Now as something of a ‘check and confirm’ upon all of this (Parts III, II, & I), it should prove useful to return towards the Nordic cosmological schema. Wherein, as applies the destination(s) of the Glorious and Ancestral Dead – we once again observe what should decidedly seem to be ‘Uppland’ situations: Valhalla should certainly seem of ‘heavenly’ location (the ‘Golden Hall’ feeling positively Solar in saliency, with its Shield and Spear roofing), as is Fólkvangr (indeed, quite explicitly – “Hon á þann bæ á himni”, as the Gylfaginning [24] has it). These should certainly appear to resonate ‘prima facie’ to that concept for the ‘Meritorious’ Dead having ‘heavenly’ or ‘celestial’ domiciling (as we had earlier seen occurrent in both Vedic and Greco-Roman perceptions) – even if there is a perhaps rather ‘theme-park’ conception for just what constitutes “meritorious” within the minds of many (Saxo Grammaticus’ Gesta Danorum II 7 21 has a rather decidedly narrower ‘catchment’ envisaged than the pop-culture embedded ‘everybody who dies in battle’ would entail, and interestingly phrases it as filling a particular ‘river’ with the worthy souls in question; meanwhile, Davidson (née Ellis) has mention in her ‘Road to Hel’ for a potential range of other ‘pathways to Heaven’ attested in the Saga literature that do not seemingly require death in combat first).

We shall save in-depth discussion of Freyja’s stationing of Sessrúmnir for another time – although suffice to say that upon the surface of it, the well-remarked upon prospects for this ‘Hall’ to be correlate with both a Ship, and a certain sort of ‘Ship of the Dead’ (whether a ‘Ship Burial’, or a ‘Stone Ship’ – Hopkins & Haukur remarking upon how such would be set within a ‘vangr’, or ‘field’, almost by definition; perhaps even the iconic ship on fire of the ‘Viking Funeral’ of popular imagining, or its more figurative and merely flame-conduited underpinning), would certainly harmonize with our earlier point concerning ‘Sailing’ to the Afterworld (i.e. traversing that ‘Mid-Atmosphere’ / ‘Sea of Sky’ expanse) – and c.f., quite saliently, RV X 63 10, wherein one encounters Earth, Heaven, and Aditi , with Aditi eulogized via “supraṇītim” (‘Great [‘Su-‘] Guidance [‘-praṇītim’]’ – dare we suggest Piloting in the older sense to the term?) in evident direct linkage to the “Daivīṃ Nāvaṃ” (Divine Ship) mentioned immediately thereafter with which one would seek to ascend to the Heavens (c.f. Aditi and, or rather as Ritual Enclosure – and the phrasing for the latter as Ship in the Brahmanas, for a start). Aditi’s salience in the Mid-Space (shared with Rudra) harmonizes likewise with the ‘watery’ demesne(s) for Frigg and Sága – viz. Fensalir and Sökkvabekkr (the latter expressly, per the Grimnismal (7), where one should also find Odin); and perhaps we might contemplate the ‘Fen-Halls’ in relation to the notoriously ‘Marshy’ Stygian topography (“vá Valhallar”, indeed, per Völuspá 33) … but for another time.

Meanwhile, it should prove interesting to contemplate the prospects for Álfheimr illuminated via what we have earlier brought to light viz. the Vedic Pitrs. It is certainly the case that one finds ancestors or departed great souls becoming ‘Elves’ – Olaf Geirstaðaálfr, for example, providing a rather handily direct example via the “-Álfr” appended to his toponymic hailing (Olaf ‘The Elf of Geirstað’), albeit one in that case particularly connected to a burial mound (or, per de Vries, “alfkarl” having entered into Irish as “alcaille” to refer to a “totengeist” (‘spirit of the dead’), for further demonstration of the evident overlap of posthumous-human and ‘Elf’). With the etymological underpinning to ‘Alf-‘ effectively having these as ‘Shining Ones’ (per Mallory & Adams – who’ve got *h₄(e)l̥bh- for the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction;), it is not hard to anticipate an entirely logical syzygy between these two Indo-European perspectives upon the Ancestral Dead glinting amidst the (Darkened) Skies Above.

Indeed, perhaps the situation helps to explicate the otherwise rather curious situation for the ‘Ljósálfar’ (‘Light-Elves’ – a tautology) to be mentioned alongside ‘Dökkálfar’ (‘Dark-Elves’ – an oxymoron, if taken at face value) in Sturluson’s Gylfaginning in what is otherwise a sector [XVII] detailing heavenward Realm(s) of the Gods. Perhaps the descriptor as to the latter “búa niðri í jörðu” – ‘dwelling [‘being’]’ (“búa”)’in’ (“í”) ‘under/below’ (“niðri” – which can also mean ‘down’) the Earth (“jörðu”) – ought be taken rather more ‘literally’ than has previously been the case … that is to say, ‘under the Earth’, rather than merely ‘within the Earth’ / ‘under the Earth’s surface’ (c.f. the inference for the vector of retreat at the “edge of the immense Earth” [“Jormungrundar / i jodyr nyrdra”] with the dawning departure of Night for the Dökkálfar at Hrafnagaldr Óðins XXV), in just the similar manner to where Kuiper & Witzel should have the Vedic Pitrs ‘during the Day’ – and where we find direct attestation for the Pitrs to be per TS II 6 4 2, etc. ‘Food for thought’, at any rate.

(The situation for Elves as smiths par excellence – Völundr being the most prominent exemplar, and perhaps also the Svartálfar; other than in bowdlerized half-remembered expression in connexion to Santa / Father Christmas, would likely correlate to the Vedic Ṛbhus – and c.f. in this regard, the Digiti Samothracii / Idæi Dactyli. These being linked to the Lares by Nigidius, as Arnobius handily attests for us in his ‘Adversus Nationes’ [III 41]; with said Lares also spoken of as ‘Manes’, and situated in evident relation to our typology per Varro, again as attested via Arnobius (ibid.). We would also draw attention to the “Maruta Rbhukṣaṇa […] Rudrāsaḥ” at RV VIII 20 2, for reasons we shall elaborate upon in another work.)

We would also, whilst we are upon Gylfaginning XVII, observe that situation of ‘Andlangr’ lying “suðr ok upp” (i.e. ‘southward’ and ‘above’) to the preceding ‘Divine’ Heaven(s) [i.e. in exactly that direction one would anticipate the Direction and Demesne of Yama to be, per Vedic materials upon the subject]; and, more intriguingly still, the enigmatic “Vídbláinn” (‘Wide-Blue’ or ‘Wide-Dark’ – Gurevich noting ‘bláinn’ in relation to ‘black’ in her commentary relating to “Víðbláinn” within the Þulur) – which is both said to be a space seemingly out of reach of the devastation of the Nordic equivalent to the Pralaya (as, it would seem, should be the decidedly solar-described ‘Gimlé’ where would dwell the gaṇa of the ‘virtuous’ [“dyggvar”] ), and likewise to be inhabited by those aforesaid “Ljósálfar”. It is a situation which should seem immediately suggestive for that of the Pitrs – the ‘Wide-Blue-Black’ which is so very high within the Heavens, and with points of light (the eponymously designated Alfar) therein which should certainly appear correlate to the Pitrs as Stars within the concordantly Night-coloured Sky.

This, of course, sets up the rather attention-ensnaring prospect for the situation of Freyr having Alfheim as demesne, per Grimnismal 5, to therefore set up Freyr in relation to Yama. I have previously set out some pertinent grounds for suggesting Frey, as ‘First Man’ (and a priestly one, at that), to be a correlate figure for Manu – yet it is also worth acknowledging another prospect, viz. the notion of Freyr in relation to Yama. We find referenced in de Vries’ ‘Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch’ the intriguing prospect for ‘Yngvi’ with reference to Tocharian A “onk [sic]” and Tocharian B “enkwe [sic]”, and with an effective meaning for “mann” (a Germanic term that I’m sure requires no translation). Per Adams’ ‘Dictionary of Tocharian B’, we hear “TchA oṅk ‘id.’ and B eṅkwe reflect PTch *eṅkwe (as if) from PIE *n̥k̂w-ó- ‘mortal,’ a regular thematic derivative of *n̥k̂-u- ‘dead [one]; body’ [: Old Irish éc ‘dead’ (< *n̥k̂u-), Avestan nasu- ‘corpse, carrion,’ Greek nékūs ‘corpse’] (Campanile, 1969:198, VW:337; MA:150) from nek̂- ‘die, perish’ […]”. That is to say – ‘Mortal’, rather than ‘Man’, per se, and with seeming decided emphasis upon the ‘Mort-‘ part to that word.

‘Freyr’, meanwhile, whilst ‘Lord’ is the usual understanding, is noted by several sources (including de Vries, Pokorny, and Orel) to potentially derive from PIE terminology clustering around ‘forward’, ‘first’, and the like (Orel identifies PIE *Pro, as does de Vries; de Vries and Pokorny provide Sanskrit cognates such as ‘Pūrva’, inter various alia). The notion for Freyr (or, we should underscore – Ingvi-Freyr : “Ingunar-Freyr” at Lokasenna 43) as ‘First of the Mortals’ could certainly fit with Manu (Mannus) as ‘First Man’. However ‘First of the Mortals’ could just as well communicate the ‘First to Die’ – indeed, it is rather vital to the concept (Ginevra, rather usefully, phrases the relevant PIE *n̥k̂w-ó- as “che ha la morte” – ‘which has death’).

It would harmonize Ingvi-Freyr with Yama and Remus (*Iemus), in terms of both ‘precedent’ and dominion ; and provide an interesting potential reading to Lokasenna 37, wherein we hear Freyr praised as “beztr allra ballriða” (“best of all bold-riders” – ‘boldly going where no man has gone before’ being exactly what Yama, and inferentially the earlier iteration to Remus => *Iemus once did; charting the path to an afterworld realm for us to follow when it is our time to go to Them, that we do in fact have somewhere and via some route to go within the first instance) and described also as “leysir ór höftum hvern” (‘loosens / unties’ ‘from’ ‘bonds / fetters’ ‘all’) – which, most certainly, one could feel the progression into the ‘wide blue yonder’ of a celestial afterworld of the Ancestors might do. Although this is an early-morning sudden-contemplation upon my part, and I fully accept that other – and more conventionally orthodox – interpretations to the verse are possible.

(Additionally worth consideration upon this score should prove Freyr’s ‘Solar’ saliency : per Gylfaginning 24, He Who “regni” (reigns) over “skini sólar” (the shining of the Sun), and Who at the outset for the Skírnismál makes use of the Hliðskjálf that we have shown elsewhere to be the Sun as ‘All-Seeing Eye’ vantage-point (effectively, given Gylfaginning 17 – “ok þar er Hliðskjálfin í þessum sal, þat hásæti, er svá heitir” – what we might term Odin’s ‘Golden Throne’, as someone knowing once remarked to me). Yama is similarly Solar, indeed both in demesne (see the ‘Samyamanī’ etc. as naming for the Noon Station of the Sun, identified with the City of Yama) and quite directly Sun-significant – per SBr XIV 1 3 4, for example: “Yama, doubtless, is He Who shines yonder, for it is He Who controls (yam) everything here, and by Him everything here is controlled; and the Pravargya also is that (Sun): it is Him He thus gratifies, and therefore he says, ‘For Yama (I sprinkle) Thee.’ [Eggeling translation] And, tantalizingly, we even find a (potential) point of near-exact resonancy viz. the otherwise curious notation found within the Ynglinga Saga for a forbidding of consanguineous sibling-marriage with reference to Frey & Freya as applies the much-speculated upon situation of Yama & His Sister, Yamī, most prominently mentioned at RV X 10.)

We ought also make mention for some of the difficulties as to this general line of hypothesizing – including the fact that in various evidently highly euhemerized accounts, Yngvi and/or Freyr isn’t expressly ‘first to die’ (albeit often clearly, with what are otherwise Capital G Gods being amidst the forerunners on that score – as we see in the Ynglinga Saga, wherein it’s Odin, ‘reinterpreted’ as a ‘mortal’ ruler and setting the custom of cremation for metempsychotic Uppland-going – we would contemplate Agni in this regard for reasons that should prove obvious); and that at Grimnismal 5, it is as a “tannféi” (‘Tooth-Fee”, ostensibly a ‘teething-gift’) rather than resultant through self-sacrifice, that Freyr is granted Alfheim as demesne (but perhaps this enigmatic phrasing might entail an incident interpretable as originally having related to much the same thing? A threshold-crossing ‘coming-of-age’ which ‘reveals bone’, in either case). (The closest which I can think of off-hand to Yama’s self-sacrifice, and more especially Remus’ deed of Devotio per Ennius, would perhaps be Frey reportedly being interred in a burial mound whilst still publicly regarded as being alive, per Ynglinga Saga XI – perhaps the Gold, Silver, and Copper contributions in three holes therein might resonate with the likewise-labelled triple ‘forms of fire’ for the Three Worlds per TS I 2 11, etc.)

The most obvious complication, of course, concerns the fact that we seem to find Ingvi-Freyr fulfilling various elements keyed to the ‘Manu’ side of the Manu-Yama duality : acting as a foundational ruler of the realm of (living) men, and apparent progenitor of the living aristocracy or tribes who bear His forename as patronymic (c.f. ‘Mankind’ as ‘Kindred of Man(n)u(s)’; or, indeed, ‘Romulus’ relative to ‘Roman’, etc.) – the position to which the reigning over a realm of the Ancestral Dead ought prove a ‘mirror image’ to, not a ‘harmonization with’. And whilst I have several thoughts as to the likely ‘proper’ Comparative IE ‘reconciliation’ as to much of this (particularly pertaining to the saliencies for Sæming and His Mother by Óðinn, Skaði; Her position relative to Chāyā perhaps confirmed via seeming manuscript attestation for Freyr as Her Son within the Skírnismál … and, for that matter, both the (admittedly rather … “imaginative” as applies its re-setting of various threads) prose Prologue to the Edda citing Yngvi as a Son of Odin (logically, for Him to ‘inherit the Kingdom’ – even if it is Sweden rather than that of The Dead, proper – some Danish remarks, no doubt, notwithstanding) and the Nafnaþulur (XVIII – Synir Óðins) featuring “Yngvifreyr” likewise as one of Odin’s Sons) … it is not vital to our purpose for us to delve further herein.

To return our gaze Skyward – as we had observed toward the outset for this section, the major post-mortal demesne(s) for the Glorious / Meritorious Dead are, in Nordic perception, spaces (indeed, mustering-places) significant also for the Deity Who is, so to speak, ‘Despotic’ (in the archaic Indo-European sense : the Lord of the House, *Dems-Pot- [the ‘Do-Po-Ta’ of Mycenaean Linear B, salient for the Cult of the Dead, per Gallou, perhaps even directly meaning He] ; or, as applies His Wife, Δέσποινα (‘Despoina’) – the Lady of the House … Who, in Sanskrit, can *also* be referred to via ‘Pati’ rather than the feminine ‘Patni’ (‘Wife’) where She is the ‘householder’) to that locale.

Óðinn & Freyja are, of course, the regents within Valhalla & Fólkvangr, respectively; and we might draw upon quite the array of theonymics in order to address the correlate Classical spheres’ sepulchral sovereigns : Hades / Dis Pater / Jupiter Infernus (etc.) & Persephone / Proserpina / Juno Inferna (etc.) providing us with a reasonable (and decidedly non-exhaustive) selection (and at this juncture I should feel rather remiss were I not to also extoll the impressively Odinic-resonating ‘Wolf-Head’ head-gear donned by ‘Aita’ (Hades) in His fresco appearance alongside ‘Phersipnei’ in the Etruscan ‘Tomb of Orcus’).

And for the Vedic co-expression? Exactly where He should be – the Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra [III 15 14] hailing Rudra “Who dwells among the Fathers” (per Oldenberg’s translation, the relevant word being “Pitṛṣad” – the invocation is to ask for safe-passage when traversing a Śmaśāna, preceding verses petitioning Rudra, likewise, for safe passage when journeying amidst His other favoured haunts); whilst within the Sri Rudram and Its Yajurvedic situations, we similarly hear hailing to “Him Who Dwelleth with Yama” (as Keith’s translation for TS IV 5 6 f phrases it – “Namo Yāmyāya Cha” in the original, and also at VS XVI 33, in case you were wondering, & the VIth Anuvaka of the Sri Rudram) – with, handily, “Yāmyā” (याम्या) expressing relation to Yama, but also meaning “Night” , and likewise finding utilization as a Shaivite theonym within later scripture.

We ought also, perhaps, make brief mention for the attestation found at VS XVI 57 / TS IV 5 11 c (Sri Rudram XI 3) for the Rudras hailed as Śarvas (‘The Injurers’ or ‘The Archers’) Who are said to be “adhaḥ kṣamācarāḥ”, that is : ‘In, or Under the Earth’. With ‘Kṣam’ (क्षम्), as it should happen, proving a fairly direct linguistic cognate for Ancient Greek ‘Chthon’ (‘χθών’), we might therefore feasibly infer that the locale Under such ought correspondingly prove functionally correlate for the ‘καταχθόνιος’ (‘KataChthonios’ -i.e. ‘Under Ground’) that we encounter as an archaic Hellenic designation for the Underworld (viz. “Ζεὺς καταχθόνιος” (‘Zeus KataChthonios’) in reference to Hades at Iliad IX 457).

These are joined within the immediately adjacent lines of the Yajurvedic liturgy by both the Rudras hailed as ‘Bhavas’ (“Bhavā”) situated ‘midst “mahaty arṇave ntarikṣe”, the ‘Great Ocean of the Mid-Atmosphere’ [VS XVI 55 / TS IV 5 11 b]; and the Rudras of blue-black neck and white throat (“nīlagrīvāḥ śitikaṇṭhā”) Dwelling within the (Bright) Heaven-Sky (“Divam”) [VS XVI 56 / TS IV 5 11 d]. (The ‘Bhavas’ situation would concord with that at SBr VI 1 3 15, wherein Rudra is named ‘Bhava’ and stated to be Parjanya and linked to Rain-Clouds – with this also providing the rationale for the ‘Bhava’ theonymic, building from the essential inception of life, of ‘being’ (as a verb), from such)

As you may have noticed – the resultant set of three realms correlates exactly with one of the two more prevalent Classical speciations for the Indo-European Tripartite Cosmos model. That being, obviously, the iteration featuring the ‘Under-World’ (‘KataChthonios’ – which is ‘Unseen’, i.e. ‘Haides’) rather than the ‘Earth’ (‘Gaia’), along with the ‘Heaven’ (‘Ouranos’), ‘Sea’ (‘Thalassa’) common to both variations.

The most prominent occurrence for this schema, of course, being through both the ‘personas’ and dominions of Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon – although perhaps the more ‘resonant’, from the point of view of the Vedic comparanda, would be the archaic figure of Zeus Triophthalmos (‘Zeus the Three-Eyed’). Rudra is, after all, Dyaus – and so the fact that both Rudra (Dyaus) and Zeus are ‘Three-Eyed’ (‘Tryambaka’, to utilize His major Vedic hailing as such) is as we ought anticipate.

In Hindu reckoning, the ‘Three Eyes’ in question are the Three ‘Radiances’ of Sun , Moon, and Fire (effectively correlate to the ‘usual’ TriLoka of ‘Heaven’, ‘Mid-Atmosphere,’ and ‘Upon-Earth’, respectively).

As both the Sun and Moon find attestation as Eyes of Zeus, it is not implausible that this rationale may also have found co-expressive resonancy amidst the Mediterranean IE once upon a time, as well. However the rationale – and, more to our point, the Three-Realm rubric – presented by Pausanias [II 24 3-4] for the ‘Triophthalmos’ epithet and associated iconography is somewhat different. Insofar as he ascribes it to Zeus’ Triple-Dominion over the planes of ‘Heaven’, ‘Under-the-Earth’, and the ‘Sea’ – a regency which he attests via quotes from Homer and Aeschylus (viz. “Ζεύς τε καταχθόνιος καὶ ἐπαινὴ Περσεφόνεια”; “Δία καὶ τὸν ἐν θαλάσσῃ”) evincing the evidently canonically acceptable usage for ‘Zeus’ appended by pertinent realm-designator to speak of the Divine Ruler amidst Underworld or Sea, respectively.

Certainly, where we delve into the Roman sphere, we readily encounter the idea for Jupiter in other ‘Guises’; underpinning connexions which hint at now-largely-forgotten unities. Summanus, for instance, the famed ‘Jupiter By Night’, identified with Pluto via Martianus Capella [De Nuptiis, II 164] and situated ‘midst the Manes – the syzygy of Night’s Sky and the Spirits of the Dead being exactly as we’d anticipate in light of Vedic comparanda (as detailed within previous suites of exploration). Speaking of which …

Our concept for the ‘Under-World’ being, so to speak, ‘Heaven By Night’ (and thereby ‘Under-the-World’ by Day), may perhaps find additional attestation within the aforementioned Yajurvedic detailing. As it should happen, that distinguishing characteristic for the Rudras of Heaven of ‘blue-black neck and white throat’ (“nīlagrīvāḥ śitikaṇṭhā”) is immediately co-occurrent amidst the Śarvas of the Under-World – and I do mean “immediately co-occurrent”, the relevant Sanskrit phrasing (“nīlagrīvāḥ śitikaṇṭhāḥ”) being directly repeated in literally the adjacent line [VS XVI 56 & 57 / TS IV 5 11 c & d]. Such a close and overt (indeed – obvious to the point of blatancy) resonance cannot be anything other than actively intended – and evidently designed to conjure within the mind the concept of ‘alternation’ for the colour (or, indeed, ‘illumination’ – ‘Light’ and ‘Dark’) descriptors involved, the relevant anatomical terms of ‘Kaṇṭha’ and ‘Grīvā’ connoting the ‘front’ and ‘back’ of the ‘neck’, respectively (and c.f. SBr II 3 1 6, etc. – that particular verse pertaining to a Sunrise as akin to a dark exterior being shed; read in the context of the Underworld transition of a Serpentine Form for pertinent Divinity at SBr IV 6 9, via way of the closely correlate situation recounted in Varro’s De Lingua Latina (V 68) … but more upon this in another piece).

Perhaps one might think of the “blá hálf, en hálf með hörundarlit” (‘Blue-black half, and half with flesh-colour’) descriptor for Hel at Gylfaginning XXXIV.

We would also contemplate the circumstance of Odin’s textual appearances garbed in a blue (hooded) cloak – “feldi blám” within the Grimnismal, and “heklu blá” per the Völsunga saga [XI; 28, 2] (the latter text presenting such as part of a panoply of ‘iconic’ Odinic visual signifers); “blár” being the requisite “blue(-black)”, and, as it happens, a cognate for our modern English ‘Blue’. The usage of “Hekla” to designate this element may be of additional interest, given its etymological underpinnings – effectively, a term pertaining to ‘goat(skin’), viz. PIE *kaĝo- / *koĝo- (‘goat’ => ‘goat-skin’ – with a meaning of an ‘Überwurf’, a ‘throw’, bedspread, or shoulder-throw), per Pokorny, who presents “hekla” as “mantle with cowl” (Zoëga’s Old Icelandic dictionary has ‘Hekla as “cowled or hooded frock”) / Kroonen observing PGer. *Hakula- to be potentially related to PGer. *hōkīna (‘(young) goat’), from PIE kogʰ-e₂- (‘Goat’).

The reason for our mentioning of this prospective ‘Goat’ conceptualization concerning that most famous of potential ‘Goat-Skin’ garmentries, the ‘Aegis’ of Zeus & Athena. This being also borne by Apollo at Book XV [306-366] of the Iliad, and encountered with some frequency as ‘Melanaegis’ (i.e. bearing the colourific descriptor of ‘Mela-‘ (μέλᾱς) – ‘Dark/Black Aegis’, but with the term being cognate with, per Pokorny, Baltic terms for ‘Blue’, such as Lithuanian ‘mélynas’), as linked to Dionysus (Pausanias II 35 1 – “Διονύσου ναὸς Μελαναίγιδος”, ‘Temple of Dionysus of the Melanaegis’) and the Erinys (in singular – Aeschylus’ Seven Against Thebes [699-700] – “μελάναιγις […] Ἐρινύς”). And, as applies Athena Herself – the κυαναιγὶς, or Blue-Aegis which we find ascribed to Her via both textual (Pindar’s Olympian Ode XIII 100) and in various ancient visual depictions (Deacy & Villing also noting Athena’s helmet to be fairly “consistently painted blue”).

With the exception of the Erinys, each of the Hellenic deifics aforementioned are Sky Father expressions (as, of course, is Odin), and of specific readily identifiable correlations to Rudra. The circumstance for ‘blue(-black)’ ‘coverings’ worn about the neck as a seeming pervasive characteristic perhaps points toward an archaic underpinning at the very least resonant toward that Roudran element aforementioned. And with, of course, the more prominent suites of these likely identifiable in the ‘Skyward’ orientation – which, as we have seen, does not disqualify such from also pertaining to the Afterworld, likewise.

But are these Rudras – Śarvas – Who are ‘Under the Earth’, actually in correlate position to the Hellenic sphere of Hades ?

There is certainly some merit to this interpretation – even as we may note that it is ambiguous (likely deliberately so) as to whether the engagements for those Rudras Below are in relation to the Pitrs (also found beneath / seemingly within the Earth, per SBr XIII 8 1 20, TS II 6 4 2, etc.) … or whether it was amidst the more ‘Tartarean’ depths (“gabhīra”, per RV IV 5 5) that are the fated destination for (again, per RV IV 5 5) the “pāpāsaḥ […] anṛtā asatyā” (the ‘impure [due to sin], opposed-to-Cosmic-Order, anti-Truth’, to translate rather functionally but directly). If the latter, then assumedly They are engaged there as Wardens, in similar manner to the stationing at Titan-imprisoning Tartarus of the Hekatoncheires to act as “φύλακες πιστοὶ Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο” (‘Guardians Faithful of Zeus Aegis-Bearer’) per Hesiod [Theogony, 735], or the dread ‘Avenger’ ‘Enforcer’ cohorts such as the Furies (Erinyes), Poenae (‘Punishments’), Maniae, and Others of or in service of the ‘Di Inferi’ (‘Gods Below’) prominent in related regard amidst Roman recountings.

The commentary of Mahīdhara upon this afore said Yajurvedic verse [VS XVI 57 / TS IV 5 11], so the learned Nyāyaratnasiṃha has enlightened me, interprets this demesne ‘Under the Earth’ (“adhaḥ kṣamācarāḥ”) for those Rudras to indicate ‘Pātāla’ (‘Underworld’ – although more directly ‘Under-Foot’ … hence, in part, my not-infrequent rendering of it (and vice versa) as “Antipodes”). That word he uses can, of course, be taken in two ways – either as encompassing the ‘Underworld’ generally; or, instead, in specific reference to the single (lowest) layer of the (post-Vedic) Underworld, which bears such as its name.

And while it may seem perhaps somewhat incongruous to entertain a labelling and, indeed, an entire expanded suite of cosmological components & topography (viz. the aforementioned Pauranika-prevalent post-Vedic modelling for the Underworld entailing seven layers, etc.), all subsequent in their saliency to the era of the text that we had been examining – the conceptry that we are interested in as applies these is of demonstrably more archaic foundations, and is of ‘continuity’ rather than novel ‘conception’ as vector to its emergence within the texts of such later periods.

The explication with relation to the eponymous layer of Pātāla, we shall save for a future effort – pertaining as it does to the ‘Tartarus’ / ‘Náströnd’ (etc.) style ‘Outer Darkness’, replete with contemplation for the Serpentine figure(s) spoken of therein.

However, to speak toward Pātāla more generally – we do find a most useful Puranic-era identification (for instance – Bhagavata Purana V 24 17) amidst the layer of Vitala, for Bhava (Rudra) as “Hāṭakeśvara” (“Emperor of Gold”; understood with a ‘Shining’ dimension, viz. Skt root of “Haṭ’), with Bhavānī as the Form of His Consort, a progenitorial role for life within the Worlds (c.f. exactly such viz. ‘Bhava’ – ‘Parjanya’ at SBr VI 1 3 15; the role here expressed also via a similarly named ‘Golden’ or perhaps ‘Shining’ River – the Hāṭakī – perhaps we might contemplate Virgil’s presentation of the Lethe at Aeneid VI?), and accompanied by the Bhūtagaṇā (‘Retinue of Ghosts’).

This puts us instantly within the mind of similarly epitheted Sky Father as Lord of the Underworld expressions : Plouton (Πλούτων – ‘The Wealthy’; per Beekes, from PIE *pleu-, “run, flow, swim”) amidst the Greeks, and Dis Pater (‘Dis’, more properly ‘Dīs’, per de Vaan, from ‘Dīves’ – ‘Rich’, ‘Abundant’, per Lewis & Short; Dickinson’s adds “fertile”) amidst the Romans – who also understood the theonym to derive from ‘Dies Pater’, i.e. ‘Father Day’ (certainly a ‘Shining’ quality) and to refer to Jupiter “infimus, qui est coniunctus terrae, ubi omnia (ut) oriuntur ita aboriuntur” (“the lowest One, Who is connected with the Earth, where everything, just as it comes into existence, passes away”, to quote de Melo’s translation) [Varro, de Linga Latina, V 66]. The ‘interpretatio’ by Caesar in his ‘Gallic Wars’ [VI 18] for the Gauls as claiming descent from Dis Pater (“Galli se omnes ab Dite patre prognatos praedicant”) must surely also belong here.

Further support for the linkage is to be found via the ‘Pitri-Rupa’ theonym featured amidst a Mahabharata [Anushasana Parva, CL] enumeration of the Eleven Rudras. The effective meaning to both the Sanskrit phrase and its theonymic application for Rudra are one and the same – “[appearing in the] Form of a deceased Ancestor”. Or, to utilize the Latin-sourced labelling prominent particularly in older translations and commentaries : one of the Mānēs. And, amidst this sepulchral if not outright spectral clade, assumedly as a ‘Lord’ or ‘Greatest’ thereof – or, in Latin (and as proffered within Martianus Capella’s ‘De Nuptiis’ [II 161]) : “summus Manium”, that is to say “Summanus” (a theonymic of unsurprising occurrence as epithet for Jupiter and identification for Hades / Pluto, inter alia – although we shall save the details and citations for a further work in more specialized continuance).

And as for His Wife ?

Well, we have already encountered Bhavānī, alongside Bhava (Rudra) as Hāṭakeśvara in Vitala; and I have made very brief reference to Vāc as Sārparājñī (‘The Queen of Serpents’) above (although the downright remarkable suite of concordancy viz. Proserpina – we are saving for a full-length (A)Arti-cle all its own).

And, speaking of Vāc – Sarasvati is spoken of at RV X 17 8 as arriving amidst the same Chariot (“Sarathaṃ yayātha”) as the Pitrs, and in connection to ‘Svadhā’; She is also invoked with the Pitrs by the bride at AV-S XIV 2 20 (perhaps c.f. the “Sister” spoken of as “Sitting among the Fathers” at verse 33 ?); and, in a funerary context, is with the Fathers the Devatā (‘Divinity to Whom’ the verses/hymn is dedicated) for AV-S XVIII 1 41-43 & 4 45-47 (re-using from RV X 17 7-9), again expressly encountered and invoked to appear amidst They. An interesting thing the ‘overlap’ of matrimonial and funerary conceptry within the same hymnals – and which, for reasons we have delved into elsewhere, we find potentially resonant in other IE spheres.

Although what had sprung to mind here viz. the Sarasvati arriving chariot-borne with the Fathers was the situation at Gylfaginning XXIV for Freyja : “hvar sem hon ríðr til vígs, þá á hon hálfan val” – i.e. where She rides to Battle, She has half the Slain (one thinks also of the accompaniment of Hekate by ‘The Dead’, viz. the 3rd line to Her orphic Hymn : “τυμβιδίην, ψυχαῖς νεκύων μέτα βακχεύουσαν” – “Of the Tomb, Revelling with the Souls of the Dead”, as Malamis’ renditions puts it; not to mention those epic occurrences for Hekate arising amidst Ghosts; or, of course, the situation of Hekate (‘Persei’ – ‘[Daughter] of the Perses’) beseeched to separate the Elysian Dead out at Statius’ Thebaid IV 481-2).

Shatapatha Brahmana VIII 4 3 7 / VS XIV 29 (and TS IV 3 10 1) of the Yajurveda hail Aditi (respectively) as “Ruler” (Eggeling translation) / “Sovran Lady” (Griffith translation) / “Overlady” (Keith translation) of the Pitrs (ref. perhaps, the Empress of ‘Those Below’, the ‘Eneroisin Anassan’ of “Βριμὼ νυκτιπόλον, χθονίην, ἐνέροισιν ἄνασσαν” at Apollonius of Rhodes’ Argonautica III 862). Indeed, so integral is the linkage for the Goddess to the Ancestral Dead that when Lord Rāma (operating in concert with Brahmā) must attempt the impossible and invoke Her (as War Goddess & Victory Bestower) ‘Akālabodhana’ (i.e. outside the time [of year] wherein the Rites which enable Her to be called upon are actually able to function), success in this unprecedented undertaking is attained through a ‘workaround’ of Lord Ram carrying out the Śrāddha obsecration to Her as a Pitr (phrased as ‘Pitṛrūpa’ (पितृरूप) – the ‘form’ or ‘style’ of a Pitr; matching Her Husband’s hailing as briefly outlined above) upon the (Mahālaya) Amāvasyā (‘Night of No Moon’) at the climax of the annual Pitru Paksha (the ‘Fortnight of the Ancestors’).

Or, in other words, – in order to be able to utilize the ‘Pathways of the Dead’ and be reached specifically via such mechanisms as explicitly engage (ostensibly) only the Ancestral Dead … the Goddess most certainly must have strong coterminity thereto.

And, indeed, it makes a certain – overwhelming – sense. Aditi is also effectively a byword for the transcendent (yet immanent) Cosmic Order, Divine Law (see, for instance, RV I 24 1-2 & 15 – wherein Śunaḥśepa, ostensibly about to be sacrificed, speaks of being ‘given (back) to Aditi’ and thereby seeing (again) his father and mother [verses 1 & 2 – and notwithstanding that neither are, supposedly, dead at this point in the traditional narrative as presented at, say, Ait. Br. VII 13-18; the Ṛṣi had evidently ‘thought ahead’ to the needs of those who would make use of his verse after him – it is why he is a Ṛṣi, and his effort at verse-smithy found Pleasing to the Gods. Alternatively, perhaps it is a Divine Father & Mother to Whom Shunahshepa refers], such a ‘restoration’ to Aditi entailing the purification from sin / defect against the ‘Vrata’ or (Divine) Law [verse 15]; c.f. also RV IV 42 4, viz. ‘Aditi’, Rta, and a (formerly-)mortal (‘adopted Son’, indeed!) invoker). The notion for one’s metempsychotic migration leading to a situation of being Judged – is a familiar one. That it could bring one, so to speak, ‘face to Face’ with the Law, Herself, is certainly an interesting resonance as to this concept.

As we have said – the Cosmos is, fundamentally, a structure of Order (κόσμος, per Beekes, coming from PIE *keNs- , meaning “Order”, and bearing an “original meaning [that] was probably ‘to put in order (by speaking)’.”).

It should therefore seem eminently appropriate that whether Encountered at the End, or Envisaged as the Beginning – it is toward Order that we can eventually return.

[Art is the famed ‘Apothéose des Héros Français morts pour la Patrie pendant la Guerre de la Liberté’ (1801) of Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson, commissioned by Napoleon]