I’d recently been tagged in a post commenting upon the (Proto-)Indo-European Dawn Goddess [said deific underpinning the Hellenic figure of Eos – beautifully rendered here by Yliade], which had borne the following line: 

“She was probably the child of the Dyēus Phter, the Sky-Father .”

And, me being me, this precipitated a rather … extended reply.

In short (ha) –

I would disagree (somewhat).

Insofar as we have rather good evidence to have a deific associated with Dawn as the Wife of the Sky Father.

So, for instance SBr [I 7 4] has the Goddess improperly advanced upon by Prajapati (and defended / avenged by Rudra) referred to viz. “Divaṃ Oṣasaṃ” [‘Sky [or] Dawn’, to quote the Eggeling translation], and Ait. Br. II 33 1 has “Divam […] Uṣasam” [‘Heaven [or] Dawn’, to quote Haig’s translation].

We might also make reference to the detailings at Vishnu Purana I 8 , Brahmanda Purana II 10, Markandeya Purana LII, etc., for obvious reasons. [i.e. literally ‘detailing Names / Forms for Rudra’s Wife’ – and with ‘Usha(s)’ style nomenclature justifiably prominent amidst Them]

In Nordic terms this would provide some tentative support to the concept of Freyja (Odin’s Wife – a Form / Facing thereof) upon a typological basis as plausibly somewhat ‘Dawn’ related also [although I’m … not going to get into the rather extensive backs-and-forth upon that notion which one encounters from time to time; viz. the potential linkage of Freyja & Eostre that is occasionally remarked upon especially ]

As applies a ‘confirmation’ of sorts for the underlying typology, an interesting occurrence may be observed in Ovid, wherein we behold what should seem to be Aurora referred to via “Pallantis” [Fasti IV 373] and “Pallantias” [Metamorphoses IX 421] … with these being patronymics – ‘Of Pallas’. Which we would as applies ‘Pallas’, for obvious reasons, identify with the (not Zeus / Jupiter) slain father-figure of Minerva noted by Cicero in his De Natura Deorum [III 59], viz. “Pallantis”. [i.e. clearly, the Father of Minerva in this archaic myth is not the Sky Father … because the Sky Father ain’t a) Dead, b) having His skin being worn as a rather remarkable fashion statement (c.f., as it should happen, Rudra’s ‘Krittivasa’ hailing – something of Vedic antiquity, and which, as applies its SBr II 6 2 17 occurrence (” kṛttivāsā”) within the context of the Tryambakah Rite (‘Tritogeneia’, indeed!) … I have previously observed to resonate downright suspiciously well with the offering of a fleece in coterminous context to Zeus Meilichios [‘Zeus-Be-Nice-Now’, as Davidson usefully figuratively rendered it; the ‘Shiva’ Face relative to the Roudran Zeus ‘Maimaktes’] during Maimakterion at the Crossroads (“τριόδους” – i.e. τρίοδος in acc.; a rather amusing homophone, certainly, given τριόδους as tri-odous, as in trident; )] 

The situation of both Minerva (per that aforementioned myth) and Aurora as evidently sharing a paternal figure continues the typological attestations for Minerva (ref. ‘Manyu’) mapping well onto Rudra. Placing Minerva & Aurora as ‘siblings’ of a sort (it’s uh … complicated in terms of what the Vedic situation tells us as to ‘how/why’ of the Emanation in question for the Avenging deific with relation to notions like ‘paternity’ in the human sense) would assumedly resonate also with Ambika as ‘Svasā’ (स्वसा – ‘Sister’) of Rudra [viz. SBr II 6 2 9; VS III 57; Tait. Br. I 6 10 4, etc.], and especially in light of the aforementioned occurrence for (an) Ushas / Diva in the position highlighted in later attestations as Rudra’s Wife (c.f. Aditi relative to Dyaus, Whom Rudra, of course, Is).

That is: this therefore quite logically has the Pallas aforementioned in the place of Prajapati.

And, likewise, in one of the two recensions (well, ‘double-up’, really) for the relevant underpinning IE myth which one finds in Hesiod etc. – Aphrodite’s origination from Ouranos where Kronos has done to Ouranos something suspiciously resemblant to what happens to Prajapati at Rudra’s Hand per Ait. Br. III 33 … you see how it fits together. (The other version / expression, being, of course, Zeus with regard to Kronos – mapping quite handily onto that circumstancce found at SBr IX 1 1 6 onwards .. the stone ‘representation’ for the ‘Infant Zeus’ bearing a distinct resemblance to a ShivLing, etc., as well – and yes, this is also where the more ‘conventional’ Athena ‘origin myth’ has a degree of resonancy; suggesting quite a confusion / conflation to have somehow occurred in at least one corner of the Classical world – perhaps as a way to ‘reconcile’ both Athena/Minerva and Zeus/Jupiter being (in these regards) saliently co-expressive for the same underlying deific complex yet co-occurrent within the same pantheonic perspective [I won’t go into detail attesting the ‘how’ on said ‘co-expressive’ bit because this is already a much lengthier comment than initially intended, but suffice to say it’s a thing one finds seemingly remarked upon even within Greco-Roman textual materials, even before we get to the comparative IE theology upon the matter])

One would also make reference for the belief reccounted by Hyginus [Astronomica II 42] wherein Juno is linked to the planet Venus (i.e. the Morning/Evening Star – indeed ‘Eous’ being rather directly invoked there as a name for such). [Which would also – well, ‘Frigg’s Day’ for that of Venus, would likewise potentially concord with the typology viz. Odin : that is, His Wife, linked again to the Dawn-correlate celestial body and accompanying Day of the Week] 

Now, as applies ‘Child of Dyaus Pitar’ [yes, I’m using Sanskrit to sub in for the Proto-Indo-European – it’s 02:37 in the morning at time of writing; Dawn is still a few hours away yet and i’m up late, so just go with it] …

The main thing cited in this regard would assumedly be RV I 113 7. And yeah, sure, that does appear to present the Dawn as “duhitā” (दुहिता – ‘Daughter’) of ‘Div-‘. 

Except here’s the thing. 

RV I 113 19 also makes reference for Aditi as being Dawn (or, more precisely, the Face of Aditi – “Aditer Anīkaṃ”: quite logical for the Radiant Queen of the Heavens); Dawn, indeed, as Mother of the Gods (“Mātā Devānām”). [And the situation viz. East as the orientation for the Vedic Ritual Enclosure – as with, ideally, the Roman religious undertaking, per Vitruvius [De Architectura IV 5 1 & 9] – well, that great/lofty [“bṛhatī”] ‘banner’ [“ketur”] (or, if you prefer, ‘signposting’) for the illuminating [“vi bhāhi”] the direction for the Yajna [“yajñasya”] … there is a ‘Vesta’ / ‘Janus’ point which I should make in an upcoming piece. I digress] 

Aditi, as noted earlier, that Wife of the Sky Father. 

So what’s going on? 

Well, there are a few possibilities, with regard to RV I 113 7. One is that the ‘Daughter of Shining-Sky’ is intended to be figurative – a situation of being contingent / dependent upon, resultant from … rather than a literal statement of paternity. It would not be, to my mind, entirely unprecedented. 

Another is that it’s not a statement of paternity – there are, per A.A. Macdonell’s reference of von Bradke, reportedly something like twenty instances wherein what looks like it’s a ‘Dyaus’ (as in, ‘masculine’ Shining-Sky / Heaven) within the RV, is in fact rather a feminine iteration instead. 

A third possibility is that which is suggested for us via the ever-helpful actual Hindu commentaries upon the verse. Both Skandasvāmin and Veṅkaṭamādhava (so the learned Nyāyaratnasiṃha informs me) reportedly do not have the ‘Div-‘ at RV I 113 7 as indicative of a deity, but instead to be read basically as the plane or locale. [There are some additional points which the scholar had brought to my attention viz. an occurrence within the commentaries pertaining to VS XIV 23, wherein ‘Vyoma’, in a utilization rather usefully congruent with certain elements viz. Ouranos is identified with relation to Prajapati … which may help to explain some of the ‘confusion’ upon a planetological level … but more upon that, perhaps, some other time).

Now, one final – for now – thing which I should probably say concerns what I’d been getting at viz. my choice of words – ” a deific associated with Dawn” – towards the outset. 

There is often a rather dismaying misreading for archaic Indo-European religious materials that seeks to insist upon a single Deity per given natural or other ‘portfolio’ / ‘representation’ / ‘responsibility’ / ‘association’ (even ’embodiment’) element. And therefore, that all instances of the Sun (for instance), or all wielders of Thunder, must be the same deific ‘really’. 

Sometimes, to be sure, that’s – contextually – quite viable as a heuristic. We’ve just touched upon  an example viz. Aditi & Ushas anchored round the Sun / Dawn (and, to be sure, anchored via context – with relation, significantly, to the Sky Father); and the mind also goes fair-instantly to Kerenyi (inter alia) in his (to my mind quite correct – underlyingly) comments viz. that well-known fragment of Heraclitus which co-identifies Hades & Dionysus around the ‘Lingam’ involved in prominent local festivities (the Lenaia observed at Ephesus). 

Other times, however, it gets rather in the way of things – particularly when it’s done simplistically and with an over-emphasis for the single ‘shiny’ data-point to the exclusion of other features. Indra isn’t Rudra simply because Both are prominently Vedically attested to be wielding Vajra, for instance. 

As applies this situation about ‘Dawn’, and this situation about a ‘Daughter of the Sky Father’ … whilst I really shouldn’t do a further thing on it (this comment is already well over-length), I do note the existence for a ‘Solar Princess’ deific complex which might, perhaps, find some measure of ‘Dawn’ resonancy somewhere (I genuinely have not looked directly into it). This being the figure known in Hellenic terms as Helen (yes, of Troy), and in Hindu terms particularly as Tapati. 

But as I say – i) it’s an area to look into rather than a definite statement, for such a ‘dawn’ association to exist for these figures in the first place; and ii), more especially, one ought not, I think, blurrily seek to conflate the two deific complexes thusly involved. 

But I digress.