Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Prometheus Bound
Interim Readings
>
Aeschylus -- Prometheus Bound
I found the public shaming aspect of his punishement felt by Prometheus rather strangely anthropomorphic and touching.If only he had thrown me underground,Did he have any enemies other than Zeus? Maybe the other Titans?
down there in Hades, which receives the dead,
in Tartarus, through which no one can pass,
and cruelly bound me there in fetters
no one could break, so that none of the gods
or anyone else could gloat at my distress.
But now the blowing winds toy with me here,
and the pain I feel delights my enemies.
Donnally wrote: " There can be no doubt that Prometheus Unbound was the first play in the trilogy…"A couple of commentators suggested this could be the second play of a trilogy, even though it’s unlikely. As well, modern scholars debated extensively whether this is even written by Aeschylus. I think we can doubt a little :-3
From the JOEL AGEE (NYRB trans) intro:
Throughout antiquity and for centuries after, the tragedy was universally attributed to Aeschylus (525–456 BC). The scholars of the Great Library of Alexandria deemed him the author of the play. Various classical authors referred to him as such. No one thought of questioning tradition and ancient authority until the mid-nineteenth century, when scholars began to raise doubts about the portrayal of Zeus in Prometheus Bound. How could the pious author of Agamemnon or The Suppliant Maidens have portrayed the King of kings as an unjust and ruthless despot? This objection was met with the argument that the play was but the first (or, some thought, the second) movement in a trilogy, and that the whole work described an evolutionary arc that would culminate in the release of a chastened Prometheus by a matured and compassionate Zeus.
From the Deborah H. Roberts translation intro:
It’s possible that if Prometheus Bound was the second play in a trilogy, the Pandora story played some part in the preceding drama, but this seems unlikely, since in Aeschylus’ version mortals seem generally to benefit rather than to suffer from Prometheus’ intervention in their lives…
An ancient commentary on line 524 (513 in the Greek) says that Prometheus was freed “in the next play,” and we have good evidence for the existence of a plausible sequel, Prometheus Unbound. This drama, to which a number of fragments have been assigned, evidently included a chorus of Titans, now released; it also featured a visit from Heracles, who kills the eagle that is tormenting Prometheus, a prediction about Heracles’ future labors, and the release of Prometheus, though the order of these events is unsure. Prometheus’ mother, Earth, may also have appeared. It is less clear what the third play was and where it came in the trilogy. Our ancient sources name two other Prometheus plays: Prometheus the Fire-Kindler and Prometheus the Fire-Bearer. Prometheus the Fire-Kindler was almost certainly a satyr play performed with a different group of tragedies. If Prometheus the Fire-Bearer is indeed the title of a separate play, and not (as some think) another name for Prometheus the Fire-Kindler, it is a play we know almost nothing about; it may well have formed part of a trilogy including Prometheus Bound and Prometheus Unbound, but scholars are divided about whether it is likelier to have been the first or the last play. If it came last, it may have included the final reconciliation of Prometheus with Zeus, the establishment of a cult, and perhaps the additional civilizing gifts to human beings. Plato’s dialogue Protagoras mentions in its version of the Prometheus story. If it came first (as seems to me more likely) it presumably told the story of Prometheus’ theft of fire, never described in detail in our play. Prometheus Unboundwill in that case have included the concluding events and motifs of reconciliation, gifts, and cult.
(I actually just wanted an excuse to share these comments, because it's interesting to speculate what might be in the other plays.)
David wrote: "Please explain how Cassandra telling the audience fits in and why should the audience believe her? The only Cassandra in Mythology I am aware of is Hecuba and Priam's daughter from Troy."Yep, that's the Cassandra I was referring to. The point I was trying to make is that the stage action in Prometheus Unbound is not that static. In fact, for Aeschylus there is quite a bit. I was comparing Prometheus Unbound to Agamemnon which at first sight might appear more dynamic since it contains the gory murder of Agamemnon. However, this murder happens offstage and is only described onstage and furthermore, much of the air has been leaked out of the bag by Cassandra's description of the murder before it happens. The audience would have believed her because they would have been aware she was famous for always forecasting correctly but never being believed.
By contrast, the nailing of Prometheus to the rock that occurs onstage in the first scene and the earthquake at the end in which Prometheus sinks into the ground both contain more action.
As I read a dutch translation from project Gutenberg it was somehow challenging to just read the play at first. As the translator lived 1870-1943 the translation must be about a 100 years old and Dutch was spoken and written quite differently back then. Same goes for the way poetry was written down (p.e. goôn in stead of goden 'gods)) probably emphasizing the way the word should be pronounced in order to keep in pace with the metrum.I did in the end get the story across, in the meanwhile enjoying the ancient language in the translation. Luckily I could draw on earlier knowledge of Prometheus, even from literature (p.e. he makes an appearance in Madeline Millers Circe, albeit that his punishment is carried out a bit differently).
I do think I interpret it in a more modern way as I have too little knowledge to appreciate the ancient interpretation.
What stood out for me was that all characters where named in the poem by their Greek name and only in the notes a translation was given for Kratos (strenght en power) and Bia (might and power).
I think Prometheus and his behavior can inspire a range of reactions. What he seems to emphasize is that, yes, Zeus and his brothers and children are now ruling the world, but he is older and has seen way more of that world. In fact, he states, if it wasn't for him, the titans would've won the ware against the Olympians: why should he respect the new ruler, when he is to him like a child.
He is cunning, a trait that is often praised in hindsight, but almost never at the moment itself. Nowadays cunning people install distrust and probably aversion in their 'victims'. I suspect that, bespite the praise famous manipulators get in Greek literature, this initial reaction was quite the same. (although this is just gesture)
When Prometheus is bound to the rock he already has proven to be a traitor twice. First he betrays his own family, choosing the side of the Olympians. His second betrayal is his bringing fire to menkind ('stervers' or dieers) despite Zeus telling him not to. Because Prometheus has proven that he cannot be trusted, punishing him makes sense. Also the seemingly harshness makes sense to me: a new ruler has to show he is serious about punishing the ones that defy him as his rule isn't set in stone yet.
Someone here commented that both Prometheus and Zeus in this play are seen to be both good and bad. I can get that too. I do think that in the end Prometheus is somehow shown as a bit of a martyr (avant la lettre?). He defies Zeus ones again, withstanding his threats of an even worser punishment. As I said earlier: I look at this with a predominantly modern view, so I don't know how this would've come across to the Ancient Greeks.
Donnally wrote: "He is a bitter adversary of the tyranny of Zeus, but also says he played a role in defeating the titans and “helped (Zeus) set up his tyranny.” These words probably sounded especially sinister to the contemporary Athenians because they echo the exact words in the ancient Greek law cited by Aristotle in The Constitution of Athens directed against anyone who helped to set up a tyranny in their city. ..."Assuming this was in fact written by Aeschylus (470 – 399 BC), his audience wouldn’t know anything about Aristotle (384 – 322 BC). The social concerns and rhetorics would have been drastically different.
This is Carol Dougherty’s commentary on the historical/ social situation during Aeschylus’ lifetime:
The cult of Prometheus in Athens was primarily a celebration of fire, a tribute to its civilizing potential as well as its destructive power.
By the first quarter of the fifth century, Athenians had first-hand experience of both the best and the worst that fire and its attendant technology could bring to their city. Prometheus was particularly ‘good to think with’ for fifth-century Athenians living with the immediate aftermath of the Persian invasion.
In the years leading up to the first Persian War, Athens was a prosperous and ambitious city…And yet, Athens in all her cultural glory was completely destroyed by the Persians in 480/479. The Acropolis was looted and burned – the unfinished marble predecessor of the Parthenon as well as the early temple of Athena destroyed. Dozens of statues now in the Acropolis Museum bear witness to the Persian destruction, while fragments of high-quality pottery show clear effects of the devastating fire. The lower city also burned. Houses, the fortification walls, and sanctuaries, including the Altar of the Twelve Gods, a sanctuary of Zeus and a small temple of Apollo on the west side of the Agora, all were demolished…
Seven years later Aeschylus won first prize at the Dionysiac festival with a dramatic tetralogy that included a tragedy devoted to the defeat of the Persians at Salamis and a satyr play called Prometheus Fire- Kindler. We might speculate about the effect of a satyr play devoted to Prometheus’ theft of fire and the institution of his cult in Athens performed together with the Persians, a tragedy that deals with the defeat of those same people who had invaded Greece and destroyed many temples and shrines within the city of Athens.
The citizens first watched a tragedy devoted to the destruction of the Persians in war – a kind of mirror image of their own wartime losses a decade earlier. Then, looking through the distorted lens of the satyr drama, Prometheus Fire-Kindler, the Athenian audience watched Prometheus light the first torch and hand it to the satyrs – hybrid, trickster figures who could help them imagine both the city’s need for purification after the devastation of war and its renewed ability to make the best possible use of Prometheus’ gift to mankind.
Based on Dougherty's context, I think it's possible that Prometheus wasn't seen as overwhelmingly sinister by contemporary Athenians.
Donnally wrote: "to try to see this through the eyes of his contemporaries, it must have come as something of a shock to see the story of Prometheus presented seriously as tragedy…The point is that the view of Prometheus as a tragic hero which we derive from Shelley, Goethe and Karl Marx was by no means that of the Greeks..."
Dougherty argues the shift to seeing Prometheus as a heroic rebel benefactor (as opposed to bringer of toils of Hesiod) happened in Aeschylus’ time, and is not a modern romantic invention:
Aeschylus’ tragedy Prometheus Bound and Plato’s philosophical dialogue Protagoras show how Prometheus operates in the fifth and fourth centuries as a revolutionary figure on both the political and intellectual stages. Aeschylus’ tragic drama Prometheus Bound looks to Prometheus, the god who gave fire and hope to mankind, to celebrate the prosperity and power of fifth-century Athens. No longer a trickster figure, Aeschylus’ Prometheus adopts the role of a rebel fighting for mankind against the tyranny of Zeus, and his story highlights progress rather than decline as the master narrative of the human condition. Plato’s Socratic dialogue Protagoras looks to the myth of Prometheus to tell a similar story about man’s evolution from an earlier, more bestial state. In Plato’s version, however, Prometheus’ story highlights social and political skills, rather than technological expertise, as the hallmark of the human condition…
Aeschylus is clearly working with Hesiod’s Prometheus, and yet the prosperous political and economic context of fifth-century Athens elicits very different aspects of Prometheus’ mythic profile. In particular, it was Aeschylus’ portrayal of Prometheus as a political rebel that struck a chord with the Romantic poets, who found in his play a powerful mythic background against which to set their own celebration of revolution and rebellion…
Whereas Hesiod’s poems claim that all mortal trouble stems from Prometheus’ gift of fire, Aeschylus and Plato praise Prometheus as a generous benefactor of mankind, and it would seem that these later authors have in fact turned the Prometheus myth on its head. A closer look, however, will show that it is not the myth that has changed, but rather the material conditions of the human experience that the myth represents.
I found this note on possible syncretic confusions resulting in Prometheus' name and combined into his myth interesting:Prometheus’s name, ‘forethought’, may originate in a Greek misunderstanding of the Sanskrit word pramantha, the swastika, or fire-drill, which he had supposedly invented, since Zeus Prometheus at Thurii was shown holding a fire-drill. Prometheus, the Indo-European folk-hero, became confused with the Carian hero Palamedes, the inventor or distributor of all civilized arts (under the goddess’s inspiration); and with the Babylonian god Ea, who claimed to have created a splendid man from the blood of Kingu (a sort of Cronus), while the Mother-goddess Aruru created an inferior man from clay. . .
Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths
David wrote: "I found this note on possible syncretic confusions resulting in Prometheus' name and combined into his myth interesting:Prometheus’s name, ‘forethought’, may originate in a Greek misunderstanding o..."Hesiod also introduced Epimetheus, the idiotic brother who forgot the fore warning and accepted Pandora. So the contrast of Pro-metis as before-thinker and Epi-metis as after-thinker is obviously deliberate.
But, speaking of Sanskrit , here’s another interesting note (Dougherty again):
While the Greeks clearly understood Prometheus’ name as ‘forethinker’, recent work in linguistics links the meth component to a Sanskrit root math – meaning to steal – suggesting that the actual etymology refers to theft, no doubt of fire, and links the Greek Prometheus myth with other similar myths from the Caucasus.
Who knows, maybe one brother stole before, and the other brother got his cushy lifestyle and grains stolen (in a misogynistic sense: gobbled up by women) after the fact …
I'd like to clarify some points brought up by Lia.Of course Aeschylus' audience would have been unfamiliar with Aristotle, but they would have been familiar with the ancient constitution Aristotle is citing. In Chapter 16 of Constitution of Athens, Aristotle quotes the constitution that was in effect at the time of Pisistratus, who lived in the sixth century and died in 527: "'These are the ancestral statutes of the Athenians; if any persons shall make an attempt to establish a tyranny, or if any person shall join in setting up a tyranny, he shall lose his civic rights, both himself and his whole house.'"(italics mine)
On the subject of seeing Prometheus as a tragic character, the point I was trying to make was that Aeschylus' audience would not have approached the play with the viewpoint of the romantics. I agree that the shift to seeing Prometheus as a tragic rebel benefactor started during the time of Aeschylus. In fact, what I was trying to say was that this shift was initiated by Aeschylus when he wrote the Promethia, since I don't see signs of it earlier. It was Aeschylus' view that was then later picked up and amplified by the mid-nineteenth century AD romantics.
On another point that's been raised: It is indisputable that lacking the texts of the other two plays, there is always some room for doubt as to the order, so I overstated the case when I said, 'there can be no doubt.' However, the evidences I cited are enough to convince me, at least. And, I might add, this is the prevalent opinion among classicists who have weighed in on the question.
Another historical tid bit that might bear mentioning: Aeschylus was a combatant at Marathon, and may have taken part in the battles of Salamis and Plataea as well. It seems quite likely that many in the audience were veterans of the Persian war, and of course they all knew how close Athens came to destruction at the hands of the Persian tyrant Xerxes. And yet Aeschylus wrote his play Persians from the point of view of the Persians. It was a tragedy, of course, and ends badly for the Persians, but the only way the drama works is if it arouses sympathy for the ones who suffer, in this case, the tyrant Xerxes.
I think we've touched on this a bit, but why does Prometheus place "blind hopes" in men, which the chorus then calls "a great gift" ? Later, when Io wants Prometheus to tell her what are "the limits of her wandering", Prometheus resists, telling her "I hesitate to break your spirit."
In Io's speech at line 640 she begs Prometheus not to lie to her:
If you can tell me what still remains of my sufferings, tell me. And do not. out of pity, coddle me with false stories; for I say that made up stories are the worst sickness.
Is there ever a good time for blind hope? How about a noble lie?
Donnally, thanks for clarifying, I think we mostly agree, I must have misinterpreted some of what you said.
Thomas wrote: "Another historical tid bit that might bear mentioning: Aeschylus was a combatant at Marathon, and may have taken part in the battles of Salamis and Plataea as well."Very little is known about Aeschylus' life, but about the only event that is regarded as certain is that he fought in the battle of Salamis. This was recorded in a now-lost book called Visits by the tragedian Ion of Chios, a contemporary of Aeschylus who knew him personally. The statement is quoted in the Medicean scholia.
This means the description of the battle of Salamis in Persians is the only eye-witness account of any of the conflicts in the Great Persian Wars.
Thomas wrote: "I think we've touched on this a bit, but why does Prometheus place "blind hopes" in men, which the chorus then calls "a great gift" ? "I think the implication is that feeble, finite humans require technologies, crafts, cunnings, friends, and finally, blind hope to survive in a hostile Universe governed by ruthless tyrants like Zeus. I know tyranny itself wasn't seen as inherently illegitimate or bad, but I think Aeschylus is clearly critical of (or vilifying) Zeus' way of governance and misuse of power here.
Prometheus suffers horribly, but he can endure because he has certain knowledge of the future, and he can't die, so basically "it's only pain." But for someone like Io to carry a similar burden, but without immortality and foreknowledge, suicide seems like a good option. Which reminds me of our old friend, Silenus:
'you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature's excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.'
Maybe Aeschylus is in fact saying blind hope is necessary for humans to face seemingly insurmountable events, and even though the hope that sustains us might not become fulfilled (i.e. Zeus won't get overthrown,) their heroic will to endure and carry on might still become the key to bring about something worthy not yet revealed (like Io's descendent freeing Prometheus.)
Thomas wrote: "Is there ever a good time for blind hope? How about a noble lie?"
What is "good"? This is complicated.
If my doctor asks me if it's okay to lie to me if it improves my prognosis, I would say no without hesitation. Funnily enough, if my family doctor asks me whether they should lie to my family member about their condition in order to improve clinical outcome ... I would have no problem saying yes! I know my grandparents are taking supplements that are by now shown to work but only as placebo, but they don't know that, and continue to swear it soothes their joint pain, who am I to debunk that and take that comfort away from them?
Also, if everybody rationally sits down and calculate how terrible their odds are, nobody would commit to rebel and overthrow tyrants, ever.
Prometheus' powers of forethought are not exhaustive. He admits to the chorus that he did not foresee the severity of his punishment:By offering help
to mortal beings I brought on myself
this suffering. But still, I did not think [270]
I would receive this kind of punishment,
wasting away on these high rocky cliffs,
fixed on this remote and desolate crag.
Many in Aeschylus's audience would have remembered the tyranny of the Peisistratids, which ended only in 510 BC.
Lia wrote: "if everybody rationally sits down and calculate how terrible their odds are, nobody would commit to rebel and overthrow tyrants, ever.."This discussion has reminded me of something written by another fifth century Athenian: the dialogue between the Athenians and Melians in Book 5, paragraphs 85 -- 111 of Thucydides. The Athenians have arrived on the island of Melos with overwhelming force. The Melians want to remain neutral in the war, but the Athenians tell them they must submit to Athens or be destroyed. Here is a vastly abridged version of the dialogue. I refer you to the passage in Thucydides for the full account.
Athenians: "We hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Spartans . . . or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
The Melians respond that if they don't submit they can always hope to survive and remain independent, hoping maybe the Spartans will come to their aid: "We know that the fortune of war is sometimes more impartial than the disproportion of numbers might lead one to suppose; to submit is to give ourselves over to despair, while action still preserves for us a hope that we may stand erect."
Athenians:: "Hope, danger's comforter, may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources, if not without loss, at all events without ruin; but its nature is to be extravagant, and those who go so far as to stake their all upon the venture see it in its true colors only when they are ruined . . . Let not this be the case with you, who are weak and hang on a single turn of the scale; nor be like the vulgar, who, abandoning such security as human means may still afford, when visible hopes fail them in exremity, turn to the invisible, to prophecies and oracles, and other such inventions that delude men with hopes to their destruction."
Melians: "You may be sure that we are as well aware as you of the difficulty of contending against your power and fortune . . . But we trust that the gods may grant us fortune as good as yours, since we are just men fighting against unjust . . . Our confidence, therefore, after all is not so utterly irrational."
Athenians: "When you speak of the favor of the gods, we may as fairly hope for that as yourselves; neither our pretensions nor our conduct being in any way contrary to what men believe of the gods, or practice among themselves. Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist forever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do. Thus, as far as the gods are concerned, we have no fear and no reason to fear that we shall be at a disadvantage."
Melians: "Our resolution, Athenians, is the same as it was at first. We will not in a moment deprive of freedom a city that has been inhabited these seven hundred years; but we put our trust in the fortune by which the gods have preserved it until now."
As it happens, the Melians are completely deceived in their hopes. The Athenians lay siege to their city. "The siege was . . . pressed vigorously, and some treachery taking place inside, the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and settled the place themselves."
This sounds a lot like the dialogue between Prometheus and Hermes, except that Prometheus, being a god with no need of such security as human means may afford, was not deluded in placing hope in his prophecy.
Donnally wrote: "This sounds a lot like the dialogue between Prometheus and Hermes, except that Prometheus, being a god with no need of such security as human means may afford, was not deluded in placing hope in his prophecy..."You’ve got a point, blind hope is a mixed blessing and it doesn’t always pan out.
I used to think Thrasymachus is just a troll, and then I read about what Athens did to The Melians, and I decided (the literary representation of) Thrasymachus is probably Athens personified.
Donnally wrote: "Very little is known about Aeschylus' life, but about the only event that is regarded as certain is that he fought in the battle of Salamis."It is also reported that his death was caused by an eagle dropping a tortoise on his head. What a way to go!
(Not that I'm vouching for that reporting...)
Lia wrote: "Also, if everybody rationally sits down and calculate how terrible their odds are, nobody would commit to rebel and overthrow tyrants, ever. "True. I think one of the implications is that Prometheus's foresight is what really imprisons him. If everything that happens is preordained, no one is truly free, including Prometheus. Even Zeus cannot be free. Instead of freedom, there is only the illusion of freedom -- blind hope -- and this opens up possibilities for living in the present.
A contradictions certainly arises between omniscience and omnipotence or even free-will. Prometheus can see what will happen, albeit imperfectly as he admits, but is powerless to do anything to alter it.PROMETHEUSFirst, It seems Prometheus attempted to shore up the shortcomings of artistic skill against Necessity with blind or delusional hope by sneaking it into the Pandora's jar to be released with the other sufferings that plague mankind to prevent it from suicide. Is he just prolonging mankind's agony? What about hope that isn't blind or delusional, what about playing the odds realistically?
Artistic skill has far less strength than sheer Necessity.
CHORUS
Then who is the one who steers Necessity?
PROMETHEUS
The three-formed Fates and unforgetting Furies.
CHORUS
Are they more powerful than Zeus?
PROMETHEUS
Well, Zeus will not at any rate escape his destiny.
Second, Prometheus' answer to, are the fates more powerful than Zeus, seems appropriately vague:
Zeus, who weighs the lives of men and informs the Fates of his decisions can, it is said, change his mind and intervene to save whom he pleases, when the thread of life, spun on Clotho’s spindle, and measured by the rod of Lachesis, is about to be snipped by Atropos’s shears. Indeed, men claim that they themselves can, to some degree, control their own fates by avoiding unnecessary dangers. The younger gods, therefore, laugh at the Fates, and some say that Apollo once mischievously made them drunk in order to save his friend Admetus from death.
Others hold, on the contrary, that Zeus himself is subject to the Fates, as the Pythian priestess once confessed in an oracle; because they are not his children, but parthenogenous daughters of the Great Goddess Necessity, against whom not even the gods contend, and who is called ‘The Strong Fate’.
Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths
Thomas wrote: "If everything that happens is preordained, no one is truly free, including Prometheus. Even Zeus cannot be free. Instead of freedom, there is only the illusion of freedom -- blind hope -- and this opens up possibilities for living in the present...."
Yes, but surely that is only true for those who know what the future holds, i.e. the gods. The rest of us mortals, like Io, don't know what the future holds. We don't know beforehand the consequences of our choices. So even though our choice maybe preordained and even though the outcome maybe preordained, because we can't see into the future, we are free to choose our course of action in the hope that the outcome is positive.
I think "no one is truly free" is applicable only to those who have knowledge of the future. The rest of us muddle along as best we can. We are free to choose simply because we can't see the preordained outcome of our choices.
OK, I'm getting carried away, but I think maybe this struggle, which can be oversimplified as might vs. right, was the major overarching preoccupation of the Classical period. It starts with the argument between Agamemnon and Achilleus in the very First book of The Iliad, where Agamemnon tells Achilles: "I shall take . . . your prize . . . that you may learn well how much greater I am than you." To which Achilleus is forced to accede while uttering the prophecy, "some day longing for Achilleus will come to the sons of the Achaians, all of them. Then stricken at heart though you be, you will be able to do nothing, when in their numbers before man-slaughtering Hektor they drop and die. And then you will eat out the heart within you in sorrow."
It then continues through Prometheus Bound, Thucydides and Republic, culminating in St. Augustine's two cities in The City of God: "Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self . . . In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love." One city is the city of this world, but, in true prophetic fashion, the city of God "looks for its reward in the society of the saints, of holy angels as well as holy men." (The quotes are from St. Augustine, The City of God, book XIV, cap. 28.)
Any thoughts? A bit far-fetched?
Tamara wrote: "We are free to choose simply because we can't see the preordained outcome of our choices. .."Tamara -- a brilliant insight into one of the most troubling (to me) aspects of my own faith tradition, Presbyterianism, with Calvin's "predestination." Don't recall having heard it said quite the way you lay it out. But then I am one who is not so certain about the very concept of "preordained" either -- does it belong to "reality" or to "imagination"?
Just before coming to check this column now, I read the following review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
" Night Theater exposes everything we humans tell ourselves, about what it means to lead a good life, as meaningless.
"And after that, the novel takes every article of faith that we humans like to believe, about the dignity of humanity, and the possibility of redemption, and smashes it to bits."
I wonder if what Vikram Paralkar/Lark writes is relevant to this discussion of Aeschylus and Prometheus.
I am intrigued and tend to respect Lark's reviews, but must admit this one feels over the top. My own reading list is so long and I tend to avoid fantasy/magical realism genres, so haven't decided whether to try it or not. But the synchronicity effect led me to share here.
(The author is physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania.)
Lily wrote: "..."PS Lark finishes her review thus: "And then, miraculously, after every virtue is exposed as meaningless, and every hope is smashed to bits, the novel rises up from the ashes, phoenix-like, and becomes a story that's mythic, and true, and powerful. It is honestly one of the most uplifting and life-affirming books I've ever read."
The book description itself writes: "...By dawn, he and his assistant have gained knowledge no mortal should have.
"In this inventive novel charged with philosophical gravity and sly humor, Vikram Paralkar takes on the practice of medicine in a time when the right to health care is frequently challenged. Engaging earthly injustice and imaginaries of the afterlife, he asks how we might navigate corrupt institutions to find a moral center. Encompassing social criticism and magically unreal drama, Night Theater is a first novel as satisfying for its existential inquiry as for its enthralling story of a skeptical physician who arrives at a greater understanding of life's miracles."
The words "first novel" give me doubts that there is enough to stand up to the inquiry here. But the other place to which my thoughts stream-of-conscious travel is the Great Courses lectures on Augustine's The City of God by Charles T. Mathewes (University of Virginia), also lecturer for Why Evil Exists . One of his quotations: "The same energies of intellect and will that led mankind to cure innumerable diseases and put men on the Moon led us also to poison gas and ICBM's." I have wrestled some, in repetition, over time, with these two sets of lectures, but certainly without satisfactory comprehension.
Tamara wrote: "Yes, but surely that is only true for those who know what the future holds, i.e. the gods. The rest of us mortals, like Io, don't know what the future holds."Yes, it depends entirely on the frame of reference. If we assume that the gods have an objective and true understanding of what happens through time (and maybe this isn't always the case) then whatever choices human make freely, or think they make freely, will have inevitable or "fated" results.
Is it enough for mortals to merely think they are free? This is a troubling question, especially since the gifts of art and technology tend to aid in the discovery of "objective" truth -- that is, the truth of the gods that Prometheus can see. I've always found it puzzling that the gifts of technology are given together with blind hope, as if they went together as a pair.
Death is inevitable, but we have a lot of choices about how we get from here to there.
What specifically does blind hope hope for?
Lily wrote: "Tamara -- a brilliant insight into one of the most troubling (to me) aspects of my own ..."Thank you for that, Lily.
I think each one of us is struggling to understand in our own way.
David wrote: "What specifically does blind hope hope for?"I don’t think it is hope that is blind because we know what our hope is. In the case of Io, for example, she hopes to be put out of her misery. Her hope isn’t blind, in that sense. What she doesn’t know is if and how her ‘hope’ will materialize. Prometheus predicts her future path, cautioning her on who and what to avoid and who can help her. What he does, in effect, is show her the path. He performs a similar role to that of religion. Isn't that what all religions try to do, i.e. show us the path?
My understanding is that it is not hope that is blind. We all have hope. However, what we don’t know—what is blind—is which path we should take to realize that hope. Our choice of a path is “blind” because we don’t know if it is the “right” path to achieve the desired outcome.
I “hope” this makes sense :)
David wrote: "What specifically does blind hope hope for?" Chorus
What cure did you prescribe for this disease?
Prometheus
I sowed blind hopes to live as their companions.
Chorus
Truly you brought great benefit to mortals.
Blind hope is the gift Prometheus bestows upon the mortals, I wonder if it’s “blind” because it’s the kind of hope unguided by foresight — Prometheus himself.
That is, in lieu of foreknowledge himself, we are given “blind hopes” so that we are able to believe in, or attend to, or yearn for something important to us, something that necessitates actions … even if we lack personal agency.
So, I propose, blind hope hopes for something positive but is unlikely, and is important to us, and requires actions. How else could humans, who must anticipate death, and might have to face sufferings, decline, old age, continue to live and to act, especially in a world in which the Gods rarely (if at all) show up to guide and negotiate with us anymore? (We're not Io, we don't just randomly walk into Prometheus.)
Roger wrote: "Death is inevitable, but we have a lot of choices about how we get from here to there."Sometimes.
Roger wrote: "Death is inevitable, but we have a lot of choices about how we get from here to there."So many choices.
HERACLES You’re not seriously planning to go down there, are you? You’re mad!
DIONYSUS Never mind that, just give me a simple answer: what’s the quickest way to Hades? I want a route that’s not too warm and not too cold.
HERACLES Let me see now. You could go via rope and scaffold, if you don’t mind hanging around for a bit.
DIONYSUS It would be a pain in the neck.
HERACLES Well, there’s the ‘executive route’ via pestle and mortar.
DIONYSUS You mean hemlock?
HERACLES That’s right.
DIONYSUS Now you’re giving me cold feet!
HERACLES You want a way that just goes straight down?
DIONYSUS Exactly. I’m not much of a walker.
HERACLES A runner, eh? Well, you know the tower in the Potter’s Quarter?
DIONYSUS Yes.
130 HERACLES Just go and wait on top of that.
DIONYSUS Then what?
HERACLES Watch the start of the torch race, and when they shout ‘One, two, three, go!’ – well, off you go.
DIONYSUS Where to?
HERACLES The bottom.
DIONYSUS No, no! Just think – all that brain pudding. Not that way.
HERACLES Which way then?
DIONYSUS The way you went.
HERACLES That’s a long trip.
RE: Blind Hope. The Tufts text seems to convey the blind part of blind hope comes from it's hiding the truth:PrometheusSome translations call it delusive hope and lies:
[250] Yes, I caused mortals to cease foreseeing their doom.
Chorus
Of what sort was the cure that you found for this affliction?
Prometheus
I caused blind hopes to dwell within their breasts
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...
Presently [Pandora] opened a jar, which Prometheus had warned Epimetheus to keep closed, and in which he had been at pains to imprison all the Spites that might plague mankind: such as Old Age, Labour, Sickness, Insanity, Vice, and Passion. Out these flew in a cloud, stung Epimetheus and Pandora in every part of their bodies, and then attacked the race of mortals. Delusive Hope, however, whom Prometheus had also shut in the jar, discouraged them by her lies from a general suicide.Blind hope seems to be a method of coping with the despair from the Spites freed from the jar and our own mortality by pretending to a naive forgetfulness, ignoring it, or even denying it.
Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths
Do not immortal and mortal alike have foreknowledge of future events they are unable to escape, Prometheus with foreknowledge of his punishment, mortals with foreknowledge of their mortality? Prometheus meets his situation with an attitude of acceptance and resolve to endure it, even railing against injustice of it, knowing it is futile. He does not seem to need blind hope. Why do we?
Perhaps a Stoic perspective would see blind hope as just another Spite from the jar, i.e., blind/delusive hope only set us up for disappointments potentially more crushing to our spirit than what spites us? And I agree with Tamara, hope does not have to be blind, in fact, it should not be.
David wrote: "RE: Blind Hope. The Tufts text seems to convey the blind part of blind hope comes from it's hiding the truth:Prometheus[250] Yes, I caused mortals to cease foreseeing their doom.
Chorus
Of what so..."
The Greek for 'blind hopes" is τυφλὰς ἐλπίδας. "Typhlas" can also mean dark or obscure and is probably related to "typhos," meaning smoke. Prometheus mentions Typhon, who shared a fate simillar to Prometheus after he loses his battle to Zeus and was pinned under Mt Aetna. Typhon breathes fire and smoke and bodes ill in general for Sicily. So the sense I get in blind hope is that what is hoped for can be seen as accomplished in the future, but only dimly and uncertainly, through a veil of smoke.
Prometheus says that it is only by keeping secret his knowledge of Zeus's fate will it come to pass. It would seem that fate is not actually set and certain in this case. It can be altered, but only if it is made open knowledge.
Hope is uncertain in the same way. If fate were known to all, then mortals would be mere spectators to their lives rather than striving and active participants. Hope would be superfluous. Maybe stories would be superfluous as well, if the ending were always known from the beginning.. Perhaps "bllind hope" is akin to the "no spoiler" rule?
Mortals cannot see the future. They need to hope for something good, otherwise why would they continue to live, but their hope is blind because they do not know what is coming.Prometheus, however, can see the future. In this sense he is not blind. He knows what is coming, so he has no need of hope.
On the other hand, Chorus:
Speak, tell us to the end. For sufferers it is sweet to know beforehand clearly the pain that still remains for them. l. 698
I would think that it's the termination of the pain that the sufferer finds sweet, but there seems to be some gratification to be gained from hearing about the suffering itself. This is a play where the main character is nailed to a rock and suffers from beginning to end. As a tragedy is the suffering of Prometheus satisfying in some way?
Just because mortals don't know the future, like a god does, does not mean they don't have expectations. In fact, having expectations is exactly what having hope means. At this point in the play, Io is like a patient who wants a doctor to tell her exactly what to expect. Whatever the doctor tells her, even if it's bad news, will to a degree be 'sweet' simply because it will reduce the uncertainty from which she is suffering.
Thomas wrote: "The Greek for 'blind hopes" is τυφλὰς ἐλπίδας. "Typhlas" can also mean dark or obscure and is probably related to "typhos," meaning smoke. ..."Why am I not surprised that our fire-giver is also a smoke-giver?
Maybe mortals can smoke those nasty Olympians out of their hives. Or else, appease them with smoky hecatombs ... but they'll have to bribe the birds first.
Thomas wrote: "there seems to be some gratification to be gained from hearing about the suffering itself. ..."Just like Odysseus' "hated by the Gods" tale is more satisfying than Menelaus' tale of:
- magicked into forgiving Helen
- drugged out of experiencing any grief by Helen
- zombie like existence waiting for his happy ever after Elysian Field
Or Agamemnon's relatively swift return, he only missed his chance to vanquish the suitor by a hair, and died a swift death.
Or, Hephaestus's "sufferings are not for the gods, so I better laugh even when I get cuckolded and laughed at by all the Olympians, even when wee little Hermes is openly joking about sleeping with my wife" tale of happy partying Gods.
So Prometheus and Io are both going to suffer a great deal, but their endurance will bring about something worthy, even though Io is being lied to (about Zeus' future fall.) (Which happens to be a deceptive hope - it is literally used to talk a suicidal Io off the ledge.)
Maybe dramas are propaganda to help people feel "sweet" or even triumphant about enduring toils, sufferings, uncertainties, hardships.
Donnally wrote: "Mortals cannot see the future. They need to hope for something good, otherwise why would they continue to live, but their hope is blind because they do not know what is coming.Prometheus, however..."
That's also how I interpret "blind" -- blind as in lacking Tiresian/ Cassandra like "vision," foreknowledge, not being able to see where we are going, but going ahead anyway.
What I am hearing is when it comes to foreknowledge, the fine details and completeness count. Even though Zeus may be able to change those details?I still suggest there is more in common here between god and mortals. We both can be said to have foreknowledge of varying degrees and circumstances.
Mortals certainly know they will die someday. Mortals know if their are certain lifestyles, actions, and attitudes that "tend" to extend or diminish not only the length of life, but also the quality of life. The lines between what mortals can and cannot control often seems blurred. Mortals also know they are subject to The Spites, some of which are predictable to a degree, earthquakes and storms for example. Whereas mortals can get out of the way of some of these Spites, it seems gods like Prometheus cannot. In some ways it can be said that Prometheus' future situation appears hopeless despite his knowing, mostly, what is will be.
Donnally wrote: "At this point in the play, Io is like a patient who wants a doctor to tell her exactly what to expect. Whatever the doctor tells her, even if it's bad news, will to a degree be 'sweet' simply because it will reduce the uncertainty from which she is suffering. "Good point. I think the same thing could be said for the audience, which goes to Tamara's comment @80 : "What he does, in effect, is show her the path. He performs a similar role to that of religion. Isn't that what all religions try to do, i.e. show us the path?"
Roger mentioned earlier that the setting for Aeschylus' work was a religious festival. Ultimately i think the play is meant as an early kind of passion play. Unfortunately we only see the first part and never get to the "resurrection."
Lia wrote: "Maybe dramas are propaganda to help people feel "sweet" or even triumphant about enduring toils, sufferings, uncertainties, hardships. "Yes, and the best ones draw us in so that we become absorbed in those toils and sufferings, sucked up into all that rapturous Dionysian stuff. Whether we fall for the propagandist aspect of it is another question. Sometimes we find meaning in places where there isn't a whole lot of reason.
Just a small comment to point that this play taught me the etymology of "Bosporus":Bos = Ox (Beef)
Porus = Passage
As it was the way used by Io in her wandering. "Por" is, of course, the same root as "metaphor" (what goes beyond) and "pore" (a path between two things).
"You must stay quiet—do not keep shoutingsuch intemperate things. Do you not know, [330]
with all that shrewd intelligence of yours,
your thoughtless tongue can get you punished?"
Today's news: "I don't know. The last time I checked, I was still employed."
My reaction: uncanny, these words across the millennia.
How should we characterize each of Prometheus' visitors and why does each one visit?Power and Force are the agents of Zeus' abilities to control others, per Thrasymacus' argument to come later, and Machiavelli's work much later. It makes sense that Power does all the talking while Force is the silent partner. I am not sure which is more menacing.
Hephaestus The reluctant torturer, despite being the true victim of Prometheus' theft. His reluctance heightens the sense of injustice.
Chorus Why is the Chorus so loyal to Prometheus? Sticking with him even when Hermes suggests they move away or risk becoming collateral damage:
Chorus: I wish to share with him whatever pain Fate has in store, for I have learned to hate those who betray—of all the sicknesses that is most despicable to me.Oceanus seems to be the impotent sympathizer too busy working to help. It is said he stayed out of matters due to cosmological Necessity, for what would happen to the world if the god obliged to be the river around it left his post or was sentenced to punishment like Prometheus?
Io is a mortal and fellow sufferer of injustice by Zeus. Her visit appears more motivated by curiosity than to commiserate or offer support. Also, what are the odds she would be an ancestress of the one, (view spoiler) who would eventually free Prometheus?
[950] IO: What are you saying? Will a child of mine bring your afflictions to an end?Hermes is a god turned agent of Zeus, caustically following his orders. Unlike they physicality of Power and Force, Hermes only verbally threatens Prometheus to extort information on behalf of his master, Zeus. I sense opportunistic entitlement and cowardice behind his arrogance.
PROMETHEUS: He will— when thirteen generations have gone by.
I wonder if there were other visitors planned in the plays to follow; who they would be? I suppose the gods did not usually keep mixed company but if the humans knew about this would they want to seek him out out to offer their thanks and moral support? I wonder if Aeschylus intended for his human audience to feel guilty as part of the race Prometheus helped the most but are so far absent in supporting him?
David wrote: "How should we characterize each of Prometheus' visitors and why does each one visit?Power and Force are the agents of Zeus' abilities to control others, per Thrasymacus' argument to come later, a..."
Bryan Doerries has an interesting take on this in The Theater of War: What Ancient Greek Tragedies Can Teach Us Today. Doerries finds therapeutic applications for Greek tragedy by asking people to interpret the plays in a modern context, specifically those experiencing different kinds of trauma -- PTSD, addiction, racism, etc,
Doerries staged Prometheus Unbound for prisoners and prison employees in the Missouri State Penitentiary and later for military guards at Guantanamo Bay (discussed in the chapter "Prometheus in Solitary".) Interestingly, he found that both prisoners and guards were able to identify in some way with Prometheus. Prison employees are often overlooked in the whole mass incarceration problem, but like Hephaestus, they aren't untouched by the system.
Briefly, some of the parallels observed by those in corrections:
Power/Might (Kratos), Violence/Force (Bia) and Hephaestus were seen as corrections officers, and just as there are some COs who are "enforcers" like Kratos, there are more humane ones like Hephaestus.
Oceanus could be seen as a social worker. "An impotent sympathizer too busy working to help" is a pretty good description of many social workers these days.
The Oceanids/Chorus are like 'aggrieved relatives" of prisoners, the "company of friends" who care and are there to listen, though there isn't much they can do either.
Hermes is like an assistant warden doing the bidding of Zeus, and Zeus is the Warden himself. Zeus may also be the law, the source or germ of injustice in the system.
The same issues of justice and injustice, power and resistance, and sympathy shine through in this more modern context. I haven't read through the rest of the book, but it looks intriguing.
For anyone watching today's Metropolitan Opera's free streaming of Die Walküre did anyone notice Wotan's lament:I, the least free of all beingsBeing the ruler of gods does not always grant the freedom Power says it does.
Thomas wrote: Bryan Doerries has an interesting take on this in The Theater of War: What Ancient Greek Tragedies Can Teach Us TodayI checked this book out of the library the day before our system closed indefinitely. I took a quick look at that chapter, I thought it was an interesting application to the criminal justice system in the U.S. Since now I have the book "indefinitely", I look forward to reading it all.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Theater of War: What Ancient Greek Tragedies Can Teach Us Today (other topics)Night Theater (other topics)
Why Evil Exists (other topics)
Night Theater (other topics)
Prometheus (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Charles T. Mathewes (other topics)Vikram Paralkar (other topics)
Ikr! They keep discovering ancient Greek text scrolls in mummified crocodiles in Egypt. Maybe we’ll get to see them someday.
There are, however, many other texts and paintings that depict Prometheus (Apollodorus being the most complete source), we have some ideas about his overall fate and trajectory. Individual poets or dramatists (including Aeschylus) or artists just take his (or any) myth as a frame and highlight different elements to make a point, or provoke a reaction, or facilitate dialogues … they almost never depict the full arc (except Apollodorus, and maybe Ovid).
It reminds me of how Homer wrote(?) dozens of scrolls on the Trojan war, only to leave out the conclusion, the actual fall of Troy. I’m tempted to think this incompleteness is a feature and not a bug.