With the Shaivite Holy Month of Shravan Maas in full (indeed, double!) swing, it seems apt to detail a potentially remarkable Indo-European concordancy between the Nakshatra (Asterism) of Śravaṇa (aka Śroṇa ) and the Hellenic perception of same.

Depicted upon this star-chart (sourced from Manasataramgini) is the constellation of Aquila in Western / Hellenic terms. The Eagle. The three stars at top left [α, β, γ Aquilae] are those of Shravana in Hindu terms. Each Nakshatra has associated theology and characterization – in this case, from the Taittiriya Brahmana :

“(7 a) They (the people, or the holy men) hear Srona, the guardian of the beverage of immortality.
I hear her holy voice. To the great goddess (Sroni), Visnu’s wife, who is not subject to old age, we offer the oblation, as she is turned towards us.
(7 b) Triply wide-paced Visnu strode through the great sky, the earth, and the atmosphere.
 So Sroni (who is his wife and his Naksatra) goes, wishing for fame, creating pure glory for the Sacrificer.”
[III 1 2; DuMont translation]

Now, consider the recurrent typology of the Brahmanas [one of several], around the obtaining of the Soma … featuring the Gayatri in Raptor form. To quote a few exemplars:

“9 He takes it out, with the text (Vāj. S. V, 1), ‘Thou art Agni’s body,–thee (I take) for Viṣṇu!’ the Gāyatrī is Agni: to Gāyatrī he thus assigns her share.

10 ‘Thou art Soma’s body,–thee for Viṣṇu!’ Soma is the nobility, and the Triṣṭubh is the nobility: to Triṣṭubh he thus assigns her share.

11 ‘Thou art the guest’s hospitable entertainment,–thee for Viṣṇu!’ This is his (Soma’s) special share: as there is a special share for a chief, so is this his special share apart from the metres.

12 ‘Thee for the Soma-bearing falcon! thee for Viṣṇu!’ thereby he assigns to Gāyatrī her share. Because Gāyatrī, in the form of a falcon, carried off Soma from the sky, therefore she is the Soma-bearing falcon: in virtue of that heroic deed he now assigns to her a second share.

13 ‘Thee for Agni, the bestower of prosperity! thee for Viṣṇu!’ Prosperity means cattle, and the Jagatī (the moving, living one) means cattle: to Jagatī he thereby assigns her share.

14 Now as to his taking five times;–the sacrifice is of equal measure with the year, and five seasons there are in the year: the latter he gains in five (divisions);–for this reason he takes five times. And as to his taking it with ‘For Viṣṇu (I take) thee! for Viṣṇu thee!’ it is because he who takes out (material) for the sacrifice, takes it for Viṣṇu.

15 It is a sacrificial cake on nine potsherds;–for the guest-offering is the head of the sacrifice, and the Gāyatrī consists of nine syllables: eight (syllables) are those he recites and the sacred syllable[8] is the ninth; and the Gāyatrī is the fore-part of the sacrifice[9], and so is that (cake) the fore-part of the sacrifice: therefore it is a cake on nine potsherds.”
[Shatapatha Brahmana III 4 1, Eggeling translation]

“10 ‘Thee for the Soma-bearing falcon!’ this he metes out for Gāyatrī.–‘Thee for Agni, the bestower of growth of wealth!’ Now Agni is Gāyatrī: he metes this out for Gāyatrī. And since Gāyatrī, as a falcon, fetched Soma from heaven, therefore she is (called) the Soma-bearing falcon: for that prowess of hers he metes out (for her) a second portion.

11 Now as to why he metes out five times,–the sacrifice is of the same measure as the year, and there are five seasons in the year: he takes possession of it in five (divisions); hence he metes out five times.

12 He touches it with (Vāj. S. VI, 33), ‘What light of thine there is in the heavens, O Soma, what on earth, and what in the wide air, therewith make wide room for this sacrificer, for his prosperity: speak thou for the giver!’ Now when he (Soma) first became sacrificial food for the gods, he thought within himself, ‘I must not become sacrificial food for the gods with my whole self!’ Accordingly he deposited those three bodies of his in these worlds.

13 The gods then were victorious. They obtained those bodies by means of this same (formula), and he became entirely the sacrificial food of the gods. And in like manner does this (priest) now thereby obtain those bodies of his, and he (Soma) becomes entirely the food of the gods: this is why he thus touches it.”
[SBr III 9 4; Eggeling translation] 

“The wife (of the sacrificer) holds on (to the cart); for the wife is mistress of the household gear; verily he offers what is approved by the wife. The share of the wife in the sacrifice makes a pair; so the wife also [1] grasps the sacrifice that it may not be interrupted. With whatever retinue the king comes, to all of them hospitality is offered; the metres are the retinue of King Soma. ‘Thou art the hospitality of Agni. For Visnu thee!’ he says; thus he offers (hospitality) to the Gayatri. ‘Thou art the hospitality of Soma. ‘For Visnu thee!’ he says; thus he offers (hospitality) to the Tristubh. ‘Thou art the hospitality of the stranger. For Visnu thee!’ he says; thus he offers (hospitality) to the Jagati [2]. ‘For Agni thee, giver of wealth, for Visnu thee!’ he says; thus he offers (hospitality) to the Anustubh. ‘For the eagle, bringer of the Soma, thee, for Visnu thee!’ he says; thus he offers (hospitality) to the Gayatri. He offers five times. The Pankti has five syllables, the sacrifice is fivefold; verily he wins the sacrifice. The theologians say, ‘For what reason is the Gayatri offered to on either side of the offering of hospitality?’ Because the Gayatri brought the Soma down [3];”
[Tattiriya Samhita VI 2 1; Keith translation] 

[Note that  it’s still ‘Shyena’ there, Keith’s translation has ‘Eagle’ for it – elsewhere one usually sees it rendered ‘Falcon’, ‘Eagle’; and, of course, this is that famed Form of Agni that we shall once again be meeting shortly herein]

Now let’s jump over to the Classical realm … this is from Condos’ translation of i) Eratosthenes’ Catasterismi , ii) (Pseudo-)Hyginus’ Poeticon Astronomicon detailing the Classical lore around the asterism.

“The Constellations 30
This is the Eagle which brought Ganymede to Heaven to be the cupbearer of Zeus. The Eagle is among the stars because earlier, when the Gods were casting lots for the various birds, the Eagle fell to Zeus. 
It is the only bird which flies toward the Sun, not bowing to the Sun’s Rays and it holds first place among the birds. This constellation represents the Eagle with wings outspread as if in downward flight. 
Aglaosthenes says in his Naxica that Zeus, after His Birth on Crete, was sought out [by His Father] and twice carried away. He was subsequently removed from Crete and brought to Naxos, where He was raised. 
When He came of age, He gained the overlordship of the Gods. As He was leaving Naxos to go against the Titans, an Eagle appeared at His Side. Zeus accepted the Omen and adopted the Eagle as His Own Bird. 
For this reason, the Eagle was deemed worthy of honor in the Heavens. 
The Eagle is comprised of four stars [α, β, ζ, τ] of which the central star [α] is bright.

Poetic Astronomy 2.16
This is the Eagle said to have snatched up Ganymede and delivered him to his lover, Jupiter. Jupiter was said to have singled out this bird from all the race of birds. According to tradition, this is the only bird that tries to fly against the rays of the rising sun; it appears to be flying above Aquarius, for many identify that constellation with Ganymede. 
Some say that there was a certain Merops, who reigned over the island of the Coans, and that he named the island Cos after his daughter, and its inhabitants Meropians, after himself, Merops had a wife, Ethemea, who was descended from the race of Nymphs. When she ceased to worship Diana, Diana shot her with arrows, but she was carried away, still alive, by Proserpina to the Underworld. Merops, moved by longing for his wife, wished to kill himself, but Juno pitied him and placed him among the stars, transforming his body into an eagle – for if She had placed him there in the shape of a man, he would have retained his human memory and continued to long for his wife. 
However, Aglaosthenes, who wrote the Naxica, says that Jupiter was spirited away from Crete and carried to Naxos where He was raised. Later, when He attained manhood and wished to destroy the Titans in War, an Eagle appeared to Him while He was Sacrificing; He accepted this Omen and placed the Eagle among the Stars. 
Some, however, say that Mercury – others claim it was Anaplades – struck by the beauty of Venus, fell in love with Her, and when She would give Him no chance, became dispirited, as if having been disgraced. Jupiter pitied Him and, when Venus was bathing in the river Achelous, sent an Eagle that carried away Her Sandal to Amythaonia in Egypt and handed it over to Mercury. Seeking Her Sandal, Venus came to the One Who Desired Her, and He, on obtaining what He desired, placed the Eagle in the Firmament in exchange for the service rendered. 
The figure has one star on the head [τ] ; one on each wing [α, β]; one on the tail [ζ].” 

Now there are, of course, a great many specific details within the above which might command our attention in light of Vedic comparanda. 

We should prove particularly compelled to note the detail given in Eratosthenes – “As He [i.e. Zeus] was leaving Naxos to go against the Titans”; and in (Pseudo-)Hyginus as “Later, when He [Zeus] attained manhood and wished to destroy the Titans in War, an Eagle appeared to Him while He was Sacrificing”.

Why?

Because as we have demonstrated earlier (check our ‘On The Sky Father As Dragon Destroyer’), there is strong coherence between the Vedic presentation of the Upasads rite and Zeus in His preparatory ritualistic operations against the Titans. 

And if we cast our attentions back to that lengthy excerpt from Shatapatha Brahmana III 4 1 which hinges around that occurrence for “Gāyatrī, in the form of a falcon, carried off Soma from the sky,” well where’s SBr III 4 1 from ? Oh, that’s right – the early phase to the Upasads rite. Things fit together …

We might also seek to draw attention to that observation from Eratosthenes that “It is the only bird which flies toward the Sun, not bowing to the Sun’s Rays and it holds first place among the birds”; or, as (Pseudo-)Hyginus puts it – “this is the only bird that tries to fly against the rays of the rising sun”. 

Why? 

Because if one considers the operation of the Gayatri Mantra – The Gayatri Mantra – as well as in various of the Gayatri style invocations elsewhere … well, that is effectively that which She Does. Goes Up, to the Sun (the Source), in order to bring back the empowerment to us here. 

We might also contemplate that detail given by (Pseudo-)Hyginus concerning the Goddess Diana shooting that Wife of Merops (‘Mankind’ – assumedly more literally, ‘Mortals’), Ethemea (elsewhere, Euthemia – ‘Good’ (Eu) ‘Thumos’ … and this being a quite a multifaceted Ancient Greek word that I would wonder as to the more archaic still ‘Smoke’ senses being at least as pertinent as the ‘Soul’ / ‘Character’ of the more recent form, for this occurrence). 

Merops, as we have previously contemplated, can correlate to Manu – c.f. the passing mention in the Protrepticus [‘Exhortation’ … to leave the ancestral Greek religion, and become Christian] of Clement of Alexandria:

“I cannot help wondering, therefore, what delusive fancies could have led astray those who were the first to be themselves deceived, and the first also, by the laws they established for the worship of accursed daemons, to proclaim their superstition to mankind.
I mean such men as the well-known Phoroneus, or Merops, or others like them, who set up temples and altars to the daemons, and are also said in legend to have been the first to offer sacrifices.”
[III 38, Butterworth translation]

Diana, here, is Rudra – or, more precisely, is Kṛśānu (‘[Who] Bends The Bow’, The Archer) : and with that light, RV IV 27 3 makes for intriguing reading: 

“When with loud cry from heaven down sped the Falcon, thence hasting like the wind he bore the Bold One.
Then, wildly raging in his mind, the archer Kṛśānu aimed and loosed the string to strike him.”
[Griffith translation]

Although ‘Bold One’ is a rather unexpected translation for Puraṃdhi – it is perhaps for others to more aptly unpack the meaning, but we are interested to observe ‘Wisdom’ / ‘Understanding’, ‘Liberality’, ‘Bearing Fulness’, ‘Bounteous’, and (perhaps figuratively) ‘Woman’ / ‘Wife’ in amidst the potential definitions. Nyāyaratnasiṃha informs me that the commentaries hold ‘Purandhi’ to refer to the Soma there, as it happens, as well. 

A similar accounting is found at SBr I 7 1 1:

“When the Gâyatrî flew towards Soma (the Moon), a footless archer aiming at her while she was carrying him off, severed one of the feathers (parna) either of the Gâyatrî or of king Soma ; and on falling down it became a parna (palâsa) tree; whence its name parna. May that which then was of the Soma nature be here with us now!’ so he thinks”
[Eggeling translation]

Given the notion of the Priest as ‘Husband’ to the Divine Speech [viz. ‘Vachaspati’, etc.] attested elsewhere within the Vedic Ritual Metaphysics, and with Manu as template for the priest as well (and c.f. other elements in relation to the ‘Wife of the Sacrificer’ conceptry) – it is not hard to see how all of this might plausibly fit together in a manner which underpins that fable reported to us by (Pseudo-)Hyginus. 

A further point of comparative interest concerns (Pseudo-)Hyginus’ notation of Ganymede being identified with Aquarius. This, in Hindu terms, is Shatabisha – in Iranic, Satavaesa. 

We mention this due to the intriguing saliency for the asterism in relation to Sirius in the course of the Zoroastrian Yasht 8 – and how this might align with what we had observed viz. the role for Aquila in connexion with Zeus’ heading to fight the Titans in our earlier work (‘On The Sky Father As Dragon Destroyer‘). 

And, whilst it is not so overtly stated in either of the astronomical texts of the Classical milieu quoted in translation above – the situation of Ganymede’s eternal youth does seem to potentially ‘resonate’ with that detailing given in Tait. Br. III 1 2 7, viz. Srona being “not subject to old age”. 

Yet if we are to speak as to the ‘detailing’ of Ganymede … there is, of course, a bit of an ‘elephant in the room’. That being the …  curious descriptions of Ganymede as a ‘lover’ of Zeus.

To quote from an earlier work of mine (‘On Gods, Rindr, and ‘Gotcha’ – An Investigation Of An Account Of Saxo Grammaticus In Light Of Vedic Comparanda‘) that happens to but briefly touch upon the subject:

“However, in other cases, it is necessary to apply what we might term an exegetical perspective – a critical inquiry into the actual presentation of the narrative instance in question, to see what might really have been going on beneath the surface.

One example for why this might be necessary comes to us from antiquity – in the form of Ganymede’s situation. Various people down the ages have brought it up and claimed that this implicates Hellenic Divinity in, to use the rather directly descended term, “pederasty”.

It is certainly a charge that ‘resonates’ with the cliched “moral degenerates armed with with olive oil” stereotype that some anti-Hellenic (or even, more broadly, anti-Mediterranean IE cultus / civilization all up) sorts seem to wish to project out upon the Classical sphere.

Except closer inspection reveals a decided lack of support for such a narrative element being found in the actual Hellenic religious canon of texts. What we instead find are people wilfully overreading things, or bolting on in later times elements that seem calculated to titillate with disgust a Christianizing audience.

Indeed, no less a personage than Plato quite pointedly observes in his ‘Laws’ that there was a broad Athenian (and, presumably, well-known also further afield) perception that the ‘pederastic’ dimension was a) a corruption of the actual and authentic mythology, which was b) localized to Crete specifically, due, it would seem, to c) an alleged desire on the part of the Cretans to try and give post-facto moral sanction to an occurrence in their own local culture.

In other words – it’s not a good criticism of Hellenic divinity to hurl against Them the deed misattributed to They by corrupted mortal minds down here instead. And if one has issue with the conduct contained within the charge-sheet – the appropriate figures to castigate for it are those aforementioned men (of Crete, in this case) rather than the Gods or broader (and more authentic) religious sphere. “

You can also find a fellow Hindu’s take upon the matter – the sage Angiras – in this thread of his, here:

Now, see this other 'argument'. The implied reference seems, most probably, to be about the story of Ganymede, a beautiful youth lifted up to heaven by Zeus in the form of an eagle so that he may assume the office of the Gods' cup-bearer to pour nectar & ambrosia for them. pic.twitter.com/NoHSjk616t

— āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha (@GhorAngirasa) December 27, 2019

Of course, the suite of revelations that we are seeking to unpack here could potentially open up the countenancing of another (and not necessarily (mutually) exclusive) explication as to what has occurred here – and more upon this in due course. 

First, let us consider that which is bound up within the beautiful sculpture of Ganymede and Zeus in Aquila form [Bertel Thorvaldsen, 1817] which we have also chosen to illustrate this piece. 

It should seem to me that this both conveys a more broadly attested typology – as well as its reverse.

What do i mean by this ?

Here’s the ‘general’ typology as we have previously elucidated it: 

“Odin in Eagle form brings the Mead of Poetry (Kvasir – ‘That Which Is Pressed’; has 3 Vessels);”

“Agni in Shyena [‘Falcon’/’Hawk’] form brings the Soma (‘That Which Is Pressed’; has 3 Vessels);”

This, we have previously suggested to evince a pervasive Indo-European mythic and ritualized perception for the Sky Father having a Raptor (Eagle / Falcon / Hawk) Form that is, likewise, linked with the bearing / bringing for the Empowering Elixir [Soma / Kvasir / (Ambrosia Nectar) ].

It is not hard to see how a generalized notion of : “the Aquila constellation is an Eagle associated with Zeus’ Cup-Bearing , Shravana is Three Stars [located at the tail / feet thereof]” should fit within this broader rubric. 

However prior to this, our main attempt at divining the typological expression within the Hellenic sphere has been sourced from Book XIX of the Iliad – wherein we hear of Athena, in ‘falcon’ (‘ ἅρπῃ ‘ – ‘Harpe’) form (and with an interesting qualifier of ‘ λιγυφώνῳ ‘-  ‘ligyphono’ – being ‘clear-voiced’) swooping down from Heaven (at Zeus’ Mighty Behest) to bear ‘Nectar’ and ‘Ambrosia’ to the hero Achilles.

It is intriguing to observe that Achilles, whilst under the influence of such Divine Empowerment, is compared in rather overt terms to a Star – and more specifically, the ‘Dog of Orion’ (‘ κύν᾽ Ὠρίωνος ‘), that is to say, Sirius. 

And we say that it is ‘intriguing’, in light of that other saliency for Sirius – as the Sky Father identified with Sirius (ref. Tisya / Pusya etc.) going to war against a demonic opposition, and with this also proving part of the same underlying sphere of conceptry linking to the aforementioned Upasads, as we have detailed capaciously elsewhere. 

Of course, to bring it back to Achilles more directly – Nectar and Ambrosia correlate well with our Vedic Amrit. In the case of Nectar, its effective literal meaning (‘Carrying Through Death’ – ‘Nec’, like ‘Necromancy’, etc.; the latter part, akin to Sanskrit  तार (‘taar’) , as in ‘carry through’) is of obvious coterminity for the ‘Un-Dying’ labelling; in the case of Ambrosia – as we say, it is quite directly a linguistic as well as functional cognate for ‘Amrit’ . 

The Amrit, as you may recall, per Tait. Br. III 1 2 7 being ‘guarded / shepherded’ (‘Gopā́m’) by Shrona – and also, implicitly correlating with the great Glory (both ‘śráva’ and ‘púṇyam̐’) that is ‘created’ (‘kr̥ṇvatī́ ‘) by Her for the sacrificer (‘ yájamānāya ‘). Evidently, in the case of Achilles – this ‘Glory’ is most definitely also of the ‘Undying’ variety …  κλέος ἄφθιτον (‘Kleos Aphthiton’), or as we might say in Vedic Sanskrit, Śravas Akṣitam ;

‘Glory’ achieved, indeed, through the ’empowerment’ thusly bestowed to the Hero upon Raptors’ (wide-spread – τανυπτέρυγι / tanypterygi ) Wings.

Now, those paying close and careful attention shall have observed something interesting here. Namely, that Athena’s role appears to have some degree of resonancy with both that situation of the Sky Father … as well as, perhaps, that situation of the (female) Nakshatra / Gayatri engaged in comparable acts. 

This is, oddly enough, somewhat as we ought to anticipate. As we have pointed out recurrently – in many ways, Athena frequently seems to ‘draw from’ two underlying Indo-European deific complexes : these being both the Sky Father (ref. Rudra etc.), but also that around Vak Devi. 

It is not our intent, herein, to meaningfully discuss this phenomenon – we have done so quite capaciously in our other, previous works upon the subject. 

Instead, let us move forward – and back to the pertinent Hindu metaphysics & ritual theology. Wherein we have, it should seem, a bit of a ‘double-up’.

At some points it is Agni Who as a Raptor ‘gets’ the Soma (and c.f. the circumstance as to the Agnicayana rite and its ‘Fire-Bird’ altar) ; at others, it is Gayatri (i.e. the Metre – & therefore, the Liturgy).

There are various points that could be deployed, herein, to attempt to reconcile the scenarios – Agni identified as Gayatri, for instance (SBr I 8 2 13 & 15); or Eggeling’s annotation at I 8 2 15, which observes that it is specifically “Agni Svishtakrit, the recipient of the third after-offering […] , as we saw, regarded as representing the gâyatrî metre.” (the latter situation of particular interest viz. Rudra)

However, given the decidedly feminine characterization for Shravana as applies the Nakshatra at issue here, as contrasted with the overtly (and definitely) masculine understanding viz, Agni(-Rudra) (and Odin, etc.) – such a ‘squaring of the circle’ is perhaps unnecessary.

Instead, we would simply observe that this is a case of – as applies the ritualistic understandings that we are expounding all of this out of – 

Same ‘vehicle’, different ‘operational elements’ … via which we mean : the Raptor Form, i.e. the ‘Vehicle’ that goes ‘up’ and back to obtain the empowerment in question, is correlate with and a vector of expression for , several different (yet overlapping) ‘operational elements’ that can be necessary for this obtainment to occur; with these likewise being ‘active expressions’ or ‘ritual correlates’ for relevant different Divinities. Who nevertheless do have significant active engagement within both ritualistic as well as mythic & broader theological terms. 

Where are we going with all of that?

Well, as applies Ganymede – it would seem plausible that the situation observed viz. Ganymede may have resulted from a jumbling up, a confusion in ‘popular recounting’ as to the details related to this ‘double-up’.

And hence – we go from a scenario wherein there is a male deific [the Sky Father] in Raptor form getting the Elixir / a female deific correlate with Speech (for obvious reasons) in Raptor form getting the Elixir (‘Bearing the Vessel’ or ‘Cup’, indeed), and with the female deific involved potentially having underlying romantic linkage to the Sky Father (c.f. Vak and also , perhaps , Gunnlöð ? ) …

… Through to the Classical scenario wherein by the time all of this gets to the (garbled) ‘popular-mythology’, we have an Eagle (Sky Father correlate) and a Cup-Bearer, both male, and some suggestions from some quarters of an amorous connexion between the two. 

Indeed, another way to look at it might be via more directly seeking to correlate ‘Ganymede’ to ‘Soma’ within this framework. Certainly, we have an Eagle bearing Ganymede to the intended destination – just as we have the Shyena that transports the Soma. 

Whilst it might be tempting to contemplate whether the circumstance of ‘Shravana”s meaning might resonate fairly directly with the likely etymology of ‘Ganymede’ – viz. ‘Glad + Medea’ – γάνος (‘Ganos’) can also mean ‘Brightness’.

And so, with the famously ‘bright’ (rhetorical) characteristic of the Elixir in mind … a ‘Design / Plan / Counsel’ [μήδεα] for this ‘Brightness’ [γάνος] (i.e. a Rite for the obtaining of such) might indeed make capacious sense as both an interpretation for ‘Ganymede’ as well as a ‘bridging reconciliation’ towards ‘Soma’. Or perhaps it could be reasonably approached the other way – with the ‘Bright Medea’, as a ‘brightener’ and ‘gladdener’ of the mind via the mental engagement connoted via the μήδεα particle. Or, for that matter, with μήδεα in relation to measurement – that which is measured out, apportioned, as at a sacral occasion to participants thereat. 

There is, of course, much more that we can say about various points in relation to the above (and various areas things could be ‘tightened up’ – incl. around the sense for Vishnu meant in the Tait. Br. verse aforementioned in ritualistic contex) –

But for now … we shall just observe the remarkable concordancy seemingly in evidence – and quietly note that once again, the “they just got it from Mesopotamia through cultural contact” explanation falls short for a Classical (and broader IE) understanding.