Will we ever know Prometheus?

When I started this module the idea of writing a blog every week on Prometheus daunted me. I wasn’t sure of how long the blogs should be or what I should write about; the only thing I was sure on was the tale of Prometheus. It seemed a good place to start, so I began to research the finer points of the myth to make sure I had the plot correct and I found I didn’t I in fact had missed half the plot. So in that first blog I outlined the plot and I was cast iron certain that I had it correct.

Now that I have all but completed the module I realised that I was wrong again. I thought I knew who Prometheus was but I didn’t.  I outlined Hesiod’s version of the myth, his is the oldest we have and therefore can be the one to compare the other later versions to. But just because I outlined the oldest version doesn’t mean that I outlined the correct version. There are many interpretations and accounts of Prometheus in all genres from all time periods and Hesiod may have been working from an older account that didn’t survive. All accounts were influenced by the of the society at the time, some were influenced by previous accounts, others just by the author’s personal opinions on Prometheus but there is nothing to say that any of them are wrong or right. Instead of declaring who Prometheus was out right, now when I talk to people about Prometheus I am careful to say “the Prometheus myth according to...” and then one of the author’s names. It is pleasing to note that whilst my thoughts on Prometheus we skewed by one simplified telling of Prometheus they weren’t wrong; just different.

Without knowing the actual origin of the myth it would be severely improbable to know what actually happened or who exactly Prometheus was. And in trying to learn what happened I have learnt some truly fascinating interpretations of the myth, especially his use as an example against heresy in Renaissance Europe. Prometheus has appeared in many different roles and guises and I think when combined all show a deeper perspective on this character. I find that when comparing the Prometheus in Hesiod with that in Aeschylus; it gives a fascinating view into the role Zeus played. I think when looking at the tyrannical approach of Zeus in Aeschylus and Byron the rebellion of Prometheus seems more justified.

My feeling at the end of this module is that whilst we may never what actually happened to Prometheus or who he was; his myth is a tool that can transport us to societies from the past. The events in the myth of Prometheus almost certainly didn’t happen but their telling has influenced societies for millennia and in this way Prometheus has become real. If on the other hand the Promethean myth is a true story and Prometheus is sitting in Olympus, I hope he looks at the various stories of his myth with the amused look of a celebrity who reads about themselves in the press; reading about events that have been twisted and changed to suit the angle of the author but with the original plot having gone astray.

The Societies That Changed the Myth

The myth of Prometheus has been changed and rewritten over the millennia to fit viewpoints on the society and human condition of the time. Myths can be seen as representations or explanations of contemporary society. When looking at Hesiod’s portrayal of Pandora and women in Theogony and Works and Days we can learn that he was writing in a male dominated society where women were nowhere near equal to their husbands. This is in contrast to Aeschylus’ account of Prometheus where Pandora isn’t mentioned at all. Aeschylus focuses more on the advantages that Prometheus brought mankind, reflecting Athens’ technological, philosophical and political progress in the 5^th and 4^th centuries BC. In  early 16^th century Europe, at the height of religious reformation; Andreo Alciato’s use of Prometheus can be seen as a warning of the perils of questioning the religious order, Olympian or Catholic. In the 19^th century, British Romantic poets found yet another interpretation of Prometheus as they tried to make sense of the promises and failures of the of the French Revolution. Finally my modern account of Prometheus aimed to give a reflection of some of the problems of the 21^st century that I felt Prometheus could communicate.

In Theogany and Works and Days Hesiod focuses on the fall of men from the Golden Age and the division between men and gods. He sets Prometheus as directly responsible for the separation of men from the plentiful life of the gods and the life of suffering that is brought about. This trickster figure of Prometheus changes the world to what it is, not what people think it should be; in this way Hesiod’s account is very pessimistic and looks back on times when life was easier. Prometheus’ actions reinforce the conventions and practices of archaic Greek culture with particular attention to boundaries between mortals and gods and between men and women. . The theft of fire by Prometheus is linked with the moment that men were separated from the gods, at the sacrifice at Mekone; as this began the process of separation. The separation of men is compounded by the need to work for food, another consequence of Prometheus’ actions. This is a contrast with the bountiful, carefree life of the gods; Hesiod sees it as a decline for humanity that they no longer live like this. Men are left to be hungry or to work hard to uncover the produce that the earth contains via farming.

The theme of hunger is continued with the creation of Pandora. Pandora, as a representation of women, is like the fire that Prometheus stole, always hungry and in need of feeding. This links with the agricultural theme; the belly of the women is similar to the earth in that both can provide life but the seeds (of man and grain) must be hidden for them to bear fruit. The link is continued with Pandora’s jar, reference to the jars used to store agricultural produce; such jars wouldn’t have been necessary before Prometheus because there was no need for storage. Hesiod’s account is vastly misogynistic; women are portrayed to be idle with no mention to their contributions to the house or society. The creation of women as a punishment justifies the contemporary gender inequalities and when a myth is retold as much as this one then it embeds and legitimizes that thought process. Hesiod gives an indication that women played little part in society and but may have more authority at home as a supervisor rather than worker. He also signifies an expectance or need for marriage with his descriptions of the perils of married or single life from a male perspective. It shows his male dominated focus that there is no mention of single women in the text. Hesiod’s negative focus on the fall of man is in stark contrast with Aeschylus’ portrayal of Prometheus influenced by better, more prosperous times.

When Aeschylus wrote Prometheus Bound Prometheus became a figure of political rebellion and progress for humanity. Prometheus was a rebel fighting the tyranny of Zeus’ reign to protect humans. At the time Aeschylus was alive the Persians had been driven out of Greece, the Cleisthenic Reforms laid the foundations for democracy and Athens became an imperial power. It is because of this that Prometheus Bound focuses on the progress of man in the face of Zeus’ oppressive rule. Athenian tragedy being critical of tyrannical regimes is a common trait and here Aeschylus gave Zeus the tools needed to be a tyrant. At the beginning of the play, Kratos (Might) and Bia (Force) act as his enforcers as they chain Prometheus to the rock; they maintain his rule by violence and punishment. By mentioning Zeus’ punishment of Io, Zeus is made out to be prone to violence and a belief that he is above the law. This mirrors the tyrants that Athens would have known and revels in the fact that they aren’t in power now and celebrates the infant Athenian democracy. It is with this upwards looking perspective that Aeschylus omits the sacrifice at Mekone; when Hesiod focused on it as the moment men fell from the level of gods. Aeschylus shows how with fire from Prometheus man has accomplished a lot, technology, medicine and metal working, for example. Given the optimism and hope Athens had for the future it is understandable that the centre of attention would be on man’s achievements with Prometheus’ gift. Instead of looking at a fall from the gods it looks at how fire raised man from animals. Men could cook meat, predict the future, grow crops and heal wounds. His fire is a metaphor for the skills man possesses to control the land and be successful.

However rebellion and forward thinking would not always be the message that Prometheus would convey. In the face of religious reformation across Europe the myth of Prometheus was used as an example of what happened to previous men who questioned religious authority. In 1531, Milanese lawyer, Andrea Alciato wrote Emblematum liber; a collection of sayings, pictures and verses that combined to give a moral or symbolic meaning. Alciato used the Prometheus myth with the translated title “What is above us is nothing to us”. From the beginning Alciato is telling the reader to not question or concern oneself with what is above you; in this case the practices of the Catholic Church. The image is of Prometheus lying on the ground with an eagle perched on his middle, pecking at a gaping wound in his abdomen. The verse initially tells us the Prometheus “hangs for all eternity” having his liver “shredded by the talon of the sacred winged one”. In the context of 16^th century Europe this sacred winged one is less likely to mean a divine eagle but more likely a devil in the area of Hell reserved for heretics. It is interesting that despite Hesiod and Aeschylus releasing Prometheus, according to this source Prometheus is still there; it offers no hope of redemption for a heretic.

Prometheus could be seen as a representation of a reform minded man who spreads the ideas of reformers like Luther. When the verse says he “might rather not have created man” it is refereeing to the belief that Prometheus created men out of clay but also to the reforming ideas that have led him to this horrific punishment.  In other translations the next line makes reference to Prometheus detesting the “moulders of clay”, the men who continue to spread the radical ideas and cursing the “torch lit from stolen fire”; the illegal ideas that caught on across large stretches of Europe. If a contemporary reader was not well versed in the classics the initial metaphors may have been lost on them but the last lines are particularly poignant; as if Alciato wanted to leave no room for misinterpretation; “The breasts of wise men are gnawed by diverse cares – those wise men who feign to know the ways of heaven and of the gods”. There is no mistaking his intention with this line; it is a direct warning to those who claimed to know how God wanted to be worshiped. Part of Lutheran doctrine was focused on people worshiping God directly, not through a priest. Alciato is speaking plainly to men who believed they knew more than the Papacy. It is a fairly direct warning against heresy in a time where Henry VIII was pushing his first religious reforms through Parliament. Alciato’s defence of the Church is understandable; he was Italian and even though Luther’s ideas were discussed in Italy they never became popular. It is interesting that in this account of Prometheus he is no longer a rebel, spurring on the uprising but a defeated figure, being used as a warning to others not to follow the same path.

Less than four centuries later Prometheus was being used in the setting of a rebellious character against an oppressive leader once more. After the collapse of the ideals that fuelled the French Revolution; British Romantic poets like Shelley and Byron turned to Prometheus to enable them to make sense of the political climate. Prometheus enabled them to view and analyse the relationship between those in power, their challengers and the masses under that control. They saw Prometheus’ theft of fire as a symbol of mankind endeavouring to gain political power and self-rule. The influence of Aeschylus is obvious in the work of Shelley and Byron as they reflected on the horrors of the Terror and Napoleonic despotism as well as making clear the perils of the Ancien Regime. It has been suggested that Shelley’s Prometheus Unbound, written in 1818-19, was written about the fine line between rebel, liberator and tyrant with Napoleon in mind. While Byron’s Prometheus makes Prometheus a rebel against the tyranny of Zeus, Shelley makes Prometheus more idealistic and trying to build a model for life without being hampered by oppressive regimes. This Prometheus was set years after the main story, allowing Prometheus to reflect on the events. Prometheus became a figure of passive struggle for a fairer society where there are no kings but all are equal, obviously mirroring the ideas behind the French Revolution (liberty, equality, fraternity). This Prometheus recognised that he was at fault, just like Zeus was. This is a recognition of the revolutionaries becoming just as bad as the regime they deposed and Shelley is urging both parties to come together to repair the damage done. Shelley sets out the idea for people to release themselves from the authority of those in control and to govern themselves. Just as Prometheus accepted blame for his part in the fight between him and Zeus, Shelley invites those in power to recant as well. Shelley implored people to realise that violence would only cause further violence and encourages everyone to break the cycle of tyranny not just remove one tyrant. This Prometheus is subtle and reflective in his striving for freedom for men.

In Prometheus Re-bound I retold Hesiod’s Prometheus in a 21^st century setting. I chose not to change Hesiod’s plot or negative focus but instead used the myth as a vehicle for making sense of today’s economic problems and media culture. The story is set in Hesiod’s view that mankind is declining from the level of the gods, this parallels with the economic decline from the “boom” years of the last decade. The account revolves around a power struggle in a multinational bank, it shows the god-like power of the world’s economic institutions that the only metaphor for the Olympian gods I felt I could use was a bank. It also shows the blame that society has for the banks that a bank and two of its chief employees are the cause of the problems for the world. The equivalent for the choice at the sacrifice at Mekone is a choice between investing in two different energy companies. One is an oil company the other is a source of green technology. When Zacharias makes his choice without considering the options properly he has done so to get favourable media coverage; not looking at the returns on the investment or even if it is a possible energy source. He is choosing between energy sources as energy is a major concern for today’s world. Finding and harnessing a source of energy is like searching for a god; we are as dependant on energy as a Greek person centuries ago was dependent on their gods. The difference is that we don’t respect our energy resources; we deplete them always sure that we will find another one, the Greeks were more respectful of their gods. Maybe when energy resources are diminished we will be more careful and reverential to the energy supplies we have so that they are not wasted, we will treat them like an Olympian god that should not have its time wasted for fear of the consequences.

The media is a major theme in this account. Zacharias makes the wrong choice for fear of what the press will say about him if he chooses to invest in oil, the media also transport the evil of Paloma across the globe. In today’s world politicians and CEO’s are more afraid of the reaction of the press not their electorate or customers because the coverage in the media influences how people think. When the press spread the images of Paloma across the world women looked at the life of Paloma and they wanted the same; they started to act and dress like her, they wanted her life. It is a major concern for today’s society how women are influenced by what they see in magazines, for example. With airbrushing and manipulation of photographs thousands of men and women across the globe have an unrealistic view of life and strive to reach unattainable goals of beauty that doesn’t exist, aside from in the publication they are looking at. I chose Paloma’s evil to be spread this way as the media already transports a kind of evil like this. Look at the thousands of women who see Jordan and Jodie Marsh in the papers and decide to get breast enhancements and become famous by wearing as little clothing as possible. These negative role models of today are exactly like Paloma in this way, spreading a false image of life that causes negativity as it can never be achieved. This Prometheus (Pierce) is part of a negative view of the world as today there is a more negative focus in people’s minds and the media. There is always something lacking from people’s lives; be it the newest electrical must-have or in the world’s poorer areas simply food. We are a hungry world and using Hesiod’s account of Prometheus seemed the best way to reflect on this.

Prometheus has changed a lot in the last 2800 years or so. He has been a defiant rebel, an aid to progress, a mutineer with regrets either being used as an example or reflecting and trying to repair the damage he in part caused or a rebel again who only makes matters worse. Prometheus has been selfish, a benefactor, a creator and one who challenged the order of the gods. The many different guises of Prometheus reflect that the societies that read and thought about this myth faced different problems and a story like this is a useful conceptual tool to try and understand these problems. When using an analogy like this to reflect on society it is useful to use a myth like this as it is a well known tale therefore the changes made easily show the point the author tries to communicate. It gives us a way of comparing the societies behind the myth by changing the differing actions and fates of Prometheus.

Bibliography

Classical Mythology: A Very Short Introduction

Helen Morales

Oxford, OUP, 2007

Theogony, Works and Days

Hesiod

trans. M.L. West

Oxford, OUP, 1999

Prometheus

Dougherty, Carol

Routledge 2006

Prometheus Bound

Aeschylus

Trans. H. Weir Smyth, 1926

"Emblem Books"  

Susan Drain  The Oxford Encyclopedia of Children's Literature.

Edited by Jack Zipes. Oxford University Press 2006

5 December 2010  

http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t204.e0985

"emblem book"  

The Oxford Companion to English Literature.

Edited by Dinah Birch.

 Oxford University Press.  

5 December 2010  

http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t113.e2506

Emblematum liber

Andrea Alciato

First published 1561, Augsburg

http://www.emblems.arts.gla.ac.uk/alciato/emblem.php?id=A31a029

Challenging Zeus’ Power

An obvious theme in any version of the Prometheus myth is the challenge to Zeus’ power made by Prometheus. But this is not a unique situation; titans and other Olympians challenged, questioned or deceived Zeus on other occasions. The accounts of Prometheus from Hesiod and Aeschylus show a Prometheus who was not afraid to trick Zeus or to refuse to comply with him. When Hesiod described the instructions for and the creation of Pandora there are large discrepancies between what the gods were asked to do and what they did actually do. In the Iliad even Hera and her accomplices actively sought to deceive Zeus to countermand his orders. These challenges lead me to question just how respected as a leader was  Zeus? Or was he even in charge at all?

In Theogony Hesiod uses the Prometheus myth to celebrate Zeus’ gaining and strengthening of power. This account begins and ends with reinforcing the point that Zeus was all powerful and with details of Prometheus’ punishment. The end of the passage also states “Thus there is no way of deceiving or evading the mind of Zeus”. Zeus’ power is clearly defined as he overcame the challenge from Prometheus. Prometheus is labelled as “cunning”, “clever” and “crafty”; but even with his significant mental prowess a challenge on the leader of the gods was an audacious deed. But when you look at the fact that Prometheus was Zeus’ cousin the challenge seems less impudent. It could be argued that if there was no room to challenge Zeus then Prometheus, with all his “cunning” wouldn’t have been stupid enough to do so. Lines 49-51 mention that Zeus knew what Prometheus was intending to do and allowed it to happen as part of his larger plan to remove mankind. Looking at this it could be claimed that because Zeus knew what Prometheus was trying to achieve by tricking him with the sacrifice then it nullifies Prometheus’ tenacity and added to Hesiod’s image of Zeus being omnipotent. But if this was the case then why did he not foresee the theft of fire? Theogony mentions Zeus was wrathful and he had “anger ever in his mind”, were these genuine emotions or was this part of the overall plan that Zeus had. Dougherty states that Prometheus engaged Zeus in a battle of wits and his triumph was “the ultimate expression of his native intelligence”. Whilst I see the merit in this line of argument, it still seems that if there wasn’t a weakness then Prometheus wouldn’t have tried to exploit it. As we have seen with many different interpretations of the Prometheus myth; people have retold the myth emphasising or emitting what is necessary to communicate their point. Who is to say that Hesiod did not retell an existing myth, that no longer survives, to suit is angle of asserting Zeus’ dominance and rule. 

The Prometheus in Hesiod was a trickster who caused all mortal trouble with his tricks and theft of fire. Whilst clearly based on Hesiod’s Prometheus; the Prometheus in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound was converted to a rebel who supported of mankind no matter what the consequences. This Prometheus challenged Zeus in different ways to Hesiod’s Prometheus. He was defiant and wouldn’t give into Zeus’ demands even in the face of worse punishments. When Io walked past the rock he was chained to, Prometheus commiserates with her as two beings punished by Zeus. He comforted her with the knowledge that Zeus will fall and told her  how. When Zeus caught wind of Prometheus’ knowledge he dispatches Hermes to learn the secret but Prometheus refused to tell him. Hermes accused Prometheus of talking to him like he is a child, to which Prometheus agreed. He saw Hermes as a child because he is one of the younger gods. Prometheus was an older deity; he was the cousin of Zeus and has seen other rulers of the gods. It was one reason that he saw fit to challenge Zeus. In Hesiod, Prometheus seemed like a younger upstart, testing Zeus’ command. But here we are reminded that Prometheus wass not young and with his capacity for fore-thought he may well have known what the future held for Zeus. Zeus is different in Prometheus Unbound; he does not appear as in control as he does in Hesiod. In Hesiod’s poems he is at the end of the process of becoming ruler and Prometheus’ challenge only solidifies and already existing rule. Aeschylus’ Zeus is newer to supremacy and as result he is crude and brutal in his authority. He seems to be trying to get things sorted so that they are done; not necessarily too aware of the image Zeus; actions gives off. It makes Zeus look more insecure and tyrannical.  

Zeus’ insecurity may be justified as according to Dougherty this is not the first time that news of Zeus’ ousting from power had reached him. Zeus was warned that, just like his father, he would be overthrown by a son that he would have, with Metis, the personification of intellectual cleverness. To prevent this Zeus swallowed Metis and in doing so gained, her power;  a deeper intelligence. I believe it is common for a leader in the face of rebellion to clamp down and become more tyrannical, Zeus’ strong-armed approach could easily be blamed on his paranoia that his days of being ruler may have been marked.

In the face of these threats Zeus should have been able to count on the support of his wife and children but there are further classical examples of even the Olympians going behind his back for their own gains or simply not obeying him to the letter. In Works and Days when Zeus instructs Athena, Hephaestus, Aphrodite and Hermes to create Pandora there is a discrepancy between what he ordered and what they did. Zeus tells Hephaestus to mix earth and water to form a being in the shape of the immortal goddesses and to add a voice and strength. Not only does Hephaestus fail to put in the voice and the strength he also moulded “from the earth the likeness of a modest maiden”. (lines 69-71) I can’t imagine that Hephaestus’ wife, Aphrodite, would appreciate having her form being described as that of a modest maiden; it appears that Hephaestus has ignored the instructions he has been given by Zeus. Also Aphrodite appeared to have failed to complete her tasks. When Hermes added to the woman he should have added a dog’s mind and a thievish nature. The thievish nature he did do but instead of putting the dog’s mind in her he gave her a much more dangerous weapon. He gave her lies and wily speeches. A dog may have an unpleasant nature but it cannot speak to the level that Pandora now could. He gave her a powerful tool to persuade and manipulate. Similarly, Athena was asked to teach Pandora crafts and weaving; in not teaching her these skills Athena may have also increased Pandora’s potency as a punishment. If she could weave then she would have been able to do something useful; it may have made Hesiod’s scathing evaluation of women a little less cruel. Whilst Zeus may have been pleased with the increase of her danger to mankind it is obvious that the gods took it upon themselves to change his designs. They haven’t followed his instructions and in seeing gaps in his plan they make him appear lacking as a leader. It suggests a lack of control on his part and a lack of respect of those beneath him.

In Homer’s Iliad Zeus banned the gods from intervening in the fighting at Troy. Previously many of the gods have tried to influence the outcome of the battles. They jumped in to rescue a favourite warrior or in some cases they would join the fighting themselves. Ares was even wounded by the hero Diomedes; who had been spurred on by Athena. When Zeus placed the ban the other gods resented it as they could no longer intervene for their favourites amongst the Greeks and Trojans. After one vicious day of fighting and much to the dismay of Athena and Hera, the Trojans had the upper hand. The Greeks were pushed back to their ships and were desperate for help. Poseidon decided that he could not obey Zeus’ command and taking the disguise of an old man he roused the Greek troops with a speech and “in the heart of each man of the Achaeans he put great strength, to war and fight unceasingly” (lines 150-155). Here we have a blatant disregard to Zeus authority; his orders being ignored by Poseidon as he charged on the Trojan line.

This challenge to Zeus was then compounded with the actions of Hera, Aphrodite and Sleep in lines 155-353. After watching Poseidon join in the battle Hera decided that she needed to distract Zeus to allow Poseidon to fight without being stopped. She got the help of Aphrodite to make her desirable and then when to Zeus to seduce him so that he could not interfere in the god’s illegal actions in the battle. On her way to Zeus she sought the help of Sleep to make Zeus sleep after she had seduced him She even persuaded Zeus to shield them on the pretence that she didn’t want to be caught in the act but in fact so that Zeus couldn’t see out and view the battle. Aphrodite took little persuading to help and even though Sleep at first refused; all it took was the promise of marrying one of the Graces so that he would help. This is a large conspiracy against Zeus that he falls right into. At least four of the gods have disobeyed him or prevented Zeus from finding out. It shows a weakness in his rule that these god not only succeed in their plan but that they also know that it could be carried out in the first place. After he awakes he is incensed by Poseidon’s intervention but faced with the growing discontent of the gods he eventually lifts the ban and the gods launch in on both sides. This is an interesting view of Zeus’ power in this section of the Iliad, Zeus is not only deceived and disobeyed but he gives into the demands of his subjects. It makes him seem less respected and less in control.

In one section of Book 14¹ he almost seems self conscious and as though he has to prove his worth to Hera. When she arrives Zeus is overcome with desire for her; due the help Aphrodite gave her. Zeus then listed all the women that he had cheated on Hera with and the children born from those liaisons and how much more he desired Hera than those other women. In reminding Hera of all these other women he seemed like he was validating his own masculinity and virility. As though he was putting her in her place and asserting himself as independent of the fidelity he should have shown his wife. In fact as I was reading this section I was reminded of a 16 year old school boy boasting the number of girls he had kissed at a party rather than the all-mighty king of the Olympian gods.

But despite the challenges to Zeus’ power and his insecurity over the stability of his reign; he is still considered the chief of the gods. Different gods and deities dared to test his authority and even though myths are retold and rewritten Zeus, in common mythology, is still considered on top. The fact that for just under three millennium he is still considered to be the supreme god shows that however many challenges he received or threats he faced he was powerful enough to remain in control; the ruler of the Olympians.

¹ “nay, not when I was seized with love of the wife of Ixion, who bare Peirithous, the peer of the gods in counsel; nor of Danaë of the fair ankles, daughter of Acmsius, who bare Perseus, pre-eminent above all warriors; nor of the daughter of far-famed Phoenix, that bare me Minos and godlike Rhadamanthys; nor of Semele, nor of Alcmene in Thebes, and she brought forth Heracles, her son stout of heart, and Semele bare Dionysus, the joy of mortals; nor of Demeter, the fair-tressed queen; nor of glorious Leto;” (The Iliad lines 315-330)

Bibliography

The Iliad

Homer.

English Translation by A.T. Murray, Ph.D.

Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press;

London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1924.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0134

Theogony

Hesiod (trans. M.L.West)

Oxford, OUP, 1999

Works and Days

 Hesiod (trans. M.L.West)

Oxford, OUP, 1999

Prometheus

Dougherty, Carol

Routledge 2006

Prometheus Bound

Aeschylus

Trans. H. Weir Smyth, 1926

An Introduction to Hesiod's "Works and Days"

Robert C. Bartlett

The Review of Politics Vol. 68, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), pp. 177-205

Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452777

"Zeus"  

A Dictionary of the Bible.

W. R. F. Browning.

Oxford University Press Inc. Oxford Reference Online.

4 December 2010  

http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t94.e2089

Was failure the only option?

In Genesis 3 the Serpent tempts Eve into taking the fruit off the tree, she and Adam eat it and they are cast out of Eden. In persuading Eve and subsequently Adam to eat from the forbidden tree the Serpent is the tempter or trickster. He says that if Adam and Eve eat the fruit “then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” A non-human character that tricks others and as a result opens their eyes, gives them knowledge of good and evil and raises them to the level of gods is not unfamiliar to us. This description sounds very similar to Prometheus.

Prometheus is a cunning, trickster character who due to his tricks leads Zeus to punish all man-kind. In Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound Prometheus claims that “though men had eyes to see, they saw no avail” later he claims that he “cleared their vision to discern signs from flames, which were obscure before this.” Even though Prometheus claims to enable me to read smoke (potentially for purposes of divination) he is claiming to opening men’s eyes; like the Serpent claims to do. When Prometheus gives the gift of fire to men; he gives a gift that only the gods had before. When he steals fire from the gods he makes men like gods, which is one reason Zeus is so livid with him. In this way Prometheus is like the Serpent again. When Prometheus gives men fire and Zeus retaliates by giving Pandora and her jar of evils; men come to learn good and evil. They have the benefits of fire but all the ills of the world as well. As a result of the Serpent tempting Adam and Eve; they were cast out of Eden and became civilised with agriculture and later metal working. There are obvious comparisons with Prometheus giving men fire so that they could be civilised, as a result of this they also get the need for agriculture as a further punishment.  It would be also true to show their similarities when looking at the punishments for the Serpent and Prometheus. Both of them are mutilated by the ruling god; the Serpent loses his legs and is made to go on his belly, Prometheus is chained to a rock to have is liver pecked out by an eagle. Now, none of this is a ground-breaking comparison as there are many similarities between Prometheus and the Serpent. I, on the other hand, think there other comparisons to be drawn from these two myths.

In Genesis 2.25-28 God makes the beasts of the Earth. No-one interrupts him or damages his creations; there are as he made them. These animals include the Serpent. Whatever the Serpent did thereafter was because that was the way he was made and he can’t be criticised because of that. In my opinion, Pandora was the same; Pandora and women were criticised for centuries because of Pandora’s actions and attributes. It was not her fault that she was beautiful but had many unpleasant character traits because that is the way she was made. Let’s suppose an alternative Pandora existed. Let’s look at a hideous, undesirable but sweet natured Pandora. She is offered to Epimetheus who rejects her because of her looks. As more men reject her; her sweet nature becomes twisted and as a result she opens the jar which previously she thought she should leave alone. But now as a punishment to men she releases all the ills of the world. Now this is a Pandora to criticise, she turns nasty and purposefully seeks to cause ruin for the world but the actual Pandora didn’t do it intentionally, it was what she was created to do.  We don’t criticise a car because it can’t float, most cars aren’t made that way therefore we don’t expect it of them. If we expected Pandora to be a perfect and supportive wife it would be unfair, she was never meant to have that role. Both she and the Serpent were meant to be evil in a way. The Serpent was meant to tempt and trick Eve; Pandora was meant to ruin the advantages of fire.  

   

This leads me to think of why this might be. Zeus’ dislike of men is well documented in Prometheus Unbound. Prometheus claims that Zeus desired “to bring the whole race to an end” and that he alone dared to stand against him. If this account of the myth is to be believed then Zeus had it in for mankind long before Prometheus chipped his two cents worth in. But why would God create an individual that would ultimately end up ruining what he had created.  Were humans ultimately set up and meant to fail? Either the snake was meant to turn Adam and Eve away from God’s commands or he made Adam and Eve in such a way that they would easily be persuaded to disobey. If we don’t blame the Serpent as I have previously suggested then the blame does seem to fall more heavily on Eve and Adam. In Genesis 2.28 God makes man to have “dominion over ... every living thing that moveth upon the earth”. If Adam had dominion over every living thing and Eve was equal to Adam then surely they could have told the Serpent “no”. In that respect it is Adam and Eve’s fault that men were not able to live in Paradise.

This draws a nice comparison between Eve and Pandora. There is an obvious similarity between them in that they were blamed for “the fall of man”, as it were. They both abused their respective forbidden items, the jar and the fruit which led to life being harder for men. Both Eve and Pandora were created after men, not only does this make them slightly alien but also it reinforces the male dominance of the society that recorded this and the characters in the myth.  But I can see a startling difference between both women; Pandora is made to be a punishment and Eve is made to be a helper and companion. Eve does have a rebellious and sinful side which she demonstrates when she takes the fruit well in the knowledge that she shouldn’t. Pandora opens the jar but there is no mention in Hesiod’s account that she was told not to, in fact she was designed to open it. In this respect Pandora is almost innocent of the crimes that she unwittingly committed whereas Eve is defiantly not blameless.

While there may be several characters in both myths that are to blame for the events that harmed mankind there seem to be two who are more at fault than the others; Zeus and God. Even though it was Eve who took and ate the apple; she was made with an inquisitive nature. She should have known better but ultimately if God wanted Adam and Eve to remain in Eden then he wouldn’t have put that side to her personality there. In fact he wouldn’t have put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Eden at all. What was the purpose of the tree? If God is as all powerful as we are lead to believe then surely he could remember this knowledge and not need to enshrine it in the fruit of a tree. Was the tree a test of Adam and Eve’s obedience and if it was why did God feel it necessary to test them? If he didn’t want this to happen then he shouldn’t have put the tree and the humans with questioning natures in Eden at all. This leads me to conclude that God wanted them to fail. Zeus is at fault because, according to Hesiod, he could see the trick that Prometheus was trying to pull with the sacrifice. In Theogany Hesiod writes “He [Prometheus] spoke meaning trickery, but Zeus whose designs do not fail, recognised the trick and did not mistake it, and he boded evil in his heart for mortal men”. Zeus wanted to make life hard for me so he let events play out and stoked the embers to reach his goal. As far as I can see both these gods are far more to blame than the characters they bent or created.

Bibliography

Theogony

Hesiod (trans. M.L.West)

Oxford, OUP, 1999

Works and Days

 Hesiod (trans. M.L.West)

Oxford, OUP, 1999

Book of Genesis 1-4

King James Version

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/

Prometheus Re-bound

This is my take on Hesiod's version of the Prometheus myth taken from both Theogony and Works and Days. I have used Mark Twain's The Diary of Adam and Eve as inspiration for re-writing the myth in a modern setting. I hope you enjoy it.

Pierce Iapetuson cried out as the eagle’s talons scratched the back of his neck. The birds were agitated more than normal, they could see someone walking down the path towards the enclosure. The bird’s enclosure was on the estate of Zacharias Kronosson, the CEO of Olympian Investments International. This was the same company that Pierce worked for; he was the Head of the Loans and Mortgages department. But for now he was in the bird’s enclosure, cleaning the muck and setting the feed, still being harassed by the agitated birds. He worked twelve hour shifts, tending the animals, always being scratched and pecked at. Each night he returned to his room to tend his wounds before returning to the birds, the next day being exactly the same as the previous.

Now that the man walking down the path was closer Pierce could see it was Henry, Zacharias’ son from one of his many ex-wives. “Henry, what can I do for you?”

“I have been sent by my father”, replied Henry. “He wanted me to tell you that you can return to the bank when you wish.”

“And he sent you all the way here just to tell me that? How kind of him.” Pierce turned his back and put the shovel away while Henry unlocked the cage.

As they walked up the path together Henry asked his uncle, “Why have you been working with the birds for so long?”

“Your father and I had a falling out. Zacharias thinks he is the only one who could run the bank but there have other leaders in the past and there will be new leaders in the future.”

~ Six months earlier ~

Pierce checked over his proposals one last time. In the red booklet a proposal for investing in Ox Oil Drilling. The oil company had struck oil in the Gulf of Mexico and were set to make a fortune but in the wake of the BP disaster public opinion was against drilling in the Gulf. In the blue booklet Pierce had prepared an outline for investing in a fusion energy company in California. Pierce smiled as he read the information on Oxen-bone Fusion. Using fusion to generate energy was a fantastic idea that could produce vast amounts of energy. But there was no way to contain the intense heat and energy produced. It would be like setting off an atomic bomb in LA. It simply wasn’t possible to make this a reality. Let’s see what happens when I pitt my wits against our CEO with these investments choices, he thought.

Zacharias picked up the phone to his PA, “Send him in please.” Pierce walked into Zacharias’ plush office on the top floor. The Olympian Investments building was at Number 1, Mekone Square, Athens. “Good morning, Zacharias. I have the investment proposals for you.”

“Good, what are the two options then?”

“Firstly Ox Oil Drilling have struck oil in the Gulf of Mexico. But there is the obvious stigma of drilling in the Gulf after the BP disaster. The other is a fusion reactor in California. I don’t need to tell you that green technology is the future.”

“Pierce, how unfairly you have picked these companies. We should grab the opportunity to invest in Oxen-bone Fusion with both hands. We should head down to the hall; the press will be waiting for the announcement.”

“Colleagues, ladies and gentleman of the media, it is my pleasure to inform you of the decision I have made for our future energy investment. I have decided to invest substantially in Oxen-bone Fusion and the fusion reactor they are building in California.” Zacharias returned to his seat on the dais and looked expectantly at the gathering before him. His colleagues and the press looked bemused and began to laugh. Zacharias suspected there must have been some trick in Pierce’s plan and the reaction of the crowd confirmed his thoughts. He grew angry about the lungs and wrath reached him to the spirit as he realised Pierce’s cunning trick. He knew the papers would crucify him in the morning.

Having glanced at the newspapers and deciding not to read about his mistake, Zacharias knew he had to retaliate in some way. He needed to damage Pierce in a way that affected all men and made sure everyone knew that it was Pierce who was responsible. The headlines in the news that weren’t about Zacharias’ error were still focused upon the soaring inflation rates. There were plenty of interviews with men about how without a loan or a mortgage they couldn’t afford to live in a civilised life-style. It sparked an idea in Zacharias head. He switched on his computer and started keying in the necessary passwords and codes to get into the top security sections of the bank’s system.

“He’s done what?!” Pierce exclaimed as emails and phone messages bombarded him. They all had the same message, that men could no longer get mortgages or loans and were now financially ruined. They could not afford to buy good food or buy gifts; they had been completely cut off. Pierce knew that Zacharias was to blame. Zacharias had withheld funding the for Pierce’s department.  And all because he was he fooled by a simple choice, he thought slyly.

That night after most of the employees had gone home Pierce strode purposefully up to the top floor of the building. He didn’t care if anyone saw, if they questioned him he would simply reply that he was working late. At the end of the corridor was Zacharias’ office, he snuck inside this time not wanting to be seen. Sitting at Zacharias’ desk he began to type an email to the media signing it from Zacharias. The email declared that there had been a software glitch in the bank’s system and now that it had been fixed all funding for mortgages and loans would be restored and everyone’s borrowings would be secure permanently. This was accompanied with an apology and a personal assurance from Zacharias that this wouldn’t happen again. Plugging in his external hard-drive he transferred the passwords and codes needed to access the top security sections so that he could restore the funding at home. He unplugged the hard-drive and hid it in the bouquet of flowers he had brought with him and switched off the lights as he left the office. Walking past the guards in the lobby he felt his pulse quicken in case they saw what he had concealed in the flowers but they simply wished him a good evening. At the house he shared with his brother, Ethan, he restored the funding completely. Now mankind could have the civilisation they were due.

As his breakfast arrived Zacharias switched on his TV to watch the news. The presenters were just starting a new story; there were scenes of jubilant people outside high street branches of Olympian Investments. The presenter continued with a graphic showing an email apparently from Zacharias apologizing for the funding problems and assuring it wouldn’t happen again. This time Pierce had gone too far and in a rage he flung his breakfast, plates and all, across the room. This time he would make sure Pierce would not be able to challenge him again. He would remove Pierce from the bank and keep him away whatever it took. But just removing Pierce wasn’t enough; Zacharias knew he had to get personal affecting the two things that Pierce cared about the most; the customers of the bank and Ethan, Pierce’s foolish brother.

As Pierce walked down the street towards the bank a large black van sidled up next to him. Four large men, all dressed in black leaped out of the side door. Putting a sack over his head, they dragged Pierce in the back, the sack muffling his cries for help. As the door slammed shut the van sped away.

Zacharias watched the van pulling away, a grim smile on his face. His triumphant thoughts were interrupted by his secretary informing him that Paloma had arrived. With a great sign of discontent Paloma waddled into the room. She was an overweight, grubby woman who was always in a foul mood. After years of being overlooked for the pretty women she was bitter and cold inside. This was exactly why she had been selected out of the employees of the bank, her hard heart and unsatisfied nature would make her invaluable.

“Ah you’re here,” said Zacharias. “Good, well you have been offered a very special opportunity. I know you are not happy in your role as…” He consulted his notes, “as an telephone operator-”

“Of course I’m not happy,” she interrupted in a broad nasal voice. “It’s people like you who put people like me behind a phone so no one can see me. How do you think that makes me feel?”

“Well that is why you are here,” Zacharias replied. “If you would like to my team will help you acquire the looks and skills required to make you … presentable. We will have everyone notice you and desire you. Would you be interested in taking part?”

“Team? What team?” Paloma asked, suspiciously. Zacharias gestured to four people sitting outside his office. Two men and two women, three of them were immaculately dressed. One of the men looked hot and grimy, as if he worked in a forge. He was rubbing his leg which looked injured. Thinking that she didn’t have much else to do, Paloma agreed. Zacharias’ plan was taking shape.

The van stopped abruptly and Pierce was dragged out. He was taken through a gate, he heard it close behind him. Still with the sack over his head all he could do was rely on his other senses. He was sitting on the ground. He could feel the cold and damp seeping through the material of his trousers, chilling him to the bone. He could smell the sharp and unpleasant acrid smell of filth. He could hear the angry and startled tones of birds. He stood up trying to keep his balance as the sack was ripped off his head. Looking around at the inside of the bird’s enclosure he felt the first sharp beak cut into his back, just above his liver.

Zacharias and the team took Paloma to Zacharias’s country house. Over the next few weeks the team transformed her from the unattractive woman she was into a radiant beauty. The man with the injured leg was Howie, Zacharias’ personal trainer. As if he were moulding her body out of clay; with diet and exercise she became curvaceous and seductive. Anthea, Zacharias’ stylist, dressed her and gave her a wardrobe of clothes of such beauty that Paloma knew she could not fail to look sensational. April, a lady who owned a jewellery line called ‘Lady Temptation’ gave her jewels so that she glittered and gleamed on all occasions. Normally she would have felt self conscious around two such glamorous women but now all she felt was superior as her already malevolent personality was amplified by Herman, Zacharias’ psychologist and councillor.

When she was transformed in such a way that even Zacharias found her appealing Herman took her to a charity ball the bank was holding. Paloma’s dress, jewels and appearance transfixed all who saw her. Everyone was drawn to her beauty. On Zacharias’ instruction Herman introduced her to Ethan. He fell for her the moment they met. Paloma knew him to be privileged and disliked him from the start; she knew she could use him to get what she wanted. As soon as Herman mentioned that she was looking for a place to live Ethan invited her to move in with him and Pierce. Of course Paloma agreed instantly. As they left the ball together the paparazzi went into a frenzy trying to get her picture. A woman this stunning had to have her pictures spread across the world.

Paloma gave interviews that were published on screen and in print for weeks. She happily told the interviewers about how life married to Ethan was treating her. She proudly told them of how she had to do nothing, everything was provided for her. Ethan went to work all day and how she lived off his hard work. On one of the many days that she sent Ethan to go and work she switched on Pierce’s computer. She couldn’t find Ethan’s and she wanted to buy something, she didn’t really care what it was as long as it was expensive. There was a hard-drive still plugged into the computer, full of curiosity as to what may be stored on it she began to open the files it contained. Randomly clicking whatever caught her eye she grew impatient as repeated messages asked her if she ‘was sure she wanted to implement these changes’. She clicked yes to all of the messages without reading them. She did, however read the last one that appeared, it was bigger than the rest, written in large red letters. It informed her that in order for men to qualify for a mortgage they must now have wife and also must pay substantial interest on these borrowings. The message stated that these changes could be reversed if authorised by Pierce within twenty four hours. But not knowing where he was or really caring about what she had done she ignored it and as closed out any hope for men as she turned off the computer.

As the women of the world saw her idly floating through life, living in luxury while others worked around and for her, they began to change also. They began to expect the same from their husbands. They began to take more than they gave, to expect more and provide none. They became like bees in a hive, profiting from the toil of others whilst inside their sheltered homes. Zacharias had created an example that all women followed, a great affliction for men that they would delight at as they embraced their own misfortune.

*          *          *

“And so Zacharias won.” Pierce started bluntly. “He kept me here almost under house arrest for longer than I care to remember. I have tended these birds and nought else for years. He punished my brother with the evil wife he has to live with and he punished all men in a similar vein with no option of release.”

“How did he punish all men with no release, uncle?” Inquired Henry, trying to come to grips with the tale of his father’s anger.

“Well you see if a man doesn’t have a wife then he cannot get a mortgage. He needs the loan to pay for day to day life as inflation is still too high to be able to cope without the extra money. But in having a wife he has the all the unrelenting pain in heart and spirit that is an ill without a cure. Thus there is no way of deceiving or evading the mind of Zacharias.

Bibliography

Theogony

Hesiod (trans. M.L.West)

Oxford, OUP, 1999

Works and Days

 Hesiod (trans. M.L.West)

Oxford, OUP, 1999

The Diary of Adam and Eve

Twain, Mark

Written c 1893

Published Hesperia Press, 2002

Are we reading too much into this?

In this module I have been looking at the myth of Prometheus from a number of different angles. I have seen arguments for this myth revealing themes from a representation of gender differences in Greece to the inner recesses of the human mind but in amongst these theories and idea that stemming from this myth I feel that we might be missing some of the more basic and key points of the myth. Ideas taken from myths can make sense in a new light but some are incredibly far-fetched. Ideas like the section of the Prometheus myth where his liver regenerates over night being an example of the Ancient Greek’s knowledge of the liver’s capability for self repair I find hard to believe. Academics from every conceivable background study myths to try and understand something from them that is relevant to their subject and of course some succeed in finding a deeper meaning in the text but still it feel like they are missing something. So while this blog might seem a little simplistic I feel that it is important to remember some of the key ideas that we can learn from this myth.

I will start with Sigmund Freud on Prometheus. For me Freud’s theories are like creation myths; you can see where he was going with it but it seems to make no sense today. Freud’s psychoanalytical approach to Prometheus is not one of his best theories and I am not convinced by it. He sees Prometheus as ignoring the subconscious human desire to not have fire at all as a reflection human resentment at having to work and not satisfying our untiring sexual desires; For me Freud’s take is like post-modernist historians; picking holes in things that didn’t need to be picked at. But while he looks at this myth through the eyes of the human subconscious rejecting the hard work of life I think this is a very negative view. Ok life is difficult and it isn’t always easy and happy but I read this myth as if it giving explanation for this but reminding you of fundamental aspects of life that cannot be ignored.

In Hesiod’s account in Theogony we are introduced to the idea of Zeus punishing Prometheus, we don’t have a reason why but we have the punishment. We learn that it was because of Prometheus challenging Zeus’ wit and trying to make a fool of him in front of the men and gods. The rest of the myth unfolds because of this trick, all of the evils that happen to men to make the world more like we have now stem from Prometheus tricking Zeus and Zeus punishing him and mankind. Now in my mind this is a reason for not questioning your elders and respecting their judgement and authority. When a teenager begins to confront their parents most parents will have a stab at responding logically and if all else fails they will say “because I am your mother and I am telling you so”. This is establishing that parents know more and therefore should be obeyed. If in Ancient Greece a further example was needed that questioning your elders was not a good idea then a parents saying “well look what happened when Prometheus challenged Zeus...” would convey the desired message. Similarly when Peisistratus began to use Heracles as his mythical parallel he would have rejected Prometheus as an idea because using a titan who rebelled against Zeus could inspire others to question his authority. This idea of obedience seems more prevalent to me.

Prometheus is not the only myth that Freud studied and in my mind distorted leaving its other meanings clouded. When Freud looked at Sophocles' version of Oedipus Rex he looked two main themes the process and the content of the narrative. In the process he saw Oedipus as a seeker of self-knowledge similar to a psychoanalyst trying to discover the workings of the mind. In the content he saw two meanings firstly; he proposed that the myth was a memory from humanity’s infancy of a real parricide and incest. This idea I have addressed in my previous blog and I find it completely unrealistic. The other theory Freud had has become one of the most famous psychoanalytical theories known. He began to relate Oedipus to his own life and wrote “I have found love of the mother and jealously of the father in my own case too, and now believe it to be a general phenomenon of early childhood”. The problem with Freud is he moves from his own experiences and transfers them on to all men (it is interesting that he doesn’t relate to women in either of these theories, in my mind further evidence of his transfer of his experiences into his theories). He said that Oedipus’ self-blinding was due to humanity’s desire to “live in ignorance of these wishes" of parricide and incest. Now I am not a man so maybe I do not have these desires but I think it may be that we are “ignorant” because these desires only exist in a minority of people of which Freud was part of. Freud is trying to use the myth as a diagnostic tool to unravel the human psyche but also to legitimise his implausible ideas.

Freud tried to make sense of the mind and man’s actions using the myth as a case study. I feel he has lost some of the original meaning that Sophocles tried to convey and before studying this I certainly knew the Freud’s take on Oedipus better than Sophocles’. Instead of being an example of someone acting on male subconscious desires Sophocles’ Oedipus is a character with an exceptionally atrocious fate. Sophocles’ title is Oedipus Tyrannos. For Sophocles, an Athenian, the idea of a sole ruler was abhorrent to a democratic city and as a result Oedipus was example of the perils of a different political system. A meaning which when you bear in mind the idea that myths are born as representations of the contemporary society of the myth-writer this makes much more sense and it is a shame that Freud's theory is better known that this simpler meaning.

I agree with Helen Morales when she writes in “Classical Mythology” that Freud is re-writing the myths he studies and seeing as a lot of people know his meaning over Sophocles’ he appears to be pretty successful at it.

Bibliography

An argument for the ancient Greek’s knowing about liver regeneration is provided by Chen T and Chen P (1994). "The Myth of Prometheus and the Liver". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 87(12): 754-755. A counterargument is provided by Power C and Rasko J (2008). "Whither Prometheus' Liver? Greek Myth and the Science of Regeneration". Annals of Internal Medicine 149(6): 421-426.

Helen Morales

Classical Mythology: A Very Short Introduction

Oxford, OUP, 2007

Hesiod

Theogony, Works and Days trans. M.L. West

Oxford, OUP, 1999