98

ISSN0258-0802.LITERATŪRA201557(3)

CULTURE HERO’S INTREPID PAST (PROMETHEUS, LOKI, SYRDON… COYOTE…)1

Fatima EloevaDepartment of Classical PhilologyVilnius University

Erika SausverdeCentre of Scandinavian StudiesVilnius University

Abstract. The paper compares Loki of the Scandinavian and Syrdon of the Caucasian material (the Nart epic tradition) with the evolution of the character of Prometheus as described in the early texts (Theogony and Works and Days by Hesiod) and with his later transformation as described in Prometheus Bound by Aeschilus. This comparison makes it possible to demonstrate the general pattern of evolution which can be described as (chthonian) deity → trickster → culture hero.

In this we do not agree with Eleazar Meletinskij’s statemwent, according to which the culture hero – Demiurge – is the most ancient character in the world folklore, while the trickster is a subsequent transformation of the image of the culture hero. Employing the Greek model (Hesiod’s Theogony) as our starting point, we will argue that an intriguer / a trickster is the most ancient mythological character, while the culture hero emerges as a result of later developments.

Keywords: trickster, culture hero, chthonian deity, metaphor, myth, comparative mythology, semantic evolution, idea of progress.

Before the High and Far-Off Times, O my Best Beloved, came the Time of the Very Beginnings; and that was in the days when the Eldest Magician was getting Things ready. […] He took the Elephant–All-the-Elephant-there-was–and said, ‘Play at being an Elephant,’ and All-the-Elephant-there-was played. […]

But there was one Elephant […] who was full of ’satiable curtiosity [sic] and that means he asked ever so many questions. And he lived in Africa, and he filled all Africa with his ‘satiable curtiosities. […] He asked questions about everything that he saw, or heard, or felt, or smelt, or touched, and his uncles and his aunts spanked him.

Rudyard Kipling

No method requires more erudition than the comparative, and yet none is less fruitful. Nevertheless, the comparative method continues to dominate research on individual myths.

M. I. Steblin-Kamenskij1 The shorter version of this paper see in Eloeva,

Sausverde, 2015.

99

Introduction1

OpeningourpaperwiththequotationfromMikhail Steblin-Kamenskij’s book Myth (Steblin-Kamenskij 1982, 28; 2003, 230)we pay once again homage to the greatscholarwhoselegacycontinuestobeheldinhighregardintheacademicworld.Be-sides, comparative mythology is a fasci-natingrealmthathasmesmerizedhuman-ityforcenturies.Wetoocannotresistthetemptation. Nevertheless we believe that Steblin-Kamenskij’s statement is ratherdebatable.Comparativemythologyoffersapproachesandmodelsthroughwhichthehuman mind perceives and analyses the world. For this reason one can hardly call it useless.

Thispaperdealswiththequestionthathas been extensively discussed in Indo-European comparative mythology. It isthequestionoftheparallelsandaffinitieswhich can be observed between certain epic and mythological characters – An-cient Greek Prometheus, Syrdon of the Narts’eposandScandinavianLoki.Previ-ously the three characters have been exam-ined in pairs – Prometheus versus Loki,2

1 2 Apparently,thefirstscholartocompareLokiand

PrometheuswasGeorgeDumezil,inhisearlyworkof1924(Dumezil1924). Jan de Vries calls Loki in his fun-damental research on the history of Old Germanic reli-gionthe“GermanicPrometheus”(deVries1967,272). The resemblance of the two characters two different mytho-poetictraditionshasbeennotedregularlybyvar-iousresearchers(see,forexample,Rooth1961;Simek1995; Meletinskij 1988). This comparison was basedmainly on the motive of punishment of both characters, their bounded state, their suffering caused by tortureand,finally,theirliberation.TheirsimilarKulturträger characteristics were considered to be less significant.ReferringtoDumezil(1924),Jean-PauleVernantbrieflycommented that the inherent ambivalence of the two heroes and their specific intellectuality challenged therulinggods(Vernant2003).

Loki versus Syrdon (Dumezil 1959;Ker-enyi 2010; Mikhailov 2011). Research-ers studied them mostly at the synchronic level, statically, attempting in this wayto reconstruct the proto-stage.We, how-ever, aim to examine their development diachronically, in evolution3. The idea is to compare Loki of the Scandinavian and Syrdon of the Caucasian material (theNart epic tradition) with the evolution of the character of Prometheus as described in the early texts (Theogony and Works and Days byHesiod”) andwith his latertransformation as described in Prometheus BoundbyAeschilus.Webelieve that thiscomparison will help us to demonstrate the generalpatternofevolutionwhichcanbedescribedas(chthonian)deity→trickster→culturehero.

The comparison of these three charac-tersallowsustosuggestthat,atleastten-tatively,theyallbelongtothemodeloftheso-called trickster which can be found in theCoyotespiritinsomeNativeAmericanmythologies,whostolefirefromthegods(or stars, or sun). A similar motive can be found in the stories about the Rabbit in the South Eastern United States or the Raven

3 An exception in this trend for the synchronic ap-proach toLoki’scharacter is found in theanalysisof-fered by Anatoly Liberman in his book The Word Heath (1994)andespeciallyinthebrilliantetymologicalretro-spectivegiveninthePostscript,whichcharacteristicallybears the title “HowLokiLaufeyjarSonLivedUp toHisName.”Libermanstatesthat theLokimythsweredeterminedbythe“punningpossibilitiesinherentinhisname”.Hegoesontosaythatthedevelopmentofthehero starts from a kind of chthonic divinity (initially the nameLokimeant“somebodywholocks,delimitates”)later transforming into theRuler of theDownWorld,God of Fire (versus Lucifer), trickster etc. Liberman demonstrates convincingly, how in accordance withpre-Saussourianlogic,theinitialnameLokishapesanddeterminesthesubsequentmodificationsandfunctionsofthehero,seeLiberman1994.

100

whichstolefirefromhisunclebeaverandeventuallygaveittopeople.

Thereisnothingnewinthisassertion–ithaslongbeenacceptedbycomparativemythology. Here we are dealing with akindofmythologicaluniversalia. In this paper we will attempt to prove that the trickster and intriguer – a character whotransgressestherulesbecauseofhis“sati-ablecurtiosity,”asKiplingputit–consti-tutes the first stage in the transformationfromacharacterintoaculturehero(Long2005).

InthiswedonotagreewithEleazarMe-letinskij’s statement, according to whichtheculturehero–Demiurge–isthemostancient character in the world folklore, while the trickster is a subsequent trans-formationoftheimageoftheculturehero(Meletinskij1959).Employing theGreekmodel(Hesiod’sTheogony) (Athanassakis 1983)asourstartingpoint,wewillarguethat an intriguer /a trickster is the mostancientmythological character,while theculture hero emerges as a result of laterdevelopments (Aeschylus, Προμηθεὺς Δεσμώτης, Prometheus bound). One can suggest that themoment thecultureheroemerges,myth disappears and giveswaytofiction.

Inthispaperwewillfocusontheques-tion of whether the semantic development attributed to these characters – chthonian deity→trickster→culturehero–corre-lateswiththetransformationandchangingvalueoftheideaofprogresswithindiffer-ent cultures. Our inferences are based on the belief that while reconstructing pos-sible transformations of a character, one should make use of Greek material, where Prometheus of Hesiod acts according tothe behaviour model of a trickster thus pre-

sentinganearlystageofthedevelopmentof myth, while Prometheus of Aeschylus belongstotheworldoffiction.

The Concept of Myth

Creatingmyths and subsequently analys-ing them from the point of viewof theirorigins and construction seems to havebecome one of the distinctive occupations ofHomoSapiensand,arguably,oneofhismost favoured and ancient pursuits.

Thestudyoftheoriginsofmythsandmythology is a well-established area ofscholarly enquiry (Steblin-Kamenskij1982). It was inAncient Greece (wheremany theories had been put forward and rejected before restarting their life in thegeneralhistoryofthe“worldofthemind”)that numerous attempts were made to in-terpret myths allegorically. Empedocleswas among the first to offer a symbolicanalysis of Greek mythology. In his in-terpretation, Poseidon represents water, Apollo – light, etc. (Russel 1967, 81).Criticalinterpretationofmythsgoesasfarback as the Pre-Socratic tradition. Euhe-merus viewed them as accounts of actual historical events, which later became dis-tortedonaccountofnumerousretellings.

AnalysingtheNeo-Platonicperceptionofmyths,SergeiAverintsevremarkedthatsymbol per se is probably as old as Homo Sapiens.Yet,hearguesthatthestrictdivi-sion between symbol and object, aswellas the concept of allegory, is relatively new (Averintsev 2004). The distinctionbetween symbol and allegory was es-tablishedat theendofthe18thandearly19th centuries within the tradition of Ger-manRomanticism,notably inSchelling’sworks.Thus,Greekantiquitybeginswithmyths that were alive and evolving and

101

for this reason, could not be isolated and analysed. Myth supposes integrity of itssymbolic content and its material mani-festations and excludes any possibility of analytical approach or speculation. In sub-sequent periods myth came under severe criticism. After the scorn poured over it by Xenophanes and after the critique of theSophists,mythcouldnolongerbeunder-stood and interpreted literally, without an elementofreflection(ibid.161).

Hence,accordingtoAverintsev,athirdstageinthetransformationofmythhastobe considered.

Intheearlystagesofthephilosophicaldevelopmentof the categoryofmyth thefigure ofPlato emerges.Averintsev com-pareshimtothetwo-facedJanus,lookingin two opposite directions.

Averintsev stresses the double nature of Plato who scorns and sarcastically criti-cizes ancient mythology, mocks Homerand Hesiod, and at the same time proceeds to construct a newmythology, amythol-ogyofthesecondorder,notreflectivebutpost-reflective(ibid.).

Following this logic we can assumethat the figure of a trickster belongs toreflective period, while a culture hero ispartofthepost-reflectivestage.Thenine-teenth century saw an increased interest inthephenomenonofmyth.Thechangesin themethodsofenquiryand theevolu-tion of scholarly traditions in this area of study make a fascinating subject, sinceevery new emerging theory seems to actnotliketheHegeliannegationofnegationbut rather like further development and enrichment of themain line of argument(Zajcev2005).

One thing isobvious– there is a sin-gle feature that marks the development

of the interpretation of myth by anthro-pologists–theoriesofmythologyshareacommonlogicalbasis,thereisnoinherentcontradiction between them.While inter-pretingaparticularmythonecancombinetheapproachesofClaudeLévi-StraussandLucien Lévy-Bruhl and also find a linkbetween the ideas ofSirEdwardBurnettand Max Müller. In his short review of the history of myth studies, conducted in his usualhumorous,attimesvergingonpara-doxality style, Steblin-Kamenskij criti-cises the structuralist approach adopted by Lévi-Straussandat thesametimeadmitsthat that the structuralist vision has had a deepinfluenceonhim.

Werecognisethepotentialofthestruc-turalanalysistobringacertainorderintothe chaos ofmythological data. But it isimportant to remember that applying thestructuralist approach to the interpretation ofmyths, one is not decoding but ratherencoding the chaotic material into (asD’jakonov(2004,245)puts it)“asystemof abstract notions which were intrinsi-callyalientotheprimitivemind.”

It seems obvious that at present the general theory of mythology should bediscussed in conjunction with the theoryof the cognitive metaphor. The potentialof thecognitivestudiesisrevealedinthehypothesis offered by Johnson and Lakoff (1980) and their entirely new approachto metaphor. Metaphor is perceived as a very importantmechanism of structuringthe system of notions possessed by a hu-manbeing.AccordingtotheJohnsonandLakofftheory,metaphorsreflectthebasiccognitiveprocessandplayacrucialroleintheprocessofcognition.

Thedecisiveroleintheprocessofcog-nition seems to belong not to formalized

102

procedures,buttoanalogy,inotherwords,to the process of transformation of mean-ing fromone semanticfield into another.Hence,metaphorisviewedasalinguisticreflectionoftheprocessesofhumancog-nitionbasedonanalogy.JohnsonandLa-koff’s hypothesis became a turningpointinmodernlinguistics.Tothisdayitiscon-sidered to be the only valid innovation, the onlynewhypothesisofferedbycognitivestudies. Still, if one compares it with the historyofmythologystudiesitsclosecon-nection with the theory of myth, especially withtheideasofLévy-Bruhl,becomesap-parent. It is alsoworth remembering thatin his La scienza nuova Giambattista Vico expressedtheideathatametaphorisjusta small myth.

Following the traditional (similar tothat ofGiambattistaVico) and quitema-terialistic approach, favoured by IgorD’jakonov, we will regard myth as amethodof expressingman’s cognitionofthe world in the period of his development when he has not yet created an apparatus of abstract notions required to arrive atlogical conclusions. D’jakonov proposesto view myth as an extended metaphor. “Yet,oneshouldnotexaggeratethepowerwhich urges a primitive human being toanalyse and to interpret the world around him,” warns Igor D’jakonov in his lastbook Archaic myths of East and West. He thencontinues:“Theinterpretativeaspectof perception was absolutely indispensable only on the periphery of human practices. No interpretation was possible without generalization andHomo Sapiens lackedthemechanismoflanguage-basedabstractthinking(D’jakonov2004,11).

Even themost superficialapproach tomythologicalstudies can reveal the vital-

ityofmyths and the enduringhuman in-terest in them.Webelieve that the trans-formation (anddistinction) “metaphor→ allegory”4 can be juxtaposed to that of“myth→fiction”.Wewillattempttoshowthat the transformation from a trickster into a culture hero can be combined with elements of creative approach to mate-rial– inotherwords,withfiction.At thesame time a new myth – the myth of In-definiteProgressassociatedwiththeideal-ized character of Prometheus – has been created(Alfonseca1998).

Onecansuggestthatherewedealwiththe transformations myth → allegory, metaphor → symbol. In traditional cul-tures the idea of any change is viewednegatively.Yet,thereisnodoubtthatevenconservative societies fall under the charm oftheambivalentfigureofatrickster.Æsircannothelpenjoyingthetricksandinven-tions of Loki while Narts admire “theirmisfortunate”, treacherous Syrdon. It isevident that Prometheus belongs to thesame category of characters.Aeschylus’sfantasy transforms a trickster into a hero and in the process creates a new myth – the ideaofIndefiniteProgress.

Prometheus – Loki – Syrdon. Common features. Ambivalence and complexity of the initial character

Apparently tricksters donot change theirmischievous behaviour even after they had become the object of investigation,and cause the scholars’ problems similartothosetheyusedtocausegods’.Itisanaccepted fact that any review of scholarly

4 An interesting approach to the division meta-phor–comparison–gradationispresentedinanarticleofAnnaWierzbicka(1990).

103

discourse involving the interpretation ofLoki,SyrdonorPrometheuscomesagainsttheextremelycomplex,confusingandam-bivalent nature of these characters. They arealwaysregardedasoutsidersandstran-gers.AsaptlyputbyStephanievonSchn-urbein,“Loki,theoutsiderintheNorthernGermanic pantheon, confounds not only his fellow deities and chronicler Snorri Sturluson[referringtotheProse Edda]buthasoccasionedasmuchquarrelamonghisinterpreters.”(vonSchnurbein2000,121).

The traditionalmethodof interpretingthese characters has been to reconstruct the process of their transformation by es-tablishingtheirstartingpoint or their main features: the God of Fire (Jakob Grimm), Lucifer of Christian Norse Mythology,HypostasisofÓðinn(FolkeStröm),figureoftrickster(deVries1933),5 spider (Rooth 1961),6 chthonic deity (Liberman 1994),etc.

Adoptingtheconceptofmythasawayofexplaininganddescribingtheworld,werefer to the aforementioned statement by D’jakonovinwhichheclaimsthat“asys-tem of abstract notions is intrinsically alien to the primitivemind” (D’jakonov 2004,243). Using this assertion as a startingpoint, we aim to reconstruct the ambiva-lent, complex character of the Ur-trickster, which has been analysed, interpreted and

5 By trickster de Vries means a “Konzentra-tionfigur”which attracted all sorts of intricately com-bined traditions (bisexuality, mantic wisdom etc). Ac-cordingtodeVriessuchcomplexnatureliesinLoki’scharacter of mischief-maker. De Vries accepts the idea ofDumezil about the striking resemblance of SyrdonandLokiandtheir“impulsivemind”(deVries1933).

6 In1961,bywayofexcludingallnon-Scandina-vianmythological parallels and interpreting the plau-sibleetymologyoflocke“spider”(MedievalSwedish),AnnaBirgittaRoothconcludedthatLokiwasoriginallyaspider(Rooth1961,266).

simplifiedbyhumanitywhileitdevelopedits capacity for abstract speculation.

Similar approach is proposed by Nikolai Mikhailov. Concentrating on thecharacter of Prometheus he proposes to re-construct a kind of a Proto-trickster valid on the Indo-European level. His ambiva-lence and dualist nature should not be re-gardedasaresultoflaterdevelopmentbutas a set of initial features of his character. Analyzing the character of Prometheus,depicted in Hesiodʾs works, Mikhailovproposes to reconstruct an ambivalent proto-hero who would combine qualitiesof culturehero and trickster, forming theunique image of Prometheus-Epimetheus(Mikhailov 2011, 82). He is referring toKerenyi who advanced the hypothesis claimingtheexistenceofanUr-heroPro-metheus/Epimetheus in the pre-Hesiod mythology(Kerenyi1979,120).

The ability to view a hero as a carrier ofoneleadingqualityislinkedtothephe-nomenonofabstractthinking,“alientotheprimitive mind” (D’jakonov 2004, 243).Thus we can see the possible development ofacharacterfrombeingcomplex,ambiv-alent and concrete to becoming “simple”and hence more abstract. This is similar to the ancient strata of onomatopoeic words inthelanguageswhichdonothaveawrit-ten tradition or to children’s speech, thesocalled“ideophones,”whichtendtode-scribe the whole situation.7

Let us consider some of the examples illustratingtheambivalenceofthecharac-

7 “Ideophones”oronomatopoeticwords,(indexes,intheterminologyofCharlesPierce),specificwords–pictures,describingthewholesituation.Itisparticularlycharacteristicofchildren’sspeechorlanguageswithnoliterary tradition.They are presumed to belong to theprimarylexicon(Pierce2001;Voejkova,Čistovič1994;Tolskaya 2011).

104

ters discussed. One of the most important textsprovidinguswiththemostcompletedescription of Loki is the Lokasenna of the Poetic Edda. Lokasenna(‘Loki’sQuarrel’in Old Norse) of the Poetic Edda(Bellows1936)focusesonLokiarguingwithothergods.InthebeginningÆgirgivesafeastin his hall.There the gods praiseÆgir’sservants. Loki cannot bear to hear this and killsoneof theservants,Fimafeng.AfterchasingLokiintothewoods,thegodsre-turn to the hall and continue their feast. Loki comes out of the woods, and meets Eldiroutsideofthehall.LokigreetsEldirand asks him to tell him what the godsare discussing over their ale inside thehall. Eldir responds that they discuss their “weapons and their prowess inwar” andnoone therehasanythingfriendly tosayaboutLoki.Lokisaysthathewillgotothefeast, and that, before the end of the feast, hewill initiate aquarrel among thegodsand “mix their mead with malice.” Lokithen enters the hall, and everyone there falls silent upon noticing him. Breakingthe silence, Loki says that, thirsty, he had cometothesehallsfromalongwayawaytoaskthegodsforadrinkof“thefamousmead.” Calling the gods arrogant, Lokiaskswhytheyarenotwillingtospeaktohim,anddemands that theyassignhimaseat at the feast, or tell him to leave. Loki appeals to Óðinn, and says:

Doyou remember,Odin,when inbygonedayswemixedourbloodtogether?You said you would never drink aleunlessitwerebroughttobothofus.

(Bellows1936,135)

In this passage the contradictorycharacter of Loki in all its ambivalence, paradoxality, strange compelling charm,mixture of spontaneity and malice can be

clearlyseen.Weknowthatheispreparedto commit crime but he comes across as a rather unusual sort of a criminal. He does not seem to be aware of the crime he commits and is perfectly confident hewillfindawaytopersuadethegodstolethim take part in the feast. It seems he is in-tentonprovokingthegods,tryingtopushthe boundaries of their tolerance. One can suggest that thatLoki’smain trait is thatof“insatiablecuriosity,”thefeaturemen-tioned above.

ThedialoguewithÓðinnpresentsoneof the numerous mysteries of Loki. The words about the bloodmixed together inthebygonedaysleadscholarstointerpretLoki as a hypostasis of Óðinn (Ström,1956). In any case, Loki combinesmys-terious, chthonic qualities with a uniquehumour,andastrangeabilitytoinitiateacatastrophe and then to save the situation.

The same ambivalence and tendency to initiate some misfortune and then to re-store the status quo, or even to ameliorate the situation at the last moment, is charac-teristic of Syrdon – the hero of the Narts epic tradition. (The only exception seems tobetheparallelstoriesofthetragicfateof the solar heroes of Scandinavian and Caucasian traditions, Baldr and Soslan,whose deaths had been provoked by Loki and Syrdon respectively. Here our person-agesgotoofarandthecatastrophecannotbe reversed.)

Practically in all narratives where Syr-don features, he acts in the same impulsive manner, driven by his curiosity and his ma-licious and inventive mind,changingrap-idly his tactics and strategy,intermittentlyactingasapositiveandasanegativehero.For example, in his travels with Narts he decidestotakerevengeafterbeinghumili-

105

atedbythemandbringsthemtothebrinkof disaster – but later, in accordance with his usual model of behaviour, he saves the lives of the Nart heroes who are stuck to thebenchesofgiantsbysomemagicglue.Inhisusualwayhedoesn’tmisstheoppor-tunity to humiliate his companions while savingtheirlives.

Prometheus and Loki. Theft during sacrifice

It is evident that in the case of Prometheus we deal with the transformation of a trick-ster (as seen in Hesiod) to a character who becomes the gods’ adversary (as seen inAeschylus). The heroic opposition of Pro-metheustoZeusandhissubsequentpun-ishment are very similar to the permanent feudbetweenÆsirandLokiwhichcausedthe corresponding revenge of gods (theÆsir).Syrdon inhis turn very often pro-vokes the Narts to oppose and fight thegods.InthecaseofSyrdonwecanseetheopposition Gods – Narts. On the one hand, Syrdon opposes Gods, on the other, he is in permanentconflictwithNarts.Theopposi-tionofLokitotheÆsirissomewhatdif-ferentbecausetheÆsirareactuallygods.

There are two plots in Hesiod The-ogony, featuring Prometheus. They arebroughttogetherinfragment507-616–thetrickplayedbyPrometheusonZeusduringthe“firstsacrifice”andthetheftofthefirewiththesubsequentmythofPandora(561-616).Mikhailov proposes to compare ontypological level twofragmentsofmythsbelongingtoGreekandScandinaviantra-ditions–thenarrativeaboutthefirstsacri-fice(Thg.535-564)andtheconfrontationofLokiandÞjazi(Skáldskaparmál,1).

In Theogony of Hesiod Prometheus is introduced as a challenger to Zeus’s

power. Hesiod describes the trick, played onZeusbyPrometheusatMeconeduringasacrificialmealmarkingthe“settlingofaccounts”betweenmortalsandimmortals,(Thg.545–557).Prometheusplacedbeforethe Olympian two offerings: a selectionofbeefhiddeninsideanox’sstomach(anappealingofferinghidden insideanunat-tractive cover) and bull’s boneswrappedin “glistening fat” (inedible staff hiddeninsideanattractivecover).Zeuschosethelatter,settingaprecedentforfuturesacri-fices.Henceforth,humanswouldkeepthatmeat for themselves and burn the bones wrappedinfatasanofferingtothegods.ThisangeredZeus,whoinretributionhidfire from humans. In this version of themyth, humans already knew how to use fire,butthisskillhadbeentakenawaybyZeus. In the second part of the Younger Edda of Snorri Sturluson the Skáldskapar-málor“Languageofpoetry”,inBragarö-dur (‘Brage’sTalk’),Æsir–Óðinn,LokiandHœnirwent on a journey across themountains and heaths, found a herd of cat-tle, took one ox and proceeded to boil it. Afteralongtime,theydiscoveredthatthemeat did not get cooked. Following this,they heard a voice in the oak above them. A giant eagle (transformed giant Þjazi)toldthemthatiftheygavehimhisportionof the ox, the broth would be cooked. They agreedtothis.ButafterÞjazisnatchedtwothighs of the ox and then both shoulders andstartedeatingthemeat, infuriated Loki snatcheda largepoleandhurled itat theeagle.Theeaglerecoveredfromtheblowand flew away. One end of the pole at-tached itself to the eagle’s body, and theotherendgotstucktoLoki’shands.Þjazideclared that Loki would never get freeunlesshepledgedtobringIdunandherap-

106

plesfromÁsgarðr.Lokipromisedthisandwassetfree.Thisgaverisetothestoryofthe theft of the apples of youth. As a result of the theft of the apples of eternal youth, the gods became old and grey and Lokiwas forced to save the situation which he, asalways,managedquitewell.

Inboth caseswearedealingwith thesacrificeofanoxtodeity–inthecaseofPrometheus–toZeus,inthecaseofLoki–toÞjazi.ThebullismeantfortheÆsir(theclassicalsacrifice)butalsoforÞjazi(peaceoffering).Thenthereisacertainconditionattached – one part for you, one part for me(Zeusandmortals;ÞjaziandtheÆsir).In both situations Prometheus and Loki act like transgressors and they are punishedfor their crime.

Pairs of heroes and twins

ItisinterestingtonotethatquiteoftenthisUr-Trickster has a positive counterpart. This dualistic nature of the First Trick-ster is crucial. Dualistic myths featuringtwo culture heroes arranging the worldin a complementary fashion can be found in different cultures: Romulus and Re-mus, Ashvins – Dioscures, Prometheus – Epimetheus etc. In Germanic mythologyand the Nart epic tradition of the Northern Caucasusthesepairsarestrangelyattract-ed toeachother:Baldr–Loki,Syrdon–Soslan. The two characters are intimately connected and one of them eventually causestheother’sdeath.

AccordingtoMeletinsky,“thetwohe-roesmaycompeteorcollaborate;theymaybe conceived as neutral or opposed to each other,asgoodversusevil;theycanbeofthe same statue or differ as powerful versus weak;theycanbebrothers(eventwins)ornotrelatedatall”(Meletinskij1982,25).

The significance of the inner form ofthe two names – Prometheus – Epimetheus has been discussed many times (Kraus 1957). Epi-metheus causes disaster, ac-ceptingPandoraandherterrifyinggiftstohumanity. This happens because he is not very intelligent, he is reluctant to act, hethinks after the event, while Pro-metheus foreseeseverythingandhismaliciousactsare deliberate.

Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorffclaimed that there are different variants of Prometheus–thefirst–Attic-Ionian(cul-ture hero) and the second –Beotian (thetitan who opposed the gods). This ideawas later developed by Sechan (1951) and Vernant(1979,274-275).Thisdistinctionholds true,butweagreeonceagainwithMikhailov’s view when he suggests thatthis division of the initially ambivalent anduniquecharacterofPrometheusarisesmuch later, while the earlier Prometheus was a kind of combination Prometheus / Epimetheus (a hypothesis proposed by Kerenyi,1979).

It seems that there is an obvious link betweenLokiandBaldr,SyrdonandSo-slan.Loki’shateforBaldrmatchesthatofSyrdon for Soslan. There is a kind of se-cret to be discovered in order to harm their adversariesandSoslan/Baldr and Loki / Syrdon find it. They do not kill them-selvesbutprovidecounsellingtosomeoneelsehowtocarryoutthekilling.Soslan’syoungallyispreventedbySyrdonfromre-vivinghim,justasBaldrispreventedfrombeingrevivedbyLoki.

What is striking here, is not somuchthe correspondence in the details of the stories, as the profound connection be-tweenSyrdon’s andLoki’spsychologicalmakeup.Botharemeancharacterswhich

107

for a long time keep their meanness in check by causing relatively little harm,even being useful sometimes, until theirmischiefmaking reaches thepointwherethey cross the line of acceptability. After this they perform the appalling crime ofkilling the solar hero. This similarity oftheir common journey from nastiness tocrimeisabsolutelystriking.

Chthonic origin. Belonging to the Other WorldTricksters are usually of mixed (chthonic-divine) origins – Prometheus is the sonofTitan Iapetus and the goddessThemis(Aeschylus) or Oceanid Clymene (He-siod);SyrdonisthesonoftheriverdeityGatagandDzerassa–thedaughterofthegodoftheseaDonbettyr;LokiisthesonofJǫtunnFárbautiandLaufeywhoseoriginsare unclear.

Insatiable CuriosityIt seems to be a cultural universal that with the initial intention to amuse himself the tricksterdeitytransgressestherulessetbygods.

There is a well-known theory that the originsoftheso-calledAncientGreekmir-acle lie in the phenomenon that the Greeks called σχολή “leisure” and the Romans “otium”,whichmeant“freetime”.SothereissomethingdeeplytouchingaboutthefactthatthefirstshootsofProgresswereduetoleisure and entertainment and not to strict protestant values.The logic of the evolu-tion of myth appears to support this idea.

Gender and form variabilityMore often than not the Trickster figureexhibits gender and form variability andswops gender roles. Traditionally this

feature has been interpreted as a shaman-istic one. Such figures appear in NativeAmericanandFirstNationsmythologies,where they are said to possess a double-spirit nature. Loki, the Norse trickster, also displays gender variability; on oneoccasion even becoming pregnant. Heshares theability to changegenderswithÓðinn, the chief Norse deity, who also possesses many features of the Trickster. Loki’spregnancycameaboutwhenhewasforcedbytheGodstopreventagiantfromerecting awall in seven days.He solvedtheproblembytransforminghimselfintoamareanddrawingthegiant’smagichorseaway from its work. Sometime later he returned with a child he had given birthto– the eight-leggedhorseSleipnir,whoservedasÓðinn’ssteed.Syrdon,too,oftenchangeshisgender.Hetransformsintoanelderly lady and even into a whole array ofobjects.

Loki – Syrdon similaritiesGeorgeDumezilwas the first to observethe strong resemblance between Syrdonand Loki (Dumezil 1948). However, inDumezil’sopinion,ofgreatestimportancewas the similarity of the general atmos-phere, temperaments, modality and not the coincidenceofseparatedetails.Bothchar-acters are cunning, curious, possess out-standingmentalabilities,arestronglycon-nectedtotheOtherWorld,performmagic,possess shamanistic features. Syrdon even has some Pythagorean skills – “numbersarenotmysterytohim”.Discussingtheis-sue,Dumezilremarksthattheonly“mate-rialcoincidence”betweenthetwocharac-ters is present in two narratives that appear to be parallel:

1.While crossing the river, bound tothe tail of a horse of Soslan Syr-

108

don is nearly drowned – in this way Soslan shows his contempt to his eternal adversary. Exactly the same thinghappenstoLokiwhoisboundtoÞór’sbeltwhilecrossingtheriv-er.

2. Syrdon steals pieces of iron when Barsag’swillisforgedbytheHeav-en’ssmithKurdalagon.Asaresult,thepowerofBarsag’swillweakens.LokispoilsÞór’shammerwhileitisbeing forged by a dwarf (Dumezil1976,121).Remarkableastheyare,Dumezil, considers these obvious coincidencestobeinsignificant.

BothLokiandSyrdonhavesomepo-tentialfordevelopingintocultureheroes–Loki invents the net, while Syrdon invents the first lyre of the Narts (fandyr). Thestoryofthese“inventions”(iftheycanbeconsidered as such) is very typical for the evolution of culture heroes. Their cultural endeavours are rarely systematically and methodically planned. Quite often an im-portant landscape or culture feature is a consequenceofsomekindofchanceoroftheirlight-mindedbehaviourratherthanaresult of their creative activity).

Loki’s relationwithgodsvaries.Lokisometimes assists them and sometimes causes problems for them. Loki and Syr-don are experienced shape and gendershifters. Loki assumes the form of a salm-on, amare, a fly, an oldwoman.Syrdontoochangeshisformeasilyandoftenturnsintoanoldwoman,adogetc.

LokiandSyrdonbothdwellinstrangesecret houses. Syrdon lives either in a lab-yrinth under the earth or next to the river (this detail underlines his chthonic nature). Lokihasastrangehouseinthemountainswhere the Æsir try to get hold of him,butheescapes turning intoasalmonand

latercomesclosetocreatingthenet.Pro-metheus (depicted by Aeschylus), Loki and Syrdon share features of prophets. Oftentheyhelptheircompanionsbygiv-ingthemuseful advices. On the other hand when they foresee the misfortunes, which will befall their community, Loki and Syr-dondisplayrealjoy.BothLokiandSyrdoncause the death of solar heroes.

The motive of the punishment for the committed crime is not so evident in Syr-don’s case, in spite of the fact that he iscalled Narty fydbylyzh ‘the misfortune of theNarts’.Inhisturn,LokiisknownastheeviloftheÆsir.TheNartsrepeatedlytrytofindthewayofpunishingandtorturingSyrdon,butheinvariablymanagestofindsome kind of solution for his predicament. FrequentlyNartsandÆsirshowtheirde-spise for Loki and Syrdon.

Loki and Syrdon. Some new parallels

It is evident thatthecoincidenceingeneralatmosphere is observed more easily than thematchingoftheconcretefeaturesmak-ing up the characters ofour heroes. And still there are some details, which seem strikingly similar and have apparentlyescaped the researchers’ attention. Thereis a certain affinity between the plots ofBaldr’sdeathcausedbyLokiandSyrdon’sson’s death caused by Soslan. Syrdon,wantingtogetanoxfromeveryNartfam-ily, proposes to use his ownsonasatargetand toshootathimusing theirbows.“Ifyou kill him I need no compensation, but if youmissyougivemeanox“.Syrdon,wholike Prometheus and Loki possesses some propheticqualities,isawareofthefactthatfor some unknown reason, no Nart except for Soslan can cause harm to his son. Syr-

109

don knows that Soslan is absent and hence cannotparticipateinthedangerousgame.ButSoslanreturns,meetsawitchwhotellshim that he is the only person who can hit the target and kill the boy (interestingly,in the Narts epos we usually meet Syrdon himself in the role of the old witch, who, like Loki, can perform this kind of trans-formations). Syrdon recognizes Soslan’sarrow because it produces a peculiar sound whileinflight.AfterthisincidentSyrdonbecomesSoslan’sworstenemy.Thisstoryisstrangelyreminiscentofthewell-knownnarrative of the killing of Baldr by Loki(which in its turn presents a certain paral-lel to the story of the peril of Soslan caused by Syrdon)8.

Oneofthemoststrikingaspectsintheresemblance between Prometheus and Loki is the fact that the two heroes are punished in thesameway–beingboundto a rock.Their punishment gave rise tothemotiveoftorture,sufferingandsubse-quentliberation.

Loki is eventually bound by the godswithoneofhis sons’ entrails,whileSyr-don creates the first musical instrumentofNarts– fandyr–usinghis son’sveins(Narty1990,224-238)(theboywaskilledby Hamyts and boiled in a cauldron in re-venge forSyrdon’s stealingofhiscow)9.

8 Inhismonography“TheproblemofLoki”JandeFries(1933)arguesthatthecharacterofLokiisÓðinn’snegativecounterpart.HebelievesthatinitiallyLokipre-sented the type of an innocent trickster, who under the influenceofChristianityhasdevelopedmuchmoredarktraits,eventuallybecomingtheenemytogods.Hisin-volvementinBaldr’sdeath,accordingtodeFries(andtoMogk 1923) is a later version of themyth. In anycase,theparallelwiththesufferingsofSyrdon’ssonisstriking.

9 This fact seems to have been missed by Dumezil. Three volumes of the Narts Epos have been published in OssetiaandanelectroniccorpusofOssetianlanguageis

Soherewearedealingwitharemarkablecoincidence that so far appears to have passed unnoticed.

The stories go like this:AfterBaldr’sdeath theÆsir capture Loki. They bringhimintoacave,takethreeflatstonesanddrill a hole in each of them. Then they take Loki’ssons,VáliandNari(orNarfi).Váliis transformed by Æsir into a wolf andtearsNarfiintopieces.AfterthatÆsirtakeNarfi’sentrailsandbindLokitothestones(Gylfaginning, Snorri Sturluson’s Prose Edda, chapter 50).

As for Syrdon, he seems to be deeply attached to his sons.According to someversions,hiswifediedafterhavinggivenbirthtohisthreesons;inotherversionshehadawifeandtwelvesons.Syrdon’ssonsbecame victims of Soslan and Hamyts.

At some point Syrdon stole the cow be-longingtoHamyts.Hetookittohissecrethouse, boiled the cow in a cauldron and prepared a meal for his wife and twelve sons. Hamyts on discovering the crime,foundSyrdon’ssecrethouse,camethereinhisabsence,killedSyrdon’swifeandchil-dren, cut them to pieces and threw parts of theirbodiesintotheboilingcauldrontak-ingwithhimthecookedmeatofhiscow.Having discoveredwhat happened to hisfamily,Syrdonplungedintodespair.Inthecauldronhefindshisson’shandandpullsover it his twelve veins. This is how Syr-don creates the Nart lyre – fandyr (Narty 1990,224-238).Nartsadmirethiswonder-ful musical instrument and allow Syrdon back into their community.

beingprepared.Hencewecanhopefortheintroductionof a new valuable material.

110

Trickster and intriguer as the original model

While discussing a culture hero it seems fittingtorefertoGreekmaterial(Hesiod)as it was the Greek written tradition that recorded the earlier stages of myth. Al-ready in Aeschylus one can trace the sub-sequent transformation of metaphor intosymbol and allegory and observe howmythbecomesliterature.WecanpresumethatapplyingtheGreekmodel,wecanre-constructaplausiblerouteofhero’strans-formation. Scandinavian and Ossetian ma-terial does not offer such opportunity, so toanalyzeit,weshouldresorttoanalogy.

By analysing Works and Days, The-ogonybyHesiod(Hesiod1982)andpartlyPrometheus Bound by Aeschylus – the ear-liest Greek texts about Prometheus – the ambivalence of Prometheus’s characterbecomesobvious(Kerenyi1979;Meletin-skij1958,1982;Ivanov1987).Aeschylusbegins to transformhim intoanobleandgenerousheropreparedtosacrificehimselfinordertohelpthemankind.InHesiod’stexts Prometheus is a trickster, a mischief maker, whose involvement, guilt and re-sponsibilityforthetragediesbroughtuponthe mankind can be compared to that of the serpent in the Paradise Lost.

AlreadyinancientGreece(wherequitea few theories have been invented and rejected before restarting their life in thegeneral history of the “world of mind”),starting from Prometheus bound by Ae-schylus,Prometheusisregardedasasym-bolof IndefiniteProgress.AndsinceAe-schylus, mankind tries to decide whether theideaofProgressshouldberegardedaspositiveorasnegative.Ontheonehand,any change is looked upon as dangerousfor humanity as it undermines the estab-

lished values. Hence the Judaic concept of the‘FallofMan’,andthe idea of the world in decline – the process which started in the GoldenAge.10Inthiscontextthenegativeroleofthetrickster(serpent)whoistryingtodestroytheexistingstabilitythroughhisnovel behaviour becomes absolutely clear. TheideaoftheGoldenAgeandthereturnto nature was revived by Rousseau and has not lost any of its attraction in our times. Xenophanes put forward the idea that the godsdidnotrevealtomanthewholetruth,andfromthebeginningoftimehumanitywas forced to invent and discover thingsunaided. Diogenes was convinced thatthe severe punishment meted out to Pro-metheuswasfair–hehatedprogress(Rus-sel1967,290).Hehardlyappreciatedtheideaofprogress.

When following the development ofthe characters in question we observe agradual change in the features attributedtotheculturehero.Inthesubsequentliter-ary interpretations of the role of cult and of the changes in the perception of themythologicalphenomena,thecultureheroappears in an increasingly positive light.Thus,we are dealing herewith a radicalchange in the perception of the role of aKulturträger.

NikolaiMikhailovofferingathoroughanalysisofHesiod’stextstressesthepointthatpeople seem tohavemanaged toes-capechaosafterhavingreceivedakindof‘sacral injection’ (Mikhailov 2011). Thisinjectionenablesthemtoescapechaosbuttheyactinappropriatelyandtransgresstheestablished rules. They can be thrown back to the depths of chaos and nothing canprotectthemfromsuffering,disastersand

10 Compare thedescriptionof theGoldenAgebyHesiodinthe8thcenturyB.C.

111

catastrophes. For this reason we have to followthestrictorderaccordingtowhichthis world functions. It is obvious that the traditional societies which hold such world viewwillregardanyprogressasnegative.One is not supposed to take a remedy with-outanadvicefromanexperienceddoctor;in the same way, one is not supposed to be initiatedintoprogresswithoutstrictadviceandbenevolenceofgods.

Quite often a cultural hero is a thief, trickster,transgressoroftaboos–allofthisbeingthetestimonytothenegativeaspectsoftheiractivities.Followingthislogicwecan reconsider the image of Prometheus.The fact is that later fictional interpreta-tions have embellished it hugely. AfterAeschylus’sportrayalofPrometheusasageneroushero,abenefactorofthehuman-ity,hisimagebecameverypositive(Frazer1993;Kejper1986;deVries1970).

There is no doubt that Prometheus is a cultural hero, but his actions are to a certain extent destructive because of the methods he resorts to and the results he achieves.Hesiod’sTheogony contains two narrativesinvolvingPrometheus.ThefirstonedescribesthecheatingofZeusbyPro-metheusduringthefirstsacrifice(Thg. 555-560),whilethesecondfeaturesthetheftofthefireand themythofPandora (who isconnectedwithPrometheus’ brotherwithetymologically ‘twin’ nameEpimetheus).In some chronological dissonance withthis fragment is the storyofPrometheus’punishmentandhis subsequent liberationbyHeracles.Itissaidonlyοὕνεκ’ἐρίζετοβουλὰς ὑπερμενέι Κρονίωνι (Thg. 534) “becauseheopposedthewillofthepow-erfulKronides” (Hesiod1982,167).Onecan conclude that he was punished for his destructive actions and for his attempts to

preventtheimplementationofZeus’swill.ἐρίζειν βουλάς . The epithets describingPrometheus are connected to the notions of cunningness,ofbeingcraftyandmobile–ποικίλον αἰολόμητιν (Thg. 511), δολίητέχνη,(Thg.560:δολίηςἐπελήθεοτέχνης),Προμηθεὺς ἀγκυλομήτης (Thg.546), ofhiding (καλύψας), of stealing (κλέψας),of anability to see into the future, δολίητέχνη,τέχνη.

In Works and Days, in the myth about the theft of fire and the creation of Pan-dora (Op.42-105)Prometheus’maintraitsremain unchanged (Op. 48: Προμηθεὺςἀγκυλομήτης; Op. 55: κλέψας; φρέναςἠπεροπεύσας).

Hence one can conclude that in Hesi-od’sTheogonynotasinglepositivestate-mentcanbefoundaboutPrometheus’ac-tions as a Kulturträger,whereasthenega-tive consequences of the damage causedby his transgressions of Zeus’s laws arereally tremendous. Not only Prometheus but the whole of mankind were severely punished for his crime. Moreover, there is a certain lack of justice here as Pro-metheus’spunishmentistemporary,whilemankind is doomed to suffer eternally. According to Zeus’s orders, Pandora be-cameresponsibleforthefuturesufferingsofmankind.FollowingPrometheus’theft,thedegradationofhumanbeingsappearstobequite logicalandeasilypredictable.It seems that these Kulturträger’s actions bringaboutaflood,arealcatastropheformankind, where the only person saved is Prometheus’ son Deukalion (Kirk 1987,146-147). It transpired that fire had beenknowntomankindbeforePrometheus’in-terference, and its introduction was carried out with Zeus’ approval, in other words,legally. Kirk believed that showing Pro-

112

metheus as the benefactor of mankind was justapretexttorevealhisnatureofatrick-ster(Kirk1987,146-147).

According toMeletinsky, the culturalhero–demiurge–isoneof themostan-cient characters of the world folklore. Yet, as we have attempted to show above, Mele-tinsky’sargumentdoesnotseemconvinc-ing enough.Webelieve that culture heroisa later,post-mythologicaldevelopmentand want to reiterate the statement made above.Thecultureherobeginshislifethemomentmythology(oratleast‘primitivemythology’) comes to an end andfictionbegins.

In most cultures (one can refer to Greek, Norse, Native American, South-westernUnitedStates,PacificNorthwest,Alaska and Russian Far East examples) the tricksterdeitybreakstherulesofgodsornature, sometimes maliciously, sometimes with positive effects, his initial intention beingtoamusehimself.Itseemsthatcul-tureheroper seemergesasa subsequentinterpretation of certain authors – compare Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus.

Meletinsky demonstrates that as a rule the mythical culture hero cannot be re-gardedasanobjectofareligiouscult.Asamatter of fact the cultural hero almost nev-er evolves to becomegod. Inmost casesno sacralisation of the cultural hero takes place and he becomes part of the oral epic tradition. In our opinion, it is one more ar-gument that supports ourhypothesis that theculturefigureisarelativelyrecentphe-nomenon.

More archaic than tricksters seem to betheimagesof totemicancestors–halfpeople, half animals who are wander-ing ingroupsoralone,eatingandkillingeachother,dyingandcomingaliveagain.

Stones, hills, lone trees are the products of their actions. Some of them rise into the sky and turn into planets and stars. Very often they are supposed to have aided the deliveryoffiretopeople,participatinginthe initiation rites etc. The creation of the totemic ancestors is usually attributed to early antiquity, to the period of dreams.And now in perfect accordance with the laws of folklore we return to the begin-ningofthearticle.Awonderfulstylizationof such myths belongs to Rudyard Ki-pling(inperfectaccordancewiththelawsof folklore (myend ismybeginning)webring our reader back to the epigraph ofthe article.

Conclusion

In this paper we have focused our atten-tiononthequestionofwhethertheseman-tic development attributed to certain char-acters – chthonian deity, trickster, culture hero – correlates with the transformation andthechangingvalueoftheideaofpro-gresswithindifferent cultures. Our infer-ences were based on the idea that while reconstructingthepossibletransformationof this character one should use the Greek material,whereHesiod’sPrometheusactsaccordingtothemodelofabehaviourofatrickster and undoubtedly presents an ear-lierstageofthedevelopmentofthemyth,whileAeschylus’sPrometheusbelongstotheworldoffiction.

We tend to regardmyth as a tool forexpressing man’s cognition of the worldin the period of his development where he has not yet created an apparatus of abstract notions required for arriving at logicalconclusions.Webelievethatmythcanberegardedasanextendedmetaphor.

113

The idea of any change has been re-garded negatively in traditional cultures(the present society, surely, preserves many features of this addiction to stabil-ity and repetition). Yet, there is no doubt that even conservative societies felt the ir-resistible charmof the ambivalentfigureof trickster. Æsir cannot help enjoyingLoki’s tricks and inventions, and Nartsadmire ‘theirmisfortune’ – the treacher-ous Syrdon. It is evident that Prometheus belongs to the same category of charac-ters.Aeschylus’sfantasy transformedthetrickster into a hero and in the process cre-atedanewmyth–theideaoftheIndefi-niteProgress.

When discussing a culture hero itseemsfittingtorefertotheGreekmaterial(Hesiod) because it was the Greek written traditionthatrecordedtheearlierstagesofmyth . Already in Aeschylus one can trace the future transformation of metaphor into symbol and allegory and observe howmyth becomes literature. Presumably, us-ingtheGreekmodel,onecanreconstructaplausibleitineraryofthehero’stransfor-mation. Scandinavian and Ossetian mate-rial does not offer this possibility, so to analyzeit,wecanresorttoanalogy.

It is evident that Prometheus, Loki

and Syrdon characters demonstrate cer-tainsimilarities.Oneof themoststrikingaspects in the resemblance between Pro-metheus and Loki is the fact that the two heroes are punished in the same way – be-ingboundtoarock.

The matching process identified newfeatures of similarity: Loki is eventually bound by the godswith one of his sons’entrails,whileSyrdoncreatesthefirstmu-sicalinstrumentofNarts–fandyr–usinghisson’sveins.Thisseemstobearemark-able coincidence that so far appears to have passed unnoticed.

‘Myendismybeginning’–wesome-howwistfullyreturntothequotationfromSteblin-Kamenskij, whichwe used as anepigraphofthisarticle.Asamatteroffact,it is extremelydifficult to verify anyhy-pothesis in the field of comparative my-thology–thesubjectmatteristoodelicate.And still one should persevere because it concerns us, ourway of thinking and ofmodelingtheworldaroundusinthemostdirectway.Wecanonlyreiterateourinitialidea–mythcomestoanendwhenfictionstarts,andSnorriSturlusoninthe13cen-tury was much closer to the phenomenon of mythological thinking thanAeschyluswasinthe5centuryBC.

REFERENCES

Alfonseca,Manuel.1998.The myth of progress in the evolution of Science. End-of-year lecture, for-warded by the author. Madrid. (http://arantxa.ii.uam.es/~alfonsec/docs/end.htm).

Athanassakis,ApostolosN.1983.Hesiod. The-ogony; Works and days; Shield. Introduction, trans-lation, and notes.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniver-sity Press.

Averintsev, Sergei Sergeevič. 2004. Neopla-tonizm pered licom platonovskoj kritiki. Obraz antičnosti. (Neoplatonism exposed to Plato’s criti-

cism ofthemythopoeticmind.ImageofAntiquity)St.Petersburg:Azbuka-klassika.

Bellows,HenryAdams.1936.The Poetic Edda: Translated from the Icelandic with an Introduction and Notes. Princeton University Press. American Scandinavian Foundation.

D’jakonov,Igor’Mihajlovič.2004.Arhaičeskije mify Vostoka i Zapada. (Archaic myths of East and West)Moskva:Nauka.

de Vries, Jan. 1933. The Problem of Loki. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

114

de Vries, Jan. 1967. Altnordische Literaturge-schichte,2vols.Vol.1(GrundrißdergermanischenPhilologie15),Berlin-Leipzig:deGruyter.

deVries, Jan.1970.Altgermanische Religions-geschichte, 3rd edition.Berlin andLeipzig:WalterdeGruyter&Co.

Dumézil,Georges.1924.Lefestind’immortalité.Étude de mythologie comparée indo-européenne.Annales du Musée Guimet. Paris: P. Geuthner.

Dumézil,Georges.1976.IzknigiLoki.Osetin-skij èpos i mifologija. (Ossetian epic Tradition and Mythology) Vasilij Ivanovič Abaev, ed. Moskva:Nauka.

Dumézil, Georges. 1959. Loki. Darmstadt:DarmstadtWissenschaftlicheGesellschaft.

Eloeva,Fatima,SausverdeErika.2015.CultureHeroasaFormerIntriguer.Indo-European Linguis-tics and Classical Philology – XIX.Proceedingsofthe19thConferenceinMemoryofProfessorJosephM. Tronsky. Nikolai N. Kazansky, ed. St. Peters-burg:Nauka,229–241.

Frazer, James George. 1993. Miti sull’origine del’ fuoco.(trans.V.Cucchi).Milano:Xenia.

Hesiod. 1982.Hesiodwith anEnglish transla-tionbyHughG.Evelyn-White,London:LoebClas-sical Library.

Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. 1987.Antropogoničeskiemify. (AnthropologicalMyths) Mify narodov mira. T.1.Moskva:Nauka,87–89.

JohnsonMark,LakoffGeorge.1980.Metaphors we live by.London:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Kuiper, FranciskusB. J. 1986. Indijskij Prom-etej? (An Indian Prometheus?) Trudy po vedijskoj mifologii. Tat’jana Jakovlevna Elizarenkova, ed.Moskva: Nauka.

Kerenyi,Karoly.1979(2010).Prometeo:ilmi-tologemagrecadell’esistenzaumana.Miti e misteri. Trans.AngeloBrelich.Torino:BollatiBorighieri.

Kerenyi,Karoly. 2009.Gli dei e gli eroi dellaGrecia.Milano:IlSaggiatore.

Kirk,GeoffreyS.1987.La natura dei miti grae-ci.Roma:Bari.

Kraus,Walther. 1957. Prometheus.Paulus Re-alenecyklopaedie der classischen Altertumwissen-schaft.Bd.XXIII,1,München,689–690.

Liberman,Anatoly. 1994.Word Heath. Rome: IlCalamo.

Long,JeromeH.2005.CultureHeroe.LindsayJones et al., Encyclopedia of Religion, V.3(2nd ed.). Macmillan Reference USA: Thomas Gale.

Meletinskij,EleazarM.1958.PredkiPrometeja(Kul’turnyj geroj vmife i èpose) (The Forefathers

ofPrometheus–theCultureHeroinMythandEpicTradition). Vestnik istorii mirovoj kul’tury3(9),114–132.

Meletinskij, Eleazar M. 1982, Kul’turnyjgeroj (The Culture Hero). Mify narodov mira: Ènciklopedičeskij slovar’2,25–27.

Meletinskij, EleazarM.1988. Loki.Mify naro-dov mira: Ènciklopedičeskij slovar’2,67–68.

Mikhailov, Nikolai. 2011. On some aspects of philanthropic activity of Prometheus. Ètimologijai mifologija. (Etymology and Mythology) Studia mythosemeiotica 2, 84–101.Madrid: Editiones delHebreo Errante.

Mogk, Еugen. Novellistische Darstellung my-thologischer Stoffe Snorris und seiner Schule. Hel-sinki:SuomalainenTiedakatemia.(FFC,51).

Murray,Gilbert.2003.Five Stages of Greek Reli-gion. New York: Dover Publications.

Narty. 1990. [Нарты]. Narty. Osetinskijgeroičeskij epos. (Ossetian Heroic Epos) Moskva:Nauka.

Pierce,Charles. 2001. Èlementy logiki.Gram-matica speculativa. Semiotika.Antologija.Moskva:Akademičeskijproekt,166–168.

Rassel, Bertrand. 1967. A History of Western Philosophy and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. NewYork:Simon&Schuster.

Rooth,AnnaBirgitta. 1961.Loki in Scandina-vian Mythology. Lund: Gleerup.

Séchan, Louis. 1951. Le myte de Prométhée.Myths et Religions,No28,Paris:PressesUniversi-taires de France.

Simek,Rudolf.1984.Lexicon der germanischen Mythologie.Stuttgart:Kröner.

Steblin-Kamenskij, Mihail Ivanovič. 1982.Myth. The Icelandic Sagas & Eddas. Translated by MaryP.CootewiththeassistanceofFredericAmo-ry. Ann Arbor: Karoma.

Steblin-Kamenskij,Mihail Ivanovič. 2003.Mif (Myth). Trudy po filologii. Sankt-Peterburg: Philo-logicheskijFakultetSPbGU.

Ström, Folke. 1956. Loki: Ein mythologis-ches Problem. Acta universitatis Gothoburgensis.Göteborgs Universitets Arsskrift, 62,8. Göteborg:Elander.

Tolskaya, Maria. 2011. Ideophones as positive polarity items. MA Thesis. Harvard University.

Vernant, Jean-Pierre. 1978. Mito e pensiero presso I greci. Studi di psicologia storica. Torino: PiccolaBibliotecaEinaudi.

115

Gauta: 2015-09-30 Autorių adresas:Priimta publikuoti: 2015-10-07 Filologijosfakultetas

Vilniaus universitetasUniversitetog.5LT-01513VilniusEl. pašto adresai:

FatimaEloeva:fatimaeloeva@yandex.ruErikaSausverde:erika.sausverde@flf.vu.lt

Straipsnyjenagrinėjamipanašumaiirparalelėstarptrijų mitologinių personažų – senovės graikų Pro-metėjo,Syrdonoišnartųepinėstradicijosirsenovėsskandinavų Lokio.Anksčiau šie trys herojai buvonagrinėti poromis: Prometėjas lygintas su Lokiu,Lokis–suSyrdonu.Šieryšiaidažniausiaibuvoty-rinėjamisinchroniniulygiu,statiškai,bandantatkur-ti konkrečius personažų evoliucijos etapus. Šiamestraipsnyjemespažvelgėmeįšiąproblemąišdiach-roninėsperspektyvos.

Skandinavų Lokis ir Kaukazo Syrdonas (nartųepinė tradicija) yra lyginami su Prometėjo charak-terioevoliucija,aprašytaankstyvuosetekstuose(He-siodo Teogonijoje ir Darbuose ir dienose), taip pat su jo vėlesne transformacija, kuri yra vaizduojamaAischilotragedijojePrikaltasis Prometėjas. Šis pa-lyginimasleidžiakonstruotibendrąpersonažoraidosmodelį, kuris gali būti apibūdintas kaip evoliucijanuo chtoninės dievybės iki apgaviko (triksterio) ir(paskutiniameetape)–kultūrinioherojaus.

Šiųtrijųherojųpalyginimasleidžiamumsmany-ti,kadvisijiepriklausouniversaliamvadinamajam

Vernant, Jean-Pierre. 2003.Mito e religione in Grecia antica(MytheetreligionenGrèceancienne,1990), trans. Riccardo Di Donato. Roma: Donzelli, 227–277.

Voejkova,MarijaD.&Čistovič,IlarionA.1994.Pervye slova russkogo rebenkaThe first words ofa Russian child). Bjulleten’ fonetičeskogo fonda russkogo jazyka 5,108–115.

Von Schnurbein, Stefanie. 2000. The Function

of Loki in Snorri Sturluson’s “Edda”. History of Religions, 40(2),109–124.

Wierzbicka, Anna.1990. Sravnenie, gradacija, metafora. (Comparison, Gradation, Metaphor)Teorija metafory. Nina DavidovnaArutjunova, ed.Moskva:Progress,133–152.

Zajcev,Aleksandr Iosifovič. 2005.Grečeskaja religija i mifologija (GreekReligionandMythology),Moskva:Akademija.

BEBAIMĖ KULTŪRINIO HEROJAUS PRAEITIS (PROMETĖJAS, LOKIS, SYRDONAS…KOJOTAS…)

Fatima Eloeva, Erika SausverdeS a n t r a u k a

triksterio archetipui. Šis archetipas Kojoto dvasiospavidalu aptinkamasAmerikos indėnųmitologijoje(Kojotaspavogė išdievųugnį, žvaigždes ir saulę),panašių motyvų galima rasti ir pietryčių Jungti-nių Amerikos Valstijų pasakose apie Triušį (angl.Rabbit)arbaVarną(angl.Raven),kurispavogėugnįišsavodėdėsbebroirgaliausiaiatidavėjąžmonėms.

Mes keliame klausimą, ar semantinė transfor-macijachtoninėdievybė→apgavikas(triksteris)→kultūrinis herojus koreliuoja su kintančiu pažan-gos (progreso) idėjos turiniu skirtingose kultūrose.Mumsatrodo,kadšiairekonstrukcijaireikianaudotigraikiškąjąmedžiagą.HesiodoPrometėjasveikiapa-galtriksterio(apgaviko)elgesiomodelįir,beabejo-nės,atitinkamitoankstesniusetapus,oAischiloPro-metėjasjaupriklausogrožinėsliteratūrospasauliui.

Tyrimasleidoatskleistinaujųmitųpanašumųirsutapimų. Pavyzdžiui, mito pabaigoje dievai Lokįsuriša jo sūnaus žarnomis, o Syrdonas panaudojasavo sūnaus venas pirmajam muzikos instrumen-tui–nartų„fandyrui“sukurti.Šissutapimasikišiolnebuvopastebėtas.