[ back ] 117. The 99 occurrences of the dual include a single instance of the compound name Indranāsatyā (“Indra and the Nā́satyā”). In addition to the 99 occurrences of the dual there is one occurrence of a singular Nā́satya– (RV 4.3.6; see n1.207 below).

[ back ] 118. The name occurs twice in the Avesta (Vīdēvdāt 10.9 and 19.43).

[ back ] 119. For dual forms like Homeric Aíante as originally meaning “Ajax and his brother” (“elliptic duals”), see Wackernagel 1877.

[ back ] 120. For discussion of the Iranian demon see Frame 1978:169–170 (with bibliography); cf. also §1.67 below.

[ back ] 121. The name occurs on a treaty in the fourteenth century BC between the Mitanni king Matiwāza and the Hittite king Suppiluliuma; for the Mitanni evidence, see Mayrhofer 1966:14–15, Burrow 1973:27–30. The same group of gods found in Mitanni is found (with the addition of the war god Vāyu) in two hymns of the Rig-Veda; these gods have been interpreted by Dumézil as the Indic representatives of what he calls the three “functions” of Indo-European ideology: priestly magic and authority (Mitra and Varuṇa), war (Indra and Vāyu), and agricultural production and fertility (the twin gods). In India the three functions of Indo-European ideology became rigidified as three castes: brahmans (priests), kṣatriyas (warriors), and vaiśyas (agricultural producers). Hence the gods of the three functions are also gods of these three castes, and the twins in particular are the vaiśya gods.

[ back ] 122. One of these, deriving the name from na–a–satya, “not-un-true,” may have originated already in the Vedic period. Although this derivation is first found in Pāṇini, the name’s metrical pattern in the Rig-Veda may already have suggested it (see §1.68 below). There are good formal and semantic reasons for rejecting this derivation: na– instead of an– for “not” in such a compound would be highly unusual, and the meaning “not untrue” (or “not unreal”) is too abstract and undistinctive to be old; cf. Lommel 1951:29. A different derivation, nāsā–tya, “nose-born,” is given by Yāska (Nirukta 6.13) and this too, although it has been defended in modern times (Lommel 1951:29–31), must be rejected. The story on which it is based is found in the Bṛhaddevatā 6.162–6.167.7 to RV 10.17.1–2: the twins’ mother Saraṇyū conceived them when she and her husband Vivasvat, in the form of horses, attempted to mate; the seed of Vivasvat fell on the ground and Saraṇyū breathed it in through her nostrils. This myth, which has a close parallel in the Purāṇas (see Lommel 1951:30), cannot have to do with the original meaning of the name Nā́satyā. The decisive objection, which will be argued in detail below, is that Nā́satyā was originally singular and designated one twin in opposition to the other. The interpretation “nose-born,” which must concern both twins equally, is thus to be rejected. Another derivation, nā (i.e. nar = netar-) + satya, “true leaders,” is clearly impossible (Böhtlingk and Roth 1855–1875, who cite all three etymologies, do not give the source for this one).

[ back ] 123. The basic evidence for the existence of the root *nes– in Sanskrit is the middle verb násate, “approach, resort to, join,” an exact cognate of Greek néomai; for the meanings of the Sanskrit verb, which have developed too far to shed light on the original Indo-European verb, see n1.68 above. For Gothic nasjan, “save, heal,” see n1.77 above. The comparison of Gothic nasjan with Vedic Nā́satyā was first suggested by Brunnhofer 1892:99 (cited by Güntert 1923:259 and Lommel 1951:29). The problem has been to explain the morphology of Nā́satyā. Güntert proposed the most widely accepted solution (Debrunner accepts it [Wackernagel-Debrunner 1957:939], and Mayrhofer, to whom a derivation from *nes– seems likely, regards Güntert’s solution as the best [Mayrhofer 1956–1980 s.v.; 1986ff. s.v.]). Güntert began with the Indo-Iranian ancestor of Sanskrit násate, to which he ascribed the meaning “hasten to safety” on the basis of the Germanic evidence. He then posited a nominal derivative *nasati-, “salvation through hastening to the rescue,” on the parallel of vasatí-, “dwelling,” from vásati, “to dwell.” The name Nā́satyā would then be derived from *nasati– just as the name Ā́ditya– (used of a particular group of gods) is derived from the abstract noun áditi– (“unboundedness”). Güntert’s solution is possible, but the hypothetical abstract noun *nasati– is weak. One would expect *nasti– in view of Gothic ga–nists, “salvation,” or even *asti– on the basis of Indo-Iranian astam, “home” (for Gothic ganists, see Frame 1978:128). In addition the names Nā́satya– and Ā́ditya-, which have the same metrical shape, are treated differently in Vedic verse with regard to metrical resolutions, and this makes it doubtful that the two were created through the same process of word formation (see §1.68 below). I have proposed a different solution for the formation of Nā́satyā, which assumes that the name, in line with Avestan Nā̊ŋhaiθya, was originally singular. I will return to the question of word formation at the end of this discussion, once it is clear that the name Nā́satyā had to do with distinctions between the twins, and that it properly named one twin in opposition to the other.

[ back ] 124. n1.77 and §1.27 above.

[ back ] 125. Cf. also RV 1.117.4, another reference to the myth of Rebha: “you two, by your miraculous powers, put him back together again when he had come apart” (sáṃ táṃ riṇītho víprutaṃ dáṃsobhir). For other references to this myth see Geldner 1951–1957 on RV 1.116.24.

[ back ] 126. Geldner takes pitṛ́bhya ā́ as “to his parents,” but the Rig-Veda always uses the dual when the meaning is “parents,” and the case ending (ablative) is against the meaning “to.” For other references to the myth of Bhujyu, see Geldner on RV 1.116.3–5.

[ back ] 127. RV 1.117.24 and 10.65.12.

[ back ] 128. Rebha, who was bound, stabbed, and cast into the waters for ten nights and nine days, is evidently conceived as having been saved by the twins at dawn on the tenth day.

[ back ] 129. Vedic nírṛti– can be either the goddess or the concept of “destruction” or “dissolution,” and it is not clear which is meant in this verse. The related verbal adjective nírṛta– is applied to Vandana in 1.119.7: “Vandana, who was decomposed by old age (nírṛtaṃ jaraṇyáyā), you miracle-workers put back together again (sám invathaḥ) as craftsmen do a chariot.”

[ back ] 130. RV 1.183.6, 1.184.6, and 7.73.1. The same phrase occurs in RV 1.92.6 to Uṣas.

[ back ] 131. See §1.55 below for the twins’ close connection with a female figure called alternatively Sūryā́ (the feminized form of sū́rya, “sun”) and duhitā́ sū́ryasya, “daughter of the sun.”

[ back ] 132. They are “elliptic duals” (cf. n1.119 above).

[ back ] 133. Cf. RV 5.73.4, which says that the twins were “born differently” (nā́nā jātāú) but does not elaborate further.

[ back ] 134. The meaning of the Vedic noun makháḥ in the name Súmakha is difficult to determine on its own and more than one etymology is possible; see Mayrhofer 1956–1980 s.v. For a possible connection with Greek μάχομαι see (besides Mayrhofer) Chantraine 1999 s.v. Grassmann 1873 glosses súmakha as “schön (kräftig) kämpfend, kampftüchtig”; cf. also Güntert 1923:257–258. The complete text of RV 1.181.4 is as follows:

[ back ] 135. As Wikander 1957 demonstrates.

[ back ] 136. The gods are those of the three Indo-European “functions,” as Wikander 1947 showed; part of Wikander’s article was translated from Swedish to French by Dumézil 1948:37–53. The only difference from the Vedic scheme (see n1.121 above) is that Mitra and Varuṇa, the two “first-function” gods of Vedic, have been replaced by Dharma, “moral right,” in the epic scheme: Dharma is the father of Yudhiṣṭhira, the oldest of the Pāṇḍavas; Indra and Vāyu, the war gods, are the fathers of Bhīma and Arjuna, who are next in age; and the Aśvins are the fathers of Nakula and Sahadeva, the youngest of the Pāṇḍavas.

[ back ] 137. The references, which are Wikander’s, are to the Bombay and the Calcutta edition of the Mahābhārata. Note that when the twins are characterized as a pair at their birth, both are said to possess incomparable beauty (see Dumézil 1968:56 on Mahābhārata 1.124.4836–4852 [critical edition 1.115]; this illustrates how the distinctive attribute of one twin is automatically shared by the other if the context does not specify distinctions between them.

[ back ] 138. Wikander 1957:73–74.

[ back ] 139. Yudhiṣṭhira interprets the deaths of Arjuna, Bhīma, and Draupadī (the Pāṇḍavas’ common wife) in the same way in this episode; see Dumézil 1968:81–82 for each character’s flaw as that character’s essential feature.

[ back ] 140. Sahadeva’s “intelligence” is also a marked feature in two aberrant traditions of the Mahābhārata, as Dumézil 1968:82–85 has shown. The first of these is the Persian account of the “Sons of Pan” (see Dumézil 1968:82–83). According to this text, each of the five sons received a particular talent as a result of his teacher’s prayers; Sahadeva, “who looked for wisdom and who did not speak unless spoken to, asked for the science of the stars and a knowledge of hidden matters.” The other aberrant version is that of the eighteenth-century Swiss Colonel de Polier, who studied with an Indian teacher and whose extensive notes, including a résumé of the Mahābhārata, were published as La Mythologie des Indous by his cousin, the Chanoinesse de Polier, in 1809 (see Dumézil 1968:42–43 for the nature and value of this text). In the Mahābhārata of the Colonel de Polier, the five Pāṇḍavas are all characterized at their births, and Sahadeva is called “the most enlightened of mortals, the most perspicacious, and the most learned in the knowledge of past, present, and future” (see Dumézil 1968:84). The fault that causes Sahadeva’s death in this version is more particular than it is in the vulgate: Sahadeva did not tell his brothers that their mother Kuntī had had a son (Karṇa) by the sun god Sūrya before they were born, “although he had penetrated this mystery by means of his great intelligence” (see Dumézil 1968:85).

[ back ] 141. For the divine twins as the vaiśya gods see n1.121 above; for the twins’ disguises at Virāṭa’s court see Dumézil’s translation of Wikander 1947 (Dumézil 1948:48). The disguises of all five Pāṇḍavas reflect the natures of their divine fathers, who are the gods of the three castes, brahmans, kṣatriyas (warrriors), and vaiśyas; see Dumézil 1948:48–50 and 1968:70–71 for the disguises of the three older brothers: Yudhiṣṭhira as a dice-playing brahman, Arjuna as a eunuch dancemaster, and Bhīma as a butcher. In Vedic the two war gods Indra and Vāyu represent different aspects of warfare, Indra the warrior’s finesse, Vāyu (whose name means the “wind”) brute force; this difference is reflected in their sons Arjuna and Bhīma, whose disguises as dance master and butcher show the difference clearly. Strictly speaking Yudhiṣṭhira does not disguise himself, for his brahman code does not allow it.

[ back ] 142. Wikander 1957:76. Sahadeva expresses his preference for and competence in handling cattle in 4.3.67–72 and 4.10.288–293 (English translation van Buitenen 1978:29–30, 39–40; van Buitenen follows the Poona [critical] edition of the Mahābhārata, in which the second passage is 4.9, not 4.10).

[ back ] 143. For the following analysis see Frame 1978:146–152; in it I depart from Wikander, who did not notice the evidence in question and was thus misled about the name Nā́satyā (cf. §1.54 below).

[ back ] 144. RV 2.41.7 is a Gāyatrī, consisting of three eight-syllable segments. The verse’s simple prose message, ū ṣú…yātam…vartís, “quickly come on the path,” is deployed across all three segments of the verse, one word per segment (ū ṣú, “quickly,” in the first segment functions as one word). Each segment also contains a neuter adjective modifying the noun vartís, “path,” and a dual vocative addressed to the twins. There are thus three words in each segment, each with a separate function. The arrangement of these three words is identical in the first two segments, but in the third segment it is different: the order 1, 2, 3 of the first two segments (neuter adjective, prose message, dual vocative) becomes 2, 3, 1 in the third segment (prose message, dual vocative, neuter adjective). The different word order of the third segment puts the twins’ epithet rudrā, “ruddy,” and the neuter adjective nṛpā́yyam, “man-protecting,” outside the double contrast of the first two segments.

[ back ] 145. For the Mitanni gods as the representatives of the three “functions” of Indo-European society, see n1.121 above; for a modified form of the same group of gods embedded in the structure of Sanskrit epic, see n1.136 above. This manifestly old scheme of gods is found in a few hymns of the Rig-Veda (see Dumézil 1947:45–56, 1968:51), among which RV 2.41 has a particularly clear structure. The first nine verses of RV 2.41 are arranged in three groups of three verses each: verses 1–3 are addressed to Indra and Vāyu, the second-function gods; verses 4–6 are addressed to Mitra and Varuṇa, the first-function gods; and verses 7–9 are addressed to the twins, the third-function gods. Our attention has been focused on the first verse of the three verses addressed to the twins, RV 2.41.7. The other principal text for this scheme of gods, which Dumézil also analyzes, is RV 1.139.1–3; Dumézil cites two further texts, RV 1.2 and, “with alterations,” RV 1.23, but neither of these includes the twins.

[ back ] 146. RV 1.116.16 and 8.86.1.

[ back ] 147. The Indo-Iranian adjective contains the root*dn̥s-, which is also found in Greek daē̂nai, “learn,” and daḯphrōn, “wise [in mind], prudent” (see Mayrhofer 1956–1980 s.v. dasráḥ). For the connotation of intelligence of the Vedic adjective note the collocation dasra mantumaḥ, “you miracle-working wise one,” which twice modifies the god Pūṣan (RV 1.42.5 and 6.56.4). This collocation corresponds to the Avestan collocation daṇgrā maṇtū, “by wise resolution” (Yasna 46.17), and a Common Indo-Iranian origin for the phrase is thus indicated (see Schmitt 1967:160–161). Related to the Vedic adjective is the Vedic neuter noun dáṃsaḥ, “miraculous power, wonderful deed,” to which Greek dḗnea, “counsels, plans,” corresponds (see Mayrhofer 1956–1980, Frisk 1960–1972 s.vv.). The Vedic noun dáṃsaḥ, like the Vedic adjective dasrá-, is used in relation to the twins’ miraculous cures, as in the myth of Rebha: “you two, by your miraculous powers (dáṃsobhir), put him back together again when he had come apart” (RV 1.117.4, quoted n1.125 above); the twins are five times called purudáṃsaḥ, “having many marvelous deeds.” As the cognates of dáṃsaḥ and dasrá– all show, what is taken in Vedic as “miraculous” is in origin a matter of “intelligence.” Geldner translates the dual vocative dasrā as “ihr Meister,” which captures the basic sense of “skillful”; Gonda 1959:115 translates the epithet as “exhibiting marvellous skill.”

[ back ] 148. In this verse the first and third segments, which have eight syllables, are parallel, and the second segment, which has twelve syllables, is not; the double contrast is articulated in the two parallel segments. The articulation of RV 2.41.7, analyzed in n1.144 above, is similar insofar as two of the verse’s three segments are parallel, the third not.

[ back ] 149. Gonda 1959:115 argues that the twins’ epithet dasrā́ has to do with their skill as horsemen; but in ten of eleven verses that he cites to support this argument dasrā́ occurs in the same verse with Aśvínā, and an opposition between these two terms (dasrā́ and Aśvínā) rather than an equivalence is most likely at issue (cf. n1.151 below). Gonda draws particular attention to the epithet híraṇyavartani-, which occurs six times in the dual of the twins (and twice in the singular of rivers); in five of the six occurrences of the twins the vocative collocation dásrā (dasrā́) híraṇyavartanī makes up an eight-syllable verse segment. Gonda (with Geldner) understands híraṇyavartanī to mean “having gold wheel rims,” and he infers from this meaning a connection between the twins’ skill as horsemen and the epithet dasrā́, with which híraṇyavartanī is collocated. While the feminine noun vartaní can mean “wheel rim,” its more common meaning is “path,” which is (as we have seen) the meaning of the closely related noun vartís (for vartaní of the twins’ “path,” see RV 4.45.3). The verse segment dásrā híraṇyavartanī cannot be separated from the verse segment gómad dasrā híraṇyavat, in which the two neuter adjectives, gómad and híraṇyavat, modify the noun vartís, “path,” which is outside the verse segment itself; in dásrā híraṇyavartanī the noun vartís is simply incorporated within the verse segment through its equivalent vartaní. The epithet dásrā in this verse segment has no more to do with the twins’ skill as horsemen than it does in the verse segment with the adjective gómad, “rich in cattle.”

[ back ] 150. Wikander 1957:77, 81, 84.

[ back ] 151. Wikander 1957:81: “pour ce qui concerne les termes nāsatyā et dasrā, on n’observe nulle part, dans les texts vediques, une relation claire entre les deux, ni d’opposition ni d’autre sort”; Wikander rightly rejects Geldner’s contention that the terms Nā́satyā and dasrā́, wherever they occur in the twins’ hymns, represent the result of a split dual compound containing two opposed terms; the basic problem with this argument is that the two terms Nā́satyā and dasrā́ occur only rarely (four times) in the same verse. Wikander’s own attempt to apply a similar argument to other epithets of the twins is interesting but does not bear on the name Nā́satyā; his main result is to show that, by the criterion of frequent co-occurrence in the same verse, it is the two dual terms dasrā́ and Aśvínā that are opposed to each other (Aśvínā occurs in the same verse in 24 of 44 instances of dasrā́ in the twins’ hymns; cf. Frame 1978:147, 149–150). Wikander’s supposition that the Iranian figure Nā̊ŋhaiθya was demonized because he was a warrior and a “horseman” has no positive evidence to support it (cf. Frame 1978:169–170).

[ back ] 152. In the abstract there is no way to distinguish verses in which two dual terms reinforce each other from those in which they contrast with each other, or in which no particular relationship may be present. For example, the duals divó nápātā and Aśvínā each properly designate a different twin (on this there is agreement), and both terms occur in a verse, RV 1.117.12, whose context is again a miraculous rescue: this verse says that the twins dug up a buried mortal (perhaps Vandana) on the tenth day “like a pot of gold,” and in the first half of this verse the twins are called divó nápātā, in the second half Aśvínā.

[ back ] 153. “Main” and “hue” are no longer independent nouns in English (“hue” in the meaning “color” has a separate etymology); English “tide,” cognate with German “Zeit” (cf. “noontide,” “Yuletide,” etc., for the meaning “time”), still exists as an independent noun in English but with a new meaning. Two other examples of such phrases are “wrack and ruin” and “part and parcel” (“parcel” still means “part” in e.g. Shakespeare Henry IV, Part 1, 3.2.164). Not all English “twin words” are synonyms (in the phrase “kith and kin” “kith” means friends, not relatives). The alliteration of the English expressions (apart from “hue and cry”) does not apply to the two Sanskrit names.

[ back ] 154. Ward 1968 offers a convenient summary of the comparative evidence for the Indo-European twin myth; the main source for the Baltic twins is popular songs, Latvian dainas and Lithuanian dainos (Ward 1968:9–10).

[ back ] 155. The Greek Helen is called the daughter of Helios in the late first-century/early second-century AD Ptolemaios Chennos Nova Historia as excerpted by Photius Bibliotheca 190, Bekker p. 149a. See Dihle RE ‘Ptolemaios’ 1862 no. 77 for this generally unreliable source. It is possible, given the Vedic and Baltic correspondences, that even so late a source as this has preserved something old (cf. Ward 1968:11). In Helen the Indo-European female figure associated with the twins was apparently combined with a native Aegean vegetation deity; cf. Helénē dendrī̂tis in Rhodes, Pausanias 3.19.10, and a plane tree sacred to Helen in Sparta, Theocritus 18.45–48. For Helen as a vegetation deity see Nilsson 1967:315, 487; for Helen as an Indo-European figure see Clader 1976. Steets 1993 is a recent study of the Indo-European female figure. For Helen’s divine status in Sparta, cf. EN1.1 to n1.181 below.

[ back ] 156. The Vedic Sūryā́ characteristically mounts the twins’ chariot at dawn (e.g. RV 5.73.5, ā́ yád vāṃ sūryā́ ráthaṃ tiṣṭhad, “when Sūryā mounts your chariot…”); as “daughter of the sun” she mounts their chariot (RV 1.116.17, 1.118.5, and 6.63.5) and “chooses” their chariot (RV 1.117.13 and 4.43.2). The verb avṛṇīta, “chose,” in the last two passages is significant because it reflects the twins’ role as Sūryā’s suitors, whom she “chose”; cf. RV 1.119.5, “the splendid maiden chose (avṛṇīta) you two as husbands,” and RV 7.69.4, “the maid, the daughter of the sun, chose (avṛṇīta) the beauty of you both.” The twins are called not only Sūryā’s “husbands” (pátī, RV 1.119.5, 4.43.6), but also her “suitors” (varā́, RV 10.85.8–9: the noun varā́, “suitors,” contains the root of avṛṇīta, “chose”). There is no real evidence that the wife of the Vedic twins was also their sister. There is one reference to a sister of the twins who is said to “bring” them (RV 1.180.2), but the reference in this isolated text is not clear (Macdonell 1897:51 thinks that Dawn is meant; so also Geldner 1951–1957 ad loc.). The Latvian Dieva dēli, on the other hand, are actually said to be their sister’s suitors; see Ward 1968:11 and 95n19. In Greek, where the Dioskouroi are Helen’s brothers, a second pair of brothers, Agamemnon and Menelaus, are her (successful) suitors. In the Greek myth one brother woos for the other (Agamemnon woos for Menelaus), whereas in Vedic both twins are called suitors and both are called husbands of Sūryā. This may be another case in which Vedic has lost a distinction between the twins. The Greek form of the myth appears again in the case of the brothers Melampus and Bias, who woo Nestor’s sister Pero (Melampus, like Agamemnon, woos for his brother; cf. §1.11 above); both these differentiated pairs of brothers are discussed §2.102–§2.103 below.

[ back ] 157. For the twins as “horsemen,” see Ward 1968:11–12; for their role as “saviors” and “magic healers,” see Ward 1968:14–15, 18. In Baltic tradition there are scores of Latvian dainas in which the horses of the Dieva dēli are described. Although the Dieva dēli are not saviors of mortals in distress, they row a boat to save their sister, the “daughter of the sun,” when she is drowning at sea (386–33969); another daina says that they appeared on horseback to save the sun when its sledge overturned (381–33912; see Ward 1968:95n19 for the standard collection of Latvian dainas, which he cites by page and song number). In the Baltic myth, as in the Greek myth, twin chariot drivers became twin horseback riders. The Indo-European myth of the twin horsemen has been dated to the last quarter or the end of the third millennium BC, when the horse-drawn chariot evolved in the steppes of southeastern Europe; this setting “best explains the distribution of the early chariot lore among the Aryans, Greeks and Balts” (Parpola 2004/2005:6). Cf. also Mallory 1989:136–137, 241.

[ back ] 158. Homeric Hymn 33.18 = 17.5; they are called hippótai sophoí, “skilled horsemen,” in Alcman fr. 2 Page [PMG 2], leukópōloi, “having white horses,” in Pindar Pythian 1.66; in Euripides Helen they are imagined as flying through the air with horses (μόλοιτέ ποθ’ ἵππιον οἶμον / δι’ αἰθέρος ἱέμενοι / παῖδες Τυνδαρίδαι, “may you come rushing through the air on the path for horses, you youthful sons of Tyndareus,” Helen 1495–1497), and as “riding over the sea” (πόντον παριππεύοντε, Helen 1665). After the Homeric period the image doubtless changes from chariot drivers to horseback riders, but the phrase takhéōn epibḗtores híppōn, “mounters of swift horses,” in the two Homeric hymns still implies chariots (cf. in Odyssey 18.263 the phrase híppōn t’ ōkupódōn epibḗtoras, “mounters of swift-footed horses,” used of the Trojans). The evidence for both Vedic twins as “horsemen” (apart from the nearly 400 occurrences of the name Aśvínā in the Rig-Veda) is summarized by Macdonell 1897:50; the twins’ chariot, which is drawn by horses in RV 1.117.2, 4.45.7, etc. is drawn by birds, eagles, swans, buffaloes, and an ass in other verses, but the comparative evidence shows that horses are old in this context.

[ back ] 159. Sōtē̂re(s), “saviors,” is both a literary epithet and a cult title: the epithet occurs in Homeric Hymn 33.6 (see below), Euripides Helen 1500 (sōtē̂re tā̂s Helénas, “Helen’s two saviors”) and 1664 (also in reference to Helen), and in Theocritus 22.6; for the cult title in Attica see Aelian Varia Historia 4.5, IG II2 4796 (Roman imperial period), and cf. Furtwängler, Roscher’s Lexikon ‘Dioskuren’ 1166.

[ back ] 160. The electrical phenomenon known as St. Elmo’s fire, which appears in ships’ rigging during storms, was thought to signal the presence of the Dioskouroi.

[ back ] 161. Just as both twins are called Diòs koûroi, “sons of Zeus” (e.g. Homeric Hymn 33.1), both are also called Tundarídai, “sons of Tyndareus” (e.g. Homeric Hymn 17.2, 5; Homeric Hymn 33.2, 18; cf. Odyssey 11.299).

[ back ] 162. In epic Castor’s fixed epithet is hippódamos, “horsebreaking”; Polydeuces, on the other hand, is pùx agathós, “good with his fists” (Κάστορά θ’ ἱππόδαμον καὶ πὺξ ἀγαθὸν Πολυδεύκεα, Iliad 3.237 = Odyssey 11.300), aethlophóros, “prizewinning” (Κάστορά θ’ ἱππόδαμον καὶ ἀεθλοφόρον Πολυδεύκεα, Cypria fr. 11.6 Allen), and amṓmētos, “blameless” (Κάστορά θ’ ἱππόδαμον καὶ ἀμώμητον Πολυδεύκεα, Homeric Hymn 33.3).

[ back ] 163. Cf. “Apollodorus” 3.11.2: “Of the sons of Leda Castor practiced the arts of war, Polydeuces boxing” (τῶν δὲ ἐκ Λήδας γενομένων παίδων Κάστωρ μὲν ἤσκει τὰ κατὰ πόλεμον, Πολυδεύκης δὲ πυγμήν).

[ back ] 164. Cypria fr. 6 Allen makes this distinction explicitly:

[ back ] 165. In Pindar Nemean 10.80–82 Zeus tells Polydeuces that he, Polydeuces, is his own son, but that a “hero” fathered Castor: ἐσσί μοι υἱός· τόνδε δ’ ἔπειτα πόσις / σπέρμα θνατὸν ματρὶ τεᾷ πελάσαις / στάξεν ἥρως, “You are my son; but as for this one, a hero afterwards instilled his mortal seed when he approached your mother as her husband.”

[ back ] 166. καί νιν οὔπω τεθναότ’, ἄσθματι δὲ φρίσσοντα πνοὰς ἔκιχεν, “and he found him not yet dead, but gasping out his halting breath,” line 74.

[ back ] 167. ἀνὰ δ’ ἔλυσεν μὲν ὀφθαλμόν, ἔπειτα δὲ φωνὰν χαλκομίτρα Κάστορος, “he opened the eye, and then the voice of bronze-clad Castor,” line 90.

[ back ] 168. In “Apollodorus” 3.11.2 Castor’s death is unambiguous: Idas “kills” (kteínei) Castor, and Polydeuces refuses immortality from Zeus “while Castor is a corpse” (óntos nekroû Kástoros); cf. also Cypria fr. 6 (quoted in n1.164 above), which speaks of the “fate of death” (thanátou aîsa) allotted to the mortal Castor.

[ back ] 169. While it is unlikely that a god should be named in one Vedic verse and be otherwise unknown, the name Sumakha, “good warrior,” could conceivably be an epithet of another god, such as Indra. But again it seems unlikely that such a god’s fame would be deliberately concealed through use of an otherwise unknown epithet. Dual paternity is a common feature of twin mythology and a contrast between a god and a mortal often characterizes the two fathers (cf. Ward 1968:3–8 on “universal Dioscurism,” and p. 4 on dual paternity in particular). Such a contrast would seem to be the likeliest case in Vedic even apart from the Greek comparison.

[ back ] 170. See §1.44–§1.45 above for the twins’ connection with dawn in myth and ritual; for ritual cf. also Oldenberg 1894:208, and for myth Macdonell 1897:51.

[ back ] 171. Cf. also RV 5.76.3, which bids the twins to come “day and night” (dívā náktam), but apparently a third time as well, namely “midday” (madhyáṃdine).

[ back ] 172. The Vedic twins were probably also identified with the morning and evening stars; for bibliography see Ward 1968:15–18, who considers the evidence of other Indo-European twins as well.

[ back ] 173. One of the twins’ hymns, RV 5.77.2, after calling for their morning sacrifice (prātár yajadhvam), specifically rejects the evening sacrifice, saying that it does not reach the gods (ná sāyám asti devayā́) and is unpleasing (ájuṣṭam).

[ back ] 174. The identification of the twins with the morning and evening stars also implies their separation.

[ back ] 175. The two different perspectives, though logically incompatible, probably coexisted in the Indo-European form of the myth; such a double perspective is characteristic of both the Greek and the Vedic myth. For the identification of the twins with the morning and evening stars, see Ward 1968:15–18, who regards the evidence for the Indo-European twins as “not entirely conclusive,” and points out that for the Greek twins most of the evidence is late. With respect to the Greek twins, cf. Frazer 1921, vol. 2, 32n1, on “Apollodorus” 3.11.2: “It has been plausibly argued that in one of their aspects the twins were identified with the Morning and Evening Stars respectively, the immortal twin (Pollux) being conceived as the Morning Star, which is seen at dawn rising up in the sky till it is lost in the light of heaven, while the mortal twin (Castor) was identified with the Evening Star, which is seen at dusk sinking into its earthy bed…. It would seem that this view of the Spartan twins was favoured by the Spartans themselves, for after their great naval victory at Aegospotami, at which Castor and Pollux were said to have appeared visibly in or hovering over the Spartan fleet, the victors dedicated at Delphi the symbols of their divine champions in the shape of two golden stars, which shortly before the fatal Battle of Leuctra fell down and disappeared, as if to announce that the star of Sparta’s fortune was about to set for ever” (see Cicero On Divination 1.34.75, 2.32.68 and Plutarch Lysander 12.1). For stars as attributes of the Dioskouroi in Greek iconography see Hermary LIMC ‘Dioskouroi’ nos. 232–237, 239–241, 243, 245–248; no. 232 is the Spartan dedication at Delphi after Aegospotami. For the attribute in Etruscan and Roman iconography, see De Puma LIMC ‘Dioskouroi/Tinas Cliniar’ nos. 7, 23, 24, 29, 42, 43, 46, 48, 53 and Gury LIMC ‘Dioskouroi/Castores’ 631, who comments that the star is the most systematically retained attribute of the Dioskouroi from the republican era on.

[ back ] 176. Cf. also Pythian 11.61–64:

[ back ] 177. Line 304, which says that the twins obtained “honor (i.e. sacrifices) equal to the gods’,” seems to distinguish between the twins on the one hand and the gods on the other, and this too suggests the twins’ heroic as opposed to divine status (cf. Nagy 1979:118–119 for timḗ in relation to hero cults). Note also that the mortal Tyndareus is presented as the father of the twins in this passage (11.299). The twins’ name in Sparta was Tindarídai, and the passage in Odyssey 11 seems to have this cult name in mind (for the twins’ name in Sparta, see Ziehen RE ‘Sparta [Kulte]’ 1478–1479). Zeus’s role as father is implied in Odyssey 11 (the twins live on alternate days even beneath the earth because Zeus grants them “honor,” line 302), but it is not emphasized.

[ back ] 178. Alcman also represented the Dioskouroi as living beneath the earth at Therapne according to the scholia to Euripides Troades 210: οἰκητήριόν φασι τὰς Θεράπνας τῶν Διοσκούρων παρόσον ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν τῆς Θεράπνης εἶναι λέγονται ζῶντες, ὡς Ἀλκμάν φησιν, “they say that Therapnai is the dwelling place of the Diokouroi inasmuch as they are said to be alive beneath the earth of Therapne, as Alcman says” (the quotation of Alcman’s verse has unfortunately not been preserved).

[ back ] 179. For formal differences between divine cults and hero cults, see Brelich 1958, and cf. Nagy 2005:86–89.

[ back ] 180. The story of Helen’s earlier abduction is not told in the Iliad, but it is suggested by the presence of Theseus’s mother Aithra as Helen’s attendant in Iliad 3.144. With Aithra at her side Helen approaches the Trojan elders on the city walls and looks out with them at the Achaean heroes fighting to win her back; the reminder of her earlier abduction in the person of Aithra is clearly significant at this point (cf. Jenkins 1999; Iliad 3.144 was athetized by Aristarchus and is regarded as Athenian by some modern editors, including Kirk 1985 ad loc.). The myth of Helen’s earlier abduction is attested for Alcman (scholia to Iliad 3.242) and Stesichorus (Pausanias 2.22.6–7), and is told at some length by Herodotus 9.73. According to Plutarch Theseus 31.3 and 34.1 Theseus made Aithra Helen’s companion at Aphidna, and the Dioskouroi took her as well when they rescued Helen. For other ancient references to the myth see “Apollodorus” 3.10.7 with Frazer’s note (Frazer 1921, vol. 2, 25n2).

[ back ] 181. The Dioskouroi are referred to as “heroes” in literary sources: Pindar Isthmian 1.17 calls Castor and the Theban Iolaos “the mightiest chariot drivers among heroes” (κεῖνοι γὰρ ἡρώων διφρηλάται…κράτιστοι); in Theocritus 22.163 the Dioskouroi are called “distinguished among all heroes” (ὑμεῖς δ’ ἐν πάντεσσι διάκριτοι ἡρώεσσι). The cult title of the Dioskouroi in Sparta, namely ánakes, “lords” (Doric for ánaktes), fits either gods or heroes (Homeric ánax is used of both). If the Dioskouroi were thought of as buried beneath the earth at Therapne, as Alcman and Pindar (and less specifically Homer) attest, their cult must have included the principal feature of hero cults, namely a grave (for attempts to define features of hero cults, which are not uniform, see Nagy 1979:114–117, 159–161; Snodgrass 1988; Kearns 1989:1–4). Unfortunately nothing is known of the twins’ cult at Therapne, which is never again mentioned after Pindar (Pausanias says nothing of it in his remarks concerning Therapne, 3.19.9–3.20.1). The issue of a grave for the Dioskouroi at Therapne is discussed further in EN1.1.

[ back ] 182. As in e.g. RV 3.58.7, 9; 8.8.5; 8.35.7–10. In RV 8.35 the first three verses all end with the phrase “together with Uṣas and Sūrya drink the Soma, you Aśvins”; in the first verse various other gods are simltaneously invited (8.35.1), and in the third verse all the gods are included in the invitation with the phrase víśvair devaís (8.35.3).

[ back ] 183. Dumézil has compared the initial exclusion of the twins from the Soma sacrifice in India with other Indo-European traditions, notably in Scandinavia and Ireland (also in Rome in a transposed form), where third-function gods are at first separated from first- and second-function gods, and are then integrated with these gods. In India the separation of the twins from the gods of the first and second functions is also reflected in the sons of the gods in the Mahābhārata, where the twins Nakula and Sahadeva have a different mother, Mādrī, from the three older Pāṇḍavas, whose mother is Kuntī (see Dumézil 1968:54–56, 69–70, 73–76). My comparison between the Indic twins and the Greek Dioskouroi does not conflict with Dumézil’s interpretation of the Indic evidence, but parallels it, and also, I think, underlies it. The Indic twins, although they are gods of the third function, also comprise the first and second functions in their contrasting attributes of “intelligence” and “war” (cf. below EN1.2 to n1.190); one can make the case that the third function, comprising the other two functions, is the basic one, and that the opposition between the twins is more basic than their place in the trifunctional scheme.

[ back ] 184. Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa 14.1.1.1–15 tells how Viṣṇu’s head was cut off and became the sun when his bowstring was cut by ants (text and translation in Muir 1874, vol. 4, 124–126). The Taittirīya-Saṃhitā 6.4.9.1 tells how the twins replaced the head and this became their share of the sacrifice; but first the gods required the twins to be purified, saying “these two are unclean, going about as physicians among men” (apūtau vai imau manuṣyacarau bhiṣajau). In this text the focus is less on the twins’ closeness to men than on their function as physicians, since this function is forbidden to brahmans as unclean and making one unfit to sacrifice (text and translation in Muir 1874, vol. 5, 253). The Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka 5.1.1–7 gives a more precise identification of the twins’ libation (āśvina graha) with the “head” of the sacrifice in this myth (Muir 1874, vol. 4, 127–129); cf. also the Pañcaviṃśa-Brāhmaṇa 7.5.6 (Muir 1874, vol. 4, 129).

[ back ] 185. For this verse, in which the twins are invoked with the two dual vocatives Nāsatyā and dasrā, cf. §1.54 above.

[ back ] 186. There are nine references to the myth of Cyavāna in the Rig-Veda: 1.116.10, 1.117.13, 1.118.6, 5.74.5, 5.75.5, 7.68.6, 7.71.5, 10.39.4, 10.59.1. Note that I use different forms of his name to distinguish Cyavāna in the Rig-Veda from the Cyavana of later tradition (long versus short second vowel).

[ back ] 187. Muir 1874, vol. 5, 250–253. Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa 3.121 is similar: Cyavana rewards the twins for his rejuvenation by giving them information that leads to their inclusion in the Soma sacrifice (cf. Goldman 1977:166n11).

[ back ] 188. The story was a popular one in epic. It is told three times in the Mahābhārata: the principal text is Mahābhārata 3.121.22–3.124.10 (translation in Goldman 1977:50–59); the other two texts are Mahābhārata 13.141.16–30 and 14.9.31–36 (cf. Goldman 1977:117; Muir 1872:470–471 gives the version in Book 13).

[ back ] 189. When the twins fail to seduce the faithful Sukanyā, they offer to rejuvenate Cyavana provided that she then choose between him and the two of them; they then both assume the appearance of the rejuvenated Cyavana when, with the twins beside him, he steps from the pool in which he is transformed; Sukanyā uncannily still succeeds in choosing her own husband among the three identical youths (Mahābhārata 3.123.1–23). What seems noteworthy here is that the twins, who in the Rig-Veda are the successful suitors of the “daughter of the sun”—she “chooses” them (see n1.156 above)—here lose to Cyavana as suitors. It is a more subtle exaltation of the human sage over the twin gods than in the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa, where the twins are forced to rejuvenate Cyavana to learn how they are incomplete. A suggestion for this development of the myth was perhaps found in the juxtaposition of myths in RV 1.117.13:

[ back ] 190. Hostility toward the gods, as displayed by Cyavana in his confrontation with Indra, is characteristic of the myths of a particular family of priests, the Bhārgavas. They were said to be descended from a semi-mythical family of priests in the Rig-Veda, the Bhṛgus, and their myths, which include that of Cyavana, play a prominent part in the Mahābhārata. Their myths are in fact so prominent in the poem’s overall structure that Bhārgavas are thought to have made a thorough revision of the great warrior epic of the Bhāratas (the Mahābhārata). This theory was proposed by Sukthankar 1936/1937, and the myths on which the theory is based have been further studied by Goldman 1977. Hostility toward the gods is one of the distinctive Bhārgava themes (Goldman 1977:113–128). Another is a preoccupation with violent death and a consequent return to life (Goldman 1977:75–92). These themes are discussed further in EN1.2.

[ back ] 191. In the Mahābhārata the twins are refused admission to the sacrifice by Indra until Cyavana forces him to yield. In the version in Book 3 Indra says: “Doctors, tradesmen, changing their appearance at will, wandering about in the world of mortals (loke carantau martyānām), how could these two be worthy of Soma?” (3.124.12). In the version in Book 13 Indra refuses Cyavana’s request with the words, “How can they become drinkers of Soma when they are reviled by us and do not measure up to the gods (devair na sammitāv etau)?” (13.141.17). In the Taittirīya-Saṃhitā 6.4.9.1 (cf. n1.184 above) the gods grant the twins a libation but then make them purify themselves, saying, “These two are unclean, going about as physicians among men (apūtau vai imau manuṣyacarau bhiṣajau).” Since in the Indic myth the twins are already magic healers before they become “complete,” the gods throw up against them the charge that they are doctors as a mark of low status. This motif is secondary, having to do with a brahman prejudice, but as such it goes well with the new form of the myth.

[ back ] 192. Closeness to mortals is a somewhat ambiguous characteristic, for the Dioskouroi are close to mortals not only as heroes but also as gods: the twins (Vedic as well as Greek) can appear suddenly and rescue sailors at sea precisely because they are close enough at hand to be invoked in a desperate situation. But this closeness to mortals derives from the mortal side of the twins’ nature even when they act as gods. We may think of the earth that “holds” the Dioskouroi once they become gods. This earth, which is the mark of the mortal part of their nature, actually holds the gods close to their mortal worshippers in Lacedaemon. The twins’ closeness to mortals and their own mortality are thus intertwined, and this was presumably once also true of the Indic twins.

[ back ] 193. Cf. n1.162 above. In Theocritus 22 Castor alone fights the battle with Idas and Lynkeus; Polydeuces has his own episode, a boxing match. Theocritus introduces Castor’s battle with a series of epithets marking him as a “warrior” and a “horseman” (22.135–136): σὲ δέ, Κάστορ, ἀείσω, / Τυνδαρίδη ταχύπωλε, δορυσσόε, χαλκεοθώρηξ, “I will sing of you, Castor, son of Tyndareus, having swift horses, spear-brandishing, with bronze breastplate” (for Castor as khalkeothṓrēx, “with bronze breastplate,” cf. khalkomítra Kástoros, “Castor with the bronze mítra,” in Pindar Nemean 10.90, quoted above n1.167.) Even in Polydeuces’ episode, when Castor calls the other Greek heroes to watch his brother’s boxing match, Theocritus characterizes him as hupeírokhos en daï̀ Kástōr, “Castor pre-eminent in war” (22.79).

[ back ] 194. One may say in general that skill with the two hands characterizes the crafts, and makes their practitioners “crafty”; for boxing as a craft, cf. Theocritus 22.67, where Amykos, the opponent of Polydeuces, calls on him to exert himself with his fists and not to spare his “skill”: πὺξ διατεινάμενος σφετέρης μὴ φείδεο τέχνης.

[ back ] 195. There is no agreement as to which poet followed which in narrating this episode; see Köhnken 1965:84–121 and 2001, who argues for the priority of Theocritus, and Sens 1997:24–36, who argues for the priority of Apollonius. There is the same issue with respect to the treatment of the Hylas myth in both poets. Köhnken 2001:73n2 cites recent opinion on the question, which remains undecided; Hunter 1999:264–265 thinks it more likely that the two Theocritus poems, Idylls 13 and 22, presuppose a knowledge of Apollonius of Rhodes Books 1 and 2 than vice versa.

[ back ] 196. Epicharmus in the early fifth century BC wrote a comedy Amykos; in a fragment Castor tells Amykos not to abuse his older brother (Ἄμυκε, μὴ κύδαζέ μοι / τὸν πρεσβύτερον ἀδελφεόν, Epicharmus fr. 6 Kassel and Austin 2001), from which it is clear that Polydeuces encounters the same truculent figure as in the Hellenistic poets; the scholia to Apollonius of Rhodes 2.98–100 (see on Epicharmus fr. 7 Kassel and Austin 2001) say that in Epicharmus Polydeuces ties Amykos up, sparing his life; in Theocritus Polydeuces likewise spares Amykos, but in Apollonius he kills him. Sophocles wrote a satyr play called Amykos, but apart from two phrases quoted for unusual words by Athenaeus 9.400b and 3.94e (Sophocles frs. 111–112 Radt) its contents are unknown (for possible artistic representations of the play see Radt 1999:150).

[ back ] 197. Polydeuces’ skill with his fists is expressively portrayed in lines 95–96, especially in the alliterative second line: ἤτοι ὅγ’ ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα παριστάμενος Διὸς υἱός / ἀμφοτέρῃσιν ἄμυσσεν ἀμοιβαδίς, “standing beside him the son of Zeus on this side and that / ripped him with both hands in turn.” See n1.194 above for skill with the hands as a token of “craftiness.”

[ back ] 198. τὸν μὲν ἄναξ ἐτάρασσεν ἐτώσια χερσὶ προδεικνύς / πάντοθεν, “the lord (Polydeuces) baffled him, displaying empty blows (feints) from all sides” (Theocritus 22.102–103).

[ back ] 199. “Apollodorus” 3.11.2: καὶ γίνεται μὲν Πολυδεύκους καὶ Φοίβης Μνησίλεως, Κάστορος δὲ καὶ Ἱλαείρας Ἀνώγων, “and Mnesileos was born from Polydeuces and Phoibe, Anogon from Castor and Hilaeira.” Consistent with this positive information is the order of names of the two sons (Anaxis and Mnasinoos) and two mothers (Hilaeira and Phoibe) in Pausanias’s description of the statue group in Argos: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Διοσκούρων ναός. ἀγάλματα δὲ αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ παῖδές εἰσιν Ἄναξις καὶ Μνασίνους, σὺν δέ σφισιν αἱ μητέρες Ἱλάειρα καὶ Φοίβη, “After these is the temple of the Dioskouroi. The statues are the Dioskouroi themselves and their sons Anaxis and Mnasinous, and with them their mothers Hilaeira and Phoibe” (Pausanias 2.22.5). The order of the names pairs Anaxis with Hilaeira and Mnasinoos with Phoibe.

[ back ] 200. For these terpsímbrotos compounds see Knecht 1946:45; Risch 1974:191–193; Chantraine 1999 s.v. ánax; and cf. below in text. The names Ánaxis and Anaxías appear to be “short-forms” (cf. n1.51 above on the name Nēleús).

[ back ] 201. Cf. also the related verb mnēsikakéō, “remember past injuries, bear a grudge.” For other compounds in mnēsí– see Chantraine 1999 s.v. mimnḗskō, sections 11–12; for Mycenean Manasiweko = Mnāsiwergos (later Greek Mnēsíergos), cf. also Bader 1965:93–94.

[ back ] 202. It is worth noting that in Pindar’s Nemean 10 the verb noéō occurs in connection with Polydeuces’ act of bringing his brother back to life; when Zeus gives Polydeuces a choice of fates, either to become entirely a god himself or to share his immortality with Castor, he expresses the second alternative with the phrase: “but if you are minded (noeîs) to share everything equally” (Nemean 10.85–88):

The poet’s use of a particular word is of course less significant than the name of Polydeuces’ son, attested in two separate cults of the Archaic period, but the context is still suggestive.

[ back ] 203. The twins’ opposition in terms of cattle and horses also seems to have been preserved in Iranian despite the absence of the twins themselves in the Zoroastrian system. Dumézil argues that the Indo-European twins were transformed into two other pairs of figures in Iranian: Old Avestan Haurvatāt, “Wholeness, Health,” and Amərətāt, “Immortality” (Dumézil 1945:89–90, 91–92, 158–170, cf. 1968:88, 105); and Young Avestan Drvāspā, “mistress of healthy horses,” and Gə̄uš Tašan, “builder of the cow,” or Gə̄uš Urvan, “soul of the cow” (Dumézil 1968:88–89). The latter pair seems to preserve the old opposition.

[ back ] 204. “Apollodorus” 3.11.2 presents the following version: the four cousins together steal cattle from Arcadia; Idas and Lynkeus make off with all the spoil after cheating the Dioskouroi of their share; the Dioskouroi raid the cattle back again and set an ambush for their cousins; Lynkeus discovers the ambush and Castor is killed in battle. Lynkeus’s role in discovering the ambush is also found in the Cypria and Pindar: in Cypria fr. 11 Allen Lynkeus looks out from Taygetos with his extraordinary eyes and sees the Dioskouroi inside a hollow oak; Pindar Nemean 10.61–63 follows this closely. In the Cypria Lynkeus appears to kill Castor, but in “Apollodorus” Idas kills Castor; Pindar leaves the point vague. The cattle raid carried out by the Dioskouroi against their cousins motivates the battle in which Castor dies, and these two episodes, the cattle raid and the battle, are the two essential parts of the myth. There was a variant tradition that the conflict between the cousins arose when the Dioskouroi carried off the daughters of Leukippos, who had been betrothed to the Apharetidai (Theocritus 22 is the earliest literary source). The relationship between the two different traditions is discussed in EN1.3.

[ back ] 205. Dumézil 1968:87 sees Polydeuces as differentially associated with cattle in this myth: “la seule fois que des vaches jouent un rôle dans la vie du couple, Polydeukès y triomphe et Kastôr y succombe.” This formulation seems to me essentially correct, but I add the important qualification that the mortal Castor succumbs not in the cattle raid itself, but in the battle that follows: the two episodes are distinct. The cattle raid, on the other hand, should be seen as belonging primarily to the immortal twin. In Homeric Hymn 33, as discussed earlier, both twins act as “saviors” of distressed sailors; it is worth noting that sheep appear in this context: as the ship sinks the sailors retreat to the highest point of the stern “with white sheep” (árnessin leukoîsin) and pray to the Dioskouroi, who come to the rescue (Homeric Hymn 33.8–12; see §1.56 above). As tokens of sustenance and life sheep are equivalent to cattle (thus the “cattle” of Helios in Odyssey 12 include sheep as well as cattle, and Helios likewise has sheep in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo 411–413; cf. Frame 1978:40–47). The connection between sheep and “salvation” in Homeric Hymn 33 is very striking; it recalls the Vedic association of the adjective gómad, “rich in cattle,” with the name Nāsatyā, “you two saviors.” A final point about the two distinct episodes in the central myth of the Dioskouroi: Theocritus 22 also devotes distinct episodes to the two twins, but in such a way that Castor does not participate in Polydeuces’ episode (the boxing match) and (more striking from the standpoint of tradition) Polydeuces does not participate in Castor’s episode (the battle against Idas and Lynkeus, which Castor now fights—and wins!—on his own); furthermore, the two episodes in Theocritus are unconnected, in contrast to the central myth of the Dioskouroi. Theocritus manipulates the twins’ tradition to his own ends, but by having a pair of episodes, one for each twin, he still recaptures an essential feature of their central myth.

[ back ] 206. A myth consisting of two episodes, a cattle raid followed by a battle, is also central to Nestor’s version of the twin myth (see §2.1–§2.5 below); Nestor, no less than the Dioskouroi, constitutes the Greek comparison to the Indic twins and allows a reconstruction of essential features of the Indo-European twin myth. Cattle raiding is sometimes seen as the primary Indo-European form of warfare (e.g. Lincoln 1976 and 1981), but this blurs the distinction between cattle and horses made clear by the Indo-European twin myth; cf. n2.7 below on Nestor’s cattle raid.

[ back ] 207. Frame 1978:135–137. For the Iranian demon Nā̊ŋhaiθya as deriving from an Indo-Iranian immortal twin (and as attesting an old use of the singular form of the name) see above §1.42 and n1.120. The Vedic name Nā́satyā itself occurs in the singular in RV 4.3.6; it is modified here by the epithet párijman, “traversing,” which elsewhere in the Rig-Veda is used of the twins as a pair and of their chariot. There is a metrical problem in the verse (it is a syllable short) making this evidence for the singular uncertain. The metrical problem is eliminated by changing the singular nā́satyāya to the dual nā́satyābhyām and by taking the epithet párijmane with the god Vāta in the previous segment of the verse (Vāta has this epithet elsewhere in the Rig-Veda; see Geldner 1951–1957 ad loc.). A better solution, proposed by Karl Hoffmann in Schindler 1972:15, is to change the dative kṣé, “to the earth,” to yakṣé, an infinitive from yakṣ-, “appear,” in the sequence párijmane nā́satyāya <ya>kṣé: the verse will then say “What do you want to say, Agni (kád…agne…brávas) to the traversing Nā́satya-, that he appear”; cf. Goto 1991:979.

[ back ] 208. For the meanings of the Sanskrit verb, which have developed too far to shed light on the meaning of the Indo-European middle verb, cf. n1.68 above.

[ back ] 209. The Indo-European middle verb is *nesetoi (> Sanskrit násate, Greek néetai); the active verb is *neseti (> Sanskrit *násati, Greek *néei; the Greek active ending is an innovation of obscure origin; cf. Chantraine 1961:297). I think that it is likely that the active verb existed in Indo-European, but I do not insist on it; the correspondence between Greek and Indo-Iranian that I propose could be due to common innovation instead of common retention.

[ back ] 210. Nagy 1970:43n121. The Old Persian form is a Median borrowing; for the verb in question, cf. Old Persian xšay-, “rule,” Avestan xšāy-, “have power,” and Sanskrit kṣay-, “possess.”

[ back ] 211. Watkins 1963:24. Old Irish has special relative forms that combine the relative pronoun with a verb in the third singular, third plural, or first plural. The etymology of these forms, which is no longer clear in Irish, is still clear in Gaulish dugiiontiio, “who serve.” Thus e.g. Old Irish bertae, “who carry,” comes regularly from *bheronti-i̯o. In the Old Irish forms the relative pronoun can also be the object of the verb; thus bertae is both “who carry” and “whom they carry.”

[ back ] 212. For the syntactic order of third person verb followed by relative pronoun, Watkins cites e.g. RV 1.70.5: dā́śad yó asmāi, “who worships him.” Nagy reports a number of parallels in Italic and Celtic for the process of noun formation, and in Hittite for the syntactic order, which Watkins suggested to him (Nagy 1970:43n121):

Nagy has subsequently (1979:198–199) suggested as a Greek parallel Lampetíē, the name of one of the two daughters of Helios who guard Helios’s cattle in Odyssey 12.132: νύμφαι ἐϋπλόκαμοι, Φαέθουσά τε Λαμπετίη τε, “the fair-haired nymphs, Phaethousa and Lampetie.” The names Phaéthousa and Lampetíē, both meaning “bright, shining,” are feminine equivalents of masculine Lámpos and Phaéthōn, the names of the horses who bring the dawn goddess in Odyssey 23.246: Λάμπον καὶ Φαέθονθ’, οἵ τ’ Ἠῶ πῶλοι ἄγουσι. Reconstructed as *lampeti-yā, Lampetíē means “she who shines”: *lámpeti, from the thematic verb lámpō, has the athematic third singular ending –ti, which, like the formation itself, would be an archaism; the lack of assibilation (-ti versus –si) is also an archaism (cf. the names Ortílokhos and Orsílokhos of a grandfather and grandson in Iliad 5.546 and 549 and see Chantraine 1933:40); *yā in the reconstruction is the feminine relative pronoun (Greek hḗ). The name Lampetíē is discussed further in EN1.4. These possible examples are sufficient, I think, to support the process of noun formation proposed for Nā́satya-. The etymology is acknowledged by Mayrhofer 1986ff. s.v. Nā́satya-, who cites Nagy 1990:93n46 and 249n80; Nagy in both places cites Frame 1978:135–137 (cf. also Nagy1979:199n2); Frame 1978 cites Nagy 1970 for the basis of the etymology, Old Persian xšāyaθiya-. The proposed etymology of Nā́satya- occurred to Nagy and me in the late 1960s after Calvert Watkins had made Nagy’s etymology of Old Persian xšāyaθiya- known to me in a different context. I hasten to add that for Nā́satya- Mayrhofer regards an etymology based on the hypothetical noun *nasati- (see n1.123 above) as probable.

[ back ] 213. See n1.123 above for Güntert’s derivation of Nā́satyā from a hypothetical abstract noun *nasati-, parallel to the derivation of Ā́ditya– from áditi-. Other factors may also bear on the difference in metrical treatment of these two names: whereas Nā́satyā is dual, Ā́ditya– is usually plural and thus has a different metrical shape overall; I have also not excluded that the time of composition of the hymns in which the two names occur may differ. (For áditi-, “unboundedness,” understood as “freedom from offense, innocence,” and for the Ā́ditya-s as the “gods who uphold áditi-,” see Brereton 1981:197 and 288–292).

[ back ] 214. The form Nā́satiyā (four syllables) was presumably shortened to Nā́satyā (three syllables) in the natural language once the etymology was no longer transparent. This parallels the situation of such nominal derivatives with alternate forms in –iya and –ya in the Rig-Veda as e.g. ápiya vs. ápya, “watery”: the forms in –iya are inherited from a stage of the language at which the morpheme boundary was still perceived (ap + iya) and the derivational process was still productive, whereas the forms in –ya belong to a later stage when the morpheme boundary was no longer perceived and the derivational process had ceased to be productive (cf. Nagy 1970:7–8 and 41–42). In Nā́satiyā the original morpheme boundary (Nā́sati + yā) is differently placed than in such nominal derivatives, but the result of the erosion of this boundary is the same. Avestan Nā̊ŋhaiθya also reflects erosion of the original morpheme boundary, presumably by the same process as in Vedic (see Nagy 1970:41 for pairs of nominal derivatives in -iya and -ya in Avestan paralleling those in Vedic). Old Persian xšāyaθiya-, as derived by Nagy, has likewise eroded the morpheme boundary between the third person singular ending and the relative pronoun (-θiya < *-tya; original *-tiya would have remained –tiya); see Nagy 1970:43 and n121, who also points out that the Old Persian form is a Median borrowing since Old Persian –θiya > –šiya. Besides the evidence of the Rig-Veda, which is still to be discussed, the Mitanni form Nasattii̯a(nna) perhaps reflects an original rhythm Nā́satiyā.

[ back ] 215. Oldenberg 1909:17, commenting on RV 1.20.3, points out that the numerous instances in which a four-syllable form of the name comes immediately after the early caesura in trimeter (i.e. after syllable 4) favor the rhythm Náasatyā, except that this is also the most convenient metrical position for Nā́satiyā (“doch wird dies Argument [for Náasatyā] dadurch abgeschwächt, dass auch für Nā́satiyā eben dies die bequemste metrische Stellung war”); on the other hand, the instances in which a four-syllable form occupies syllables 3–6 of a dimeter favor the rhythm Nā́satiyā; the other scattered instances of a four-syllable form “entscheiden nicht.” In EN1.5 to n1.219 below the statistical evidence is analyzed and elaborated.

[ back ] 216. Oldenberg 1909:17 and Arnold 1905:99 both favor this view.

[ back ] 217. This interpretation is first found in Pāṇini (cf. n1.122 above), but it is based, I suggest, on an actual pronunciation of the name in Vedic verse.

[ back ] 218. The coexistence in the Rig-Veda of the four- and three-syllable forms of the name has the same explanation as the coexistence of e.g. the alternative forms ápiya and ápya (see n1.214 above).

[ back ] 219. In EN1.5 it is argued that in RV 2.41.7, which contrasts the vocatives Nāsatyā and Aśvinā in terms of cattle and horses, the scansion Nāsatiyā is found, and that the influence of this archaic verse explains the other unusually frequent instances of a four-syllable form of the name in syllables 5–8 of dimeters. It is also argued that it was in syllables 5–8 of trimeters, where both scansions of the name are possible (cf. n1.215 above), that the scansion Náasatyā began to replace the scansion Nā́satiyā, in accord with the reinterpretation of the name as the “not untrue ones.”

[ back ] 220. The twins’ epithet dasrā́, “miracle-working,” which connects their role as “saviors” with the notion of “intelligence,” is indicative of a similar semantic link in their name Nā́satyā; in addition the case of the epic hero Sahadeva, whose reputation for “intelligence” contrasts him with his brother Nakula, shows that the epithet dasrā́, with its implication of “intelligence,” must also have distinguished one of the twin gods from the other. The contrast in the twins’ Vedic hymns between the two dual vocatives dasrā and Aśvinā, paired with “cattle” and “horses” respectively, bears out this conclusion. The myth in which one twin is dasrá-, “miracle-working,” in relation to the other is preserved in Greek, where Polydeuces not only brings Castor back to life, but is also characterized by “intelligence” in contrast to his brother.

[ back ] 221. For the possibility that “consciousness” is the basic underlying notion in nóos, cf. Frame 1978:30.

[ back ] 222. Note in particular the well-known “Gāyatrī,” repeated daily by brahmans, which prays for the light of the sun god Savitar who will “set our thoughts in motion” (RV 3.62.10):

[ back ] 223. The basic notion of the element –jinva (root jinv) is “set in rapid motion, arouse”; Geldner translates dhiyaṃjinvā́ as “Gedankenwecker, Gedanken anregend.”

[ back ] 224. In the verse in question (RV 8.5.35) the epithet dhī́javanā occurs first in a dimeter where it is followed by a four-syllable form of the name Nā́satyā (see above n1.219 and EN1.5 to n1.219 for RV 2.41.7 as setting the rhythmical pattern for the name Nā́satyā in this position); the collocation of dhī́javanā with Nā́satyā in this verse may be significant insofar as the name Nā́satyā itself still carries the meaning of the epithet dhī́javanā (cf. §1.54 above on the name Nā́satyā as being glossed by the epithet dasrā́).

[ back ] 225. Duality is central to the twin myth in general, and to the mental function that it represents in particular. As a physical basis for duality in the mental function at issue one might consider not only the use of the two hands (see n1.194 and n1.197 above on the notion of “craftiness” associated with skillful use of the two hands), but also the functions of the two hemispheres of the brain; ancient cultures were presumably not aware of the different functions of the brain’s hemispheres, but it is another (perhaps unanswerable) question whether the effects of the different functions were nevertheless experienced and given expression in the twin myth.