The Case for Týr = Mitra: Part 1 of 4

The Case for Týr = Mitra 

Part 2 >

The Case for Týr = Mitra: Part 1 of 4

  Georges Dumezil, in his Mitra-Varuna, makes a case in passing for the identification of the Norse god Týr with the Vedic god Mitra. This case is brief, but is a central pillar of the overall argument of his book. Týr, for Dumezil, makes up the “Mitra” half of the paradigmatic duad of Mitra-Varuna. However, though very influential, the argument is controversial and far from universally accepted, primarily due to the scanty actual evidence we have which depicts or describes Týr in the primary mythological sources and material archaeology. Specifically, there is a common objection that Dumezil has stretched the evidence too much and has invented a character for Týr to fit his structural theory which the evidence does not actually warrant. However, the idea that the case is based on nothing could be classed as uncharitable at best, ignorant of the details at worst. The evidence for Týr's equivalence should be laid out and carefully reassessed.  What is the whole of the case for Týr = Mitra?

  Dumezil's starting point for the comparison should be clearly distinguished from the common idea that Týr's name, meaning “god,” would connect him to the theorized Proto-Indo-European god *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr, Father Sky, "Týr" appearing to be similar to cognates of Indo-European words for "sky." In fact, Dumezil explicitly questions this oft-repeated supposed etymological connection (which would suppose Týr > Tiwaz > *Dyḗws), connecting Týr instead to cognates such as Latin deus, meaning “god” rather than Latin dius, meaning "heavenly" (from dyḗws, “sky”), and tracing the etymology of Týr back to the Proto-Indo-European *deywós, “god” or “shining one” instead, related to but distinct from the word for the sky itself, and so distinct from the names of "Sky Father" gods such as Zeus and Iupiter. It does not seem controversial, and most interpreters have now agreed, that Týr, meaning “god,” is related to Latin deus, also meaning “god,” even if many question the idea that Týr is cognate with Zeus/Iupiter, or with Sanskrit Dyaus Pitr, “Father Sky.” 

        As the scholar William Reaves summarizes Dumezil's stance: "Georges Dumezil, recognizing the inherent problem with the linguistic argument in the 1950s, embraced DeVries' tripartiate theory, emphasizing the function of gods over their names, thereby equating *Tiwaz and Odin with the Hindu gods Mitra and Varuna, whom, he saw as fulfilling first function roles of lawgiver and king" (Reaves, Odin's Wife, 171). He goes on to quote Dumezil's argument on this score, in which Dumezil points to the fact that "there are reasons for deriving Týr and Zio rather from *deiwo-, the generic Indo-European name for the gods," and criticizes the connection of Týr to Father Sky by saying "these consequences are founded on a simplistic and erroneous interpretation of this equation, and more generally on a false conception of the role and prerogatives of linguistics in such matters," concluding that "The agreeable phonetic conformity of Zeus, Jupiter, and Dyauh, precious to the linguist, does not carry the mythologist very far. He quickly notices that the first two gods and the third do not in the least do the same things" (Dumezil, Gods of the Ancient Northmen, 37). Many today agree that, despite the fact that all of these words may have originally been in some way related terms, this says nothing at all about Norse Týr ever having any direct relation to a word meaning "sky," or a sky function of any kind. 

        Dumezil's starting point, instead, is the idea that Vedic Mitra arose as the embodiment of the contract itself, and may originally have been considered a god of contracts and oaths (which others have also connected to his association with heavenly light). Dumezil details how Antoine Meillet first developed this thesis in 1907 (see Mitra-Varuna, p. 67), and explains the connection between the concepts of the "contract" and the "friend" which are often seen to surround Mitra. Dumezil theorizes that this identification of Mitra as god of contracts connects him to the main scene surviving in the Norse mythology which features Týr. This scene is the binding of the wolf Fenrir and the loss of Týr's hand. In order to convince Fenrir to submit to its magical binding, Týr places his right hand into the wolf's mouth as supposed surety of the Aesir's promise not to trap him. Thus we have the enactment of a contract between the parties, an agreement that the wolf will allow himself to be bound, with Týr's hand given as a gesture backing up the promise of the Aesir that they will not act duplicitously toward the wolf. Týr's right hand is given, a strong symbol as it is the hand that is always given during a contract or oath, the hand of open dealing, honesty, as well as justice. When the Aesir are revealed to have tricked the wolf, he devours this hand in response. Thus, the loss of the god's right hand, as Dumezil implies, symbolizes the hobbling of justice and righteousness in the present age, connected with the tricky legalism of the existing system of justice. If Týr is a god of contracts or of Justice more generally, then his missing right hand would symbolize the breakdown of the operation of Justice within the society. Indeed, it is said pointedly of Týr that he “is not at all a peacemaker among men.” Why would this need to be pointed out of this god specifically, unless this fact had particular negative weight relating to his supposed positive function? Dumezil claims that this reflects the way the operations of the judiciary system was seen at this point in Germanic society, as by no means creating peace. Loki specifically needles Týr on this point in Lokasenna, saying "you can't be the right hand of justice among the people" without his right arm, which would make no sense if Týr hadn't been the right hand of justice among the people to begin with.

  Not only does this episode in itself form a strong case that Týr's function had something to do with contracts and the tricky legalism of the judiciary system, but we can also identify an episode extremely similar to it in content if not in form in an event in the story of the incarnation of Vedic Mitra, Yudhishthira. During the Kurukshetra War, the protagonist heroes the Pandavas need to achieve the death of the opposition's deadly and wise general Drona. In order to do this, Yudhishthira, until this point a paragon of virtue and justice, has to participate in a deceptive half truth. The Pandavas know that it is impossible to defeat Drona while he is armed, so they hatch a plan to disarm him. Thus they decide to kill an elephant bearing the same name as Drona's son, Ashvatthama. When he hears rumor of "Ashvatthama"'s death, Drona seeks out Yudhishthira specifically, due to the fact that he is known as a paragon of honesty (just as Týr specifically is the one trusted by Fenrir to give him an honest surety) and asks if it is true that Ashvatthama has been killed. To this Yudhishthira responds with a statement true in content, but deceptive in its enactment: “Ashvatthama is dead. But the elephant and not your son,” he says, but Krishna instructs loud trumpets to be blown during the second part of the statement, and thus Drona only hears the affirmation and not the clarification, resulting in him believing that his son has perished. Thus he descends from his chariot and lays down his arms in meditation and grieving. The Pandava Dhristadyumna seizes the opportunity to avenge the death of his father, and kills Drona. As a result of this event, it is said that Yudhishthira's chariot, which had ridden at a four-finger height off the ground, symbolic of his absolute truthfulness and justice, dropped to the ground and no longer floated thenceforth. Týr's missing right hand of righteousness would then be identical to Yudhishthira's no longer floating chariot of truth in this interpretation, while the deceived and trusting Fenrir would be a functional match to the deceived and trusting Drona. Dumezil failed to make the connection between these two very similar episodes, and we must assume that this was because, in the Indian case, it must be admitted that Yudhishthira's action does not relate in any clear way to a concept of contracts or oaths, and so is not clearly “functional” in the sense Dumezil cared about. However, the connecting thread of the violation of truthfulness via a technicality in order to deceive and disarm a powerful opponent, and the resulting conspicuous visible loss of the very symbol of that truth or righteousness, seems to be a strong enough through-line to say that these episodes may be from the same ultimate original myth, with the contract aspect emphasized in one version and the truthfulness aspect emphasized in the other. A final possible support to this parallel is the fact that it is Menelaus of the Greek Iliad, who we have already demonstrated falls fully in line with the Mitraic "Lawful Sovereign" archetype, who is the one who is said to bind the shapeshifting seer god Proteus at one point with chains until he tells Menelaus that the gods are angry and desire sacrifice. The episode is much less fleshed out and morally weighted in the specific ways that the other scenes discussed are; however, the fact that we once again have a Lawful Sovereign archetype binding or incapacitating another supernatural opponent, provides one small piece of evidence that is at least imagistically striking and consistent.

-----

Part 2 >