1

Indo-Iranian Comparative Poetics and the Power Dynamics of Vasihas Hymn to Varua
Elizabeth Thornton, UCLA
Rigvedic hymns share a large inventory of archaic forms and phraseology with
their closest cousins, Old Avestan hitis. In consequence, studies of the poetic grammar
1

of the Rig Veda and the Avesta proceed in dialogue with one another, posing an
increasingly overlapping set of questions to their respective texts. Scholarship on Old
Avestan texts is rife with discussions of patterns of formal repetition that appear to be the
structural skeleton around which many Avestan poems, and in particular the Old Avestan
Gths, are composed.
2
These formal devices that bind words into hitis would invite the
question of whether similar principles play a role in the composition of Rigvedic hymns;
nonetheless, such hymn-level structuring devices have until now remained a relatively
neglected topic in Vedic scholarship.
Intended to introduce a new approach to Indo-Iranian comparative poetics and to
illustrate how such studies can inform and enrich our interpretations of texts in either
tradition, my paper will identify forms and functions of the structuring devices of Vasisha,
whose hymns have been described as highly reminiscent of the Gths.
3
In the limited
space allotted, I hope to achieve a series of fairly modest objectives: to explain what I mean

1
Watkins 1995:289.
2
See Schmidt 1985, Schwartz 2003 and Schwartz 2006 in particular.
3
Jamison 2007:94.
2

by structuring devices; to apply the methodology underpinning this definition to RV
7.86, attributed to Vasiha; then, using the results of this application, to demonstrate two
of the many potential functions of these structuring devices within the Rig Veda.
Specifically, I will illustrate how transitions articulated through these devices highlight
movement from a hymns central crisis to its resolution, and help Vasiha maintain a
persuasive balance between deference and assertiveness. Finally, I will briefly suggest that
the same close-reading method yields useful results when applied to the Gths.

1. Definition of structuring device
A structuring device is a perceptible series of formal repetitions (possibly
including formal oppositions) across an entire hymn or multiple verses within that hymn.
The force of the word perceptible is this: I start with the assumption that these
poems are composed with a human audience in mind (besides the divine addressees).
Members of this human audience have limited working memory, and, unlike latter-day
analysts, experience the hymn as a vanishing auditory phenomenon. They cannot be
expected to retain or (silently) rehearse the hymn in full upon first hearing, as they would
have to do in order to recognize each and every such formal repetition. Rather, they can
only be assumed to detect relatively prominent repetitions.
I include the word series because in my view, for perceptible repetitions to
qualify as a structuring device, the proximity or similarity of these repetitions, and/or their
3

evident participation in a broader schema or pattern, must encourage a listener to
interpret them as a single group (or device).
The last key word is, formal. I use this word in a rather narrow sense: to refer to
repetition of particular signifiers with particular phonological spellouts (so, for instance,
the morphological overlap in dogs and cats would count as a formal repetition, but not the
grammatical equivalence of mice and cheeses). In short, words and forms must have at
least as much in common phonologically as they do semantically to be part of an initial
round of inquiry into a hymns structure. On the lexical end, the structuring devices
typically consist of repetitions of roots and derived stems, including near-homophones
where relevant; correspondingly, the grammatical repetitions involve identical or nearly
identical inflectional morphology. I include semantically distinct near-homophones in my
structuring devices, but not phonologically distinct near-synonyms.
While I borrow the term structuring device from Stephanie Jamison, my
exclusive focus on formal devices means that I use this label in a different way than she
tends to.
4
In part, my narrower definition is intended to serve close-reading strategies
applied to the Gths by Hanns-Peter Schmidt and Martin Schwartz.
5
Schwartz primarily

4
In a chapter entitled Poem: Structuring Devices in Rigvedic Hymns, Jamison (2007:59) treats
a multitude of different strategies used to produce structure: from mechanical and obvious
surface phenomena to deep semantic patterns.
5
See, for instance, Schwartz 2003:1967, and Schmidt 1985:16.
4

detects repetitions of lexemes and homophones (though synonyms and antonyms are an
additional concern).
That said, with the word perceptible I have already embarked down a
methodological route that differs significantly from superficially similar discussions on
Gthic repetitions. I focus first on the capacity of the audience rather than the proclivities
of the poets. I will explain just a few of the reasons for this departure here.
First, the question of authorship: Schwartz
6
and others have been inspired by the
attribution of the Gthic corpus to Zarathutra to recover particular patterns of repetition
that might characterize his compositional style; in contrast, Rigvedic hymns are
traditionally attributed to many different authors, and even a cursory examination of
limited sets of hymns would reveal the wide diversity of techniques employed. I want a
methodology that could be applied to the whole Rigvedic corpus, so I will not attempt to
find a single pattern of repetition that forms the backbone of every hymn.
Schwartz also assumes that these techniques facilitate composition for the poet in
addition to (or instead of) serving particular rhetorical functions.
7
Whatever the Gthic
situation is, this cannot be the case for the Rig Veda. While Vedic structuring devices, at
least as employed by the poets whose work I have examined, are too regular and pervasive

6
See the interpretive yield of such analyses, e.g. in Schwartz 2006:47588.
7
Schwartz 2003:196: This phenomenon is probably connected with the mnemonics of composing
preliterate poetry.
5

not to be part of an intentional compositional strategy, they are also too variegated to be
employed for a poets convenience as he composes. The hymn I examine here illustrates
this point. My understanding is that formulaic systems aid oral composition in large part
by limiting the number of discourse-internal lexical and grammatical choices once a few
initial words are selected: in the Homeric case, for instance, we suppose that a particular
memorized epithet would spring to mind as soon as a few choices of phrasing clarified the
shape of the metrical slot to be filled by the remaining idea. The overwhelming tendency
for Rigvedic formal structuring devices to cover overlapping territory, the multiplicity of
types of repetitions that can co-occur, and the tendency of these devices to link distinct
ideas through a variety of similar phonological spellouts suggest that these series of
repetitions were not part of such an oral-formulaic system.
Hence the alternate route Ive taken, with a focus on what structuring devices are
clearly perceptible to the listener rather than on those that are useful for the poet. As a
result of my initial definition, my arguments for the presence of structuring devices must
answer two questions: which repetitions would be perceptible to begin with, and why would
they be perceived as series rather than isolated stimuli. To these ends, I developed a list of
rather common-sense factors that would facilitate retention or recall of particular
passages, and a related list of grouping criteria grounded in Gestalt psychology (and, since
we are treating fundamentally auditory stimuli, focused on those Gestalt principles that
have applications to music). I articulate both lists in terms of five qualities that formal
6

repetitions can display: (in)frequency, recency, redundancy, (variable) density, and
conventionality. The first criterion relates mainly to the problem of the perceptibility of
individual repetitions, the middle three criteria to both the problems of perceptibility and
of grouping of repetitions, the fifth criterion to the problem of grouping.

2. Detecting structuring devices: criteria for perceptibility and grouping
I will illustrate each criterion with examples from just one hymn: RV 7.86.
However, this methodology has been developed through examinations of many other sets
of hymns, and yields meaningful results in all maalas of the Rig Veda.

2.1 Infrequency
Infrequency refers to unexpectedness in sound, sense or syntaxan aberration
that modulates attention towards the word or phrase in question. The more attentional
resources are devoted to infrequent phraseology, the longer it would take for specific
forms to fade from working memory.
By definition, infrequency can characterize only a single, short passage
(otherwise, the infrequent trait would come to constitute a secondary norm within a
series of passages). The mercilessly catchy jingle, the jarring malapropism, and the freshly
minted new phrase are examples of infrequent verbal formations: all are markedly
different from the words that comprise their immediate linguistic context. In many
languages, marked patterns of word order serve to focalize certain portions of a sentence;
7

this, too is infrequency in action. In poetry, more stylized patterns of word order can be
deployed to the same end: the commonly referenced indexical function of phonetic and
grammatical figures is one label for the effects of some types of infrequency.
8

Two examples of infrequency can be found in 7.86, a hymn to Varua. As we will
see later, these passages are the starting point of two structuring devices in 7.86
(Structuring Device 1 and Structuring Device 3).
7.86.2a ut svy tanv s vade tt
And I speak that/thus with my own self:

7.86.4a km ga sa varua jyha
7.86.4b yt stotra jghsasi skhyam
What was that highest crime, Varua,
That you wanted to slay (your) praiser, (your) friend?
Each of these passages manifests a particular variety of semantic infrequency.
The word tan - can mean either self or body; but in the instrumental case (as
here), it almost always has the corporeal sense (being used with verbs like ubh, beautify,
or with adjectives like areps, blemishless, e.g., 2.39.2c and 7.72.1d; 1.124.6c and
1.181.4b). The only other example of the same collocation used in the instrumental
definitely has a physical sense: svy krp tanv rcamna shining with his own form, his
body, said of Agni in 7.3.9b. Of course, in 7.86 the phrase must mean with (my) own
selfbut its use in that sense must be a bit startling to the listener.

8
Watkins 1995:289.
8

In 7.78.6, the superlative jyha- is used to modify a term for crime, and
therefore must be taken in the pejorative sense of egregious. However, the superlative in
the more basic sense of highest is typically used as an epithet for a god (e.g., 9.66.16a, of
Soma; 1.100.4c, of Indra) or deployed in descriptions of a gods power (1.184.5d, of Indras
might; 6.48.21e, of the Maruts might). Agni is called the oldest/highest of the Agirases
(1.127.2b). In other contexts, it refers to the eldest in the same deferential way (see RV
4.33.5a-c, for example). A pejorative use of jyha- is anything but typical.
Subsequent verses in 7.86 feature repetitions of each element of these
collocations.
7.86.4c pr tn me voco dabha svadhvo
Proclaim it to me, O hard-to-deceive force-all-your-own!

7.86.5a va drugdhni ptry srj no
7.86.5b va y vay cakrm tan bhi
Free us from (our) fathers misdeeds
From those we have committed with our bodies

7.86.6a n s sv dko varua dhrti s
It was not my own intent, Varua, it was seduction:

7.86.6c sti jyyn knyasa upr
7.86.6d svpna cand nrtasya prayot .
The higher-up is in the offense of the junior;
Not even sleep wards off evil.

9

7.86.7a ra ds n mhe kari
7.86.7b ah devya bhray ng
Like a slave to a generous master, I will do service,
Crimeless, to the furious god.
My claim here is that the semantic oddities of the prior passages (or rather, the
attentional resources these oddities command) facilitate the recognition of the later
repetitions. Note that in all of these cases, the recurrences of the words display more
typical semantics (the corporeal sense of tan -, the deferential sense of jy ys-,
higher/elder, which corresponds to the superlative jyha- highest/chief).
To clarify the contribution of (in)frequency to my inventory of perceptible
repetitions in 7.86, I will list them here in separate columns with superscripts indicating the
structuring device to which they belong.
2 svy tanv
1

4ab ga
3

jyham
3

4cd svadhva
1


5 tanbhi
1



6 sv
1
jyyn
3

7 ng
3



2.2 Recency
Considered as a factor that affects the perceptibility of repetitions, recency
refers to the advantage that patterns of repetition that take shape over short distances have
10

over those that develop across distinct and sometimes quite distant segments of a hymn. It
is much easier to recall the exact wording of the sentence that one has just heard than it is
to accurately remember the wording of a long-past phrase; the status of lexical and
morphological repetitions that occur within consecutive verses is much more secure than
the status of repetitions separated by more than a verse.
9
No one is likely to question the
perceptibility of the repetitions highlighted below.
7.86.3b po emi cikito vipcham .
7.86.3c samnm n me kavya

cid hur
7.86.3d ay ha tbhya vruo hrte

7.86.4a km ga sa varua jyha
7.86.4b yt stotra jghsasi skhyam
7.86.4c pr tn me voco dabha svadhvo
7.86.4d va tvnen nmas tur iym

I approach the wise in order to ask around
The Kavis have said the very same one thing to me:
This Varua is angry at (from) you.

What was that highest crime, Varua,
That you wanted to slay (your) praiser, (your) friend?
Proclaim it to me, hard to deceive one, force all your own!
I would approach you, free from sin, with homage.

9
The verse-length separation is an essentially arbitrary quantitative cutoff point for classifying
repetitions as recent vs. not recentbut it has proven to be a useful rule of thumb.
11

This chain of repetitions continues in the versess below. Consider the relative perceptibility
of the highlighted repetitions in both passages versus the repetition of the root k in 5b
and 7a (cakrm kari). Because of space constraints, I translate only the first verse and
the last line quoted.
7.86.5a va drugdhni ptry srj no
7.86.5b va y vay cakrm tanbhi
7.86.5c va

rjan pautpa n ty
7.86.5d srj vats n dmano vsiham
Free us from (our) fathers misdeeds
From those which we have done by ourselves/with our bodies
O king, like a cattle-stealing thief,
Like a calf from a rope, free Vasiha!

7.86.6a n s sv dko varua dhrti s
7.86.6b sr manyr vibhdako citti
7.86.6c sti jyyn knyasa upr
7.86.6d svpna cand nrtasya prayot

7.86.7a ra ds n mhe kari
Like a slave to a generous master, I will do service
Recency facilitates grouping judgments, toowhich is not surprising given that
recency is essentially a synonym for the Gestalt principle of proximity, whereby stimuli
that are close together or occur in swift succession tend to be grouped together. The
12

following chart illustrating the effect of recency and proximity on perceived groupings of
visual stimuli is adapted from Lerdahl and Jackendoff.
10

Figure 2.2.1
a. b. c.

In the cases of a. and b., where there is relatively little intervening space, two of the three
stimuli clearly belong in a group; in the case of c., the proper grouping judgment is less
clear. Lerdahl and Jackendoff pointed out that varying quantities of rests/pauses would
similarly affect grouping judgments of notes and other auditory stimuli.

This principle of
recency or proximity encourages successive rounds of so-called concatenations to
be perceived as a single device that is, a catena, chain, rather than as a series of unrelated
formal echoes. (See Bloomfields definition of concatenation: an expression, statement,
or motif in one given stanza is taken up anew in the next stanza.
11
In keeping with my
general method, I narrow this definition to include only formal repetitions.
12
)



10
Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1996:40.
11
Bloomfield 1916:5.
12
At the same time, I preserve the idea that concatenation involves contiguous verses (what
Bloomfield calls stanzas) specifically, which distinguishes my usage of the term from that of
Schmidt and Schwartz.
13


2.3 Redundancy
Redundancy involves a co-occurrence of different types of repetition unusual
enough to overwhelm the ear, and, in a kind of constructive interference, revive the fading
memory of forms or phrases long since uttered.
13
Redundancy should facilitate the
perception of repetitions separated by multiple verses.
RV 7.86 contains many instances of redundancy, including the following
highlighted repetitions, which will be identified as belonging Structuring Device 2.
7.86.3b po emi cikito vipcham
7.86.3c samnm n me kavya cid hur
I approach the wise in order to ask around.
The Kavis have said the very same one thing to me:

7.86.7c cetayad acto dev ary
7.86.7d gtsa ry kavtaro junti
The noble god wisened the unwise;
More Kavi-like, he speeds the experienced man to wealth.

13
Constructive interference is a term I borrow from physics (describing the effect of two waves
enhancing one another, used more or less metaphorically here and playing on unda and whelm). If
I were using technical terms from psycholinguistics, I would identify this as multiple repetition
priming.
14

In both of these rounds of repetition, the same referents are characterized as Kavis (poet-
sages) and, in an adjacent clause, (re-)characterized via a form derived from the root cit,
perceive, know, appear.
On to redundancys relevance to grouping repetitions. Redundancy is related to
the Gestalt principle of similarity, whereby similar stimuli/objects tend to be perceived as
part of the same group. The simplest examples involve groupings of objects of similar
shapes, as in figure 2.3.1, also adapted from Lerdahl and Jackendoff.
Figure 2.3.1
a. b. c.

That we would describe the first two figures as, three squares and two circles and two
squares and three circles rather than as, two squares and a square and two circles, two
squares, a circle, and two circles, or five shapes, seems obvious; the implicit grouping
judgments become particularly clear from c. likely described as, two squares and two
circles rather than two pairs of a square and a circle.
Lerdahl and Jackendoff point out that the first two scenarios are analogous to
groups of notes of different pitches;
14
however, scenario c. touches upon an issue that I
have yet to see addressed in the application of Gestalt psychology to auditory stimuli.
Lerdahl and Jackendoff and the music theorists that followed in their footsteps seem

14
Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1996:41.
15

concerned with the task of grouping contiguous notes; but what about the impact of
similarity (/redundancy) in causing stimuli that are not contiguous in space or time to be
grouped together? Consider the figure below.
Figure 2.3.2

A description of this configuration of objects might be, a repeated trio of shapes
triangle, square, squigglewithin a sea of circles, stars, etc: in other words the redundant
repetitions would be grouped together. For a musical analogue, think about a unique
musical motif or theme that resurfaces periodically in a movement or symphony; a listener
identifies and associates repetitions of such a sequence, despite flurries of intervening
notes.
Returning for a moment to the repetitions in 7.86.3bc and 7cd: the influence of the
factor of redundancy on grouping judgments underlies the assertion that these repetitions
constitute a single structuring device, outlined below.
7.86.3b cikita
7.86.3c kavya

7.86.7c cetayat
7.86.7d kavtara
16

2.4: Variable Density
Density refers to the number of repetitions in a particular hymn or hymn segment.
First, lets examine density as it relates to the problem of perceiving repetitions. I assume
that any instance of repetition is more easily perceived in hymns, verses, or even smaller
metrical units characterized by a relatively low density of repetitions: it is easier for a
particular repeated term to ring a bell if there arent any competing sets of
tintinnabulations. One way this is manifested is that local repetitionsfor instance,
repetitions within a verse or across versesoften taper off to allow a more distant echo to
be perceived. See, for instance, the following excerpt of 7.86. Superscripts denote separate
structuring devices. I leave the passage because the point here is to notice the relative lack
of repetitions in 4ab and 7ab.
7.86.2c km me
4
havym hr no
4
jueta
7.86.2d kad mrk sumn abh khyam

7.86.3a prch td
4
no
4
varua didku
7.86.3b po emi
4
cikito
2
vipcham
7.86.3c samnm n me
4
kavya
2
cid hur
7.86.3d ay ha tbhya
4
vruo hr te
4


7.86.4a km ga
3
sa varua jyha
3

7.86.4b yt stotra jghsasi skhyam
7.86.4c pr tn
4
me
4
voco dabha svadhvo
1

7.86.4d va
4
tvnen
4
nmas tur iym
4


17

7.86.7a ra ds n mhe kari
7.86.7b ah devya bhray ng
3

7.86.7c cetayad
2
acto
2
dev ary
7.86.7d gtsa ry kavtaro
2
junti
The low density of repetitions in those two half-verses facilitates the recognition of the
distant echoes of ga ng.
Variable density can affect grouping judgments as well;
15
but since density as a
factor in grouping is not relevant to 7.86, I will not belabor the point here.

2.5 Conventionality
Conventionality is a term I attach to structuring devices whose particular pattern
or scheme of repetition is attested numerous times in Rigvedic or closely cognate poetic
traditions. Conventionally formed structuring devices help otherwise disparate repetitions
be perceived as a single structural object with a particular function. We might compare
conventionality to the Gestalt principle variously referred to as past experience or
habit or learning,
16
according to which a typical/familiar stimulus is more easily
detected than an unfamiliar one, and particular practices in ones environment influence

15
To understand why, we might consider the Gestalt principles of good continuation, symmetry,
and closure. See Wertheimer 1938:824 and Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1996:4650.
16
Wertheimer 1938:867.
18

ones expectations and instincts about how stimuli are organized. (Think about stellar
constellations, for instance.)
Concatenations definitely constitute conventional structuring devices; but under
this rubric, I want to highlight two additional conventional devices that typically unite
lexical or morphological repetitions in non-contiguous verses. The first is and most familiar
example is nested or concentric rings,
17
illustrated by the following structuring device
from 7.86.
Verse Repetitions
4 ga
jyham
6 jyyn
7 ng
Another conventional type is the geometric ring. This category does not exclude
nested or more straightforward rings; instead, the term refers to a way in which the
beginning and end of the rings can vary. In a geometric ring, the distance between each of
the reoccurrences of the repeated lexical elements is comparable, but different from the
equally comparable distances between each of the first occurrences. For instance, the
beginning of the ring could include a series of words that all occur in a single verse (spaced
a few words apart on average), whereas the reoccurrences could surface in entirely
different verses. The reverse can also be true: the first occurrences of forms included in a

17
Watkins (1995:35) highlights a standard Homeric example.
19

geometric ring could be more diffusely spaced than the reoccurrences. Alternatively, a
series of lexical items in close proximity to one another could each be repeated multiple
times, typically in the same (or, the exact reverse) order. In any of these cases, the result is
that an entire section of a hymn appears to be an expanded version of a proportional,
smaller-scale lexical blueprint (hence, geometric, with a geometric series in device in
mind). Below is an example from 7.86.
Verse Repetitions
2 svy tanv
4 svadhva

5 tanbhi
6 sv

This device is very common in both the Rig Veda and the Gths; as Joel Brereton has
shown, such a ring constitutes the structural backbone of RV 10.129.
18


3. Forms (poetics) of Vasihas structuring devices
The following chart summarizes the results of this methodology when applied to
7.86.


18
Brereton 1999:256.
20


STRUCTURING DEVICE # AND TYPE
V 1: Geometric 2: Redundant ring 3:Nested ring 4:Redundant
Concatenation
1
2 svy tanv
1
tt
4
hr na
4



3ab cikita
2
tt
4
na
4
emi
4
cd kavya
2
me
4
tbhyam
4

hr te
4

4ab ga
3


jyham
3

cd svadhva
1
tt
4
me
4
va
4

tv
4
anen
4
iym
4

5ab tanbhi
1
va
4
no
4
va
4

vaym va
4

5cd
6 sv
1
jy yn
3

citti
2?*

7ab ng
3



cd cetayat
2
acta
2

kavtara
2

*I cannot argue that citti would definitely be perceived or grouped with the others using
the current methodology.
Above, we discussed the role that infrequency played in facilitating the repetitions
that make up Structuring Device 1, and the conventionality of the geometric ring into
which they could be grouped. As we have seen, redundancy fosters the perception and
21

grouping of the repetitions in Structuring Device 2. We have also seen that infrequency
and density (or the lack thereof) both play a role in increasing the perceptibility of
repetitions in Structuring Device 3, and that the conventionality of nested rings facilitates
the grouping of those repetitions into a separate structuring device. Recency and
redundancy both argue for the perceptibility of repetitions in Structuring Device 4, and
redundancy also argues for the grouping of those repetitions into a single structuring
device.

4. Functions (power dynamics) of Vasihas structuring devices
4.1. Preliminary remarks on form and function
We can see that in RV 7.86, the formal structuring devices circle around Verse 4,
as if that verse is the hymns structural nucleus. More specifically, two out of the four
structuring devices (1 and 4) begin to terminate in 4c, which contains an obviously pivotal
moment of contact with Varua:
7.86.4c pr tn
4
me
4
voco dabha svadhvo
1
Proclaim it to me, hard-to-deceive one, force all your own!
Three out of four structuring devices (2, 3 and 4) are initiated in the verse preceding this
moment; they are part of the phrases that articulate Vasihas burning questions and
failed attempts to acquire knowledge about the reason for the falling-out between him and
Varua.

22

7.86.3b po emi cikito
2
vipcham
7.86.3c samnm n me kavya
2
cid hur
7.86.3d ay ha tbhya
4
vruo h te
4

I approach the wise in order to ask around.
The Kavis have said the very same one thing to me:
This Varua is angry with you.

7.86.4a km ga
3
sa varua jyha
3

What was that highest crime, Varun
After the central moment of contact, the same roots that were used to plead for answers
about Vasihas culpability in this conflict with Varua begin to be used in quite distinct
ways: they place the blame on another figure (a higher-up, or elder), assert Vasihas
innocence, and then imply that he is once more among the beneficiaries of the Gods
wisdom.
7.86.6c sti
3
knyasa upr
The higher-up is in the offense of the younger.

7.86.7a ra ds n mhe kari
7.86.7b ah devya bhray ng
3

7.86.7c cetayad
2
acto
2
dev ary
Like a slave to a generous master, I will do service:
I, crimeless, to the furious god.
The noble god wisened the unwise.
In other words, the central verse of the hymn also heralds a distinct change in
discourse occasioned by an interaction in which Vasiha and Varua seem to have sorted
out their differences by finding fault in other culprits. Stephanie Jamison has used the word
23

omphalos for this structural midriff and thematic turning point.
19
Vasihas structuring
devices draw attention to both the omphalos and the discourse change it occasions, i.e. to
a movement from crisis to resolution.

4.2: Poetics and power dynamics of 7.86: antanaclastic repair
Deploying a technique I call antanaclastic repair, Vasiha also uses these
repetitions to make his conflict-resolution narrative sound successful, even though the task
at hand is to placate an implacable god.
One half of the term, antanaclastic repair alludes to another coinage of
Stephanie Jamisons: poetic repair, referring to Rigvedic poets tendency to introduce
a linguistic puzzle early in a hymn, and solve it later in the hymn.
20
The cases I am treating
here involve lexical puzzles, but syntactic and morphological riddles can also fall under this
rubric. Antanaclasis, derivationally a breaking-up-against, literally a reflection, is the
conflict between the sameness of sound and difference in sense of two word forms. Its most
trivial applications are puns. However, as its etymology would suggest, this figure of speech
need not be a simple funhouse mirror: it can also alter the significance of a given string of
sounds to better suitand/or subverta dominant discourse. Antanaclastic repair, then,
refers to the repairing (within a structuring device) of an idiosyncratic, infrequent usage

19
Jamison 2007:809 and 95100.
20
Jamison 2006:133.
24

of a lexical element with one that is more in keeping with Rigvedic phraseological norms.
Such deployments and modifications of Rigvedic phraseology can be closely connected to
the renegotiation of relationships between interlocutors.
Discussing infrequency, I alluded to instances of what we can now term
antanaclastic repair. The first of these examples straddles the hymns omphalos.
7.86.2a ut svy tanv s vade tt
And I speak that/thus with my own self:

7.86.5a va drugdhni ptriy srj no
7.86.5b va y vay cakrm tan bhi
Free us from (our) fathers misdeeds (and)
From those we have committed with our bodies

7.86.6a n s sv
1
dko varua dhrti s
7.86.6b sr manyr vibhdako citti
It was not my own intent, Varua, it was seduction:
Liquor, anger, dice, lack of wisdom
This piece of antanaclasis benefits the poets case: he has split his identity into two selves:
a physical tan , capable of committing misdeeds, and his own conscious intent (expressed
by the stem sv-), which, when the flesh is not weakened by temptations, is willing (and
able!) to commune with Varua, a deity addressed by the related vocative epithet
svadhva.
7.86.4c pr tn me voco dabha svadhvo
Proclaim it to me, hard-to-deceive force-all-your-own!
25

This splitting is actually perceived as a linguistic repair,
21
which makes the perspective it
expresses sound fairly natural. Vasiha is leveraging the prestige of established
phraseology to lessen perceived differentials in purity and in power, differentials that
preclude interaction with Varua.
The other case of antanaclastic repair allows the poet to blame any crime he
committed on his elders, or on those who are farther up in the hierarchy, while
simultaneously appearing to quite contritely admit to the egregiousness of that crime.
7.86.4a km ga sa varua jyha
7.86.4b yt stotra jghsasi skhyam
What was that highest crime, Varua,
That you wanted to slay (your) praiser, (your) friend?

7.86.6c sti jyyn
3
knyasa upr
7.86.6d svpna cand nrtasya prayot
The higher-up is in the offense of the junior;
Not even sleep wards off evil.
The use of the comparative jy ys- in 6c to denote an elder/higher-up figure repairs an
odd pejorative use of the superlative jyha- to mean highest/most egregious (crime).
The latter usage of jy might affect the interpretation of the former passage; suddenly
that most egregious sin of Vasihas would sound like the fault of a forefather or a
supercilious boss (the crime of the eldest/ highest). The very phrase in which Vasiha
admitted his grave error begins to sound as if it absolves him of any personal responsibility;

21
See section 2.1 if it is not currently clear why this should be the case.
26

he makes sure that phraseological conventions work in his favor, implying what he lacks
the power to state explicitly.

5. Structuring devices in the Gths: problems and prospects
Most of this methodology can be straightforwardly incorporated into close-
readings of the Gthswith one exception: it is exceedingly difficult to make judgments
about the relative frequency of forms given the extremely small size of the extant Old
Avestan corpus. Thus, one of the five perceptibility criteria introduced above is
inapplicable. It follows that we cannot say much about poetic repair in the Gths.
What, then, can we hope to discover about the poetics and power dynamics of
Avestan hitis? If we replace the idea of poetic repair with a broader understanding of
how antanaclasis can contribute to a hymns resolution,
22
we can make analogous
observations in both traditions. Considered simply as cases of antanaclasis, the repetitions
above link referents at different positions in power and animacy hierarchies (poet, elder,
divinity; body, self, sentience/willpower). More specifically, these rounds of repetition

22
This idea is not entirely new. Others have identified similar types of transitions in the Rig Veda;
for instance, Elizarenkova (1995:9) has pointed out that epithets introduced in the first part of
praise hymns often constitute nominalized implied actions, which may later be expressed in
verbal forms.
27

begin with a phrase that is ambiguously placed along these hierarchies; disambiguation of
various types is associated with the resolution of the stated crisis (despite its severity).
A comparable case of resolution-by-antanaclasis can be detected in Y 29.2-6.
Bridging those two verses is a redundant ring comprised of the lexemes ratu-
judgment/judge, aa- truth (as an abstract concept or a deity), and vstra-/vstriia-
forage/herdsman. As the glosses suggest, the first two terms are (in isolation) ambiguous
with regard to animacy, and the third has animate and inanimate variants distinguished by
derivational morphology; in addition, ratu- can refer to a final judgment/judge (e.g. Y
33.1), or one that can be obtained in the here-and-now (e.g. Y 44.16). Below, I highlight
the elements of the redundant ring in Y 29 and underline nouns to which ratu- is
counterposed (vstra- plays both roles).
Y 29.2 ad ta g u prsa a m ka ti gauui ratu
hiia hm dt xaiiat had vstr gaodii ax
k m hi ut ahurm y drguu.db amm vdiii
Thereupon the cows fashioner asks Truth: What is the nature of Thy judge(ment)
for the cow?
23

When cow-milking zeal, along with forage, take possession of her, O ruling ones,
Whom do You wish (to be) her lord, who might break through the wrath (caused)
by the deceitful?

23
Transcription and translation based on Humbach (1991), with a few alterations; but similar
observations could be made of the versions of Schwartz (2003) and Insler (1975). Schwartz
renders ratu- as judge(ment), Humbach and Insler as judgment (in Y 29).
28

Because the abstract/inanimate nouns are close to ratu- , and because one of them is in the
nominative, just like ratu, it is likely that ratu- would initially be interpreted as inanimate;
in other words, the first two thirds of 29.2 might be paraphrased as, In place of a proper
judgment for the cow, there is only cow-milking zeal and forage.
However, there is another, animate noun at the end of the verse that could easily
be taken to rename ratu-: ahura-, lord; with the appearance of this noun, the possibility
of an animate ratu- reemerges. The question, Whom do You wish (to be) her lord? could
be taken to be a paraphrase of the question, What is the nature of thy judge for the cow?
In 29.6., this ambiguity diminishes, with context supporting an interpretation of
ratu- as judge.
Y 29.6 a h vaoca ahur mazd vduu vaf viinaii
ni auu ah vist nad ratu a a c hac
a z fuiiatac vstriiic rt tata
The Wise Ahura, who knows the pronouncements in (His) spirit, speaks:
None (has been) really found by the world, no judge(ment) in accordance with
Truth
24
itself
For the shaper has fashioned thee for the cattle-breeder and the herdsman.

24
Humbach translates this second aa- as truth instead of as the animate Truth.
29

Here, fuiiant- cattle breeder and vstriia- herdsman,
25
are animate analogs to the
obstacles mentioned in 29.2 (gaodiia-, cow-milking zeal and, vstra- forage
26
). These
shifts undermine the previous inanimate interpretation of ratu-, since the last two thirds of
this verse would be more properly paraphrased as, In place of a judge, the cow has a
breeder and a herdsman.
This recasting of the basic crisis as a lack of particular animate figures prepares
the listener to accept its resolution: the discovery of a prophet who acts in accordance
with Truth. Quoting the relevant portions of 29.8 and highlighting terms that connect this
passage with 29.6: am mi id vistzarautr spitmhuu n mazd vati a aic
carkrr sruuaie h, This one has been found here by meZarautra
Spitama...For Us, O Wise One, and for Truth, he wishes to sing lauds.

Conclusion
A close-reading strategy which focuses on structuring devices fosters similar
interpretations of RV 7.86 and Y 29. In at least these two narrow subsets of Rigvedic and

25
Schwartz (2006:202) translates vstriia- as, pasturage, but I can find no evidence to support this
reading; supporting the animate reading, we have the uses in 31.10, 31.15, 51.5 and 53.4, where
vstriia- appears in association with other animate nouns; in 31.10 it also appears with fuiiant-.
26
Insler (1979:29) translates the form in 29.2 as if it were from vstar-, another word for pastor.
However, the contrast between an animate vstar- and an inanimate vstra- is clear in 29.1.
30

Gthic material, antanaclasis within formal structuring devices is used to clarify terms
whose first appearance is shrouded in (intentional) ambiguity. These clarifications
contribute to the resolution of the hymns fundamental crisis, insinuating a proposed
solutions success where the poet lacks the power to (unilaterally) declare it. I would invite
the reader to apply this analytical method elsewhere, as I am in the process of doing.


31

References
Bloomfield, Maurice. 1916. Rig-Veda Repetitions. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Brereton, Joel P. 1999. Edifying Puzzlement: gveda 10.129 and the Uses of Enigma.
Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.2. 24860.
Elizarenkova, T.J. 1995. Language and Style of the Vedic is. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Humbach, Helmut, Joseph Elfenbein and Prods O. Skjrv. 1991. The Gths of
Zarathustra and the Other Old Avestan Texts. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Insler, Stanley. 1975. The Gths of Zarathustra. Tehran: Bibliothque Pahlavi.
Jamison, Stephanie W. 2006. Poetic repair in the Rig Veda. In Pinault and Petit (eds.),
13340.
__.2007.The Rig Veda Between Two Worlds/Le gveda entre deux mondes: Quatre
conferences au Collge de France en mai 2004 . Paris: Collge de France.
Lerdahl, Fred and Ray Jackendoff. 1996. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Pinault, Georges-Jean and Daniel Petit (eds.). 1996. La langue potique Indo-Europenne:
Actes du Colloque de travail de la Socit des tudes Indo-Europennes. Paris:
Peeters.
Schmidt, Hanns-Peter. 1985. Form and Meaning of Yasna 33. New Haven: American
Oriental Society.
32

Schwartz, Martin. 2003. Gathic Compositional History, Y29, and Bovine Symbolism. In
Siamak Adhami (ed.), Patimna: Essays in Iranian, Indo-European, and Indian
Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter Schmidt. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers. 195239.
__. 2006. The Gathas and Other Old Avestan Poetry. In Pinault and Petit, eds. 45998.
Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Wertheimer, Max and Willis D. Ellis (trans.). 1938. Laws of Organization in Perceptual
Forms. In Willis D. Ellis (ed.), A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, 71-88. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.