Which Triad ? A Critique and Development of Dumézil's Tripartite Structure - article ; n°1 ; vol.221, pg 5-21

Emily Lyle

Description

Revue de l'histoire des religions - Année 2004 - Volume 221 - Numéro 1 - Pages 5-21
The author argues that there are two distinct triads in Indo-European ideology. One is a simple set of three terms while the other is a complex set that consists of three different relationships. Since Dumézil was unaware of the second of these, he interpreted all the meaningful triads that he encountered as belonging to the simple series and this led him to misidentifications of the places of the gods in the overall structure. If the present argument is accepted, it will lead to the reinforcement of Dumèzil's fundamental premise concerning the existence and key importance of a tripartite structure while developing a new way of perceiving the gods in the pantheon.
Quelle triade ? Critique et développement de la structure tripartie de Dumézil.
L'auteur argumente qu'il existe deux triades distinctes dans l'idéologie indo-européenne. L'une est un ensemble simple composé de trois termes, tandis que l'autre est un ensemble complexe composé de trois relations différentes. Dumézil n'étant pas conscient de la deuxième triade, il a interprété toutes les triades significatives qu'il a trouvées comme appartenant à la série simple, et cela l'a mené à une identification erronée de la place des dieux dans la structure générale. Si la présente argumentation est acceptée, elle conduira à un renforcement de la prémisse fondamentale de Dumézil concernant l'existence d'une structure tripartie et son importance clé, tout en développant une nouvelle manière de percevoir les dieux dans le Panthéon.
17 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Sujets

• Philosophie et théologie

Informations

• Publié par: REVUE_DE_L-HISTOIRE_DES_RELIGIONS0
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2004
• Nombre de lectures: 87
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Emily Lyle
Which Triad ? A Critique and Development of Dumézil's
Tripartite Structure
In: Revue de l'histoire des religions, tome 221 n°1, 2004. pp. 5-21.
Abstract
The author argues that there are two distinct triads in Indo-European ideology. One is a simple set of three terms while the other
is a complex set that consists of three different relationships. Since Dumézil was unaware of the second of these, he interpreted
all the meaningful triads that he encountered as belonging to the simple series and this led him to misidentifications of the places
of the gods in the overall structure. If the present argument is accepted, it will lead to the reinforcement of Dumèzil's fundamental
premise concerning the existence and key importance of a tripartite structure while developing a new way of perceiving the gods
in the pantheon.
Résumé
Quelle triade ? Critique et développement de la structure tripartie de Dumézil.
L'auteur argumente qu'il existe deux triades distinctes dans l'idéologie indo-européenne. L'une est un ensemble simple composé
de trois termes, tandis que l'autre est un ensemble complexe composé de trois relations différentes. Dumézil n'étant pas
conscient de la deuxième triade, il a interprété toutes les triades significatives qu'il a trouvées comme appartenant à la série
simple, et cela l'a mené à une identification erronée de la place des dieux dans la structure générale. Si la présente
argumentation est acceptée, elle conduira à un renforcement de la prémisse fondamentale de Dumézil concernant l'existence
d'une structure tripartie et son importance clé, tout en développant une nouvelle manière de percevoir les dieux dans le
Panthéon.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Lyle Emily. Which Triad ? A Critique and Development of Dumézil's Tripartite Structure. In: Revue de l'histoire des religions,
tome 221 n°1, 2004. pp. 5-21.
doi : 10.3406/rhr.2004.898
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rhr_0035-1423_2004_num_221_1_898EMILY LYLE
University of Edinburgh
Which Triad ?
A Critique and Development
of DuméziPs Tripartite Structure
The author argues that there are two distinct triads in Indo-
European ideology. One is a simple set of three terms while the other
is a complex set that consists of three different relationships. Since
Dumézil was unaware of the second of these, he interpreted all the
meaningful triads that he encountered as belonging to the simple series
and this led him to misidentifications of the places of the gods in the
overall structure. If the present argument is accepted, it will lead to
the reinforcement of Dumèzil's fundamental premise concerning the
existence and key importance of a tripartite structure while developing
a new way of perceiving the gods in the pantheon.
Quelle triade ? Critique et développement
de la structure tripartie de Dumézil.
L'auteur argumente qu'il existe deux triades distinctes dans
l'idéologie indo-européenne. L'une est un ensemble simple composé de
trois termes, tandis que l'autre est un complexe
de trois relations différentes. Dumézil n'étant pas conscient de la
deuxième triade, il a interprété toutes les triades significatives qu'il a
trouvées comme appartenant à la série simple, et cela l'a mené à une
identification erronée de la place des dieux dans la structure générale.
Si la présente argumentation est acceptée, elle conduira à un
renforcement de la prémisse fondamentale de Dumézil concernant
l'existence d'une structure tripartie et son importance clé, tout en
développant une nouvelle manière de percevoir les dieux dans le
Panthéon.
Revue de l'histoire des religions, 221 - 1/2004, p. 5 à 21 •
.
:
;
6 EMILY LYLE
The theory put forward here is the culmination of work done
over the last quarter of a century and, although I: have published,
many of my ideas in a book and in journal articles, the final»
result оГ bringing . together, the various strands of my thinking
about a structural model that- would fit the Indo-European ev
idence may strike the reader as a radical revision and it is rather
surprising even to me: , The • basic : design that : has emerged is a
coherent and elegant one that rests on triadic organisation; as
Dumézil postulated, but it includes two triads and not just one.
When T was searching through the Indo-European materials
for indications of structure, as Dumézil had done, I! agreed that,
the evidence supported his basic * three- function finding, but» Г
also came upon a second, triad, that I felt hadi structural, signif
icance. - This was . a triad . of- polarities expressed by the ancient
Greeks as , hot/cold, dry/wet and < dispersing/attracting which; I
named the А; В and С axes and argued could be shown to be a
cosmogonie series. I did not at that time see a way in which the
two triads were related and discussed them both in isolation and
it is only now that they are being presented as tightly connected
sequences.
The two come together most clearly when we think in terms
of time. I had always been interested in the temporal dimension
and at an early stage had discussed the three seasons ofi spring,-,
summer and winter as one register of the functional set, and had:,
sketched ■■. in connections with the human life , cycle. . It was only <
later that I explored the phases of life in . terms of age :
grading and saw, as > Kim McCone had done, that a triad of male:
age grades was : a more probable base for. the functional • series
than the . social-class divisions once suggested; by Dumézil. In
going ; into - detail about . how such ■ an age-grade . system : would
have operated, . I \ found that the ■ A, . В \ and С polarities were
connected respectively with the relationships between paired age
classes, generations (consisting of two classes) and half-classes, in
that order. Since they were also connected with the three transi
tions of marriage, initiation and death-and-birth, this made
it possible to i look with fresh -, eyes ; at the focal points . of the :
ritual * year, which . I had -. already seen as • correlated with these
transitions. TRIAD? 7 WHICH
After this brief introduction on the development of my ideas,
I will now turn to fuller study of the two triads in relation to
Dumézil's work and consider the implications of my proposed
new approach for an enriched understanding of the structure of
the pantheon.
THE SIMPLE TRIAD
The simple triad can be identified by the colours white, red
and black and relates, as Dumézil argued, to his functions of the
sacred, physical force and fertility and prosperity. Dumézil ini
tially found these concepts embodied in society and connected
with priests, warriors and cultivators, as in the Indian varna and
the Iranian pištra that were the subject of fruitful studies by Ben-
veniste and himself in the 1930s.1 Later, Dumézil was more incl
ined to speak in terms of the ideology rather than its embodiment
in social groups.2 His position when he published Mythe et
épopée I in 1968 was stated in this way in the course of an
account of his work after 1938.
Je ne puis ici résumer le travail des trente ans qui ont suivi. Je dirai
seulement qu'un progrès décisif fut accompli le jour où je reconnus,
vers 1950, que Г "idéologie tripartie" ne s'accompagne pas forcément,
dans la vie d'une société, de la division tripartie réelle de cette société,
selon le modèle indien ; qu'elle peut au contraire, là où on la constate,
n'être (ne plus être, peut-être n'avoir jamais été) qu'un idéal et, en même
temps, un moyen d'analyser, d'interpréter les forces qui assurent le cours
du monde et la vie des hommes.3
Dumézil contemplates the possibility that there never was a
real social division into three parts and it has been recognised
that the tripartite social division which he did consider — into the
1. G. Dumézil, "La préhistoire indo-iranienne des castes", Journal asia
tique, 216, 1930, 109-130. É. Benveniste, "Les classes sociales dans la tradi
tion avestique". Journal asiatique, 221, 1932, 117-134.
2. D. Dubuisson, "Contributions à une epistemologie dumézilienne :
Tidéologie", Revue de l'histoire des religions, 208, 1991, 123-140.
3. G. Dumézil, Mythe et épopée, I, L'idéologie des trois fonctions dans
les épopées des peuples indo-européens, Gallimard, 1968, p. 15. •
.
8' EMILY LYLE
classes of priests, warriors and cultivators — could not have exis
ted •'■ in a primal form ; of society. Accordingly, whether the triad
was simply an • ideological m