Something we have often had cause to make reference to is the fact that this most prominent of Indo-European mythemes, the Smiting of the Demon-Dragon, is NOT exclusive in commissioning to the Striker/Thunderer deific.

But is, rather, a case of ‘Like Father – Like Son’.

As with, perhaps uncoincidentally, the wielding of Thunder in various senses as the major weapon thereof.

We do not intend to delve in depth into each and every of the major expressions of this (parallel) typology herein. We have done that already in any number of previous works.

But it did seem interesting to but briefly examine two elements which are perhaps a little different, in the case of the Father, from that of the Son; and also supply a list of various expressions (assumedly non-exhaustive) for the interested reader to follow up upon themselves.

So, with that in mind …

We begin with RV II 24 3 – from a RigVedic Hymnal dedicated to Brihaspati / Brahmanaspati. What do we find therein? A combat carried out against that dark and obscuring demon-serpent, Vala.

How is it carried out?

Well, the original Sanskrit has it: “abhinad brahmaṇā valam”

What does that mean?

‘He Sundered [Abhinad] with Ritual Element [Brahmana] the Serpent / Obscurer Vala’.

Or, phrased more expressively, it was with Prayer (i.e. Mantra, Ritual Invocation) that Vala was to be slain – as we of course find elsewhere attested … for instance, at RV X 68 4, wherein a rather delicious triple meaning is employed, viz. ‘Arka’, to express the ‘triggering’ and ‘force invoked’ in question. Griffith, understandably, takes ‘Arka’ there to mean ‘The Sun’ – it can also mean ‘Hymnal’, or ‘Lightning’ (c.f. how it is employed in various Marut hymnals, etc.); and thence presents the bombardment ensuing as “[like a] flaming meteor […] from Heaven” (“ulkām iva dyoḥ”; ‘Arka’ may also be expressing the quality to this weapon here also) , brought about via the ‘āpruṣāyan madhuna’ (‘sprinkling of the sweet [oblation]’), so as to bring this from the ‘origin’ [yonim] (Griffith has it somewhat euphemistically as the ‘seat’) of ‘Order’ [Rta – ṛtasya].

This is exactly as we should anticipate – Brihaspati, after all, is the Lord (‘Pati’) of such (indeed, per RV II 24 8, His Bowstring is Rta Herself, and His Arrows, therefore, the Ritual Enactments – the Mantras and the (actions of the) Offerings; note how the above-mentioned verse, RV X 68 4, therefore has the holy weapon ‘fired’ from Rta as an ‘origin’ (Yoni) in the manner of a Bowstring) – and c.f., as we have often noted, Odin as ‘Galdrs föður’, for reasons that shall become abundantly apparent in a moment.

As it happens, the treasures won (liberated – won back) by Brihaspati are the ‘soṣām’ (‘Dawn’), ‘svaḥ’ (‘Solar [Radiance of Heaven]’), and ‘agniṃ’ (‘Fire’ – esp. the ‘Living Fire’ of Sacrifice and Rites), per RV X 68 9. Which does not contradict with the ‘Cows’ (‘gā’) cited at RV X 68 4; nor the Waters (‘udadher’ – more literally, ‘Ocean’ … ‘Flood’?) in the preceding RV X 67 5 – which handily has the Cow (singular – gām), mentioned as one of the Three (trīṇi) liberated from Vala : these other Two being, again, the Dawn (uṣasaṃ) and Sun (sūryaṃ), when Brihaspati ‘thundered [as] Dyaus’ [‘stanayann iva dyauḥ’] . [RV X 68 6, as a brief point of interest, has a term doing double duty here – usriyāṇām – which can be translated in reference to both Cows and Illumination, Reddishness (as well as ‘(a) divinity’, ‘milk’, and ‘bovine’ more generally – inc. ‘bull’); hence Griffith choosing to cover his bases by (understandably) having “the red cows” as its meaning]

And, it should be emphasized, the scale of this ‘Obscuring’ Dragon (Vala) is such that at times we are almost unsure whether the Mountain within which Vala is said to lair with his stolen wealth of Light and the fundaments of Life is what is being discussed (and sundered open to liberate the treasures aforesaid), or whether it is Vala, or both.

We would also make note of the intriguing simile deployed at RV X 68 10, wherein Vala (now having lost his stolen wealth of Cows to Brihaspati’s victorious (ritualine-religious) raiding) is described as like trees (vanāni) that have lost (or, rather, had ‘removed’ or even ‘stolen’; muṣitā) their leaves (parṇā) due to the onset of winter (himeva). Why? Well, as you’ll see – there’s quite the correlation between the lack of the ‘Cows’ in question and a decided lack of herbaceous verdancy in various of our other exemplars. More on that in due course.

Now, as we have capaciously discussed elsewhere, this particular deed of dragon-slaying bears rather strong resemblance to that detail recounted in the Ynglinga Saga wherein, to quote the Laing translation:

“He taught all these arts in Runes, and songs which are called incantations, and therefore the Asaland people are called incantation-smiths. Odin understood also the art in which the greatest power is lodged, and which he himself practised; namely, what is called magic. […] Odin knew finely where all missing cattle were concealed under the earth, and understood the songs by which the earth, the hills, the stones, and mounds were opened to him; and he bound those who dwell in them by the power of his word, and went in and took what he pleased.”

The relevant terms translated there as ‘Incantations’ and ‘Magic’ are, of course, ‘Galdrar’ and ‘Seiðr’. It is interesting, indeed, to countenance this concept of Odin teaching the elements in question to others in light of the potency sought by the supplicant for which Brihaspati / Tisya (more upon Him in due course) are offered up to, per Taittiriya Brahmana III 1 4 6 – ‘Brahmavarcasa’, or  the ‘Power of the Ritualist’ [DuMont goes for ‘Eminen[cy] in Sacred Lore’] (the other offering to Tisya / Brihaspati in the adjacent Tait. Br section – III 1 1 6 – requests imbuements from the Most Beautiful/Glorious God (śréṣṭho devā́nāṃ) Who Is Victorious in Conflict (pŕ̥tanāsu jiṣṇúḥ) of Fearlessness / Protection (‘ábhayaṃ’ ; and, as applies the latter, ‘paripātu’) … and to be lord of a host of great warriors / heroes (‘suvīryasya patayaḥ’) – ‘Combat Theology’, indeed !).

And whilst there is a lack of an overt ‘Dragon’ in the Ynglinga Saga passage aforementioned – well, this is a heavily ‘editorialized’ and ‘euhemericized’ text, best known, perhaps, for re-configuring Odin et co as human (and now dead) migrants from Asia Minor. It is not un-understandable that the nuance of ‘Vala’ has come adrift in the interim.

Where we find a much more overt situation of Odin going dragonslaying is within a lesser-known Anglo-Saxon text, the ‘Nigon Wyrta Galdor’ (‘Nine Herbs Charm’).

I shall not repeat our analysis of it here, but suffice to say it features Woden arranging nine ‘WuldorTanas’ (‘Glory Twigs’, to translate literally) in order to sunder a Wyrm. We have earlier suggested that the ‘Glory Twigs’ in question may be of quite the thunderous radiance, in light of the Donderbezem / ‘Thunder Broom’ device still known amidst the folkways of the Netherlands, and the occasionally-encountered similarly-shaped device wielded by Odin in various Icelandic art of He. Lightning, after all, looking quite like ‘twigs’, for reasons that ought be readily apparent – and ‘Wuldor’, from PIE *Wel-, having quite the ‘visual’ aspect to its radiance.

Again, we have Odin utilizing a ‘magical’ mechanism with which to dispatch the serpentine foe. Fitting with the above-mentioned Ynglinga Saga description in broad terms – and, of course, that RigVedic suite of conceptry much earlier aforesaid (in both senses).

Now, to this we should add another point of Vedic comparanda : that of Rudra.

He is hailed per RV II 33 3 as wielding a Vajra; and likewise, at AV-S IV 28, we find the Rudra-Forms, Sarva & Bhava, described as vṛtrahaṇā (‘Slayers of Vritra’ – line 5) , with the Weapon(s) with which such magnificent outcome is intended to be accomplished being the omnipotent Vajra (verses 6 & 7). How about that.

For bonus points is the strong utilization of ‘(Counter-)Spelling’ conceptry by the Rudra(s) in question, They Who Are the Lords and Controllers (Pradiśi – ‘Instructors’ ?) of ‘All That Shines’, in the course of this execution.

Now, speaking of Rudra(s) – and, for that matter, of Brihaspati – we would also make overt mention of the situation of Tishya (known in Persianate terms as ‘Tishtrya’, c.f. Armenian ‘Tir’ … interestingly identified with Apollo, but also Hermes).

Why so? Well, this figure is regarded as enabling those most vital fundaments of life, the Waters, to flow … the Nakshatra of Pushya (explicitly identified as / with Brihaspati, and also as / with Tishya – Tishya being Rudra (c.f. TS II 2 10 1; also compare RV X 64 8); and Brihaspati also being ( a ) Rudra, per Krishna Yajurveda Taittiriya Aranyaka  I 10 1, etc.; see my earlier works for the linkage of all of the above to the Star of Sirius) has this quite explicitly within the Name (as, of course, in another sense, does the similarly Roudran Nakshatra of ‘Ardra’).

Pushya, effectively, means to encourage the growth of plants – from ‘Pusa’ ( पुष ), meaning ‘growth / nourishing’ which is a linguistic cognate for Iranic ‘Paosa’. Ardra, meanwhile, is ‘Moisture’ more directly (although also can mean ‘Green’ – as in the ‘Green Growth of Plants’).

What do we behold happening in the essential deed of Dragon-Smiting so frequently recurrent in the Vedic sphere ? Liberation of, inter alia, the Waters … and thus Rainfall is enabled to happen. As one might anticipate where there is Thunder – after all, per Fleetwood Mac … Thunder Only Happens When It’s Raining.

Why do we mention that? Well, the Iranic presentation as to Tishtrya (Yasht 8) features this figure fighting a demon of drought named ‘Apaosa’ (alt. anglicization: “Apaosha”). That being the Opposite or Negation (‘A-‘) of Paosa. Which, as you can see, renders as ‘Drought’ slightly figuratively due to, well, the natural and logical situation of the Drought as featuring a decided lack of anything growing. Much like, we would presume, the situation in the absence of the life-giving Waters (or, figuratively, the ‘Results of the Cow’ – Milk, metaphorically considered, the Cow, Devi, as Mother to All) when Vritra / Vala has these locked away and hoarded in his mountain lair.

This situation of Tishtriya (‘Tištriia’) contra Apaosha is represented as Tistrya being an ‘Arrow’ (rather than, assumedly, as an ‘Archer’ – as Tishya / Rudra is) , per Yasht 8 6 shot by one ‘Ereksha’ ( ‘Ǝrəxša’ – in later forms, Ēraš or ‘Arash’). The former, Forssman innovatively suggests to have archaically been PIE *tri-str-iyo- … that is to say, Three (*Tri) Stars (*Str). He suggests this in order to link ‘Tishtrya’ to the famed TriKanda of Rudra – the Three-Arrow wielded by He in the course, most prominently, of smiting Prajapati in order to liberate Diva / Ushas. And to be fair, it is not an entirely untenable theory. Although I am personally somewhat unsure of this in light of … a few things (c.f. Emmerick’s remarks in ‘Indo-European Numerals’; as well as the customary etymology for ‘Tisya’ as from an entirely different stem … ostensibly Tuṣ (तुष्), so as to produce the ‘Auspicious’ sense (it can also mean ‘Pleased’, ‘Propitiated’, ‘Satisfied’), although it would be intriguing, perhaps, to consider certain of the *other* ‘Tus’ style roots around – Tuś (तुश्), either in the sense of ‘Harming, Killing’ (ref. ‘Sarva’ – that well-known Rudra as Archer theonymic – and what gets done to the Dragon) or in relation to ‘trickling out’ (ref. both Tisya in Soma-sacrifice context … as well as the rather obvious point to be made viz. the Waters with Their liberation), and Tus (तुस्) in the sense of ‘Sounding’ (c.f. the ‘Invoking’, ‘Chanting’ – and ‘Roaring’ – of Brihaspati / Rudra in such a role). We would also make mention of ‘Iṣu’ (इषु) – ‘Arrow’ – in this light. But I digress).

It is also intriguing to note the detail at line 8, wherein Tishtrya is stated to harry the ‘Pairikas’ (‘Sorceresses’, ‘Demonesses’) found between (‘Antarə’) Earth (‘Ząm’) and the Firmament (‘Asanəmca’) – these being described via the designator of ‘stārō kərəmå’.

What does that term mean? Well, the ‘Star’ part is obvious – however the latter is best illuminated, perhaps, via its Sanskrit cognate: Krimi (क्रिमि). What does that mean? ‘Worm’ – or, we might suggest, ‘Wyrm’. The action these Pairikas are engaged in up there is ‘Patanti’ – and whilst often translated as ‘Flying’ … we should like to suggest (following Haghighi, Najari, & Namiranian) that in fact the proper sense is falling. Assumedly as the result of Tishtriya’s  actions of ‘taurvayeiti’ (tauruuaiieiti – ref. Sanskrit Turv (तुर्व्) … overpower, injure, kill) / ‘titārayeiti’ (seemingly not quite ‘overcome’ but ‘pass over’ – ref. Sanskrit ‘titarti’ [c.f. tárati (तरति) – which also encompasses ‘sailing’, ‘swimming’ or ‘floating’, as well as ‘overcoming’, and ‘running through’)  , a form of Tṛ (तृ), and cognate-ish with English ‘Through’).

We mention this for several reasons. One of which being the rather cool notion of demons being hurled down from the sky and burning up upon atmospheric (re-)entry. Another of which being the logical inference, following Panaino, that what is being referred to here is the suite of Summer meteor-showers which precede Sirius’ ascendency in the sky and correlate with the late-Summer dry-times of drought. In Vedic terms, we might consider a few points of comparanda (including ‘Ketu’ in the older sense … as well as the new – viz. ‘DhumaKetu’  : ‘Smoke-Bannered’ or ‘Smoke-Tailed’, in relation to Comets … but also mindful of ‘Ketu’ the tail of the dismembered Eclipse Demon – and, for that matter, the most intriguing situation in AV-S XIX 9 9 that we may return to discuss at some future point).

However, it is also pertinent in another fashion – namely, this notion of Meteors … well, you recall Brihaspati’s great Weapon utilized against the demon-dragon Vala. Rudra stalks amidst the Antariksa, the ‘Middle Air’ (yet also ‘Space’ in other contexts) betwixt Earth and Heaven (‘Antarə Ząm Asanəmca’, indeed, in the aforequoted Avestan). And the term utilized in Yasht 8 8 for ‘Firmament’ – the ‘Asman’ root that is directly co-occurrent in Sanskrit … in our (Vedic) terms, it refers not only to the Sky (occasionally ‘Cloud’), but also quite pointedly to ‘Stone’ (esp. a very hard one, occasionally even a Mountain) and ‘Thunderbolt’ (indeed, its Proto-Indo-European underpinning, a “PIE *h₂eḱ-mon- ‘heavenly vault, anvil, meteorite'”, per Kroonen, should also seem to also underpin (or, at least, resonantly relate to), Germanic ‘Hammer’ (Old Norse “Hamarr”, etc.) … certainly a Dragon-Slaying weapon in the Germanic sphere). It is interesting to contemplate the occurrences for ‘Aśman’ at RV X 68 4 & X 67 3 wherein these terms are utilized to describe the mountainous fastness wherein the Cattle which Brihaspati seeks are held by the demon-dragon Vala. Given the ‘Waters’ and ‘Solar’ characteristics to the Cattle and Cows in question, were it not for the overt ‘earthy’ covering (‘bhūmyā […] tvacam’) specified at RV X 67 3, we might ponder whether this, too, is something that links more overtly to the ‘Sky of Stone’ phenomenon that has occasionally been remarked upon for the (Proto-)Indo-European cosmology.      

We would also link the general concept of these Asman ‘Stones’ not only to the most obvious places – Meteors (and Vajras) and Meteoric Iron (‘Adamantium’, indeed … c.f. the Adamantine Harpe wielded by certain divine figures of the Classical and more especially Hellenic spheres); but also the recurrent scenario in Vedic ritual operationalization wherein the Bricks of the Altar are wielded as (metaphysical) weapons against the Demons [SBr VII 3 2 5-6, VII 5 1 3-7, , with these Bricks of the Altar even being explicitly termed ‘Vajra’ [c.f. TS V 7 3], being hailed as Bright (‘Chitra’ – Tait. Br. I 1 2 6 (which, interestingly for our purposes, prominently features ‘; also, not coincidentally, the name of the War Season where the relevant Nakshatra is in the Sky and various of these deeds directly undertaken ‘gainst Demonkind attempting to ‘Ascend’, per SBr II 1 2 13; therefore, implicitly, knocking them down from the atmosphere lest they reach High Heaven accordingly), ‘Firey’ [‘[A]gnir’ – TS IV 4 5 C; the next line has Vayu thusly imbued] –  or even of Solar imbuement [‘Sūryo’ – TS IV 4 5 E] and consequent raidance (‘Virag’ [SBr VIII 5 1 5], etc. – and viz. ‘raidance’ … I like that typo so much I’m keeping it ! ), correlate with Rains and Waters [SBr VII 5 2 41 & TS V 2 10] , and so on and so forth. In short – it should seem suspiciously ‘on-point’ for the broader understandings in both directions of ritualistic operations undertaken to conjure demon-slaying orbital bombardments … as undertaken by both the Sky Father, and human priests acting in expressive emulation as to He.

And, speaking of such – AV-S XIII 1 32 avails a most excellent Ashmana deployment, at the Hands of the Red Sun (‘Rohita’ – ref. Sri Rudram II 8 [c.f. TS IV 5 2 i / VS XVI 19] for this as a Roudran hailing; and Bhatta Bhaskara’s commentary thereupon for ‘Rohita’ as Rudra as Power of Speech) and in relation to the operative plea of the Priest. (As a point of brief illustrative interest, the Paippalāda recension features ‘Raśmibhi’ here instead of ‘Āśmana’ – ‘Ray of Light / of Flame / of Sun’ [c.f. RV VII 2 1, where one encounters both Agni and Surya], with Raśmi ( रश्मि ) itself also being utilized elsewhere in an astrological context to refer to Meteors and Comets as well).

We have earlier considered at some length how this Weaponized instance and the metaphysics of invoking the force in question appear to resonate most pertinently with Brihaspati’s effort in those RV Hymnals capaciously aforementioned – in our ‘On Indo-European Solar Warfare – An Over-View‘ (A)Arti-cle; and so shall (with considerable effort) refrain from the temptation of discussing it in such a manner herein. We shall, however, but briefly quote both Bloomfield’s rendition for a title for the Hymnal – “Prayer for sovereign power addressed to the god Rohita and His Female Rohinî.” … and his translation for the requisite verse:

“Do Thou, God Sûrya (the Sun), when Thou risest, beat down my rivals, beat them down with a stone: they shall go to the nethermost darkness!”

To bring things back to Yasht 8 more overtly, a further detail encountered at line eight is of significant interest to us – namely, to quote the Panaino translation: “as often as he [Tistrya] approaches the bay, / the pious one, which has the shape of a mare […] of the Sea Vourukaš”.

Why do we find this worthy of an especial mention? Because, as Panaino notes – it effectively sets up the combat of Tištrya against Apaoša, with both in horse form (Tishtrya of splendid White and Gold raiment ; Apaosha of unsettling Black), as being fought over not ‘just’ the vital and life-giving Waters, but over a similarly equine-appearant female figure. Gosh, ‘Mare’ (as in ‘Female Horse’) and ‘Mare’ (as in ‘Sea’ – in Latin, French, etc., anyway; ‘Mere’ for us in English).

And that is pertinent to us herein for two (not unrelated) reasonings.

First – various Dragonslaying stories have, as every child knows, a Princess to be rescued. [Notwithstanding, of course, those archaic Indo-European renditions wherein it is the ‘Princess’ Who is doing the ‘Rescuing’ … Athena / Vak enabling Herakles / Indra to actually beat the Hydra / Vrtra, for instance]

And, as we can see by looking up (in multiple senses) – the situation undertaken by Brihaspati is one of the liberation of Cow(s), which restores Light (and Life – via Water and the Solar Radiance that plants most especially, but the natural world all up in any case, require for life) to the realm, the world(s). One of the designators for this quality therein is, of course, that theonym of Ushas (Soṣām at RV X 68 9; Uṣasaṃ at RV X 67 5). The relevant verses then cite ‘Svaḥ’ and ‘Agniṃ’, and ‘Sūryaṃ’ and ‘Gām’, respectively, to complete the trio. Which we would not take literally as three separate, discrete figures … much less as being the specific Deifics (most usually) hailed by such labelling, in the case(s) of ‘Surya’ and ‘Agni’.  

Instead, it is three ‘elements’ or ‘facings’ to That Which Is Won. The Cow(s) also fitting within this rubric even despite at first there not seeming a huge coherency between ‘Cow’ and ‘Dawn, Solar / Celestial, Fire, The Sun’ – as, after all, it is both the Cow Who ‘supports’ (‘is Mother’) to All in the standard Vedic Hindu dogmatic maximery, and also the rather specific Cow Who (divinely, metaphysically) empowers all, as well.

Confused?

Let’s just get straight to the point and quote the relevant Taittiriya Brahmana passages:

“(5.a) Again (punar) let the Goddess Aditi deliver us (from evil); again (punar) let the two Punarvasus (Who are Her Naksatra) come to our sacrifice.
Again let all the Gods come to us.
Again and again we honour You (O Gods) with oblation.
(5.b) Like a Swift Mare , let the Goddess Aditi, the Irresistible One, the Supporter of the Universe, the Foundation of the World, – Gladdening the Two Punarvasus with the Oblation – come to the place that is dear to the Gods.”
[Tait. Br. III 1 1 5, DuMont translation]

“5. This (Earth) (formerly) was bald, hairless.
She desired: “May I produce plants and trees.”
She offered that well known sacrificial pap to Aditi (i.e. to the Earth, to Herself) and to the two Punarvasus (Who are Her Naksatra).
Consequently this (Earth) produced Plants and Trees.
He indeed will have offspring and cattle, he who offers that oblation and who thus knows it. –
So, on this occasion (after the chief oblation,) he (the Sacrificer) offers the (additional) oblations, saying:
“To Aditi, Svāhā!- To the Two Punarvasus, Svāhā!- To Power, Svāhā!- To Generating Power, Svāha!”
[Tait. Br. III 1 4 5, DuMont translation]

Now, to situate those in context … these passages are from those sections of the Taittiriya Brahmana dealing with the Nakshatras, and the Offerings made to Them (effectively the Deity or Deities (or mythic beings in the case of the Pitrs, the Ashreshas, etc.) linked thereto as well), and to what purpose these are undertaken. We have already cited the corresponding pair of verse-sections for Tisya / Pusya / Brihaspati, earlier in this piece. It was to secure the ‘Brahminical potency’ [to paraphrase slightly viz. ‘Brahmavarcasa’] or to secure courage and protection in combat and a host of heroes to fight for one.

Funnily enough … those Tisya verses aforementioned, are the ones directly and immediately after those Aditi / Punarvasu verses that we have just quoted above. (The Aditi / Punarvasu verses are also those immediately after the offering-verses to Rudra / Ardra, as well – Tait. Br. III 1 1 4 has Rudra as Lord of Cows [‘Patir Aghniyānām’] and prayed to (inter alia) for the major purpose of beseeching He to “drive away the wicked, the enemy” [DuMont translation again]; Tait. Br. III 1 4 4 has the offering (pointedly utilizing Milk) undertaken so as to become rich in Cows – which are, after all, under His Dominion, and which He is very much the apex of, viz. Cow-Wealth … and not least due to His being Married, and having that greatest of Jewels also).

So, to the purposes of this Iranic comparative elocution … we have a Mare, that is closely connected to Tishya (Rudra / Brihaspati) in terms of horological saliency (Her Nakshatra being buttressed quite directly upon either side by Ardra and Pushya / Tishya), with the aforementioned Ardra and Tishya Nakshatras being spoken of in quite overtly combative orientation (and, strictly speaking, so, too, is Aditi – ‘sprnotu’ is the imperative request to Her to Protect us, Her invoking Supplicants and Children), and with Aditi / Punarvasu having operational potency with the natural abundance of the world, and especially herbs and trees (‘osadhibhir vanaspatibhih’) . ‘Punarvasu’ rather directly meaning ‘Again / Restoration (Punar) [of]  Abundance / Wealth / (Solar) Radiance / Water / Good (Vasu)’; and with the Two in question being the Gemini Stars as we would know Them here in the West … although with interesting contemplation as to whether it is the Dioscuri’s Vedic co-expressors, the Divo Napatah , the Asvins (those justly-famed Sons of Rudra) Who are overtly intended via this here, or whether it is Sharva-and-Bhava. Personally, I would prove tempted to interpret a ‘Two-Visage’ element viz. Aditi’ [c.f. VS IV 19] in another way entirely (if not exclusively with the aforesaid) that is also quite pertinent for the transition from harsh conditions to flourishment … but more upon that some other time [consult my ‘A Slightly Belated Beltane Commentary (With Additional Slavic Comparanda)‘, perhaps, for more detailing thereupon].

Now we should, of course, (and following extensive dissection of the matter with the the aid of Nyāyaratnasiṃha) add a slight caveat viz.  that the rendering of Aditi as a ‘Mare’ in Tait. Br. III 1 1 5. Insofar as the word utilized is not literally that for ‘Horse (Female)’ – but is, rather, ‘Eva’. Hence Neely, in his translation, taking it as ‘Eva (एव)’ => ‘Evā (एवा)’ – that is to say “Just So”; whereas DuMont is emphatic that the reading is, more properly, an accent upon the first vowel, and therefore a rather different meaning. We would note that ‘Eva (एव)’ itself, it can also be an entirely different (yet homophonic) term to the aforementioned ‘certainly’ – namely, a term for Motion or Swiftness; and, to add to our complexities as potentially ‘Course’ or ‘Earth’ contingent upon how one takes VS XV 4 & 5 (Mahīdhara favours the latter, in his commentary; Griffith goes for the former); as well as a term for ‘Custom’ – which resonates rather pleasing with the oblique senses to ‘Themis’ (both the Goddess as well as ‘Divine Law’ – ref. Aditi … ) in the Ancient Greek … ).

Handily for us, Sayana insists upon the term rendering as ‘Horse’ in its usage at RV I 158 3, and seemingly also at RV I 166 4 [‘Coursers’, per the Horace Hayman Wilson translation]. And most certainly, the very essence as to ‘Asva’ in its archaic Proto-Indo-European setting – *h₁éḱwos – likely being of such ‘swift’ ( PIE *h₁éḱus ) origination [compare modern English ‘Horse’ – ultimately from PIE *ḱers- (‘to run’), and therefore implicitly meaning ‘Runner’], should seem to doubly reconfirm the strong plausibility for ‘Eva’, here, being taken as ‘(Female) Horse’. Even afore we begin to delve the perhaps rather pertinent mythic dimensions to the occurrence – the relevant Goddess indeed arriving as Horse (or other swift and transformed shape) in proxima to a) the Asvins / Horse-Twins (and more specifically, the conception thereof); b) the Sky Father in similar shaping; with this being quite viably linked to the position of the restoration of light and life to the living world (c.f. our work in relation to Demeter Erinys / Demeter Melaina , and so forth).

Weber also has ‘Eva’, here, as Mare – ‘Stute’, in his native German; albeit with the … unexpected addition that She be ‘brünstige’ (i.e. ‘In Heat’, or ‘Fervent’) – something that is perhaps figuratively apt, given the term for ‘Heat’, there, ‘Brunst’, has as its root, PIE *bʰrewh₁- (‘To Brew [Up]’, To Boil’). We say ‘figuratively apt’ – as if we are construing Aditi, here, this Mare (or Mere) as the Sea (or the Waters) … well, at numerous points within the Yasht to Tishtrya do we hear of the figure of this mighty Stallion ‘agitating’ or ‘boiling’ the Waters in question [line eight: ‘upāca tā̊ āpō yaozaiieiti aiβica’; and c.f. line 31 – Panaino has a relevant part (“yaozəṇti vīspe karanō zraiiā vorukaṣ̌aiia ā vīspō maiδiiō yaozaiti”) rendered as “All the shores of the Sea Vourukasa are astir, all the Middle is in turmoil” (my emphasis, viz. ‘Middle’ – we would ponder a ‘Middle-Atmosphere’ saliency); Darmester goes for “all the shores of the sea Vouru-Kasha are boiling over, all the middle of it is boiling over.” ], accompanied by powerful winds [‘vāta vā̊ṇti yaoxtiuuaṇtō’ – per line 8]. The root of ‘Erinys’, as PIE *h₃er- – ‘to stir up’, to cause to rise – springs instantly and most emphatically also to mind.

In short – the situation we encounter viz. the Zoroastrian presentation of Tishtrya contra Apaosa should appear to present a rather intriguing potential ‘resonance’ for an expression of the Sky Father in combat against a Dragon. Even if some details have become ‘shifted’ or ‘speciated’ with time. And it is most certainly interesting to observe the commentary of Sayana upon RV V 54 13 – wherein he seemingly identifies Tiṣya not only with its customary situation of the Eighth Nakshatra … but also declares Tisya to be ‘Āditya’ (that is to say – ‘The Sun’) as well. A development that harmonizes most interestingly with the regaling of Tishtrya in ‘White’ and ‘Gold’ or ‘Bright’ and ‘Glorious’ terms at various points in Yasht 8 – as well as my longstanding observation viz. Xvarenah having an essentially ‘Solar’ characteristic to its radiance (indeed, it is likely that the same ‘Solar’ root as informs Sanskrit ‘Svar’ has also ultimately produced this Avestan term – Pokorny observing the ‘Xwr’ style derivatives (with S => H sound-shift intermediary) in later Iranic languages, for instance; and other scholars have sought to chart the relationship much more direct and overtly).

However, we are in a bit of a difficult position here – as the Zoroastrian text (Yasht 8) is not only somewhat fragmentary (it presents little further detailing for this archer, Ereksha, than exactly what is in the paired lines – 6 & 37 – aforementioned), but per Panaino, “the textual sequence was strongly disturbed”, indeed seemingly ‘editorialized’ (as Panaino puts it – “the original narration was cut and resumed playing the role of a quotation, like a rhetorical simile, which had the function of emphasizing some aspects of the myth of Sirius and in particular the ‘twinkling’ quality of the star Sirius in its functional similarity with the arrowhead shot by Ǝrəxša.”).

Why this likely happened is something that regular readers shall have already anticipated. Namely, the general ‘suppression’ of certain elements and (more (tri-)pointedly) Deifics; and the co-option of pre-existing liturgical elements to other purposes. In essence, as Manasataramgini puts it: “the later Iranian Tishtrya conceals a Rudra-class deity under the patina of the Zoroastrian counter-religion [as part of] the Zoroastrian demonization of overt Rudra-class deities.”

There is much more that we intend to say about that which may be ‘concealed’ here (with particular reference to the likely underpinnings to the identity of the ‘Archer’ the Zoroastrian version but briefly extolls) – but we shall save that for another time.

Instead, we shall just note that the combat of Tishtrya against Apaosa – as with various of those other exemplars that we had considered earlier and from elsewhere – is also rendered victorious for the divinity involved through the utilization of an invocation, a rite.

Except with the rather key difference that whereas Odin and Brihaspati make use of the ritual / invocationary elements Themselves –  here it is ‘Ahura Mazda’ undertaking such an operation so as to augment Tishtrya as a ‘champion’ of sorts against Apaosa.

It is a subtle, yet important distinction.

It would be too easy to simply state that this is a case of ‘displacement’ and ‘suppression’ – instead, it is setting up a ‘chain’ of ‘Eternal Return’ / ‘Mythic Resonance’ as ritual underpinning for mortal man. That is to say – Ahura Mazda relates to Zoroaster (a ‘first priest’, of a sort) how he has undertaken the ‘mythic’ template to the occurrence, and thereby provides the formula for the human supplicant to reproduce so as to seek to uphold the positive outcomes maintained via the ongoing immannence of Tishtrya and the mythic combat in question.

Yet let us move forward – and back on to perhaps more ‘familiar’ ground.

In this case, the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes:

“And here to Phoebus she bore Aristaeus whom the Haemonians, rich in corn-land, call “Hunter” and “Shepherd”. Her, of his love, the god made a nymph there, of long life and a huntress, and his son he brought while still an infant to be nurtured in the cave of Cheiron. And to him when he grew to manhood the Muses gave a bride, and taught him the arts of healing and of prophecy; and they made him the keeper of their sheep, of all that grazed on the Athamantian plain of Phthia and round steep Othrys and the sacred stream of the river Apidanus. But when from heaven Sirius scorched the Minoan Isles, and for long there was no respite for the inhabitants, then by the injunction of the Far-Darter they summoned Aristaeus to ward off the pestilence. And by his father’s command he left Phthia and made his home in Ceos, and gathered together the Parrhasian people who are of the lineage of Lycaon, and he built a great altar to Zeus Icmaeus, and duly offered sacrifices upon the mountains to that star Sirius, and to Zeus son of Cronos himself. And on this account it is that Etesian winds from Zeus cool the land for forty days, and in Ceos even now the priests offer sacrifices before the rising of the Dog-star.”
[Book II, Seaton translation]

It is fascinating to observe the potential for another saliency of ‘mythic recurrence’ in the figure of Aristaeus here – ‘Like Father, Like Son’, indeed. But our major purpose with the above excerpt is simply to draw attention to the phenomenon of inhospitable climate being ameliorated via offerings carried out to Sirius (ref. Tishya aforementioned – ‘Pleased’, indeed, so as to render Him “Auspicious” [‘Shiva’] and bestowing of life’s necessities), with the altar in question being for Zeus Ikmaios (ἰκμᾰ́ς / ικμας / ικμάς (Ikmas) referring to ‘moisture’ (ref. ‘Pushya’, ‘Ardra’) – or, in other contexts, other kinds of liquidity … given the origins, we would impute such as that one might get from pertinent sorts of offering) – that is to say, the Altar is to Zeus the Moisture-Bringer, Zeus the Cloudy [and ref., perhaps, to Zeus Maimaktes => Zeus Meilichios : Zeus the Stormy (‘Rudra’) and Zeus the Entreatable / Able-To-Be-Propitiated (‘Zeus-Be-Nice-Now’, as James Davidson put it) : ‘Tishya’, indeed !] ; with this being done per the ἐφημοσύναις – the [religious] prescription (or ‘command’) of ἕκατος (‘Hekatos’), the ‘Far-Darter’ or ‘Far-Shooting’ … that is to say ‘Apollo’ (a justly-famed Archer).

We would suggest that archaically, the situation was better understood as the Sirius in question being a ‘Form’ or ‘Saliency’ for the aforesaid Zeus-Aspect; and, as we have explored elsewhere, Apollo as a Luwian (and broader IE Anatolian) Sky Father expression that has become ‘incorporated’ into the Hellenic milieu in somewhat changed position (c.f. exactly what appears to have happened viz. Sabazius – sometimes a Son of Zeus, other times quite directly Zeus Himself.

Certainly, given Rudra, Agni, Brihaspati, Tishya, etc. are All represented prominently as Archers in relevant contexts (with that ‘TriKanda’ (‘Three-Arrow’) of Rudra also being stated to be a Vajra via the Upasads ritual conceptry of SBr III 4 4, etc.; and c.f., most especially, that earlier point viz. Brihaspati’s Bowstring being Rta and His Arrows the Mantras / Invocations and the Ritual Operations of Offering, per RV II 24 8), the clear resonance of Apollo is most keenly felt – not least given the Solar (or otherwise Radiant) characterization as to various of the aforementioned (even the fact of Zoroastrian Tishtriya being a white horse of golden ears and raiment should seem pertinent here, also) and the similarly resonant dimension as to Poetry and Song (those essential ingredients as to Indo-European Rites) and the Teaching of Same, likewise.

Yet there is one final Combat that we have saved to last – and that is perhaps the most famous of them all. At least, amidst the Western Indo-European understandings.

So emblematic, in fact, that it has effectively ‘eclipsed’ in the minds of many that most overt expression of the Striker/Thunderer deific contra His demon-dragon prey within the Classical mythoi (that being Herakles / Hercules (and Iolaos / Iolaus – and, of course, the ultimate architect of Their Triumph, Athena / Minerva !) against the Hydra), to the point that you shall often hear people cite it as the simply direct cognate of Indra versus Vritra and ‘build out’ fundamentally flawed ‘Interpretatio’ frameworks hung saliently thereupon.

I am speaking, of course, of Zeus contra Typhon. And there is far Far too much that we might say about all of this for that which is supposed to be a brief overview’s (next-to-)conclusion!

Now at this juncture I must, I fear, prove a disappointment – as we shall not be exploring in any great depth (of verbiage nor conceptry) that particular combat herein. Because I tried doing that and it lead to about 71,000 words of sustained (and rather remarkable) comparative analysis in light of our Vedic and Iranic comparanda. So I’ve excised all of that out to run as a separate piece – and instead we’ll just present a few key ‘summary’ points for the combat to hold you over for now.

Effectively, if we take a step back and observe that which has come down to us via the likes of Hesiod, (Pseudo-)Apollodorus, and (Pseudo-)Hyginus … we see eminently familiar elements at play here. Even if they do appear to have ‘shifted somewhat’ in various ways amidst the Classical spheres. 

As we have said – when countenancing Brihaspati / Pushya / Tishya / Rudra , we are familiar with the notion that ritual is undertaken so as to enable the Thunderbolt / Meteor weapon He uses so as to slay the demon-dragon interloper and liberate the (Atmospheric) Waters and Moisture. In the Zoroastrian iteration, we hear of Tishtrya being empowered by a rite undertaken by Ahura Mazda for similar purpose. And as applies Zeus? 

Well, there are (at least) two occurrences which fit the typological pattern – both involving the ‘Ouranian’ Cyclopes. The first of these has Them handing Zeus His Weapon(s) – indeed, both One and Three of these, viz. Thunderbolt, and Thunder, Lightning, and Thunderbolt [Hesiod ‘just’ has Thunder and Thunderbolt – ” βροντήν” & ” κεραυνόν” – Theogony 141]; as well as outfitting Hades (with a Helmet – assumedly His ‘Invisibility’ veiling, although we might also ponder other ‘Dark’ Visages (of Death) in light of Rudra) and Poseidon (with His Trident) [Bibliotheca I 2 1]. Hades and Poseidon also being ‘Faces’ of the Sky Father – per our well-known Zeus Triophthalmos structure, in particular. 

The second has the Ouranian Cyclopes, per Pseudo-Hyginus (II 39) via way of (Pseudo-) Eratosthenes’ Catasterismi (XXXIX), being described as arranging the First Altar – where the Gods Swore Their common purpose and allegiance and made offering at the outset of the Divine campaign against the Titans. A vital and oft-overlooked additional detailing is supplied to us via the latter text (and more especially the Vatican fragments thereof) – to quote from Dr Theony Condos’ translation thereof : “The altar was constructed by the Cyclopes and had a cover over the flame so that the strength of the lightning bolt might not be visible [to Cronus].” The more recent Oxford edition of Eratosthenes & Hyginus as rendered by Robert Hard has it – “The Cyclopes had fashioned it, covering the flame to ensure that the power of the thunderbolt should not be seen.” 

This detail has, of course, puzzled commentators for quite some time. Hard notes that “[while] the Cyclopes forged the thunderbolt of Zeus […] it is not clear how this is connected with the altar”. Condos, meanwhile, suggests that “it appears that the author of The Constellations either drew his information from a source no longer extant, or, faced with an Eastern constellation figure for which no appropriate Greek myth could be found, resorted to his own imaginative powers.” While also observing that there’s a clear flaw with presuming that the Hellenic ‘Altar’ asterism (‘Thyterion’) is merely an assimilation of a “Euphratean altar-constellation” – noting that “the position of the Greek constellation did not correspond to that of its Euphratean counterpart, since the latter was located in the Claws of the Scorpion (Libra).” 

Well, we can reveal something groundbreaking (as per usual). Namely, that there is a direct and obvious concordancy between this detail we have attested per Eratosthenes … and that which is known to us from the Vedic sphere. Thus heavily implying an immensely archaic (shared) Indo-European that had been preserved and carried forward by both descendant peoples. 

Within the Vedic ritual structure of the Upasads (‘the Rites of Siege’) – we encounter the ‘construction’ or ‘imbuing’ of a (tripartite) Thunderbolt weapon (c.f. SBr III 4 4 (also III 4 2 & 3) / TS VI 2 2 – 3 / Ait. Br. I 23 – 25), which is (per the Taittiriya Samhita recension of the Rite) an Arrow fired by Rudra (VI 2 3 2) – the Dread Form of Agni. This action is undertaken, just as the Gods’ War against the Titans is, in order to drive out and into the space beyond worlds the Adversaries [Per Aitareya Brahmana I 23, Haug translation: “When They performed the first Upasad, They drove by it them (the A’suras) out from this World (the Earth). By the performance of the second, They drove them out of the Air, and by the performance of the third, out of the Sky. Thus they [the A’suras] were driven out of these worlds.” It is true that the Three Worlds of the Vedic reckoning – Earth, Mid-Atmosphere, and Heaven – are rather different to the customary Three Worlds / Realms understood from the Greek cosmology … but it is not irreconcilable, as we have demonstrated elsewhere. 

Now, we mention this observance due to the vitally important detail of the ‘Tanunaptra’ rite [ref. TS VI 2 2 ; Ait. Br. I 24 ; SBr III 4 2-3 ; etc.] – which in each recension’s presentation for the Upasads framework occurs at a ‘preliminary’ phase to the later unleashing as to the full force of the Thunderbolt and consequent ensuring Divine Victory. 

What is this ‘Tanunaptra’ element? It is the resolution of some evident dissention or disunity amidst the Gods (a situation which had been of obvious positivity for Their demonic foes) – which is settled via a coming together in formalized compact (the “Covenant of the Gods”, as Eggeling phrases it, witnessed, indeed, by the Sacred Flame) and the consecration of hallowed Oaths of allegiance. Indeed, more than ‘allegiance’ – ‘fraternity’ in its most literal sense. Kinship. [Haug quite sensibly chooses to interpret ‘Tanūnapāt’ [as at Ait. Br. I 24 for his commentary specifically – although the same term is also found in the other recensions] to communicate the rendering of the participants “bound by ties as strong as family ties. The term, therefore, means only : contracting of the closest relationship, brotherhood”.] 

The Offering-Fire is therefore ’empowered’ as the Force of All The Gods [and c.f. the later attested conceptry viz. Durga / Katyayani in a very similar such a regard]  – and both because it is Holy and also because it is Unity (co-operation, confederation, literally ‘Arya’ (‘Community’, ‘Fellowship’, ‘Sodality’) in its essence given the PIE root *h₂er- as ‘to put together’ – also the root for ‘Rta’ Itself), it is rendered the most secure defence and the implacable armament against the turgid demon-kind. As SBr III 4 2 8 puts it, per Eggeling’s translation: “It is through this that Their conquest, Their Glory is unassailable”. Or, as the Ait. Br. puts it (I 24) – “Thence the A’suras could not conquer Their (The Gods’) Empire (for They all had been made inviolable by this ceremony).” 

Now, to this we would additionally note that the relevant ‘underlying’ conceptry is rather ‘multipurpose’ in terms of its potent application within the realms of the Vedic Mythology: indeed, rather aptly, I can think of no fewer than three broad occurrences for it. The first of which, viz. TS VI 2 3 2, we have already noted. That being Rudra as Tripurantaka, as He would be hailed in later times – the Three Citadels of the Demons being, per Ait. Br. I 23, one of each World. For this, He is accorded the grand title of Pashupati (‘Lord of Beasts’ – but more properly ‘Lord of Domestic Animals’, and even more properly still … ‘Lord of Cattle’ – ‘Lord of Wealth’ (ref. the essential meaning of the term, cognate with Proto-Germanic *Fehu, etc.)).

The second is somewhat different – insofar as it utilizes the Tripartite Arrow, and is fired by Rudra, Who is accorded the Title of Pashupati for the deed … but is in this case shot at Prajapati; and resonated amidst the Stars as Ardra (Sirius) acting as Dread Sanction ‘gainst Mrgashira , with the Three Points (of Light) to the Arrow being what we in the West would call ‘Orion’s Belt’. This ‘maps’ onto – rather confusingly – both Zeus contra Kronos … but also, as we have demonstrated as applies the iteration of this understanding located in Ait. Br. III 33-34, onto Kronos contra Ouranos per Hesiod’s Theogony. (Not least given that Hesiod has the Weapon utilized in the latter encounter described as an adamantine (‘ἀδάμαντος’ –  unbreakable, unconquerable … Vajra-like, in several senses to the term) device, seemingly of ‘polios’ (‘πολιοῦ’ – whilst interprable as ‘Grey’ or ‘Grizzled’ or ‘Archaic’, we are interested by the sense of ‘Bright’ or ‘Clear’ also attachable to the term) appearance – and with some potentially intriguing prospects given the double-meanings around ‘Harpe’ (‘ἅρπη’) for not only a Sword) but also a flying thing, a Hawk …). Despite not being an expression of the Upasads in direct terms – we nevertheless mention it here due to a) the strong typological coterminities it shares with the Upasads conceptry proper ; and b) the obvious correlation with the major facet of the Titanomachy that the Altar of the Ouranian Cyclopes (and Their resultant Thunderbolt) is thusly connected to. 

The third is observed both within RV VI 16 34 – and, for our purposes, the ‘operationalization’ of this RigVedic Verse within the course of the Upasads, per Ait. Br. I 25. Therein, we hear of Agni as the Potent Slayer of Vritras [“aghnirvṛtrāṇi jaṅghanad” – it is May Agni Smite the Vrtras ; the ‘jaṅghanad’ there being a subjunctive of our old friend Han (हन्), from PIE *gʷʰen- [whence, as it happens, Modern English ‘Gun’] that also produces the iconic suite of ‘Smiting’ terminology associated with certain deifics across the Indo-European spectra of texts, and in particular reference to Their Acts of Dragon-Slaying]. And, swiftly after (again, as ‘operationalized’ within the context of Ait. Br. I 25), per RV VI 16 39 – Agni as the Furious / Fierce Archer (‘Ugra […] Śaryahā’ ; the latter term, more literally, being One Who Smites (‘Han’ again) With Arrows (‘Sharya’)), the Searing-Horned Bull (‘Tigmaśṛṅgo […] Vaṃsagaḥ – the ‘śṛṅgo’ referring to Horn, the ‘Tigma’ meaning ‘Sharp’, ‘Fiery’, ‘Impassioned’; Vaṃsaga being ‘Bull’ … ) Who Sunders (‘Rurojitha’) the Fortresses (‘Puro’) – those ‘Fortresses’ being the Triple-Forts targeted by Rudra within the course of the Upasads, as aforementioned. With Agni as both Smiter of Vrtras and Sunderer of Forts – we note that He is, therefore, a ‘Liberator From Enclosure’ twice over. And one of these is quite expressly a ‘Dragonslaying’.

(We might also, just briefly, make mention of the intriguing – and similarly Upasad-relevant – suite of conceptry at SBr XI 2 7 21-25 , wherein we encounter another Tripartite Divine Bombardment against the Demons, ritually congealed: that being the Thunderbolt (‘Ashani’ / अशनि , ‘That Which Consumes’),  the ‘Hail-Stone’ ( Hrāduni (ह्रादुनि) [and perhaps c.f. my previous speculation about the rune of *Hagalaz as Anti-Demonic Force in the (Elder) Futhark Runes …], and the Flaming Meteor (‘Ulkuṣī’ / उल्कुषी ). These being deployed in such a manner as to render the target either suddenly dead, covered in blood, or scorched all upon them. With the middle, in particular, perhaps recalling the details given by Apollodorous (Bibliotheca I 6 3) viz. Mt Haemus and its immense blood-flow as the stage of the Combat of Zeus against Typhon immediately prior to the ‘Volcanic’ conclusion and immediately following the Thunderbolt bombardment.)

In short – that point of Eratosthenes around the Fire-Altar of the Ouranian Cyclopes being utilized for both i) the Swearing of Oaths of Allegiance on the part of the Gods and ii) as the evident vehicle for the ‘power’ of the Thunderbolt (via which it might be invoked and therefore passed to Zeus, as the various texts proclaim the Ouranian Cyclopes to have done) is exactly that which we should anticipate finding.

Albeit with the interesting qualifier that the Hellenic sphere took things in a bit of a ‘different direction’ as applies the internal relationships of the adversaries thusly struck down with it. Insofar as what in the Vaidika understanding is opposition to Demons (and Vrtras as both a subset and a standalone of such) with a view to driving these from the Cosmos – has ‘mapped’ to both a) the Titans but also b) Typhon; whereas what in the Vedic perception is the castigation of Prajapati – i.e. a ‘standalone’ incident from the more general Anti-Demonic Aktion milieu aimed at A’suras, Rakshasas, etc. – is, in the Hellenic, effectively ‘read into’ the same situation and same protracted war-effort as the anti-Titan efforts. Yet in all cases, substantive coterminity of ritual – and mythic recurrence – conceptry should appear most readily apparent. Not least in terms of the Protagonist of the ultimate campaign and encounter(s). 

Yet there is a rather more curious ‘jumbling’ to be taken care of – and that is the one at evidence at Theogony 859-868. Rendered all the more curious as the circumstances in both the lines immediately prior (853-5) and following (869-880) are fundamentally concordant with that we should expect, given the circumstances (with one rather pointed partial-exception). 

What I mean by that, without going into too much expository detail (we shall save that for another piece) – is that the preceding lines (853-5) feature Zeus in a state of Furor (‘Menos’ (‘μένος’) – directly cognate in both form and function with ‘Manyu’, a rather prominent (and also pertinent in various fashions to another of the combats aforesaid) Facing as to Rudra) and equipped with His  familiar triple-weaponry of “βροντήν τε στεροπήν τε καὶ αἰθαλόεντα κεραυνόν” (Thunder, and [Star-]Flash of Lightning, and also Burning-Black (‘αἰθαλόεις’) Thunderbolt – smoke-trailing, perhaps? Like a Meteor?), charging through the air from Mt Olympos to burn (πίμπρημι) the heads of the demon, Typhon.

The subsequent lines (869-880) present the Winds and therefore the Moisture-bearing Air as flowing forth as the result of this Combat. Which, yes, much of a muchness with Yasht 8 8 etc. [and, interestingly, perhaps SBr III 4 2 – per the Eggeling translation, “Now the mighty Tanūnapāt indeed is yonder blowing (wind)”, etc.; TS VI 2 2 mentioning in similar capacaity “Him Who Rusheth On […] is the Breath”, per the Keith translation] – albeit with the difference being that, rather than wind and rain being the result of the Dragon having been Slain, as in the Indo-Iranic sphere (or, indeed, actively weaponized so as to facilitate the Dragon-Slaying) , and therefore fundamentally ‘Liberation’ … Hesiod, instead, has these violent winds emerging forth from Typhon. Perhaps it is due to their baleful and destructive effect that they had become conflated in this way with the Adversary to the encounter – and so, from the Dragon, not due to being liberated From him, but rather being emanated from him in enduring woe. As I say – this appears also to include quite directly the moisture-bearing ones (‘ἀνέμων μένος ὑγρὸν ἀέντων’ –  of winds (‘ἀνέμων’) blowing (‘ἀέντων’)  with fury (μένος), but also bearing moisture (ὑγρὸν – ὑγρός … ‘hugros’)) as being ‘ἐκ δὲ Τυφωέος’ (‘and from Typhon’). 

Meanwhile, the more favourable winds of Notos, Boreas, and Zephyros are delineated instead as being of Divine origin – an active and an overt demarcation that is not, it should seem, held necessary in the Indo-Iranic account wherein the releasing / unleashing of the elements held bound by the Demon-Dragon is more of an ‘unqualified’ good. Perhaps the maritime and naval dimensions (which are, after all, overtly specified by Hesiod here) to proceedings may have had an influence upon the Hellenic that was therefore quite different to that circumstance experienced by the more archaic Indo-Iranics that far back in their past and (less aquatic) geographical distribution. 

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note the detail at IV 551-555 of Quintus Smyrnaeus’ ‘Fall of Troy’, wherein the raging blasts of both Boreas and Notus at the outset of the Stormy Season are likewise seemingly linked to the easterly rising of ‘Θυτήριον’ (‘Thytirion’ – Thyterios) – that is to say, the asterism of ‘Ara’, ‘Altar’, as erected by the Cyclopes in a correlate observance to the Vedic Tanunaptra [ref. TS VI 2 2 ; Ait. Br. I 24 ; SBr III 4 2-3 ; etc.] .

Yet to return to the ‘bit in the middle’ between Zeus’ Dragon-Slaying and the unleashing of the Winds and Precipitation resultant therefrom … Lines 859-866 (perhaps also to 867-868) do something rather odd. In that they present a suite of decidedly metallurgical metaphory (ok, well, simile) for the impact and after-effect of Zeus’ Thunderbolt subduing Typhon. Why is this a bit curious? Simple. We would tend to anticipate that Hephaestus and metalworking would show up at the other end of the process – that is to say, when the Weaponry is being congealed and forged … not after it has been discharged. 

Of course, we might forgive Hesiod some flare for the dramatic – and certainly, the visuals he evokes with these phrasings do communicate a most powerful force, indeed; one which should seem therefore capable of overpowering even hardened metals and high melting temperatures – with consequent impacts upon the Demon. 

But he has, it would seem, contributed to a rather more large-scale ‘confluence’ occurrent with great emphasis in later times (c.f. Callimachus’ Third Hymn – to Artemis ; Virgil’s Aeneid VIII & Georgics IV ; Statius’ Silvae III; etc.) – that being the (re-)loka-lization of the whole thing to Mt. Aetna / Etna on Sicily. And the making quite explicit that the Ouranian Cyclopes are supposed to be there toiling to manufacture Divine Weaponry and other such wondrous artifice, along with Hephaestus, at the volcano itself. The volcano that’s supposedly there due to Typhon being under it, due to Zeus having dropped the Mountain down thereupon him. 

A moment’s consideration determines just how backwards this is. Although it has to be said – the notion of an active volcano as Fire Altar does have a certain panache to it. And, at least, the strong ‘association’ of the Thunderbolt’s production with such has been maintained – even if it has effectively become forgotten that the Altar aforementioned is what the Ouranian Cyclopes stand in station (as Priests, in essence – and c.f. my earlier work in relation to the ‘Solar Smith’ typology for such) at.  

Although perhaps we might more positively ponder the notion of the Altar-Fire in question as having Typhon within it as the sacrifice. But that is conjectural commentary for another piece, perhaps. 

Another possibility viz. Mt. Aetna’s saliency in proceedings – at least, archaically – is that the great mass of  rock with an immense towering pillar of acrid smoke out behind it and above … may, perhaps, have been felt to resemble the Meteor style weapon utilized in other iterations as to the myth. And which certainly would go with the ‘meteoric’ saliency which seems to accompany the Sirius situation per Yasht 8, etc. In that sense, the notion of the Meteor as Mountain having been hurled – well, it is continually emanating flame and the smoke of its transit and impact, a continual re-immanentization as to the myth; just as the Altar-Flame is most successfully felt To Be. 

The final point we would choose to make upon all of this – for now, at any rate – is in relation to the situation of seeming ‘co-occurrence’ for the Deed Itself, betwixt (Sky) Father and (Striking/(Also-)Thundering) Son. 

As cannot have escaped notice by now – various cases we have cited from the Vedic sphere in particular feature the Sky Father deific expressions engaged in the smiting of Vrtra or Vritras … despite this ostensibly being Indra’s Kill. 

It would be simple – and not inaccurate – to state that Vrtra can also mean another demon(-dragon) adversary than that specific figure slain by Indra. It would also be pertinent to note that it is a true ‘Combined Arms’ approach to ensure the killing of The Vrtra (hence, in part, why Vak – Saraswati is acclaimed also the station of Vrtraghni, for instance (c.f. RV VIII 100 – and also Athena vitally aiding Herakles & Iolaos in the Hydraslaying … notwithstanding that as a Celestial River also, well, She most definitely does smash through obstructions of the Waters’ Flow in more general terms, too). 

Yet this does not explain those circumstances wherein both Indra and another theonymic are invoked as the Dragon-Destroyers within the same verse or verses. Something that is also only partially explicable via situations such as ‘Brihaspati’ / ‘Brahmanaspati’ also being interprable as a ‘title’ or ‘role’ (a Lord of the High Speech, indeed) and potentially upon occasion applied also to Indra. 

Instead, the best explanation for various of these is that when we are dealing with metaphysically potent liturgies … they are metaphysically potent liturgies. And they are quite deliberately constructed in such a way as to maximize their power. Which can involve ‘weaving together’ mutually reinforcing and significantly congruent / coterminous narrative elements so as to really ‘focus’ and ‘charge’ or ‘strengthen’ the invocation in question, including via drawing from differing ‘flavours’ to produce synergistic outcomes. It is not entirely removed from the manner in which the metal of a sword is not simply a single ingot that has been flattened and then sharpened – but rather, the ‘folding together’ of multiple layers, and ‘pattern welding’ of different inputs not merely for aesthetic value (or even to homogenize the steel thusly involved) but for qualitative improvements enabled via the ‘piled’ construction’s placement of different irons with different properties where they could best make their strongest style of contribution. All in the same blade. 

This, in essence, brings things most curiously ‘full circle’ – insofar as we have extolled the mythic occurrence of Mantras, Rites as Weapons capaciously throughout this piece; and now it turns that the apt way to analyze mantra construction is via a decidedly ‘as-weapons’ analysis. 

We shall therefore, for the moment, call a halt here, I think. Not that this is all we intend to say upon the subject(s) capaciously raised above – it most certainly isn’t. And there are some decidedly exciting potential developments that we have uncovered and yet had to excise from the drafting of this manuscript for future exploration in due course. But it shall (hopefully) do for now. 

And serve – as intended – as a yet-further demonstration as to both the essential ‘aligned’ underpinnings to the pan-Indo-European mythos ; and the resounding, resonant Glory of Him Above. 

Whether as Constellation – Whether as Planet 

Whether via Astra or via अस्त्र (‘Astra’) 

And Whether Reigning or Raining 

We Hail that most Pervasive of Indo-European Deifics:

The Sky Father.