CC BY
8Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 6 (2016 9) 1307-1319
УДК 130.2
ApaKwv Greek Mythology
Andrei N. Kudrin*
Khabarovsk State Institute of Culture 112 Krasnorechenskaia Str., Khabarovsk, 680045, Russia
Received 09.02.2016, received in revised form 17.04.2016, accepted 18.05.2016
The article discusses the phenomenological hermeneutics of one of the darkest and mysterious characters of the early Greek mythology named ApaKow. The study is based on the four most ancient myths that we know from Homer and Apollodorus of Athens, describing the battles between ApaKow and different heroes: Apollo, Hermes, Cadmus and Jason. The author chose phenomenology as the method of his investigation following Aristotle's thesis: "It is through wonder that men now begin and originally began to philosophize (the myth-lover is in a sense a philosopher, since myths are composed of wonders); [but] wondering in the first place at obvious (та npoxeipa) perplexities, and then by gradual progression raising the questions about the greater matters too (та npo'iovTeq)". The myth therefore transmitting the archaic thought narrates eiSevai та npoxeipa, "seeing what is open in front of me". The hermeneutic of this vision besides phenomenology needs the ontology of understanding that author finds in fundamental works of S. Kierkegaard, W. Dilthey and M. Heidegger.
Keywords: SpaKow, Tvyaow, Швам, Apyoq, Mara.
DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-2016-9-6-1307-1319.
Research area: philosophy.
From the depths of Greek antiquity, we have inherited a wonderful myth about the fight of the man with the dragon. And this myth has rooted so deeply in the man that it had been repeating until the beginning of the Christian era. Its deep rooting in the man is due to its attachment to the man. The attachment of the man to the myth speaks for the fact that the battle that was described was the question of human existence. It was not existence in the sense of life and death, but of fundamental being of the man. That is why it is essentially important to us to understand this myth. But how should we approach it?
© Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
* Corresponding author E-mail address: 1960.05@inbox.ru
The creature called Dragon is first mentioned by Homer and Hesiod. Taking into account that neither Homer, nor Hesiod called the Dragon a snake like the authors of the later periods, and in Homer's works the reference to the snake can be only concluded basing on the feminine gender of its name (Hymn. III. 300-306), it is obvious that the myth is so ancient that even for Homer and Hesiod the name of Dragon contained only an echo of something more terrifying than the snake they mention.
The Dragon received its name from the word SepKo^ai, "to see". SpaKrav is a participle formed from this verb, therefore, SpaKrav is
"sharp-sighted". Among all other creatures on earth, only snakes have unblinking eyes, which correspondingly gave the name to the snake from meaning "an eye". There is no doubt, this unblinking eye of the snake make the man feel startle and confusion but it has nothing to do with fear and horror. But SpdKrav makes the man feel horror. Let us recall on Gorgons, rcoiKiXov Kdpa SpaKovxrav ^opaiyiv XiBivov Bdvaxov ^eprav, "the head with terrible eyes decorated with dragons brining stone death" (Pind. Pyth. 10.47). In the works of Appolodorus SpdKrav is the child of 'ApnQ Ares, the rage; it is accompanied by ®oPoq fear and Aei^oQ terror. Hesiod places between the eyes of the dragon on the shield of Hercules, Ares's sister and companion 5eiv^ terrifying Eris" (Asp. 148), rage as well. When the man meets the snake, if there is some fear, it is not due to its unblinking eyes but due to the way it moves. Unless, of course, the man had seen the eyes of a terribly giant snake. What can be this raging eye that makes the man feel so terrified?
Horror is the word that gives us a clue. Horror is the mood of the peak shrillness of anxiety accompanying the apathy experience, where uPpi<; is waiting for the man awakening him to the existence or recoiling him from the latter. As soon as such awakening accompanies the man throughout the history of his existence, he should inevitably experience coming into the gaze of this raging eye all over again in one form or another. This falling of the men into the effect of the raging eye should we find not only in the ancient myth, but in the stories of the authors that are not so distant to us. One of such stories we hear from Fyodor Dostoevsky, in his invaluable work "Crime and Punishment", namely, in the description of the state of Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov who had reached the edge of despair:
"A strange period began for Raskolnikov: it was as though a fog had fallen upon him and wrapped him in a dreary solitude from which there was no escape. Recalling that period long after, he believed that his mind had been clouded at times, and that it had continued so, with intervals, till the final catastrophe. He was convinced that he had been mistaken about many things at that time, for instance as to the date of certain events. Anyway, when he tried later on to piece his recollections together, he learnt a great deal about himself from what other people told him. He had mixed up incidents and had explained events as due to circumstances which existed only in his imagination. At times he was a prey to agonies of morbid uneasiness, amounting sometimes to panic. But he remembered, too, moments, hours, perhaps whole days, of complete apathy, which came upon him as a reaction from his previous terror and might be compared with the abnormal insensibility, sometimes seen in the dying. [,..]He felt very miserable. If it had been possible to escape to some solitude, he would have thought himself lucky, even if he had to spend his whole life there. But although he had almost always been by himself of late, he had never been able to feel alone. Sometimes he walked out of the town on to the high road, once he had even reached a little wood, but the lonelier the place was, the more he seemed to be aware of an uneasy presence near him. It did not frighten him, but greatly annoyed him, so that he made haste to return to the town, to mingle with the crowd, to enter restaurants and taverns, to walk in busy thoroughfares. There he felt easier and even more solitary."'
Dostoevsky can be hardly suspected of the flight of fantasy, he knew and understood the man too well. Therefore, these lines that he wrote should be read carefully. First of all, we should be interested in the words: "but the lonelier the place was, the more he seemed to be aware of an uneasy
presence near him". Whose could be that presence in the most lonely place, if not the presence itself? But why does Ralkolnikov suddenly experience it in such a way? The answer is in the lines: "his mind had been clouded", Dostoevsky says. What does the dullness of the consciousness mean? What is consciousness in general? Dostoevsky's contemporary, Vladimir Dahl, explains this word as follows: "consciousness is a state of the one realizing that ...". 'осознающий [realizing] according to Dahl, is "having checked the truth, to accept and understand it". Consequently, 'сознание' [consciousness] is "believing the truth", "accepting the truth" and "understanding the truth".
The truth is what is really there. If 'бытьЬ means a sustainable state of the one standing in the light of medlenie [Russian for 'delaying'] [Kudrin, 2014: 61], 'truth should call this sustainability of the firmly standing one. Let us recall that the word 'бытие' [being] is rooted in medlenie. That is why it has formed a unified paradigm of conjugation with the word 'естЬ [to be] having forced out some of its word forms, including the form 'istina' [truth].
What do the confidence in the truth, its acceptation and understanding mean?
The Russian word 'убеждать' [to convince] is close in meaning to the word 'убежище' [shelter]. We may assume that the Russian word is rooted from the Greek word епауюу^ < епаую, 'brining' < 'I bring', the most important tool in rhetorics, which according to Aristotle, is aimed at the art тастц, what we mainly translate by the word 'убеждение'. Therefore, all тастец come from the open display of what I have found and to which I bring the others. Consequently, the Russian word 'убеждение' quite precisely transfers the meaning of the Greek word тастц, as well as the word пеШю which is close to it.
Therefore, being convinced in the truth means being brought to what is sustainably
delaying in its sustainability in the glimpse. But how to bring to it the one who is mistaken? The answer can be found in the word 'признать' [to accept]. In fact, it is the word from which the Russian word 'сознание' [consciousness] is formed, while there is no such a word as 'сознание' neither in the Old Russian dictionary, nor in the Church Slavonic one. Its appearance in the Russian language is more likely connected with the necessity to translate the German word 'das Bewußtsein' formed from 'wissen', the German equivalent of the verb 'знать' [to know]. What does the verb 'знать' mean? This word has the basis different from the German 'wissen'. It is closer to the Greek word угууюскю and the Latin word 'cognosco'. They have the same root, and therefore the general initial meaning is also close. Therefore, we should search for the meaning looking at its ancient use. Some archaisms were recorded by V. Dahl. For example, "Он знай кричит, знай спорит", "Он знай ходит", "Знать сокола по полёту", "Издали знать", "Знать, моя участь такая". 'Знай in "он знай кричит, знай спорит" and "он знай ходит" is used in the imperative mood and in the second person singular. This means when I say "он знай кричит", I talk about the third person crying: "You should know that he is walking, crying and arguing". Such use of 'знай can have only one meaning, mainly you should pay attention to this, notice this. The German 'wissen' initially had the same meaning. The same meaning is met in the Greek угууюскю: yvtö xwo^evoio, "he notices that he was angry", yiyvöcKra änicxou^evo^, "I notice that they do not believe me" (Veisman, 1991). This meaning has preserved in the Greek yiyvracKffl better, it reveals itself in the words то yvtö^a [sign], о yvö^rav, [superintendent of the sacred olive trees of Athens] and [gnomon]. It is this meaning that enlightens the meaning of the word 'знай' in the sayings "знать сокола по полёту", "издали знать", "знать, моя участь
такая". But to see not only from far away, but even in front of you an angry person who does not believe you, or in general an arguing and even screaming person, it is not enough to only look. Otherwise, what for did Aeschylus say:
"the first ones [people] looked without seeing, listened without listening" (Prom. 447450).
I can only see clearly when I distinguish what I look at on the general background. For this purpose, the eye should stop on..., fix on in the exact meaning of the Latin word fixi', "I have fastened my gaze upon". What I have fastened my gaze upon, starts to move slowly in my view as something I have understood out of the general background. What I have understood is steadily slow, it reveals itself and is open for the eye. Its free viewing is 'знание при', 'признание' [acceptation]. The Greek people called the steadily viewing eye able to distinguish what should be understood vou;. We translate this word into Russian as 'ум' [intellect]. It is hard to say whether this word is etymologically connected with the word д^дп [memory]. The connection of the Russian words 'ум' and 'память' can be traced easily: "ум - умный - мнение - мнить - помнить - память", the same as the Greek д^дп. That is why 'сознание' [consciousness] according to Dahl is also "full memory". Under the full memory Dahl understands not only the memory of the slowed existence, but also the person in it, person's state in it implementing the completeness of the event, which means "the state of the person capable of understanding his actions" or "understanding of himself" and herewith, what is extremely important, understanding his body. That is why "at times, finding himself [Raskolnikov] in a solitary and remote part of the town, in some wretched eating-house, sitting alone lost in thought, hardly knowing how he had come there; another time he woke up before daybreak lying on the ground under some bushes
and could not at first understand how he had come there", Fyodor Mikhailovich writes about his protagonist.
This "clouded mind" of Raskolnikov sounds in Greek as дарап'одсто«; vow;. In this Greek expression дара^-одсто;, даpаv-0^дevo; we can distinguish old Russian Мара [Mara] that is now forgotten and appears only in its derivative forms: 'мороз' [frost], 'смерть' [death], 'морока' [fog], 'мраК [darkness], ..., марево" [heat haze]. The last word has best preserved the esthetics of Mara. Raskolnikov's clouded mind is Mara that like "fog had fallen upon him and wrapped him in a dreary solitude from which there was no escape". The dusk of Mara that had fallen like fog, which is absolutely obvious while Rodion Raskolnikov confuses dates of events, is total 'безразличие' [insensibility] of the person who overfills the whole space in the spotlight, уиад of Raskolnikov. While it is 'неразличимое' [undistinguished], it does not motivate him to act due to this 'безразличие' [insensibility]. Absence of motivation in the literal meaning of this Latin word (motus) is felt as consternation and heavy apathy that "might be compared with the abnormal insensibility, sometimes seen in the dying". The meaning of the Russian word 'умирать' [to die] means to go to Mara. Her freezing grip seems to squeeze the one being frozen and is felt as longing "morbid uneasiness", which at the peak of its shrillness turns into its correlate, terror, that is why Raskolnikov "felt very miserable". Leonid Lipavskii in his wonderful research of terror notes that "ancient Greeks knew this feeling well. They called it meeting with Pan, panic terror" (Lipavskii, 2005: 21). Pan, nav in Greek means 'Всё' [That's all]. In Russian the word 'всё' previously sounded as ^М\ръ', 'Мыръ', the same as Mara.
This 'Всё' [That's all] of the complete fog of insensibility contains desperation. While it is impossible to distinguish anything, the way out of
it is as well impossible to determine. There could not be any way out due to the completeness of insensibility. Insensibility of the delayed one does not allow to outline the presence of another, that is why it is experienced as solitude. The solitary heavily frozen state before complete insensibility of the presence is standing in front of its raging eye.
Therefore, "clouded mind" is the answer to the question how can the man experience the presence of the raging eye. Standing in the view of this eye should accompany the first glimmer of self-consciousness in the dim darkness of human existence. May be it is this confrontation that is described in the myth about the Dragon. Let us turn to the most ancient story about it. It is the myth of Pythian Apollo.
This myth has come down to us in two versions: of the poet Homer and the historian Apollodorus of Athens. According to Aristotle, "the difference between a historian and a poet lies not in the presence or absence of a meter, but in the fact that the first one tells about what had already happened, and the other one about what is happening' (Poet. 1451 b 6-7). Therefore, let us first of all, turn to Apollodorus but also consider Homer's story, while according to Aristotle, "poetry is more philosophical and finer than history".
"But Apollo learned the art of prophecy from Pan, the son of Zeus and "YPptg and came to Delphi, where Themis at that time used to deliver oracles; and when the snake Python, which guarded the oracle, would have hindered him from approaching the chasm, he killed it and took over the oracle" (Apollod. 1.4.1).
Apollodorus calls the guard of the oracle the snake (091?) Python (núBrav). Homer calls him Dragon Typhaon (Tu^árav): "Nearby is the beautiful-flowing spring where the lord,
the son of Zeus, killed the she-dragon with his strong bow,
a wild monster grown to great size, who did many evils
to men on earth—many to the men themselves and many to thin-shanked sheep, since she was a bloody woe.
Hera bore terrible cruel Typhaon, a woe to mortals,
who was like neither gods nor mortals." (Hymn. III. 300-304).
Both Apollodorus and Homer write about the same, but call it differently. How deep is this difference? What can be at the back of the names ntiBrav and Тифаом? We have the answer already: it is the raging eye of presence. But is it true?
Let us begin with nti0rav. Much more is said about it, mainly "and when the snake Python, which guarded the oracle, would have hindered him from approaching the chasm".
"Have hindered him from" is the semantic translation of Apollodorus's ¿KraXuev ccuxov. The more literary translation of ¿KraXuev аш^ is "set him loose". "Setting Apollo loose" here should be understood as loosening the body parts of Apollo. If we turn to the Bible, loosened not long ago meant paralyzed. In the New Testament in Luke 5, 18 we read: ка! i5ou, av5pe; фёрогге; ¿ni K^ivn; av0pranov 0; ^v параХеХид^о;, "some men came carrying a paralyzed man on a mat". The Perfect Participle of параХеХид^ос; that has come down to us as "paralyzed" from параХисц, is literary translated as "loosened from". It is loosened from пара, 'подле' [near]. This 'подле' is the freedom to delay the being; being, which either captures the man attracting him or sending him away to something. This message of being that is attracting the man we call "motivation" < motus, "movement". The параХеХид^ос; man brought to Jesus does not have this movement. But it appeared after Jesus had told him, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." Immediately he stood up in front of them and went home". We can treat differently the text of the evangelist.
One can doubt the story he had described, if there was not one "but": we meet something similar to this situation from time to time. The paralyzed man was able to walk. That means that he was paralyzed because he was not attracted by the being that connects us. It had not captured him. He was not connected. On the contrary, he was loosened. May be he was attracted by something, but not what makes us connected. May be this is why we are not able to understand him.
Apollodorus describes this more precise: ¿к-raXuev. Nevertheless, Apollo is the "light" enlightening the darkness. His name is difficult to analyze in terms of etymology, it is more likely rooted in some pre-Greek lost language, that is why the Greek always called him delicately ФогРо^, which means "Bright" < "Bringing light". For the person to enlighten the darkness means to see clearly. For the person who does not understand his body, light and vision is the same! Apollo symbolizes both. To see clearly should be understood as to see the slow being in the light. What it has come from is the fog of absolute insensibility, Mara. Mara as absolute insensibility is appearing and disappearing being, either here or there. This is what it is: Mara looks at the man. She is SpaKrav, 'зрак' [eye, vision] of the presence of absolute insensibility of the presence, being. Such vision of absolute insensibility is, in fact, plane and blind.2 Its absolute insensibility is 'путань' [a mess]. The root of this Russian word can be traced in the name of seeing eye in Apollodorus's myth, ntiBrav. Vladimir Dahl interprets 'путань' as 'everything that is unconnected'. Nevertheless, this absence of connection is at the same time chaotic connection. That is why the Russian word 'путать' [to mess up] forms 'пук', and that is why it is "everything that is unconnected, unclear and difficult to understand". Moreover, some dialects of the Russian language contain the word 'путерга' in the meaning of the snow storm. In Greek it is called 0идо<;. This word
is often translated as 'spirit', 'soul', 'desire', though it is formed from 0ию, which means 'to smoke', 'to rage'. Russian dialects use the word 'kura' for 'snow storm', 'storm' (Trubachev, 1987). Therefore, we can assume that 0идо<; is 'путерга', even though in Russian the best equivalent is 'дума' [thought]. ro0ov, strictly speaking, is 'путанная дума' [a messy thought], which is heaving in the being, which seems to be hidden in the depths of its vortex. May be it is this chasm (то хаода) of the heaving vortex that nti0rav did not let Apollo look into.
It is worth noting that 'путань', 'путать' and 'путы': "пучащая путань опутывает" [heaving mess is enmeshing], i.e. freezes! Not only 'пучить' and 'пухнуть' are rooted in the Russian word 'путать', but also 'пыхать' [to smoke]. The latter is similar to the Greek тифод which means 'smoke'. In the Russian language it is closer in meaning to the word 'чад' [a reek], from which the derivative 'чадо' [a child] is formed, i.e. what has come into the world. Homer's name Тифаол', similar to тифо^ is formed from тифю, 'чадить' [to smoke]. Therefore, Tu^arav in Homer's myth is 'Чадящий', 'Чадило', i.e. the same dim darkness of insensibility of being, messy thoughts (ro0rav), Mara - ^v 5e окотом ооое каХгуе (Hymn. III. 370), "the darkness that covered Apollo's eyes", ^evo^ о^ео^ НеМою (Hymn. III. 374), "the rage of inhospitable Helios". It is noteworthy that Homer twice calls blind Тифак^'а 'НеХюю, Helios, the sun; but "inhospitable" sun. This strange "inhospitality" of the sun that occurs from nowhere in the text of the myth is unfriendliness of Тифаю^ His unfriendliness is in ректор 'Ynepiov (Hymn. III. 369), "bright glaring arrogance". Twice Homer calls Tu^aov Seivov т' аруаХео^ "terrible and burdensome". 'Burdensome' suits here, but, аруаХео^ offered by dictionaries in the meaning "difficult", "sore" is quite a complicated word. P. Chantraine tries to refer it to аХуо^, which means 'pain', 'suffering'.
He may be right, though his attempt is not very persuasive. It is more likely that аруаХ^ refers to аруа; and Xerav, 'bright' and 'lion', or аруа; and Xeio;, 'bright' and 'smooth, even'. 'White-haired lion' suits Тифа^ semantically. It should be noted that in Homer's myth Gaia gave birth to Тифа^ from Hera:
"She once received from golden-throned Hera, and then raised up,
terrible cruel Typhaon, a woe to mortals" (Hymn. III. 340-353);
and she "brought and gave this evil one to another evil one" to Hera, and she "received him" and "raised him up" (Hymn. III. 300-304).
Let us recall that Hera, 'Ира, the name of which bear Anaksimenes ^ а^р, grammatically agreed with it, is similar to Juno in Latin. Her name formed fromjungo, which means 'connect', 'join', 'intertwine', bears the same, what Mara calls: the insensibility of unsteady dusk of shimmering mist, which envelops the horizon, gradually receding, and departing, filling the presence with thickening present, absorbing it again.
Carried by Hera from the Earth and raised up by her, growing Тифа^ is either a smoking orifice of a volcano, which reminds of messy hair of a white-haired lion, or a smooth, even, bright eye of presence. Its smoothness is 'полог', 'плошь' of absolute insensibility. Its brightness (аруа;) is more like white hair, the word from which argentum, silver, is formed; the colour of silver is light ash-grey, white, unsteady dusk of shimmering mist of absolute insensibility. It is right time to recall on the research of Lipavskii that we have mentioned above: "Tropical sadness is expressed in hysteria typical for southern peoples: in the access of the dance or gasping running, when the man is running without stops with a knife in his hand, - he seems to long for cutting the continuity of the world", which lies in front of him as a bed of absolute insensibility.
What was the first in the meaning of Тифа^: the clouds of the volcano's smoke or misty Mara? It is difficult to assert, but what does not cause any doubts is: Homer tells about the second one, since Apollo ерех0одстп ката x^ov (Hymn. III. 357), "tore it into pieces on the spot" and ка0' u^nv nuKva даГ ^0а ка! ^0а ¿Иссето (Hymn. III. 360), "writhed continually this way and that amid the wood". Let us recall once again that Apollo is Light. And his weapon is a bow. His arrows are the rays of light coming through the mist of darkness. Before he came to Delphi, according to Apollodorus, he had learned the art of prediction (t^v даvтlк^v) from Zeus and ТРрц. Is in understanding of the ancient Greek Zeus is фрф', a moving diaphragm dividing the presence into presence and absence, uncovered and hidden (Kudrin, 2009, 50), if ТРрц is "Nonsense" and "Storm" evolving in the misty darkness of being, than Apollo is the "Light" in this misty, messy darkness that he tears apart and which he had left there, in the wood, to rot (Hymn. III. 363), says Homer. In Greek 'to rot' is пи0ес0а1. Some researchers think that Apollodorus's name nti0rav is formed from this word. Indeed, we find its base in the close Latin words puteo, 'to smell rotten', pus, 'gleet', puter, 'flabby', 'dim'. It is interesting that puto, 'to think', 'to clean', putus, 'clean', puteus, 'a pit', 'a mine'. These meaning of puto, putus, puteus in comparison with puter, 'flabby', 'dim', again bring us back to the thoughts of similarity of ro0rav and 0идо; as a messy thought.
And what does this word mean to us? Sometimes instead of 'думать' [to think] we use 'мыслить'. But these two words are not the same. They are different in their daily use: in 'мыслить' and 'мысль' [a thought] we mean clarity and accuracy, which cannot be said about the word 'думать'. We do not say 'мыслить' about 'мысль'. But we say 'думать думу', in order to encounter or make up something. The
word 'думать' is closer in meaning to 'гадать' [to guess]. It is no coincidence that in Russian there is a proverb "не думал, не гадал" [who would have foretold it]. The initial meaning of the word 'гадать' is best preserved in the superstition: "to get to know something unknown, the future or the past, in particular". May be this getting to know (дavт£шдal) the future out of the past (^е(а) since then was what Ш01а, Pythia, was doing, which Apollo speaks for. His prediction (даупкл), 'гадание', is nothing else but clearing a messy thought up. This word is referred to the Russian name for nti0ov, 'Гад' [a reptile]. Since Apollo is the light coming though the darkness, the thought that he is clearing up is 'выведывание' [finding out]. In Greek 'выведывать' is пш0ауода1; its basis is пи0-. This nu0- can be read not only in nti0rav, but also in nu0^ev, 'a root', 'a bottom', 'a basis'. This bottom is the bottom of puteui, 'the pit' where everything is rooted and where everything comes from! It is where Apollo looks (opei) through the eye of Pythia, that is why he is an oracle.
Nevertheless, Apollodorus says that Apollo, having guessed the Reptile, nti0ov, had taken the prediction of Themis that was already there. Apollodorus says differently; regarding Apollo he says даvт£шд£vo<;, and regarding Themis хрподфбоиоп^. хРП°Дф5оиоп? is ю5оиоп^, 'singing' ф5"л, 'a song' of what хР"Л, 'should' be done, and not what will happen to you. Themis, ©ёдк;, cannot act differently, while together with Zeus she is 'Устанавливающая' [setting] (©ёдк; < т!0пд1, 'to suppose', 'to set') Могр'у, 'freedom' and Дш^, 'steady being': appearance, pastime and waning. Ae schylus tells us that before Themis in Delphi there was a cult of Gaia (Eum. 1-20). Up to now there is одфаХо^, her 'navel' But is it a navel? In одфаХо<; we can clearly hear фаНо^. May be, од- in одфаХо<; is - одо<;, 'the same', 'equal'. o- could have transferred into о-, like it happened with copulativum, where
a- turned into a-. Then o^^aXo^ is "the same" 9aHo<;» or "equar-qaXkoc,», i.e. 'the small hill of Venus'. It is indeed interesting why a hill is called a navel, when a navel is normally a hole? If o^^aXo^ is "a small hill od Venus" of Gaia, nearby there should be yevvuca ^xpa, "birth giving metra", while the cult of Gaia is the cult of fertility. Fertility is coming out from the hidden to the presence. This is similar to what we have read in nti0rav, a messy thought, that is heaving like a bud ready to give birth to a sprout coming from the darkness to the light. According to Homer, she has turned into fertile soil. Thus, the cult of birth giving Gaia that used to be in Delphi had transformed into the cult of enlightment of Apollo preserving the same understanding of presence.
Now let us return to the interesting phrase of Aristotle, that "poetry is more philosophical and more important than history". It is more philosophical and more important because "poetry is finer and more philosophical than history; for poetry expresses the universal, and history only the particular", says Aristotle. The myth that we have studied while it is recorded both by the poet and the historian has both these features. This means that Apollodorus, telling the history of the gods smoothly transforming the history of people, in fact, presents the history of the man that in the beginning does not understand himself and then clearly distinguishes himself among others. Therefore, both of them in the myth about Apollo say (Xeyeiv) oia av yevoixo Kai xa 5uvaxa Kaxa to eiKO^ ^ to avayKaiov (Arist. Poet. 1451 a 36), "as like what happened and what can happen either due to analogy, or due to necessity". While, "by a "general truth " I mean the sort of thing that a certain type of man will do or say either probably or necessarily. That is what poetry aims at in giving names to the characters. A "particular fact" is what Alcibiades did or what was done to him", says Aristotle (Arist. Poet. 1451 b 8-10).
This "sort of thing that a certain type of man will do or say either probably or necessarily" contains imitation (^i^noi^) of someone, something that happened before, or of anybody who found himself in the same situation. Therefore, only what had happened before is possible; it will happen to everybody following (cu^Paivei) him in his life. Surprisingly, but according to Aristotle, only what is necessary is possible! That is why poetry is more important than history. It tells about inevitable things that concern everybody unlike history, which only confirms this by saying names. Let us remember those who followed Apollo.
One of them is Cadmus. His story is as follows: sent by his father to find his missing sister Europa, he came to Delphi to find out something about her. The God told him that he should not worry about Europa and follow a special cow, with a half moon on her flank, which would meet him, and to build a town on the spot where she should lie down exhausted. After receiving the prediction of the oracle, Cadmus followed the cow when he met her. The cow guided him to Boeotia, where he founded the city of Thebes (Apollod. 3.1.1; 3.4.1). Cadmus "wishing to sacrifice the cow to Athena, sent some of his companions to draw water from the spring of Ares. But a dragon, which some said was the offspring of Ares, guarded the spring and destroyed most of those that were sent. In his indignation Cadmus killed the dragon, and by the advice of Athena sowed its teeth. When they were sown there rose from the ground armed men whom they called Sparti" (Apollod. 3.4.1).
Another one is Jason, who was questing the Golden Fleece:
"For it lay within a thicket near the ravenous jaws of a dragon which, in length and breadth, exceeded a fifty-oared ship" (Pin. Pyth. 4. 244, 252).
The "thicket" in which the Fleece lay is Xox^n in Pindar's myth. This word refers to the
word Xeyra in the meaning "to lay". This means that it would be better to translate Xox^n as 'lair'. This meaning suits well the meaning of the lines: "For it lay within a lair near the ravenous jaws". But in Pindar's text SpaKovxo^ 5' ei'xexo XaPpoxaxav yevowv, "the ravenous jaws of a dragon" is taken into commas. May be it was taken in commas later, may be not. If not, then the sentence in Pindar's text gets another meaning. Mainly, it should be interpreted Xox^n. I£yw, to which it refers, which has a long history of meanings. Its initial meaning "to lay" transforms into "to collect' what is being laid. Therefore, "to collect", Xox^n receives the meaning "a thicket, a bush" as vegetation in one place. What if SpaKovxo^ XaPpoxaxai yevua^ "the ravenousjaws of a dragon", following Xox^n and Xox^n itself is an impenetrable thicket. This impossibility to see the present is its insensibility. Let us recall on the man's feeling in impenetrable woods described by Ivan Turgenev: "You go, and go, but this eternal forest does not end and your heart starts to ache a little, and you want to go as quickly as possible to the open space, the light, you want to breathe deeply ... ". "Your heart starts to ache a little" is continuous sadness. Leonid Lipavskii writes: "Oh, this special sadness of southern countries, where nature is too strong and the life remarkably shameless, so the man gets lost in it and ready to cry with despair!". What does it mean that "life is shameless"? And what does sadness have to do with it? Aristotle gives us the answer.
"Shame (aicxuvn, ai5ra) is a kind of anxiety (Mrcn Ti?) or worry (xapax^) in relation to disgrace phenomenon (xa ei^ aSo^iav ^aivo^eva)", he says (Rhet. 1383 b 14). Iran is "sadness", "worry", "the blues"; xapax^ refers to xapaccra, "to trouble", "to excite", "to shock". Therefore, shame is "sadness that worries" in the precise meaning of the word "anxiety", i.e. causing the state of oscillation. What causes this oscillation? Dreams, while "in relation to imagination (^avxacia)
disgrace is shame", says Aristotle. "^avxacia is impossible without ^avxdc^a", he writes in his other work (Peri Mnhmhs. 450 a). ^avxdc^a is what we voeiv: "it accompanies while enduring it is ev xra voeiv" (Peri Mnhmhs. 450 a). voeiv is the action of vou?, "steadily standing gaze", which penetrates through xo ai'cBn^a inspired (aira) by Mara to the absent, outlining it near xo ai'cBn^a. This visible xo ai'cBn^a is ^avxdc^a. To see it clearly is ^avxacia. But also there are animals that live ^avxacia (Meth. 980 b 26), which we reject in intellect. Why? Because in the basis of ^avxacia is which is Mvn^ocuvn,
"the one that aims at (^vdexai) the one that has become present in the presence from the closed nature and fuses with it" (Kudrin, 2009). These xo ai'cBn^a and ^avxdc^a fused together initiate oscillation, vibrating in the gaze, showing one part or another. This fusion is the dream that worries and in the waves of which there is mist of insensibility. Therefore, shame is anxiety, which is not determined by something specific, but some (lurcn ti?), as Aristotle says about it.
Nevertheless, shame is always "displayed" (Rhet. 1384 a 35), which is confirmed by the proverb: xo ev o^Bal^oi? eivai ai5ra. Shame is always felt before somebody, in the eyes of who you did the action. Therefore, to a greater extent, he continues, we are ashamed of those in the eyes of which we are constantly present (aei rcapeco^evou?), first of all. Secondly, we are ashamed only of what amazes us (Bau^dZei). And we are mostly amazed by those, who have an inquisitive mind (^povxiZouci 5' ra? alnQeurav xo ^povi^ov), and such people are senior and educated, that is why we are ashamed in front of them. This is not surprising: they can bring scandal upon us (a5o^eeiv); and people listen to them. That is why in ai5ra its is not 'shame' that comes first, but 'respect' And vice versa, in front of those who admire me, I am proud and I neglect their opinion. This pride (uPpi?)
and neglecting lies impudence (avai5ia). But if shame is sadness felt due to insensibility in front of the proud eye (let us recall on ^XeKxrap 'Ynepirav, "bright glaring arrogance " of Tu^drav in Homer's text), why cannot this eye be the insensibility of the presence of the rainforest, which of cause, the depths of which are even more impenetrable than the depths of Polesie, which cause sadness. May be this is its shamelessness? This sadness, despair and frustration is caused by the continuous space of the impenetrable woods, when "in the full day, when light, smells and warmth are at utmost, the thick rays stand like horns" forming "the continuous world without gaps, without pores, without heterogeneity" (Lipavskii, 2005: 22). Insensibility of the present cases human frustration. He is literally lost, because he cannot find his way. How can you find your way somewhere, where you can distinguish nothing? The sadness arising in the man makes him almost frozen. Absence of the way out of insensibility causes despair. May be this is the feeling that Jason and Cadmus felt when they found themselves in the totally alien landscape. "Oh, this special sadness of southern countries!", wirtes Lipavskii, " may be this is what they pay double salary for to those sent to serve in the colonies, but this does not help, they quickly lose their will to live, they sink and die" (Lipavskii, 2005: 22). The sadness of southern countries is more typical for the person who is alien there. Alien!
The most ancient myth about the man's confrontation with the Dragon is the myth of Pythian Apollo. Another very ancient myth is the myth about Argos, Apyo?, the son of Gaia and Uranus, the brother of Exeporcn? and Bpovxn?, all three were KUKlone?, Cyclops, which means "round-eyed'. Their round eyes in fact meant one round eye. The name Apyo? refers to apy^?, 'light", "white-haired", which we have already discussed in connection with Tu^drav in Homer's
text. The names of his brothers are formed from стероп^, 'lightening', 'glitter', 'shine'andPр6vтn, 'thunder', Ррбдо;, 'noise', 'rumble'. Therefore, Етербпп; means the "shine of lightning", and Bр6vтn;stands for "rumbling thunder". How can be the name of Аруо; interpreted as he appeared before both of them? The sequence of their names in Apollodorus's works is confirmed by the sequence of their appearance during the night thunderstorm when between the sky (Оирауо;) and the dale (Гф in the darkness of the night there appears a glimpse and then in it we see the lightening and here the thunder. Therefore, Аруо; is the glimpse, and in the darkness of the night it is the 'Bright Eye'. Though, in the beginning they should have names something else, different from atmospheric glimpse, thunder and lightening, while they had not only made (теи^ау) and given thunder and lightening to Zeus (Hes. Th. 138-145), but also they had given the trident to Poseidon, which shakes everything, and what is even more important, they had given the Cap of Invisibility to Hades, and this is extremely significant moment for understanding, while invisibility of Hades and Hades himself (Ai5o;, 'invisible') appears from the moment of dividing the integral presence into open and hidden. Their names more likely refer to the shocking awakening light of the threat to being. The antiquity of the myth is confirmed by their triplicity, the second intellectual ability of the human. The first one, as we know from Alcmaeon from Croton is duality: 5ш та поНа to>v аубрюпп^ (DK 24 A 3, Arist. Met. 986 a 22), "many things are dual for the man". This duality is confirmed by earlier periods of Hesiod's Theogony, which tell about the appearance of the first gods in pairs: Gaia and Uranus, Геи и Урана, Coeus and Crius, Iapetus and Hyperion, Theia and Rhea...; Pythagoreans assumed there were ten coupled principles: even-uneven, left-right, female-male, ...; we can find the confirmation of this in our daily language:
wet-dry, light-darkness, warm-cold, good-bad, ... . Alcmaeon explains the duality that we see here from the point of view of comparison, while avtiprarcov yap T®v allwv Sia^epeiv oxi ^ovov ^uvinoi, xa 5' aXXa aictidvexai ^ev, ou ^uvinoi 5e (DK 24 B 1 a), "the man is different among others while he compares, and others only perceive and do not compare". He is right, while it gives the possibility to compare and, therefore, distinguish. Comparison is impossible without the ability to stay focused on something moving the gaze to something else at the same time. Capturing of the first one in one's eye is impossible without focusing your eyes on it. As a result it begins to delay. Moreover, it allows to add it to another one. The opportunity for the second one to be delayed before the first one is its addition, if we will understand in opportunity what this word literally means, the effort to appear. Focusing of the eye forms a glimpse between delaying and the glimpse itself is formed by duality offering an opportunity to join the third one. That is why after pairs, the Theogony of Hesiod described three gods: Apyog "Glimpse", Exeporcn?, "Glaring" and BpovxnQ "Shock"3; Bpidpew?, "Difficulty" of run?, "Glimpse" as KoxxoQ "Evil Fate", etc.
Therefore, Apyo? is, if we recall on the uncertainty of the landscape shown in the light of the lightening in the nightэ, o rcdv0' opravxrav, rcavorcxnv, as Aeschylus says, (Suppl. 303, 304), "the all seeing raging eye" of presence ApdKrav. He was killed by Hermes, who favoured the thieves. Thieves and Apollo, and Cadmus and Jason. Consequently, this is the story for them. They meet ApdKrav on their way. They meet him because starting their journey, they sooner or later find themselves in an alien landscape. This happened to Cadmus who was born on the seacoast and traveled to find his sister. This happen to Jason who was also born on the seacoast and traveled by sea in the search for the Golden Fleece. This fate awaited for Perseus, Oedipus,
Odysseus of Greek history, brother Ivanushka and Ivan Tsarevich in Russian fairy tales. The same was awaiting for N.V. Gogol's Khoma and Dr. Startsev of A.P. Chekhov. But that is another story.
In the myths about Jason and Cadmus it is said that after killing Дpaкюv they "sowed its teeth and when they were sown there rose from the ground armed men" that both of them had to fight. If Дpaкюv is the Raging Eye of это presence, to kill him means to enlighten the absolute insensibility of the misty darkness, then his sowed teeth can only stand for the steady being of presence. Due to its steadiness, this steady being forms what the Greek called коодо^, where Harmonia rules. She (Apдovíа) then had become Cadmus's wife (Apollod. 3.4.2). His majesty in comparison with Jason is that similar to Apollo he was able to overcome freezing sadness of inhospitable presence and being angry (а'^акт^оа<;), according to Apollodorus, began to fight him. This Cadmus's anger we hear
1 Translator's note: Official translation of Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" by Constance Garnett.
2 It is noteworthy that in almost half of Homer's hymn versions instead of Tu9arav there is тиф^о^ which means 'blind'. [Author's note]
3 By the way, in Hesiod's Theogony the sequence of their appearance is as follows: Bp6vтr|l;, Етеропп^, 'Apyr|. [Author's note]
in Lipavskii's description of tropical sadness! ayavaKi^ca? is not only angry, but also 'excited'! In his excitement there is uPpi?, foolishness and storm that awakens him to being. And at the same time, this is his majesty, like the majesty of Ivanushka the Fool in the Russian fairy tales. For Jason it is not the same, it was Medea who helped him not to plunge into sadness, die or run away like Rodion Raskolnikov, showing him the way to the Golden Fleece in the dark night; in the night, finding his way by touch and what is even more remarkable, being led, he had avoided the freezing grasp of the dragon. In fact, he did not confront the dragon, that is why in the end he only got the Fleece and Medea who she lost in short time. Cadmus on the contrary, had appropriated the being hidden by ApdKrav and had become its master. In the teeth of killed ApdKrav sowed by Cadmus, we clearly see what in early Greek philosophy would sound as Pythagorean apiB^oi, xa cnep^axa of Anaxagoras and xa axo^a of Democritus.
References
Aeschyli Septem quae supersunt Tragoediae. Editio altera. Oxonii E Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1937. Apollodorus (1921). The Library, with an English Translation by Sir James George Frazer, Includes Frazer's notes. F.B.A., F.R.S. in 2 Volumes. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd.
Aristoteles (1989). Metaphysik. Text in der Ed. von Wilhelm Christ. Hamburg, Felix Meiner. Aristotelis (1959). De Arte Poetica. (Oxonii E Typographeo Clarendoniano. Aristotelis (1959). Ars Rhetorica. Oxonii E Typographeo Clarendoniano. Aristotelis (1955). Parva Naturalia. Oxonii E Typographeo Clarendoniano. Aristotelis (1963). Categoriae et Liber de Interpretatoine. Oxonii E Typographeo Clarendoniano.
Chantraine, P. (1968-1977). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire de mots. Paris, Klincksieck.
Dahl, V.I. (2006). Tolkovyi slovar ' zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka [The Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language]. Moscow.
Diogenis Laertii (1964). Vitae philosophorum. Oxonii E Typographeo Clarendoniano. Hésiod (2002). Théogonie. Les Travaux et les Jours. Le Bouclier. Paris, Les Belles Lettres. Homeri (1912). Opera. Tomus V. Oxonii E Typographeo Clarendoniano. Kern, O. (1922). Orphicorum fragmenta. Berolini.
Kudrin, A.N. (2003). K fragmentu parmeinda B3, D.-K. [To fragment of Parmenides B3, D.-K.]. Novoe videnie kultury mira v XXI veke [New Vision of Culture in the 21st Century]. Materialy Mezhdunarodnogo nauchnogo simpoziuma [Proceedings of International Scientific Symposium]. Vladivostok, FESTU, 46-50.
Kudrin, A.N. (2009). Hesiod's ©eoXoyia. Nauchnoe obozrenie, (5), 40-53. Kudrin, A.N. (2014). Anaximander's TO AnEIPON. ESSJ, 4(1), 56-72. Lipavskii, L. (2005). Issledovanie uzhasa. [The Horror's Analysis]. Moscow, 446 p. Novum Testamentum Graece. (1956). Editio altera. Oxonii E Typographeo Clarendoniano. Pindar, (2001). Oden. Herausgegeben von Eugen Dont. Stuttgart, Philipp Reclam jun. Sophoclis, (1923). Fabulae. Editio altera. Oxonii E Typographeo Clarendoniano. Trubachev, O.N. (1987). Slavianskii etimologicheskii slovar' [The Slavonics Etymological Dictionary], (13). Moscow.
Veisman, A.D. (1991). Grechesko-russkii slovar' [The Greek-Russian Dictionary]. Moscow.
ApaKwv греческих мифов
А.Н. Кудрин
Хабаровский государственный институт культуры Россия, 680045, Хабаровск, ул. Краснореченская, 112
Статья представляет собой исследование одного из наиболее тёмных и загадочных существ архаичной греческой мифологии, существа, носящего имя ApâKœv. В основу исследования автором положены четыре наиболее древних мифа, дошедшие к нам от Гомера и Аполлодора Афинского, о схватках с ApâKœv Аполлона, Гермеса, Кадма и Ясона. Поскольку предметом исследования является выраженная в мифе архаичная мысль, фиксирующая, по утверждению Аристотеля, eiôevai, «видение» того, что непосредственно человеку открыто, перед ним, «в просторе его рук (та npoxeipa) наличествующего», методом исследования автором выбрана феноменология с опорой на онтологию понимания, восходящую к фундаментальным трудам С. Кьеркегора, В. Дильтея и М. Хайдеггера.
Ключевые слова: ôpâKœv, Tvçâœv, nvBmv, 'Apyoç, мара.
Научная специальность: 09.00.00 - философские науки.
