To Hell and Back: Conclusions

There are many things that we can learn from the tales of “Orpheus and Eurydice” and “Savitri and Satyavan”, things about ourselves, about our culture, ancient culture, death, and the role of women in society. In my last entry I asked readers to think about why it is that Orpheus fails where Savitri succeeds and what this has to say about a variety of issues, most of which were just mentioned in the previous sentence. This is a question that I have dwelled on for quite some time now. I find both of these myths utterly fascinating, especially because they are both so similar and yet so different. So in conclusion, here’s what I think…

In both “Orpheus and Eurydice” and “Savitri and Satyavan”, a spouse must descend into the underworld to retrieve the soul of their departed lover. Both make a deal with the god of the underworld. One fails, one succeeds. Why?

First off, both of these stories tell us a lot about the cultures that composed them. “Orpheus and Eurydice” tells us that the Greco-Roman point of view on death was very final. Once you died you were resigned to the underworld where you were expected to stay. In the land of the dead, the living were not welcomed, just as the dead were surely not welcomed in the land of the living. “Savitri and Satyavan” paints a similar picture for us except for the fact that we see that death is not always permanent; Savitri does manage to win back her husband’s soul and return him to life. This undoubtedly reflects the Hindu world of view in which the predominate form of afterlife belief is that of ‘reincarnation’ which hold that after death many of us will go on to living new lives, being reborn again and again.

Secondly, the deals which both Orpheus and Eurydice strike with their respective underworld gods are also interesting, especially because they serve as a prototype for later Christian legends concerning Faustian deals with the devil. In the myth of “Orpheus and Eurydice”, however, it is Hades who apparently wins the beat, as Orpheus fails to keep his eyes off of Eurydice until after the two have left the underworld. There are those who feel that Hades’ tricked Orpheus, however, I disagree, believing instead that Hades, if anything, was simply banking on the fact that Orpheus’ inherent human weakness would get the better of him. As for Savitri’s deal with Yama, I think it’s pretty clear that in this case Savitri did trick Yama into giving her Satyavan’s soul. The type of ‘loop-hole logic’ which Savitri employs here is also fairly common in both myths and fairy-tales, especially in Arabian mythology were it is often employed by djinn’s who want to get the better of their masters. Ultimately, what the story of “Savitri and Satyavan” is trying to tell us here, I believe, is that being quick witted is a virtue; for one who is fast on their feet may even be able to outwit the gods.

Lastly, I feel that without a doubt the most loaded issue of any to be found here in both of these tales is that of the role of the women in them. I believe that this facet of these stories is of great importance not only because of what it has to say about women is both the ancient and modern world but because it can also provide one with the answer as to why Orpheus fails in his mission while Savitri succeeds in her’s.

The key difference between Orpheus and Savitri, I feel, is ultimately motivation. Orpheus wants Eurydice while Savitri needs Satyavan, and this all has to do with how women were viewed in ancient Greco-Rome and India. Ancient Greece and Rome as well as India were patriarchal societies; men ran almost everything. This is still true today in modern India as in modern western society which has been largely modeled off the Greco-Roman prototype. However, there is one crucial difference. In Greco-Roman patriarchal society women were viewed as objects, literally second class citizens who could be owned by their husbands. This was in contrast to eastern patriarchy where women were still not as socially powerful as men but nevertheless still had many of the same freedoms and rights that men enjoyed, a fact which is still true today.

Now, while one who is sufficiently familiar with the tale of “Orpheus and Eurydice” would never question whether or not Orpheus truly loves Eurydice – he does – one does need to take note of the fact that Orpheus’ love for her is framed within a Hellenistic context, meaning that to him Eurydice is a ‘possession.’ And this is exactly the tone that one picks up on when re-reading the tale of Orpheus and Eurydice. Following Eurydice’s death Orpheus acts like he has just had something stolen from him, like a prized trophy or a new car. He then descends into the underworld to essentially demand the return of his property from Hades, albeit in song. The problem with all this is that the cold truth of the matter is that, from a social standpoint, Orpheus doesn’t need Eurydice, he simply wants her. Had this story been reversed with Eurydice having lost Orpheus and then failing to win back his soul, she would not have then been able to continue on with life by herself in perpetual morning – the way Orpheus does. She would have been expected to marry someone else; in fact, she probably would have been married off to someone else by her father in the weeks following Orpheus death, because that is what happened to women in ancient Greece and Rome.

This is, of course, in sharp contrast to “Savitri and Satyavan”, where Savitri doesn’t merely want the return of her husband’s soul but needs it. As Savitri notes in both my retelling of the story and the original version, that in Indian society it was a wife’s dharma – sacred duty – to care for her husband and bear his children. Without a husband Savitri would not have been able to fulfill her dharma and as a result would not have been able to join her husband in heaven as she would have to be reincarnated in an attempt to fulfill her duty as a woman and a wife in a another life. For some women readers this may not seem much better a situation than that Eurydice, however, I would ask those readers to keep in mind that Savitri is essentially just trying to be faithful to her vows as a wife, the same type of vows that western women make on their wedding day. Also, take stock in that fact that not only is Savitri the protagonist and hero of her story but also a shinning example of a smart, strong and determined woman who was not about to let her husband second guess her womanly intuition or let a male death god tell her what she could and could not do, all of which is far superior to poor little Eurydice who doesn’t have but a single line of dialogue in her entire tale.

With that in mind, I would also like to point out what these two myths can teach us today. Both myths teach us about the power of love, which is one of the greatest powers in the world, however, they also teach us what can happen when love is misguided. I personally think that in modern western society today there are a lot of Orpheuses out there. Talented young men who are desperately and recklessly pursuing women who they do not need but merely want, because to them women are nothing more than possessions to be had. Likewise there are a lot of young women out there who have let themselves become helpless little Eurydices, following there own Orpheuses all the way to the top only to have them foolishly cast them away with a backwards glance. While “Orpheus and Eurydice” is without a doubt one of my favorite myths from all of Greco-Roman mythology I do believe that from a social standpoint it is not one that needs to be imitated but rather learned from, a cautionary fable. Rather what we in the west need are more women like Savitri and more men like Satyavan who, in spite of their own piggishness, can learn to respect and trust their wives, girlfriends or lovers.

At Top: The title sheet for classical composer Monteverdi's 1607 opera The Legend of Orpheus. The myth of "Orpheus and Eurydice" has had a strong impact on western culture, having been adapted into poems, songs, novels, plays, operas, movies, comics and more. Visit Wikipedia's page on Orpheus for a very comprehensive list.

To Hell and Back: Analysis and Questions

Analysis

Now that we have looked at two very similar, yet very different tales concerning the religious and mythological theme of decent into the underworld it is now time to make an evaluation of the two narratives and draw a conclusion in regard to what they have to say about humankind.

Compare and Contrast: “Orpheus and Eurydice” with “Savitri and Satyavan”

The myths of “Orpheus and Eurydice” and “Savitri and Satyavan” both share a great deal in common. Not only do both deal with the motif of decent into the underworld but both also feature a protagonist who descends into the netherworld to rescue a spouse who was killed by a snake. In both tales, the protagonist must cross a river that separates the land of the living from that of the dead. Both tales find our protagonist’s presence in the underworld to be a source of potential cosmological chaos, and both protagonists must, in the end, make a deal with the Lord of the Dead.

However, while the similarities between these two tales may be striking the differences they share are equally profound. To start with, the tale of “Orpheus and Eurydice” is from ancient Greco-Rome while the tale of “Savitri and Satyavan” is from India. In “Orpheus and Eurydice”, it is the husband who is the protagonist and must rescues his wife, while in “Savitri and Satyavan” the scenario is reversed and it is the wife who must save the husband. The other major difference between Orpheus’ and Savitri’s tale is, of course, that Savitri is successful in her quest to retrieve her husband’s soul while Orpheus is not.

The Questions

It is this last observation that leads to the most obvious, though not necessarily the most important, question one can ask about these two myths: Why dose Savitri succeed where Orpheus fails? Another way of looking at this question is to also ask: Why did Orpheus fail? Was it his own weakness or did Hades indeed trick him? Was the deal Orpheus struck with Hades fair? And then for the more culturally centered reader: What dose this story tell you about the beliefs of the ancient Greeks and Romans? What dose it say about the relationship between a husband and a wife? What can we learn from it?

Then coming at this line of questioning from the Indian point of view: Why dose Savitri succeed? Was the deal Savitri struck with Yama fair? Did Savitri trick Yama? If so was this right or wrong of her? And what dose this tale tell us about the Hindu worldview and the role of men and women in it?

I will post my thoughts on these matters in the next few days.

To Hell and Back: Savitri and Satyavan

Our second tale to deal with the theme of decent into the underworld comes from the Hindu epic The Mahābhārata (c. 4th-Century C.E.). Like the myth of “Orpheus and Eurydice”, the Indian tale of Savitri and her husband Satyavan involves an attempt to bring a loved one back from the great beyond. The difference here, however, is that rather than the husband going after the wife it is Savitri who seeks the return of her husband, Satyavan’s, soul…

Savitri and Satyavan, as retold by Justin M.

Savitri was the bride of the exiled prince Satyavan, son of the blind king Dyumatsena. The couple lived together, peacefully, in the deep forests of India. Now Savitri was greatly skilled in the art of divinization, so there was no secret the future could keep from her. But her husband, Satyavan, did not give heed to her fortunes and believed them to be untrue. So it came to pass that one day while scrying, Savitri learned that her beloved husband was to die while chopping wood in the forest.

Savitri tried to warn her husband, but he would not believe a single word she said. He told her that no one, except the gods, knew what the future held and that she was doing no favors by worrying about it. But still Savitri feared for her husband’s life and asked if she could accompany him into the forest that day when he went to cut wood for their fire. Satyavan said yes, though he still thought his wife was being silly.

So with that Savitri and Satyavan set off into the forest, and while they were there a cobra sprang up and bit Satyavan on the leg, killing him. Savitri then fell to her knees and wept for her husband, and when she looked up she saw Yama, the god of the dead, standing before her.

Yama was an imposing figure. He had green skin and three eyes. Horns like a bull and he carried in one hand a mace and in the other a noose with which he lassoed the souls of the dead. He rode on the back of a pitch black buffalo and on that day he had come to collect the soul of Satyavan.

Normally, mortals can not see Yama until after they are dead, but on that day Savitri saw Yama and spoke to him without fear or hesitation. She asked Yama to return her husband’s soul so that he might live again. Yama, naturally, denied her offer saying that Satyavan’s time had come and he had lived a good and honest life and would be richly rewarded in the afterlife.

This did not satisfy Savitri, who knew that a wife with no husband could not fulfill her dharma, her sacred call of duty. So again she pleaded with Yama to return her husband’s soul, and again Yama refused, but this time, having been impressed by the devoutness of Savitri, he said that he would allow her to follow him to the river Vaitarani which separated the land of the living from that of the dead. And so, Savitri followed.

When they reached the river Vaitarani, Yama was sure that Savitri would stop there, for no living mortal had ever crossed the river before. However, as Yama, on the back of his buffalo, began to tread across the river, Savitri began to follow. Yama then began to grow nervous. He whipped his steed and ordered for it to cross faster, but no matter how deep the waters got Savitri would not stop following. Finally, Yama turned around and faced the woman. He ordered her to return to the other side of the river. He told her that what she was doing was forbidden, that the living could not enter the realm of the dead, that to do so would cause chaos in his realm. But Savitri would not be moved.

Yama, then in an attempt to pacify the determined woman offered to grant her three boons of her choosing if she would only return to the land of the living. The only condition was that she could not ask for the return of her husband’s soul. Savitri, satisfied with the dread gods offer, accepted and proceeded to name her three boons.

Savitri’s first boon was for her parents to be blessed with a second child, so that if anything should happen to her that they might have another son or daughter to take care of them in their old age. Yama granted her request.

Her second request was for her in-laws, Satyavan’s mother and father, to have their sight restored so that they would longer be infirmed and could rule once more. Again Yama granted her request.

Savitri then asked for her third and final boon, children of her own who would carry on her late husband Satyavan’s legacy. And for the third and final time Yama granted Savitri’s request. It was only after he had done so that he realized what he had just agreed to…for how was it possible for Savitri to bear her husband’s children if her husband was dead.

So Yama, a god of his word, was obligated to return the dead Satyavan to life and in doing so bound together the souls of Savitri with that of her husband so that they should not leave the mortal realm without one another, together forever.

At Top: Savitri and Satyavan by artist Ardhenduprasad Banerji.

Center: Yama, the god of death, is revered by both Hindus and Buddhists. This temple painting comes from Tibet.

Sources: The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythology (2007) by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm