 213-14 Prometheus: Aryan origins (Kuhn), 64; contrasted with Eve (Nietzsche), 64 - 65 Protagoras, 32-33 Quatrefages, Armand de, 105-7 Race: blond beast in many races (Nietzsche), 10 3- 4; differentiation by anthropologists, 69; Gobincau 's theories of, 61 ; Jones's identification of primordial races, 9 1- 93; light races triumph over darker races (Poesche), 106, 111; Wagner's embrace ofGobineau's theories of, 61 Racism: of Belt Cm·ve analysis, 123; of Gayre and Pearson, 123. See also Nazi movement Rask, Rasmus, 88 Religion: Christianity as anti -Aryan (Nietzsche), 109- 10; Indo-European, 12526; Indo-European (Gunther), 122; Jacollio t's interpretation of Semites', 108; symbolism in, 171 Renan, Ernest, 68 Renfrew, Colin, 2 15 Representations: to modify social reality, 272 n. 26 R epublic (Plato), 38 - 39 Retzius, Anders, 106 Romanticism: in construction of German

national identity, 55; embracing myth, 210; Hamann as forerunner of 51- 52· of Herder, 52 ' ' Rosenberg, Alfred, 75, 125 Rudbcck, Olof, 78 Said, Edward, 84 Sanskrit language: German interest in, 5556; Jones's discussion of, 87- 90; Jones's mastery of, 19 3 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 69, 73, 143 Schaeder, H ans Heinrich, 73 Schemann, Ludwig, 61 Schlegel, August, 63 Schlegel, Friedrich, 56, 63, 66 Schleicher, August, 88, 143 Scholarship: based on beliefs and customs, 69 -70; comparative mythology, 73; diffe rences fro m myth, xii, 208- 11; Macpherson's undocumented, 211; as myth, 215; question of ideology as, 207-8; related to Aryan origins, 214 - 15; role of debate in, 208-9; role of footnotes in, 208-9, 211 Schriekius, Adrian, 78 Schroder, Franz Rolf, 73 Schroeder, Leopold von, 73 Scythian thesis, 81-82, 87 Semites: contrasted with Aryan (Nietzsche), 64-66; Eliade's opposition between Aryans and, 142; Jacolliot's interpretation, 1 08; ritual as genius of, 67 Sick, David, 188 Smith, W. Robertson, 70 Snorri Sturluson, 76-78, 81, 128 - 29, 171- 72 Socrates, 37-38; Nietzsche's argument against, 6 3- 64; Plato's account of death of, 39 Sophists, 32-36 Speech: forms used in Hesiod and Homer, 13- 18; usc of logos as form of (Heracli tus), 27 Stn.mmbn.mn model: challenges to, 21213; of development of Indo-European languages, 212,216 Strabo, 11 3 Strenski, Ivan, xi, 127 Structuralism (Levi-Strauss), 145

297

Index Sybil ofCumac: Apollo's dealings with, 168; Eliot's story of, 160; revision, 164-70 Sybil of Delphi (Plutarch), 161- 69; divinatory practices derived from body of, 161- 67 Sybil ofErytht~lea (Phlegon): Apollo's dealings with, 168; divinatory practices derived from body of, 164-68; prophecies of, 163- 64 Symbolism of ships (Old Norse), 171- 82 Tacitus, 47- 48,78, 11 L-13 Tain B6 Ctlaituge, 147- 49 Tamil language, 108 Taxonomy: discrimination in mythic form of, 147-51; of divinatory practices, 164- 69; f:'lvored by anthropology, 69; of human life (Empedoclcs, Pindar, and Plaro), 158; myth as (Du rkheim/ Mauss ), 146 - 47; in myth of Sybil's death, 166-69; in myth ofYayati's sons, 203-6; of the Phaedrus, 153-55, 158; rccalibration of hierarchies of birth, 156- 59; Ttiin B6 Ctlaihtge, 147- 49 Theogony (Hesiod): contrast of true speech and deception in, 3- 8; legitimated speech of poet and Muses in, 23 - 25; usc of tegein and mytheomai, 3-4; usc of logos/togoi with defining words in, 5- 8 Trubctzkoy, N. S., 143, 212 Turan ian, or Turco-Mongol category (Max MOller), 68 Tuyscon, 48-49 Tylor, E. B., 70 van Gcnncp, Arnold, 70 Vernant, )can- Pierre, 7

Verrccchia, Anaclcto, 107 Vico, Giovanni Battista, 50 Virchow, Rudolf, 105- 6 Vitruvius, 114- 15 Volk/votker: formation of(Herdcr), 53; idea in construction of German national iden tity, 55- 56; purification and renewal (Nietzsche), 62- 63; use of myths by (Herder), 53 - 54, 56; Wagner's rcconnection of myth to, 57-59 von Humboldt, Alexander, 48 Wagner, Richard, 57- 64, 210 Watthariw, 131 Wave model (Trubetzkoy), 2 12 Wclcker, G., 64 Western Destiny, ] 22 Wcsthof, Dietrich, 78 Weston, Jessie, 71 Widcngren , Geo, 73 Wikander, Stig, 73, 126 Wilkins, C harles, 83 Wolfram, Richard, 73 Works and Days (Hcsiod): interaction of days with three categories, 6-7; true speech and deception in, 4- 8; usc of logni in, 6-7 Writing: introduction in Greece, 25- 26; introduction of, 217 n. l (chap. 1); words written on paper or parchment, 26 Wlist, Walther, 73 Xenophanes, 26 - 29 Zimmer, Stefan, 213

298