STEPHANIE W.

JAMISON

Draupadi on theWalls of Troy: Iliad 3 from an Indic Perspective

THE

THIRD BOOKof the Iliad contains

some of the best-known

scenes

in this

epic-scenes that have also long been the subject of intense debate inHomeric criticism. I refer particularly to theTeikhoskopia, "TheViewing from the Wall," inwhich Helen identifies certainGreek heroes for the benefit of Priam and other Trojan elders (1. 3.161-244), and the subsequent single combat between
Menelaos and Paris (313-82), a duel that is supposed to settle the war: the victor

is to get Helen and her possessions, and theGreeks will go home, whoever wins. This tidy solution to a messy war is thwarted by Aphrodite, who spirits Paris away from the battlefield and returns him to an initially disgruntledHelen. Commonsense Homeric criticism has identified certain features of these scenes as anomalous, particularly their temporal position. How, in the tenth year of a bloody war, fought within sight of the walls of Troy, could Priam not recognize Greeks likeAgamemnon and Odysseus? Why was the duel between Helen's aggrieved husband and her abductor postponed for nine years and then
casually set up as a winner-take-all finale to a war that by now would seem to

have a life of its own?Why isHelen Priam's interlocutor, andwhat connection, if any, do the viewing and the duel have with each other?'
1. Puzzlement over these questions dates back at least to the scholiasts, andW. Leaf seems to have been an important inspiration for the modern debate on the issue. For a summary of the difficulties, see in general G. S. Kirk, The Iliad:A Commentary, vol. 1, Books 1-4 (Cambridge, 1985) 286-88 and passim. The secondary literature is quite extensive; some works that deal with the questions, inwhole or inpart, includeC. M. Bowra, Tradition and Design in the Iliad (Oxford, 1930; Westport, 1977), 110-12; 0. Sch6nberger, "Zu Ilias 3, 146-180," Gymnasium 67 (1960) 197 repr. 201; K. J. Reckford, "Helen in the Iliad," GRBS 5 (1964) 8ff.; A. Parry, "HaveWe Homer's

? 1994BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

Volume 13/No. 1/April 1994

Commonsense answers to these objections have a ratherdesperate, patched together air. That Priam did recognize theGreeks but asked Helen about them anyway, "to help her out in a delicate situation,"2 is an explanation that owes more toMiss Manners than to epic sensibilities. Similarly, that both sides agreed to the duel because theywere worn out3 isbelied by themany weary battles that lie ahead. Rather than attempting to account for the puzzling features of the episodes in such pragmatic but ad hoc ways, the expert consensus seems instead to be that the anomalies result from the displacement of these scenes from another part of the poem or indeed from a different poem, "that the episode [i.e., the Teikhoskopia], in an altered form, originally belonged to an early stage of the war and has been transposed to its present place for the purposes of themonu mental Iliad."4Estimates of these purposes vary-for example, to introduce us toHelen and present her character or emotions,5 to praise theGreek heroes,6 or to show Priam's character.7 Opinions about the source of the narrativemotif also vary.Reckford sees "the princess on thewall" as "a common figure in the complex tradition of Oriental siege stories."8Kakridis (1971), followed and developed by Postlethwaite (1985), suggests that theTeikhoskopia and the duel are the reworkingof amyth inwhich a woman looks on while twomen contend forher-a myth ultimately deriving from a marriage contest. Edwards (1987) believes that the Teikhoskopia has been assembled from a grab bag of independentmotifs, the earlier part based on the display of prizes to competitors before a contest, the latteron a traditionalviewing of the besiegers by defenders of a besieged city. Edwards has perhapsmost clearly expressed the commonly held opinion of the fragmentarynature of the sources of thispart of the epic: "So thewhole Teichoscopia is composed of a number of set piece ideaswhich occur separately andwith a different purpose elsewhere."9
'Iliad'?"YCIS 20 (1966) 197ff.; O. Lendle, "Paris,Helena undAphrodite: Zur Interpretation des 3. Gesanges der Ilias,"A&A 14 (1968) 68; J. T. Kakridis, Homer Revisited (Lund, 1971) 32ff.; L. L. Clader, Helen: The Evolution from Divine toHeroic inGreek Epic Tradition,Mnemosyne Supp. 42 (Leiden, 1976) 9ff.; O. Tsagarakis, "TheTeichoskopia Cannot Belong in theBeginning of theTrojan War," QUCC 41 (1982) 61-72; N. Postlethwaite, "The Duel of Paris and Menelaos and the Teichoskopia in Iliad 3," Antichthon 19 (1985) 1-6; M. W. Edwards, "Topos and Transformation in Homer," inHomer: Beyond Oral Poetry; ed. J.M. Bremer, I. J. F. de Jong, and J. Kalff (Amster dam, 1987), 56-57. 2. Tsagarakis 1982: 70. A similar suggestion was made by J. T. Sheppard a half-century previ ously ("Helen with Priam," G&R 3 (1933) 35: "With a delicacy some modern parents well might envy, Priam talks at random-no, as if at random-really to cover her distress."). 3. Tsagarakis 1982: 64. 4. Kirk 1985: 286. 5. Bowra 1930: 112; Parry 1966: 198; Lendle 1968: 68; Kakridis 1971: 32; Clader 1976: 9; Edwards 1987: 56. 6. Bowra 1930: 112; Lendle 1968: 68; Kakridis 1971: 32; Kirk 1985: 286. 7. Kakridis 1971: 32. 8. Reckford 1964: 8. 9. Edwards 1987: 56.

Walls of Troy JAMISON: Draupadi on the

The common thread in the discussions of these episodes seems to be that they fill some function or "are about" something other thanwhat appears, and that they consist of material originally different, even foreign in purpose, that has been jury-riggedand pressed into service. The apparent incompetence of this adaptation is ascribed, for example by Kirk, to the oral nature of the epic,10or even toHomer's doting fondness for an earlierwork of his own.1 In all these discussions of provenance and function, one important compa
randum has been ignored-at least as far as I am aware-namely, the evidence

of the other great heroic epic from a cognate tradition, the Indian Mahabhdrata. Examined from this Indic point of view, the Teikhoskopia and the duel both appear to fill important structural roles in the largernarrative and to be crucially connected to each other. That it is Indicmaterial that sheds this light suggests that this narrative complex may be an inherited one in both Greek and Sanskrit epic-and that it has a place in an Indo-European typology of marriage, both legal and illegal. Let us begin in India. As iswell known, the Sanskrit law codes regularly classify marriage into eight categories, according to the circumstances under which the bridegroom takes charge of the bride.12 These categories are hierarchi on the list, and the legality (or not) of any particular cally ranked, by position marriage depends on its position in the hierarchy and on the social class of the participants. The seventh type, the RakSasa or "Demonic" marriage, is the lowest type of legal union. This ismarriage by capture or abduction, defined with unblinking violence as
hatva chittva ca bhittva ca krosantim rudatim grhat

prasahya kanyaharanam raksaso vidhir ucyate. (MDS 111.33) The abduction by force of a maiden, weeping and wailing, from her house, after smashing and cleaving and breaking [her relatives and household], that is called the Rak$asa rite. The texts usually agree, sometimes reluctantly, in considering this type of mar riage legal for Ksatriyas, the warrior class, along with the more peacable Gandharva type, marriage bymutual agreement. This type of marriage not only has a secure position in the legal tradition; it is
10. Kirk 1985: 287: "AHomer who had been writing out his poem would probably have made such adjustments; but somehow the oral traditionof a Teikhoskopia must have persuaded the actual Homer, and his audience, that this was not necessary, that the apparent anomaly could be over looked or tolerated in the name of tradition." 11. A. Severyns, Homere 3, 10 (cited by Kakridis 1971: 32 n. 19). 12. The best-known of the Indic law codes, though not the earliest, is that of Manu, the Manava Dharma Sastra (MDS), inwhich the types of marriage are treated at III.20-42. The standard translation of theMDS is that of G. Bihler, The Laws of Manu, Sacred Books of the East, vol. 25 (Oxford, 1886); see also the recent Penguin translationofW. Doniger and B. K. Smith, The Laws of Manu (Harmondsworth, 1991).

CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

Volume 13/No. 1/April 1994

also repeatedly exemplified in the narrative literature. The Mahdbhdrata con tains several discursive narratives of RaikSasa abductions, the most famous of which are BhiSma's abduction of Amba and her sisters (1.96, V.170) and Arjuna's of Krna's sister Subhadra (1.211-13). Let us briefly examine some features of "orthodox"Rakasa marriage thatwill be relevant inwhat follows. Though the legal description of Raksasa marriage just quoted seems to depict a scene of chaotic violence, close examination of Raksasa narratives shows that, though the event was undeniably violent, itwas only superficially chaotic. In fact, RakSasa abduction mimics, almost slavishly, the orderly progress of an ordinary marriage ceremony. The correctly performed Raksasa abduction is a ritual, a ceremony, and the important steps in a tranquilwedding (as set forth in theGrhya Sutras, the texts of the domestic rituals) all have their breathless and violent analogues in the abduction narratives.13 The crucial steps are the following. In an ordinarymarriage, thewould-be bridegroom sends a few wooers to the house of the girl. They ceremonially take a position and announce several times the name and lineage of the bridegroom and his intentions to the assembled household. In a Raksasa marriage thewould-be abductor comes on a single chariot, sometimes with a second (a sort of substitute best man) but no additional companions, to the place where themaiden is, and announces his name and lineage and his intention to abduct-as in the vivid proclamation of Bhisma:14
avocam bhismah parthivan sarvan, aham tatra samagatan sanmtanavah kanyd, haratfti punah punah.

(MBhV.170.13) I proclaimed to all the kings assembled there, "Bhisma giamtanava takes thesemaidens," again and again. The analogue to the assembled household that hears this announcement
under ordinary circumstances is an armed host, often, as in the case of Bhisma

and Amba, an assemblage of kings attending the scheduled bridal self-choice (svayarmvara)of the girl who gets snatched. The abductor's announcement is accompanied by a challenge: he will fight them all. In fact, he must fight them an act of heroism (vfrya) that substitutes for the bride price (?ulka) in some other marriage types.
Now the point of all this is that Raksasa are met, the abduction abduction has certain legal require marriage, and

ments: itmust be (1) announced, (2) witnessed, and (3) fought for. But if these
requirements itself is legal, is a recognized

13. The ceremonial aspects of Indicmarriage by abduction are discussed inmy forthcoming book, SacrificedWife I Sacrificer'sWife: Women, Ritual, and Hospitality inAncient India. 14. All quotations from theMah/abhdrata (MBh) are taken from the Critical Edition (Poona, 1930-70), and all translations are my own. However, complete versions of the episodes in question can be consulted in J. A. B. van Buitenen's excellent translation (Chicago, 1973-78) of the first five books (of the eighteen).

JAMISON: Walls of Troy Draupadf on the

there isnothing that an annoyed family or disappointed former suitor or husband can do about it. Let us now remember who the successful bridegroom in these marriages is.As we noted above, the law texts allow thismarriage type only for a
Ksatriya, a member of the warrior class, and in fact Bhisma at one point in the

Mahabhdrata rather startlingly proclaims it as the best type of marriage for warriors. Indeed, asMinoru Hara has discussed,15 abduction does fit Ksatra dharma (WarriorCustom) better than other types in several importantways. It requires an act of heroism appropriate towarrior behavior. Perhapsmore impor tant, it involves taking the girl by force, not accepting her.Most marriage types explicitly involve the gift of the girl by her father, and it is contrary to the warrior's code to accept gifts. Now all this sets up an interesting countersituation. If a correctly performed abduction is legal, then an incorrectlyperformed one-skimping on the ceremo nial steps or on the heroic activity accompanying them-is illegal, and illegal in interesting, nontrivial ways. The existence, at least in theory, of legal abduction defines and sharpens the outrage of the illegal type. It is not merely lawless in general, but itmay involve the perpetrator not only in breaking society's rules regardingmarriage, but in transgressing in specific ways the code of his class. This double illegalitymay account for its power as a narrative theme: two great Indo-European epics, the IndianRdmayana and theGreek Iliad, are essentially stories about the repercussions of an illegal abduction.
And what are the repercussions? We saw above that the family of a girl cor

rectly abducted has no recourse. The marriage must be accepted. But an illegal ab duction isquite different: there is a legal remedy,which Iwill call the reabduction or counterabduction. The injuredparty or parties can assemble a posse and pursue the abductor,with intent to fight and recapture thewoman. Thus Rama can follow
Ravana and Sita to Lanka; Menelaos By now it should be no surprise can follow Paris and Helen that the counterabduction to Troy. has its own rules

and ceremonial steps.Nor should itbe too surprising thatmany of these steps are mirror-image analogues of the expected steps in a correct abduction, especially those steps thatwere left out or incorrectly performed in the illegal abduction. Before we return to Greece, let us define the parameters of the coun terabduction in India-not in the sprawling extravagance of theRdmdyana, but in a confined and consequently pointed narrative in the Mahdbharata: theAbduc tion and Reabduction of Draupadi.
Draupadi is the wife simultaneously of the five Pandava brothers, the main

heroes of theMahdbhdrata. Her abduction occurs in (coincidentally also) the third book, the Aranyaka Parvan (Forest Book), during which the Pandavas
exile in the wilderness. Our episode be spend a tedious twelve-year mandated when the Pandavas go off hunting, virtually alone, with gins leaving Draupadi a maidservant and a house priest as companions. A king called Jayadratha only 15. M. Hara, "ANote on theRaksasa Form ofMarriage," JAOS 94 (1974) 296-306, esp. 304-5.

10 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

Volume 1/April 13/No. 1994

happens by, accompanied by a great retinue, and is quite taken by the beautiful Draupadi. Coming to her hermitage with a group of companions, he first intro duces himself properly but shortly thereafter urges her tomount his chariot and become his wife. When she refuses, he violently forces her onto it and takes off. The priest raises an objection to this behavior. It is a telling one for our purposes. Rather than saying, as our modern sensibilities might expect, "You cannot abduct this virtuous wife" or "Stop this outrageous violence against an innocentwoman," he says instead: neyam sakya tvaya netum, avijityamahdrathan dharmam ksatrasya pauranam, aveksasva jayadratha. (MBh 11.252.25) This [woman] cannot be led[/married]by you, without [your] having conquered great chariot [fighters]. Look to the ancient dharma of thewarrior, 0 Jayadratha.
He does not condemn or forbid the abduction per se, but rather states that it

would be legal if Jayadratha engaged in combat. Jayadratha'sabduction is in fact illegal on every count. He has not announced his intentions; his actions have no legalwitnesses; he performs no feats of valor.
Draupadi has already warned Jayadratha that two of her husbands, Krsna and

Arjuna, will pursue him on a single chariot (III.252.14), the vehicle that a proper abductorwould choose. And indeedwhen the brothers return from hunting and learnwhat has happened, they all set out inpursuit, in a frenzy that is measurably increasedwhen they see Draupadi standing on Jayadratha's chariot. This scene is so far unremarkable. Of course they would pursue her; of course theywould be frenzied; and, equally, of course Jayadrathawould attempt to escape them and carry off his prize. But what follows is not predictable in a universal script. As the Pandavas close in on the abductor's chariot, all action seems to cease, freeze-framed, as it were, for nineteen temporally suspended verses-Tristubh verses at that, each with four 11-syllable lines-a remarkably lengthy interruption to this dramatic chase scene. It is important to note that these verses are so-called irregularTri.tubhs and, as such, belong to the oldest, Mahabhdrata, as convincingly argued in the recent Ksatriya core of our surviving This isnot recently introduced epic filler, of which book ofMary Carroll Smith.16
we have so much in the Mahdbharata, but belongs to the heart of the text.

And what happens in these verses?When Jayadratha espies the Pandavas bearing down, he turns toDraupadi standing next to him on the chariot (which presumably is still careeringmadly along) and says:
ayantime panca ca krne manye patayas ratha mahanto tavaite

16. M. C. Smith, TheWarrior Code of India's Sacred Song (NewYork, 1992), esp. 129.

JAMISON: onthe ofTroy Draupadf Walls

a janati khyapaya nah sukesi param-param pandavanam rathastham. (MBh III.254.3) These five great chariot[-warrior]s are coming hither, and I think they are your husbands, O Krsna [= Draupadi]. Recognizing [them], O fair-haired one, proclaim to us in sequence each one of the Pandavas standing on the chariot.

11

At this request, Draupadi firstcrows over Jayadratha (vs. 4) but then agrees to perform this identification. The phrasing of her acquiescence is critical: akhyatavyam tv eva sarvammumursor
maya tubhyam prstaya dharma esah.

(MBh 11I.254.5)
But all this must be proclaimed to one about to die,

[proclaimed] by me to you, since Iwas asked. That is the law [dharma]. Draupadi's identification of her husbands is a legal requirement in this situation; Jayadrathawas not simplymaking idle chatter in his request. But why in this panic- and pressure-filled moment must they take the time for a set of leisurely introductions? The answer comes from the ceremonies we have already discussed. The first step in both the ordinary marriage and the legal abduction is the wooing, the formal announcement by the bridegroom or his proxies of his name and lineage to the bride's family or protectors, a step left out of the illegal abductions.What we have in this scene is amirror-image wooing, whose configuration is appropri ate to the counterabduction. The woman ceremonially identifies, by name and qualities, the reabductors, who can then legitimately claim her back as their wife. She does so to the person who illegally has her in his power and who thus fulfills, in a fracturedway, the role of her guardian and protector. Draupadi certainly takes the ceremonial aspects of her task very seriously. She doesn't just point at fivemen in rapid succession and say, "Watch out for that one!" Instead, each husband receives at least two verses (usually three), and each is introduced by an archaic syntactic-cum-literary device: one or more descriptive, even definitional relative clauses, followed by aminimal main clause that reveals the personal name. This stylistic device is familiar from the earliest Sanskrit, especially memorably inRig Veda 11.12, a hymn with twelve successive verses each beginning with a sequence of relative clauses and each ending with the snappymain clause sd janasa indrah, "That, folks, is Indra." We can sample Draupadi's version in her first identification, that of Yudhisthira, noticing that his lineage is neatly includedwith his name at the end: yasya dhvajagre nadato mrdangau nandopanandau madhurau yuktarupau

12

CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY etam svadharmarthaviniscayajfiam sada janah krtyavanto 'nuyanti ya esa jambiunadasuddhagaurah pracandaghonas tanur ayataksah
etam kurusresthatamam vadanti

Volume 13/No. 1/April 1994

yudhisthiram dharmasutam patim me. (MBh III.254.6-7) At the top of whose standard sound the two drums, the sweet Nanda and Upananda suitably formed Him who knows the decisions concerning his own law and purpose do the busy people always follow. Who is pure and bright as gold, large-nosed, slender, long-eyed Him they call the best of the best of theKurus, Yudhisthira, son of Dharma, my husband. And so she continues, in similar vein, through the rest of her husbands, ending with a formal summary: ity ete vai kathitdIh panduputrdh, "Thus have these sons of Pandu been declared" (MBh 111.254.20).
And then all hell breaks loose. The five Pandavas alone attack and defeat in

spectacularly bloody fashion the great army accompanying Jayadratha (hundreds of warriors, elephants, horses, and so on). Again this has its analogue in legal
abduction: the Pandavas, the reabductors, perform the act of valor that serves as

bride price (vfrya-sulka) in a RakSasa marriage and that was omitted by Jayadratha.At this battle Jayadratha, the original abductor, again displays his craven unworthiness. Rather than fight, he dismounts and attempts to flee. When he is overtaken, the Pandavas do not even kill him (despite Draupadi's urgings). He does not deserve to die in battle, as a proper Ksatriya would, but instead is forced to agree to proclaim himself a slave of the Pandavas, whereupon he is released:
daso 'smiti tvaya vacyam, samsatsu ca sabhasu ca

evam te jivitam dadyam, esa yuddhajito vidhih. (MBh 111.256.11)

You must proclaim, in sessions and assemblies, "I am a slave."

Just thuswould I give life to you. That is the rule [imposed] by [me,] victorious in battle. (Note the contemptuous dadyam, "I would give"-Jayadratha must humble himself to accept a gift, his own life.) The sparingof Jayadratha's life is hardly an
act of compassion not only offended and forgiveness, against Draupadi but a calculated humiliation of aman who has the code and her husbands but has violated

of his warrior class. Thus the incident is closed. The counterabduction has been accomplished with the appropriate ceremony-wooing and act of valor-lacking in the origi

Walls of Troy JAMISON: Draupadi on the

13

nal abduction; Draupadi is reunited with her husbands, and the abductor is suitably punished. With this Indic paradigm inmind, we may now return toGreece, and by now it should be fairly clear what I want to say about the Homeric episodes with which we began. If the Iliad in one sense begins as a vast reabduction narrative, Book 3 concentrates the primary ceremonial steps of a counterabduction. The Teikhoskopia and the duel are tightly linked parts of a single narrative complex; neither is an orphaned story fragment jammed randomly into empty epic space. Iliad 3 is the first point in the epic when we see the Greeks and Trojans together; that it is supposedly the tenth year of thewar is fairlyunimportant from a narrative point of view.17 It is entirely appropriate that the correct steps in a counterabduction should be laid out at this firstGreek-Trojan encounter, and that is exactly what happens. Iliad 3 is parallel point by point to the coun terabduction of Draupadi, but with a surprise ending. The Teikhoskopia corre sponds to the counterwooing; the great oath sworn corresponds to thewitnessing required in both ordinarymarriages andmarriages by abduction, and the duel of
Menelaos and Paris to the Pandavas' combat with the army of Jayadratha. The

outcome for Paris is similar to the fate of Jayadratha, but has vastly different effects on the story. Let us take up each of these points in turn, beginningwith theTeikhoskopia. Helen's tranquil, almost elegiac musings on the wall certainly differ inmood fromDraupadi's defiant speech on a lurchingchariot, but the two episodes serve the same purpose: the counterwooing, the identification and announcement of the pursuers intending to reabduct the woman. The only difference is that Draupadi speaks directly to her original abductor, while Priam serves as surro
gate or proxy for his son Paris. Remember that proxies can be used in the

original wooing, too. The seeming interruption of the action that commentators have noted, in deed sometimes complained of-the arbitrary suspension of time between
Paris's challenge to Menelaos and the actual duel that has made some consider

theTeikhoskopia an awkwardly handled intrusion in the text-is the same effect produced by Draupadi's freeze-framed monologue in the chariot. And I think the same pointed artfulness is at work in both epics. Violent and decisive action has been set inmotion, is both inevitable and imminent, and then themotion stops at itsmost dramatic, while themeasured, tradition-bound voice of legality and ceremony confers legitimacy on the violence to come. The duel cannot proceed until Helen has spoken. She is not a casual onlooker, but the key to the
whole.18 17. A similar point was made by Kakridis 1971: 32. 18. In this regard I thinkKakridis and Postlethwaite, on the one hand, and Reckford, on the other, have come closer than others to understanding the crucial linkage of the episodes, though clearly I do not follow them in their view of the exact nature of the linkage. According to the Kakridis-Postlethwaite hypothesis, Helen on thewalls is displayed like a prize in amarriage contest,