The Head Beneath the Altar is Brian Collins’ first book, yet it demonstrates a ripe scholarship seldom found in first publications. Collins belongs to a small group of young scholars that are reading closely the intricate and often labyrinthine Vedic literature and other Indian sources. He does this not only in light of the primary and secondary literature on Indian sacrifice, but drawing from “sidelong glances into Christian theology, contemporary philosophy and Greek, Iranian and Scandinavian literature” (p. 3). The Head Beneath the Altar is part of the series edited by William A. Johnsen on violence, mimesis and culture which was born out of the Colloquium on Violence and Religion. This international association engages critically with René Girard's theory on violence and religion, which attempts to explain sacrificial violence, and ultimately violence in general, as the subconscious repetition of the original murder of the victim as scapegoat. According to Girard all rituals spring from the surrogate victim, and all the institutions of mankind can be drawn from ritual.
It is in this vein that Collins' book engages with the topic of sacrifice and violence, bringing Girard's mimetic theory into conversation with the ancient Vedic, epic and (to a lesser extent) Purāṇic literature. The book, in Collins' words, has three concrete aims, as follows: “reading Hinduism through mimetic theory, and the second aim, reading mimetic theory through Hinduism … the third and final aim [is] a reexamination of mimetic theory for scholars whom it might be of good use”.
The reader will find that these three aims have been thoroughly achieved by Collins. The author clarifies myths mainly from the Brāhmaṇas and the Mahābhārata by examining the Sanskrit texts and the earliest Indian accounts on ritual and sacrifice. However, he clearly engages with the material with a particular agenda: to discuss and prove Girard's mimetic theory. Collins appears to aim to prove that Hinduism offers a valid alternative to the anti-sacrificial worldview contained in the gospels proposed by Girard. In order to do this, he looks for myths within the Hindu traditions and contrasts them with a broad range of material from Western sources – from Dumézil, Hegel, Freud, Derrida and other philosophers, to films such as The Godfather. Implicitly Collins is also offering a critique of French Orientalists, in particular of Sylvain Lévi, whose translations of the Brāhmaṇas were the sole source for Girard's engagement with Indian sacrifice.
While Collins' comparative mythology is certainly more careful than many of the works published on the subject, it remains an elaborate postmodern application of Girard's scapegoat theory to the Indian myth. Collins mentions that he is not interested in defending Girard from his critics (p. 21), and at the same time he writes that he wants “to ‘rehabilitate’ mimetic theory for scholars working in the field of religious studies, where Girard has been dismissed for so long that his name has largely disappeared from the mainstream academic discourse […]” (p. 16).
While the book may be intended for a wider scholarship interested in violence, mimesis and culture in general, the book will present challenges to the non-specialist scholar of Indian mythology. Collins includes obscure passages on Vedic myth and ritual that one wishes were better contextualized, so that those who do not know much about Vedic ritual and mythology do not feel quickly lost. The more learned reader may accuse Collins of cherry-picking the myths to suit his argument and transposing anachronistically his examples into modern institutions and theoretical edifices. Collins is perhaps well aware that as one of “Wendy's children”, he may also be denounced for reading too much into the myths and may leave some readers wondering about his own “bandhus” (connections/correlations). A critique has been directed, most vehemently by Hindu nationalists, at Doniger and at some of her “children” on more than one occasion over the last few years. Indeed, Collins directly and cogently addresses this issue in his first chapter.
Jan Heesterman, whom Collins frequently cites in his book, is one of the most influential scholars to study the relationship between Vedic ritual and violence. However, it was precisely he who also examined the concept of ahiṃsā (non-violence) within Vedic ritual that later became so emblematic of Hinduism. Heesterman reminds us that scholars such as Schmidt had already found the idea of ahiṃsā present in the ritualistic thought of the Brāhmaṇas. Heesterman, therefore, argues for an inherent contradiction in Vedic thought “that defies human order and logic” (J.C. Heesterman, “Non-violence and sacrifice”, Indologica Taurinensia, 1984, p. 127). This omission leaves the reader wishing that this concept – so relevant to the discussion on sacrifice and violence in the Indian context – had been explicitly fleshed out by the author's otherwise sharp analysis.
Despite the above-mentioned caveats Collins' book remains a remarkable first work of scholarship. One encounters in this book a unique balance between philology and broad theoretical conversations that is often lacking in the contemporary work of South Asianists. The Head Beneath the Altar can be recommended to scholars of religious studies and those interested in broader postmodern theoretical discussions. This book is also a great addition to the reading lists of graduate courses on topics such as violence, sacrifice and religion.
