DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MYTH IN GERMAN CLASSICAL STUDIES (LATE 18TH – EARLY 19TH CENTURY)

The article provides a philosophical review of the mythological concepts of German antiquarians, in particular, G F. Creuzer, K. O. Müller, J. H. Voss and other mythological scholars of the late 18th - early 19th centuries, with an emphasis on their contribution to the formation of European mythological thought and the methodology of the science of myth in the 19th century. The analytical basis consists primarily in a direct analysis of the primary sources of the mentioned authors, as well as representatives of the romantic school, who are a reflection of the romantic worldview, in the light of which myth appears as a principle of interpreting culture, symbolism, as the basis of cultural genesis (with the desire to reveal the "prehistoric beginning" of culture and the common sources of myth). In this vein, Creuzer formulates the theory of the symbol as an "embodied idea" and tries to reconstruct myth as a primary symbolic language that passes between cultures in artifacts. Müller and Voss oppose this from different perspectives: the first defends the localism of myths and the autochthonous nature of Greek mythology as evidence of historical and national development, rejecting unambiguous similarities with the East; the other openly criticizes Creuzer's symbolism, advocating a rational-historical approach, denying the very possibility of transferring myths between cultures. The affinities and differences between the concepts of myth as a holistic cultural phenomenon are analyzed: for Creuzer, myth is a symbolic form of the wisdom of humanity, which requires decoding through the images and materials of ancient artifacts; for Müller, it is the local mythology of peoples, which reveals early forms of culture and migration histories; for Voss, it is an anti-symbolic criticism of romanticism and the rejection of the union of myth and symbol in a single theory. Hegel acts as a critic of the romantic approach, but recognizes the value of myth as a stage of development of the spirit, necessary for further cognition. The article emphasizes that there are contradictions between the two approaches - philosophical-romantic and historical-scientific, which determined the directions of early mythography and the formation of methodological criteria for the study of ancient mythology in European science; it is argued that the discussions between Müller, Kreutzer and Voss, as well as Hegel's positions, became decisive for the formation of mythology as a scientific discipline: they outlined the boundaries between symbolism and historical-critical analysis, identified two main schools - romantic-philosophical and concrete-scientific - and influenced the further evolution of philology, interpretative models of myth and, in general, the orientation of European mythological thought in the 19th century. Such well-founded conclusions actualize the significance of the Ukrainian research discourse on German classical studies and its influence on the world mythological tradition, emphasizing the need for further deepening the study of the heritage of the aforementioned authors and their contemporaries in order to understand modern methodology in the study of mythology and intercultural interactions in European philosophy.