Feminism, “unexpected” harassment scandals, pride parades, TV series with teenage fireplace-outs, the move of South Asia to northern Europe, the reorientation of familiar Hollywood heroes to an African-American appearance … Perhaps the vector of cultural development in the 21st century is quite clearly defined. The words "tolerance, tolerance, minority rights" have become commonplace. Up to the point that well-known media, following the ignorant Internet community, gave a hint about the "Arias", as it were, our ancestors, as people open to the whole world. A kind of wise warriors with open hearts and hugs.
In other words, I had a reason to collect in one article various examples and developments from several initially unrelated investigations. Not for the sake of a statement, but as an illustration to the topic, so to speak, to "think". The world is changing, we are changing, everything is changing. But the past is the past, so it is valuable, what is … should be a kind of experience for all of us, setting vectors for subsequent trends.
匈奴
I'll start with my recent commentary on Sergey Ignatenko's video about the Great Wall of China:
Within the framework of this topic, it makes sense to expand it and once again talk about the mysterious "Xiongnu", to protect against which the Chinese have built their defensive wall. After all, it is normal to try to protect your world from any "Xiongnu".
But who are these "Xiongnu" and what has the "Aryans" to do with it? Directly - nothing to do with it. But as a general concept - it is quite good for itself. After all, this is a good weapon in the hands of historians … No, no, I'm not against historians, because what would we know without them at all, right? Who else would dig up so many things for us, organize and disassemble! This is a difficult and painstaking work, it is really science … however, it is also the other side of the coin.
Let's open the source of compilation knowledge # 1 Wikipedia:
Here, everything seems to be correct. People? People! Fought? We fought! However, "mine" is in the very first word, it is also the solution to the "ominous mystery". After all, the Xiongnu is not an ethnonym! Like, perhaps, many names of peoples, if not all, cannot be self-names.
Let's see what this “Xiongnu” means - 匈奴 - which, like all other “ethnonyms”, is not usually translated by educated people. I must say right away that I saw the official version about the connection with the Hungarians-Hungars, etc., but here I do not consider it necessary to repeat it. There are encyclopedias for the official versions.
The first hieroglyph - 匈 - the Chinese themselves have little, which means now, but the Koreans have retained the following meanings "barbarian, foreigner, wild." The hieroglyph itself consists of two parts, the general meaning of which is roughly "bad sign, bad omen."
The second hieroglyph - 奴 - is "slave" now among the Chinese, or the second meaning is the expression of personality or "I", as in other Asian languages it is "he, she". This hieroglyph is a combination of the other two: 女 - woman, 又 - hand, but it is used as "again, adding, also, and, too" (apparently from the image of holding an object in the hand), among Koreans it is "friend, companion "(Again, those with whom you can make a trusting exchange handshake). That is, we can say that 奴 is "with a woman." That is, not just a “man” who can be a warrior, a mercenary, etc., but a man with a woman (aloud, but a “woman in labor” in the mind) is already a people. The people and the slave (employee) are very compatible things. After all, remember how the peasants called themselves - "the servant of God" …
A slave is an involuntary person. But take away that dull Hollywood coloration of this word. After all, this is a favorite topic "from rags to riches", when they show us the image of a slave who conquers the system … And in Hollywood they really love to defeat the system. This is such a complex of a "small person" - to go against the System, break it and … And what about "and"? But nothing, the cinema usually ends at this point … And where the "cinema" did not end, our country watched the civil war at the beginning of the 20th century, and then in the 90s. When chaos, lawlessness and polyarchy … I remember that even at school the history teacher said "polyarchy is anarchy." Nowadays, they are trying to disguise it under "democracy".
But the ancient world lived with a slightly different psychology - the psychology of "Chur", about which I have an article in three parts. And in short, when you live inside the "chur", then you completely belong to it. One for all and all for one. But if you break his rules, then okay if they will punish … but there is something more terrible - exile! For it is difficult to survive alone, especially when there are only strangers around. And uh … just a second! - this "chur" included not only living people, but also deceased ancestors, and all kinds of brownies, spirits … - a huge solid community regulated by traditions. Being expelled from such a multi-layered system, when there is even no one to pray, is not a toy for you.
In this regard, it is very funny that now the society puts criminals (real) in prison and contains them with their own money through taxes. Previously, they would simply be kicked out of society and like a tablecloth (there is simply nowhere else to expel) … Then the answer to the intimate question “whose clan-tribe” would not have helped the exile, since you no longer have a clan or tribe.
Therefore, in this hieroglyph "people", which is synonymous with "slave", as in the Christian "servant of God", there is a good meaning - the idea of communality, the idea of serving one's society, the idea of man as a part of the system … his small closed system, expressed by the gods, foundations, traditions. This is my opinion, but who knows, and maybe a "slave" is just a slave? In the end I will tell you what "slaves" and "women" are doing there side by side.
Add two hieroglyphs in "Xiongnu" and you get that 匈奴 are people belonging to (tied to her, not free from her) "barbaric" tradition, that is, different from those who gave them such a nickname, worshiping " a bad sign "(in comparison with the" non-Huns ", whose signs are a priori good, favorable - for their relatives). Well, it doesn't matter that the Slavic "Busurmans" or "Germans", and later the "Tatars", are the same as the Jewish "goyim" or "infidels" for radical religious extremists.
And I would not have paid attention to this if I hadn’t thought once, but who are the “Aryans” … After all, everything is known in comparison, and “Aryans” are nothing without their enemies, “das”.
दस्यु
From a lecture by A. B. Zubov's "Indo-Aryan Tradition":
In Sanskrit दस्यु - dasyu - means "barbarian, wicked person", in modern Hindi it is also "bandit; an outlaw, a thief, a wrong-doer (in Russian it translates roughly as “one who does the wrong thing”) (data from McGregor's Oakford Hindi-English).
If we take the consonances in the Russian language, then the word “wild” asks for “dasyu” …
And now let's open Dahl's explanatory dictionary: "Wild - in its natural form, consisting, not processed by man, uncultivated, natural; uneducated; unmanaged; unbridled, ferocious; stern; shy, alienating people; strange, extraordinary; opposite to the meanings" meek, meek, tame, yard, home; trimmed, processed; artificial ".
Got a connection between "Educated" and "Processed"? Visually and symbolically, this was expressed among the inhabitants of the Great Steppe as cutting off hair (leaving only a forelock or braid) - the custom of Tartar forelocks - a hairstyle showing us that the young man is physically and mentally mature and ready to be a part of society, ready to accept its rules, to serve him. All unnecessary is cut off, wildness is cut off. It is an outward symbol that the young man is now "educated."
In Muslim and Jewish traditions, this has become circumcision. African tribes have scarring. In bourgeois society - in "Gillette - there is no better for a man." In general, any "injury" is used, indicating that a person has been "cut" - they have made a full-fledged xonan out of an uncouth blockhead. After all, they do the same with raw materials - they "trim" it (in Greek "ksei", which is equivalent to our "scratch, mow", perhaps. From this "ksei" came the word "xonan" - these are hewn or carved from stone, wood figurines, that is, idols), giving the finished shape. This is a rather important image of antiquity.
So you hear everywhere "you should at least shave" …
The child grows up with a constant "no", cutting off his willfulness. After all, public education, in fact, is the acceptance of any restrictions and taboos that CUT OFF the original nature …
And here I cannot but recall the biblical classics: God first created Adam, and then cut off the rib from him and made a Woman out of him. After all that you have read, you should already understand what this means - Adam was "formed" with the help of a woman, depriving part of his "liberties" and … parts of the body. Carved, so to speak. Otherwise, he would have been a "uncouth fool". So, guys, the Lord endured and told us … But now we are not "savages", but the real ones 奴, well … in the sense of "with a woman" …
So, education is, as I said, a PUBLIC business. As it was said in some film, "to raise a child you need a whole village." And Society is “common” and “publica”, where “pub” + “lica” again classifies us as “matured persons” (see the article on Heroes). That is, society is just "one for all and all for one", this is "chur", this is "home", in connection with which I propose to read the article "What does the name Timur mean?" - there is just about the "cultivation" topic.
The wild one, or, as they say in some dialects, “divy” is one who is not educated, who is free and … “overgrown”. Yes, yes, after all, in the "mythology" of Peter I, there is not just a moment about the order to the people to cut their beards! - this is all part of the "symbolism" of the cultivation of the people:
“Barba” is “beard”, the Indian “बर्बर” (barbara) is not only “barbarian”, but also “fool, idiot” (and what did I say about raw blanks and xonans?), As well as “curly hair . So the theme is still the same, barbarians - because they are not “cultured”, “not combed”.
Analyzing the topic deeper, we will bury ourselves in the mythology of Veles and women in labor, and there it will be clear that not everything is so "neglected", but on the contrary, it is very interesting and meaningful. After all, "beard" is also a "breed", just like the Greek "geno" is both a "genus" and a "beard". However, this is not required here, and it is enough to dwell on the "uneducated barbarians".
And after such immersion in savagery, you can return to dasyas. You won't get anything from our Wikipedia, but her English colleague turned out to be quite chatty:
So, the Dasas are opposed to the Aryans in everything, which earned them the status of almost demons, but at the same time the meaning of "slave" or "God's slave" often flashes. Strabo, by the way, referred Dakhov to the Scythians … And have you noticed how the concept is changing by the 21st century? Be sure that soon "Dasya" will become a full-fledged ethnonym, like "Xiongnu", and the textbooks will clearly write against which peoples the "Aryans" fought … the main thing is that the "Great Indian Wall" is not dug out …
Meanwhile, the Irish also had their own "aryas" and "dasyas", which should already confuse lovers of accurate ethno-geographical data. From the same wikipedia:
And again "slaves", dependent on the landowner … The Irish, by the way, also have Aryas in the form of "Eri", and also mean "noble" …
आर्य
So, without haste, we crept up to the "great Aryans" themselves, using the method "from the opposite." And now everything should definitely fall into place.
आर्य - arya is, traditionally, "noble", and in the expanded version "worthy, dedicated, wise, true, master, master, excellent, honorable, dear, respected, polite, pleasant, like a gentleman, appropriate, attached to something- or, benevolent, faithful to his religion, the owner."
Still, with such synonyms, the picture will be brighter than just "noble". Of course, they all describe this "noble" breed. But here are also important meanings such as “dedicated, worthy, true, appropriate, attached to …”, which speak of a mandatory commitment to a particular society, which is expressed in “true to his religion”. Hence follows a special upbringing, which is expressed by synonyms such as "polite, pleasant, gentleman" (as the British understood this, after all, everything is from English colonial dictionaries). In fact, this is not necessarily a pampered pleasantness. It's about education in the traditions of the native society.
It is interesting that the Monier-Williams dictionary gives another definition of "Arya" - a member of the Vaisha varna. More precisely, either simply members of the three highest castes, or only Vayshi. Encyclopedias say that all three varnas only became "Aryan" over time. So what does it mean, "Arias" went from Vashj?
That is, it is the owners.
And I didn't understand why Zubov A. B. in his lecture "Indo-Aryan Tradition", which once became one of the reasons for my delving into this topic, he says the following:
That is, everything is clear and typical, but I didn’t come across something in the dictionaries the word “Vash”, which would mean “cow” (maybe I was looking badly?), There are more interesting things written:
वैश्य - vaishya - peasant, worker, settled person, dependence, vassalage.
वेश्या - veshya - (in modern Hindi) prostitute, courtesan, harlot, bitch; and also vassalage, dependence, neighborhood.
वेश - vesha - neighbor, tenant, access, entrance, right to enter, house, dwelling, tent, settler, vassal, brothel, small farmer, trade, courtesan behavior, prostitution, dress, addict.
वेशी - things - pin, puncture, needle, entering.
While you imagine prostitutes with pins in their hands, I will tell you that the matter of such proximity of the meanings “entrance, access” and “tent, house, dwelling” with “harlots” is the idea of “common” (home or woman). I mean, "use whoever you want" … But only among your own (neighbors).
Further in terms of meaning: "neighborhood" here implies "dependence", as well as trade - this is the mutual dependence of the buyer and the seller, supply and demand. Like all of these "go in and out" mentioned above are interacting parts, the pins are the attachment (link) element. Yet:
Which fully describes our Vaishis-veshi and gives reason to assume that the word "Hang, HAVE" is the fundamental principle for the Vaisha and vassals:
Here is the answer for you, what does the word "vaishya" mean - this is the one on which those who work for it depend. Actually, a Vaisha himself can work in the sweat of his brow, depending on his land, cow, craft. In short, the one who has something hanging on the balance sheet, and all dependent … slaves use it together. However, our Wikipedia provides some data from modern Indian realities:
And all this just pokes our nose into the old Russian designation of the village - ALL ("by cities and villages"), which is also very suitable for this definition of "Vaish", who, in fact, create these villages with their own economy.
From M. Vasmer's dictionary:
These meanings are very, very similar to the Indian "Vaishi". And there is "entrance", and the village. And how do you like “waispattin”, which is like a “lord”? And if the second root is from "patter, father, dad", which goes back to "graze", that is, "to protect, feed, protect and look after" the host ("state"), then the first root is just " whole (wais).”Knowing that this is a fairly common effect, when in different languages“g”turns into“v”(especially when you compare Greek, Russian and English), you can try to compare our“gos-blows”and And, by the way, this is where the “Vaish” comes in handy as the “cow” from Zubov's lecture, because “go” is also a “cow.” And “our own cow” is the economy.
Considering the "importance" of the Vaish, who give jobs to all kinds of Shudras, one can understand why they suddenly became "noble" Aryas-community members.
But behind all this “nobility” the word from which “Arya” came - “Ari” (अरि) - “not liberal, envious, hostile, adherent, faithful, pious or devoted person” is somehow lost.
As I understand it, this is a description of a person who is intolerant of other people's foundations. Loyal to his traditions, but an enemy to others. And then all the nobility of the Indian Aryans comes down precisely to the observance of their own Faith (by God, just like the aforementioned radical fighters against the "infidels", and like the Jews who despise the "goyim"), which in combination with their probable cradle - the Vaisyas - gives a picture of a harsh adherence to the way of their economy, their community and intolerance of any "rabble" from the outside. Considering that such things were inherited, the Aryas are those who honor only the traditions of their kind. Christian speaking, "baptized".
And this is echoed by another story … this time the "ancient Greek" classics.
Ἀλέξανδρος
Where are there so many Alexandria on the planet? The answer to this question from historians looks very simple - they were erected by Alexander the Great during his life-long campaign to the east. Alexander erected, which means they are named after him. But you can consider this issue from a different perspective. From the standpoint of meanings.
After all, the fact that Alexander the Great is a half mythical figure is beyond doubt. Yes, he has a biography and a trace in history, but exactly the same can be said about Tamerlane, and about Genghis Khan, and about Jesus Christ. All of them are more legendary than real people, and therefore obey the laws of myths and legends. And one of the principles of mythology, as well as of the ancient worldview in general, is the reflection in the name of the character of his role in the myth. If you look specifically at ancient mythology, then in general many myths were created in it only in order to reveal the meaning of the name of a particular person, god, etc. through symbols. For the name is the logos!
And the biography of Alexander definitely has mythological features: divine birth, taming a wild horse (male initiation), a campaign “beyond the distant lands”, finding a bride. Only all this is described with an epic Greek scale, like the Iliad, Argonautics, Dionistics, which are based on the same motives.
The aforementioned "Timur" is also named by his own name, as they say, "retroactively", since it fully reflected his role in history as the conqueror of peoples. "Alexander" left not far from him.
This general has clear roles in mythology. First of all, as the one who built the wall in Asia in order to protect the civilized world from the "barbaric". This plot is evident in all the legends about Alexander among different peoples. And since the world remembers him for this, then it can already be elevated to the status of a symbol. The second, but not in importance, symbol is the creation of a huge empire through the conquest of "wild" tribes, as a result of which the era of the so-called "Hellenism" began, that is, the spread of Greek languages, culture and economy to the eastern and southern Mediterranean, which lasted more than one century, according to the official chronology. The third role is, relatively speaking, the likeness of God. In various legends and novels, Alexander appears as a hero who is recognized as a god.
Thanks to this, Alexander received the epithet "Megas", that is, "Great" (in Russian "Mighty"). And then the very name "Alexander" should reflect precisely these features.
We are told that "Alexander" is the Greek "Protector of the people", which I am not going to dispute. However, the devil is always in the details. Here they are useful to us.
Ἀλέξανδρος, where "ἀλέξω" is "to protect, reflect, ward off, prevent (stay away), guard, defend, help, give (reward, repay)", and "ανδρος" - "people", although it is more correct to "men ". This is the very basis on which the etymology of Alexander is brought to us.
But the word "protector" must still be understood. Based on the dictionary data (given above from the Greek-English lexicon of Liddell and Scott, 1940), you can clarify its meaning. Here the emphasis is on "aversion from something", fencing off, which, in fact, means the Russian "defense" - "behind the shield". At the same time, such meanings as "give, repay, reward" also go back to this shield, since they are the action of reflection (what he deserved, he received), and the shield was just created to repel attacks. The last meaning - help - is the interpretation of the "support" translators. By the way, the English word "defend", which appears in the English translations of "alexo", also has the meaning of "support" in addition to the main "defend", since to defend is to defend, protect, hold, that is, to take the side of the defended (before him),stand behind him with a mountain … or a shield.
The second part "andros" comes from "ἀνήρ" - a man (not an animal, although they also used animals for males), but in the sense that this is necessarily an adult man (not a child or a woman), and in opposition to the gods, that is, mortal … Also in the meaning of "warrior", "husband", "lover" (if not husband), and is also used next to royal statuses or names of professions; the freedom of this person is emphasized. It is also used together with the names of entire peoples (for example, ανδρος Θρῇξ - Thracians). If you look at all these conditions, then the image of a citizen, an adult member of a clan-tribe, someone who can be considered a part of society, to influence it (as opposed to children, for example), appears by itself. Such were the sexually mature and fertile young men who had undergone "baptism" (the rite of being accepted into society). That is why the qualities of a "husband" or "lover", or even a "warrior" are emphasized, which in poetry is equivalent to a lover.
It would be very interesting on this basis to compare (which the etymologists did not do) "ἀνήρ, ὡνήρ" with the word "ambition", which, like its Western counterparts (honor, onur), means "honor." Again, "honor, respect, reputation" is what is deserved (compare with the word "fee" - "payment, remuneration"), otherwise they say "appreciate", that is, "evaluate" (how much it costs), after which it already appears the epithet "dear" (both respected and worth a lot at the same time). This quality, in theory, is not inherited, but is sought by the recognition of society. That is, like "ἀνήρ" - a citizen is a purely social concept, recognized by the rest of this society.
This is important, because in this case the word "andros" can only denote the Hellenes themselves, as a closed community. All the rest are "barbarians" (infidels). Exactly the same as with the above Aryas.
From this analysis it becomes clear that "alexandros" is exactly displayed as a symbol of the protective wall that the king built in order to prevent, reflect various "gogs and magogs", to protect the Hellenic lands. Poetically, "Ἀλέξανδρος" can be translated as "Shield of the Fatherland", the protection of one's own citizens. I repeat, not just some kind of “people”, but namely OWN people.
There is one more hidden element in the word "Alexander" - this is "λέξiς" - "speech, word", derived from "λέγω" - "to put in order, arrange, collect, choose, count, speak", since the word is ordered (collected) a set of sounds expressing some kind of thought; a formula, in a word, or again an expression, that is, the separation of something concrete and independent from the general flow. Also, this word is translated as "law" (where the word "legal" came from), which is also an expression of the principles of social life. The same law is expressed in the concept of "Patron God". Namely, Alexander was recognized as God in foreign territories. To put it simply, strangers accepted precisely his law and order (they worshiped, bowed before him).
How "lexis" became part of "alesso": shield-alesso is what reflects (attacks), and "lexis", if you remember the article about "Logos", is also a reflection in the meaning of "display, expression" of some then qualities, and in the case of "Alexander" it is a reflection of the qualities of the "Androsov" themselves, that is, Alexander is like a symbol of his society. To make it clearer, you can compare it with the following picture: imagine a night forest full of dangers and darkness; and a fire was made among him. For the outer forest, a fire is a symbol of a person, it testifies that in a given place there is an intelligent creature capable of making a fire, that is, it becomes a symbol of a person, his expression, a reflection of his abilities. And for a person himself, a fire is a defense against threats from the external wild world. That's exactly the same thing with Alexandria in the middle of the "wild" world.
And then the role of all these Alexandria is visible. From history it is known, if I am not mistaken, about twenty Alexandria. And we are told that their names indicate that they were allegedly organized by Alexander himself. However, from the analysis of this name, it becomes clear that Alexandria specifically to Tsar Alexander may not have a relationship. After all, in fact, Alexandria is just a fortified place where the "barbarians" did not go, a city, outside of which, like a shield, there were bearers of Hellenic culture - adult men with their families, whose life was regulated by the laws and traditions of their own country, and not the lands on which they were located (by God, as the territory of the current foreign embassies), which initially excluded mixing with other cultures. It was these paternal orders that were the very "shield" against the "savages"which included literally everyone who was not a member of this community. And it was this initially insurmountable cultural barrier that became the reason for the gradual "Hellenization" of the conquered territories.
Women are not people?
You have already noticed that here "man" = "man", but not a woman or a child. In English, by the way, the male animals are still called in one word, and for the female and her cub, a common name is also possible. An example from Russian - Bull (male) and Heifer with Calf.
Well, modern “Man” is both a man and a person, but not a woman. I am not at all a chauvinist or some kind of sexist, I am just analyzing terms that are very inconvenient for the current picture of the world.
Even again to take the already mentioned moment from Genesis // 2:23:
The phrase does not fit, right? To be clear, it says that a wife is called a “wife” because she is taken from her husband. But wait … "Husband" and "Wife" have no common roots at all, how can one derive etymologically from the other? Let's read the same line in other languages:
For the Greeks, the situation is the same as for us: "γυνή" and "ἀνδρὸς" (by the way, in Sanskrit अण्ड "anda" is the scrotum, testicles, a musk sack, an egg … you can't go wrong with the floor). That is, no, well, no etymology. But she is in the Latin Vulgate: a man is viro, his wife is virago, just bearing the name of her husband. In the text of the Jews, the wife is אִשָּׁה - "isha", the man - איש - "ish".
The English text is also etymological, but only half: "And Adam said:" This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man. "But Woman herself is already a certain a compromise, because initially "wifman" - from "wif" - a woman (now wife - wife. And also "quean" was used, which remained in the form of "queen" - a queen, but initially it is the same "gen-wife"). and in general this is a fairly modern text, I would find Luther's translations …
Again, "female" and "male" are "female" and "male". Again, a woman is formed from a man. "Taken from him."
This is also an important remark, since it fully answers the question "why is a woman not a man?" Because "man" is "ἀνήρ" - the CARRIER OF THE PATHICAL TRADITIONS. Even now, a woman changes her surname upon marriage. And before they even changed her name, because they baptized her during the wedding. Baptism takes place in the clan of the husband with a complete rejection of the traditions of the clan. That is, a woman cannot pass on the culture of her tribe to her children, since she is obliged to part with it. If a woman is kidnapped by a "barbarian", then she becomes a "barbarian" because she dissolves in a barbarian culture. Well, this is her role by nature, not related to the transfer of culture (her own). Gene transfer - yes, spirit - no. There is nothing wrong with that. Let me remind you that when the boy was growing up, he was sent to be raised in a male society, since only a man will give him somethingthat he himself once received from his father. The woman could not contradict this process, since it is important to convey the traditions of the family. The kind that she now belongs to, which cares and protects her.
The psychology is exactly the same as that revealed when looking at the "Aryans".
And here there is an insanely interesting (for me) moment that only recently dawned on me and which I, probably, will someday write in detail, and here I will just throw my fishing rod.
I have already said in some articles that Greek heroes are, in fact, just suitors. And all their long campaigns and sieges of fortresses are all part of the wedding tradition, including the tradition of the "Sacred Spring", during which the "wild barbarians" were assimilated (that is, the "infidels", those who are not of the same tradition, as the heroes themselves). And it's no secret that Athena was the main patroness of the heroes. Her image expresses just the whole tradition that the hero receives from his kind. But the Greeks also had another "god of war" - Ares. And the attitude towards this character has always been negative. "The least favorite of Zeus's children." And this is where all the salt is:
Zeus gave birth to Athena without the participation of Hera, and Hera gave birth to Ares without the help of Zeus, according to some sources. Athena and Ares often argue with each other and are always opposed. In the Iliad, Athena is on the side of the attacking heroes, and Ares is on the side of the defending Trojans. Contrast this with the fact that in matchmaking games like "The Tsar is Coming to Nova Gorod", the attacking side is the groom, and the defender is the bride.
And then it becomes extremely logical that while Athena patronized the heroes-suitors, Ares became the father of the Amazons. Amazons are virgins without husbands. That is, the bride!
And that is why he is an unloved god (and not just like that personifies the war connected with love - he is Aphrodite's lover). Because it represents the side of the bride - the tradition that the groom must "conquer", interrupt, consign to oblivion. And here it is immediately remembered that in fairy tales the hero needs to SAVE THE VIRGIN FROM THE Monster (a snake, a dragon; and the dragon is just one of the symbols of Ares). And only after killing the monster, they play a wedding. This is the feat of the groom - to free the bride from the tradition of her family and tie it to hers. And how he does it, I will tell you another time, but this is a direct continuation of the theme of "Centaurs and Princes". And the cutting off of the dragon's heads yourself compare with the aforementioned "trimming" and "domestication" and such a message from Statius as "The Argos girls sacrificed hair to Athena before marriage." But,of course, not everything is so simple there …
***
Here is an excursion into Aryan intolerance. So forget the theses like "ancient Aryans were open to the whole world …", as modern "Hyperboreans" like to fantasize. Their sword was open, but their souls were not.
Apparently, the Aryans, if they discovered new territories for themselves, could only impose their own orders there and destroy everything that did not look like them. And this is humanly, horrible, of course, but historically not so bad (but not good either!); not tolerant, alas, but quite neutral to itself, because how else could a single language and similar traditions survive on such a vast continent? And so the influence on the customs of local tribes can be seen with the naked eye. And what would have happened if the ancestors had not been so zealous for their ways? I think our children will clearly see this on the example of the future Europe. Hint:
So the great and terrible Aryan civilization is a very large "catchphrase", apparently. As well as the appearance of such an "ethnos" in history. After all, this is not a people, but, say, the natural state of tribal communities. All were "aryas" to one degree or another for their loved ones. It's just that, as in the case of “Xiongnu”, it is easier to leave a word without translation in history in order to make a riddle out of it, than from the very beginning to dot the “i” and see the origins of intolerance, illiberality and other undemocratic things so unloved today … And what to do? Society was like that, life was like that! Otherwise, nothing, otherwise disappearance. And if we have overcome all this now, in such an enlightened age in all senses, and can normally coexist and dissolve in each other's cultures, then we should not stretch the modern worldview over past eras.
Author: peremyshlin