overemphasis on magic

[thompson at handel.jlc.net]

In response to J. Houben's recent observations, I will attempt to discuss
here only those related to Elizarenkova:

>Recently, Elizarenkova's book Language and Style of the Vedic Rsis became
>available to me. I found the following definition of "magic-mentality, almost
>inseparable from religion at a certain stage of society's development" (p.
>13):
>"The difference between them [i.e. magic-mentality and religion] could be
>briefly outlined as follows: while the religious outlook can be characterized
>by obedience to Divine Will, the magic mentality replaces the deity with
>abstract entities which can be manipulated with the help of magical
>techniques.
>The fundamental principle of any magic is total determinism without causal
>connections. The world structure is represented as a system of equivalences:
>everything can be caused by anything."
>Elizarenkova refers here to Stanislav Schayer's study Die Weltanschauung der
>BrAhmaNa-texte and to her own study of the Atharva Veda.
>
>Are Elizarenkova's catogories and her evolotionary presuppositions a good
>basis
>for the discussion of Vedic ritualism? Perhaps they are, I am just beginning
>with her book. But perhaps they are the "indigenous categories" of the Judaio-
>Christian tradition (partly parallel to other "indigenous categories)? In any
>case, the view sketched by her is precisely the one extensively criticized by
>Tambiah c.s.
>

I also have cringed at this passage [among others] cited from Elizarenkova,
which seems to be very much out of date, with its evolutionary
presuppositions, etc.  But I believe that Elizarenkova can be forgiven for
such lapses into out-of-date theory, because her work is *not* based on
such pronouncements.  It is based rather on extensive analysis of the
language of the RV, as well as on the history of discussion of the subject
among Vedicists [key among them Oldenberg, Lüders, Gonda, Thieme, Witzel,
et al].  Let us look at her remarks in the larger context of her entire
book, and in juxtaposition to the following remarks of Tambiah, which
conclude his discussion of magic in the work cited [p. 83]:

"My own feeling is that one of the most fruitful interpretive developments
in recent anthropology, a development that has still to be completed and
exhausted, is that kind of exegesis begun by Malinowski, and taken further
by recourse to Wittgensteinian and Austinian linguistic philosophy,
Peircean pragmatics and Burke's theory of rhetoric.  The now puzzling
duality of magic [i.e., on the one hand as an imitation of technological
action, on the other hand as rhetorical and performative utterance] will
disappear only when we succeed in embedding magic in a more ample theory of
human life in which the the path of ritual action is seen as an
indispensable mode for man anywhere and everywhere of relating to and
participating in the life of the world."

Whether or not this offers us a better basis for the discussion of Vedic
ritualism, let us consider a few remarks by Elizarenkova in light of it:

"Along with *grammmar proper*, which belongs to the system of language, the
Rgveda employs an *expressive grammar*, or a grammar of poetry [as Jakobson
put it].  The aims of the speech-act do determine a great deal in the
syntax of forms, in the semantics of grammatical categories and grammemes,
and in the frequency of their use" [p.288].

When, shortly thereafter, Elizarenkova talks about "magical grammar" [e.g.,
p.291] she is *not* importing Judaio-Christian categories into the study of
the RV.  She is referring instead to such things as the play of keywords
[e.g., theonyms and other charged names, pronouns, etc.] upon the
word-order of the hymns of the RV.  She is referring to the syntactic,
phonic, and other grammatical and poetic structures that are embedded in
these texts.  She is referring to the underlying function of such
all-too-familiar problems in the RV as ellipsis, epithet strings, the use
of tense and mood in the verb, etc.

Her conception of grammar embraces such things as expressiveness, ritual
and phatic language, poetics and stylistics, and pragmatics -- all of
these, as well as magic.  In fact, if there is a Vedicist who has better
used the theories cited by Tambiah in the passage quoted above, I do not
know who that is.  As a member of the Moscow-Tartu school of semiotics, she
is certainly conversant with "Peircean pragmatics" [cf. Peirce cited on p.
3 of her book], and her book amply illustrates her familiarity with the
speech-act theory which is typically attributed to Austin, but which in
fact was independently and perhaps more clearly discussed by Benveniste.
Elizarenkova also has the added virtue of having made skillful use of the
enormous contributions made by the Prague linguistic circle [especially
Jakobson, with whom, by the way, Tambiah is also quite familiar].  It is
true that she does not cite Burke, but if we are going challenge her
conception of magic, then we may have to challenge Tambiah's too, since he
clearly recommends Burke's "theory of rhetoric," which characterizes magic,
as I have already pointed out, as "primitive rhetoric" [a phrase that makes
me cringe even more than Elizarenkova's].  As for Wittgenstein an
Malinowski, I can't fault her for not citing them.

One last, brief point, regarding anthropological theory in particular:
Elizarenkova makes an interesting attempt to relate the more recent and
still influential theories of Victor Turner with Kuiper's theory of a Vedic
New Year festival, with its reflections on cyclical time and ritual
re-enactments.

In short, I would with confidence affirm that Elizarenkova's book as a
whole provides a very good basis indeed for the study of Vedic ritualism
and poetics.

Sincerely,
George Thompson