(Old Church Slavonic mlu ̆nı ̆ji, Russian mólnija, Old Prussian mealde; Welsh
mellt; cf. Icelandic myln‘fire’). The underlying notion is that of crushing
or grinding, as in Greek μ3λη‘mill’ and the verbs Latin molare, Russian
molót. The semantic steps are crush: crushing instrument: thunderbolt:
lightning.^57
The Baltic and Slavonic thunder-gods’ weapons are not pictured so con-
sistently. Perkunas and Perun usually hurl an axe. But Perkunas sometimes
has a hammer, which returns to his hand when thrown; this is probably a
Germanic borrowing. Perun sometimes shoots an arrow (strelá).^58 The
Latvian Pe ̄rkons has his milna, but at other times a spear, a sword, an iron
rod, arrows, or stone bullets. With all of these, as with Thor’s hammer, the
emphasis is on the physical impact of the thunderbolt and not on brightness
or burning. But the Belorussian Piarun is said to make lightning flash out
from between two stones. This is of some interest, as the same is said of
Indra:^59
He who by killing the Serpent made the seven streams flow,
he who drove forth the cows with the removal of Vala,
he who generated fire between two stones,
the contest victor –– he, O peoples, is Indra!
As the damage caused by the thunderbolt is everywhere conceived as being
due to the impact of a solid object, the question arises how the god respon-
sible is able to repeat the performance indefinitely. There are two alternative
answers, either or both of which may be of Indo-European antiquity. Either
he gets his unique weapon back each time, or he has an inexhaustible supply
of ammunition.
We have seen that Mio ̨ llnir returns to Thor of its own accord, and that the
same is sometimes said of Perkunas’ hammer. It is also said of the Dagda’s
missile. It is not, so far as I know, ever said of Indra’svajra-, though in the
Maha ̄bha ̄rata he has a spear with this property.^60 In Roman times there
was a belief that the lightning goes back into the sky.^61 At the mythical level
there was a story that it was taken back to Zeus by his bird, the eagle (Manil.
- 489, 500 f.).
(^57) Ernout–Meillet (1959) s.vv. malleus,molo; V. V. Ivanov–V. N. Toporov (as n. 15), 1195;
Lorenz (1984), 312; Bader (1989), 89 n. 201; Gamkrelidze–Ivanov (1995), 619; Watkins (1995),
429.
(^58) M. Gimbutas, JIES 1 (1973), 475; Vánˇa (1992), 72.
(^59) RV 2. 12. 3; V. V. Ivanov–V. N. Toporov (as n. 15), 1195 f.; cf. Nagy (1990), 196.
(^60) Skáldsk. 35 (quoted above); de Vries (1956), ii. 127; MBh. 3. 286. 16, 294. 24 (s ́akti-,
explicitly distinguished from the vajra-). We shall see in Chapter 12 (p. 463) that the motif is not
confined to divine weapons.
(^61) Cic. De div. 2. 45; Lucr. 6. 87–9= 383–5; Luc. 1. 155–7; Pliny, HN 2. 143 f.; Arrian ap. Stob.
- 2 (i. 238. 1 Wachsmuth).
254 6. Storm and Stream