hesiod's prometheus as a myth

8/16/2019 Hesiod's Prometheus as a Myth

1/18

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the

History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

Hesiod's Prometheus and Development in MythAuthor(s): E. F. BeallSource: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1991), pp. 355-371Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2710042Accessed: 16-03-2015 19:51 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 129.194.8.73 on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:51:15 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2710042http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2710042http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/18

Hesiod's Prometheus

nd

Development

n

Myth

E.

F. Beall

Hesiod'sPrometheus

as

not

somegiven ntity, conceptwith

propertiesieweds fixedhroughouthe imes f he wopoemswhich

mention

t.*

Prometheus as a

process,

s it

were, lready perating

n

the

Greek

rchaic

eriod,

ot

ust

n thehands f aterwritersuch s

Plato.

The

development

etweenhe

Theogony

nd

the

Worksnd

Days

bespeaks

certain onsciousness

f thevalues

underlying

he

modeof

expression

e

call

myth.

One

might

lso

ayprovisionally

hat

ome

eed

to transcend

yth

s

implied

s well.

In

our

entury

cademic

hought

as

ncreasingly

ound

t

difficulto

ignore

he Romantic hesis hat

myth

s

inherent

n

human xistence.

Earlier,

n

the

wake

of the

Enlightenment,

estern

hilosophers

nd

philologistsypically

reatedhe

ategories

f

myth

nd

reason

n

such

way

s to considerhe

particular

istorical

rena

farchaicGreece he

scene

f discreteransitionrom he irst

o

the

econd

s

the ominant

mode

of

thought.

hat s to

say,

Homer

nd

Hesiod

gaveway

to new

heroes,he resocratichilosophers.ome till dhereothis icture,ut

nowwe

have lsohad he

hilosopherrnst assirer,

or

xample,resent

myth

s

something

hich

lways

ompetes

ith cience.

o

Hans Blu-

menberg,umanityxerts work

n

myth

n

a continuingttempt

o

tame

eality.2

lassicistsuch s

F. M.

Comford ave

n effecteld hat

the arliest resocratics

epresented

stage

n

a continuous

rowth

rom

*

I have profited rom he comments y Pamela Long, DorothyNaor, Sally Rogers,

DorothyRoss, ThomasAfrica, eborah Lyons,Mark Griffith,nd RichardJanko.

'

The literature ttemptingo define hisconceptprecisely mounts o a bottomless

pit, and the discussion elow will rest ontentwith roughunderstanding: myth s a

story bout anthropomorphiceings, et

in

the dim

past,

with ymbolic mport

or he

given ulture's ife xperience.

2

ErnstCassirer, hePhilosophyfSymbolic orms, r.Ralph Manheim 3 vols.;

New

Haven, 1953-57), specially I,

xiii-xviii. ans

Blumenberg,

Work n

Myth,

r.

RobertM.

Wallace (Cambridge,Mass., 1985).

355

Copyright

1991

by JOURNAL

OF THE HISTORY OF

IDEAS, INC.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/18

356

E.

F.

Beall

thecreation

myth

xemplified

y

the Theogony.3

r it s sometimes

s-

serted

hat he rchaic reeks

ere

ware funderlying

tructures

ithin

myth.4

n a

related ormulation

ythe

iterarycholar

Albert

ook,

t

least omeof thePresocraticsnd others artookfa higher haseof

myth

tself,

eached

hrough

eflectionn

ts

meaning

n

the arlier hase

we

normally

all

myth.5

But

whether

r

not

myth

emains ith

stoday,

f

t

s

now espectable

to consider

he

Hesiodic

orpus

mportant

o the ntellectual

rowth

f

archaic reece,

hen hould

wenot xamine

evelopment

ithint s

well

as

the elation

f

ts

reation

yths

o

Presocraticosmogony?

n the ase

of he rometheusarratives,

e

have wo ccounts

ith

ufficiently

lose

contentoensure hat he atters modelled n the arlierneat east n

part.

The

sources fthe

arlier

re

essentially

nknown,

utmovement

fromt

n

the

atter

s

presumably

f nterest

s an achievement

f rchaic

Greece.

To say

this

s to oppose

he

dominant

rend

n

classical cholarship

proper

n

the

particular

ssue fthe dentification

f myth. lassicists

concerned

ith

esiod

ave

endedoview

he wo rometheus

arratives

asvariantccountsf he ame nderlyingntity.hedifferences

etween

them,

t

s

held,

merely oint

o authorialesires oemphasizeifferent

features

f the

tory.6

Thepresumption

hat wothematically

imilar

arrativesonstitute

a

story

an

certainly

e

useful s a

first

pproximation,

nd

here

thas

no

doubt elped

larify

he

tructuresf

archaicGreek

hought.7ow-

ever,

he

underlying

otion

hat heGreeks anonized

he

tory

ineof

3F. M. Cornford,rincipiumapientiaeCambridge, 952).The olderviewofcourse

remains,

nd

is perhapsbest represented

y

W. K.

C. Guthrie,

A

History

f

Greek

Philosophy.

6 vols.;Cambridge,

962-81), , 26-38.A prominent

ntermediate

ormulation

is G. S.

Kirk,Myth:ts Meaning

nd

FunctionsnAncient

nd Other

ulturesCambridge,

1970),

238-51.

4E.g., myth

n

Homer

displays metaliterary

r

metalingual

onsciousness

nd

ar-

chaic

art generally tresses

he

paradigmatic

elations

f

semiotics,

n the formulation

of CharlesSegal,

Greek Myth

s

a

Semiotic

nd Structural ystem

nd

the Problem

f

Tragedy,

Arethusa,

6 1983), 175-78.

5

AlbertCook,Myth nd

Language

Bloomington,980).

6This

assumptions exemplifiedy the eadingHesiodcommentatorscitedbelow),

but a fewclassicists

ave

paid attention o the

so-calledvariations.

or example,

rnst

Heitsch, Das

Prometheus-Gedicht

ei Hesiod,

nHesiod,

d. Heitsch Darmstadt,

966),

419-35,uses them

n an attempt

o extrapolate

ackward

o the presumed re-Hesiodic

Prometheusmyth.

7

For our particularxample,

otably

n Jean-Pierre

ernant, The

Myth f Prometh-

eus

in

Hesiod,

in

hisMyth nd Society

n

Ancient

Greece, r. Janet

loyd (New

York,

1988), 183-201.

He actuallyargues

the unity

o the extent f noting

ome

apparent

references f each

story o

the other.However

and apartfromuncertainties

n these

referenceso be noted below),we do not, forexample, ssign a jazz piecebased on a

popular

ballad

to

the atter'sgenre,

ven though heyhave

some sequences

of notes

n

common.




4/18

Hesiod and Myth

357

any given

myth

eems derivedfrom tradition nformed

y Biblical

scholarship. hey supposedly

onstruedmythical vents s

contiguous

with

the quotidian

present,

n

the

way

that

Christian undamentalism

sees the creation, lood,etc., in Genesis.But the earliestGreeks had

trouble

venconceiving f

a continuous onnection etween

hemythical

time of gods

and their

wn time

of

men. 8

f

they ndeed believed

in

theirmyths

n

some absolute

ense,9

his tilldoes not establish heir

relation fmythical ime

to historical

ime nor even thatof the Mt.

Olympus,

where eus

et

al.

still

llegedly

welled

n

the

time f men, o

the

physical

peak

in

Thessaly.

At

the

least

theydid

not agree on the

actualities

f a

myth.

he treatmentsfthe

gods

n

the

Homericpoems

certainly anifestreativityr, s itperhaps eemed o thepoet(s),discov-

ery.

0

hus

it s

possible

hat

he

Muses

had a

basically

ltered

oncept

n

mind by the

time

they

nspired

he author of the second Prometheus

narrative.

Another

ifficultys the

allegation frecent ecadesthat

arlyGreek

epic was

oral-formulaic

nd

improvisatory.

his

stress as

produced

belief hat

he

composition

f the

surviving

orks

was

highly rotracted.

Also, a long-held

otion hat

heHesiodic

poems

n

particular

ack coher-

ence mplies lack ofconstraintn the mprovisations.hus someschol-

ars hold

that neither

work was a definite

ntity

ntil

t

was

written

down

much

later than the

main

compositional

ctivity). I

he

logical

conclusion

s that ne cannot ven

peak

ofdistinct

rometheus arratives

assignable

o two different

imes.

It seems

to me that

that would

carry

he

point

too far. The

early

hexameter oemsprobably

id build

upon

long,overlappingraditions,

and

we must

lso

respect

he

possibility

hat

ny given assage

of nterest

came nto tspoem ong fterhemain omposition.

2

Nonetheless,tatisti-

8

As is argued specially

y

M.

I. Finley, Myth,Memory,

nd History,

istory nd

Theory, (1965),

281-302, n

284-89.One is reminded hat

heNativeAustralians o not

connect he

Dream Time of theirmyths

o their

uotidian

ime.

9

One can also be skeptical

f

that.

For example,Theogony

7-28 say the Muses

tell

both truth

nd falsehoods

esemblingruethings. The

author(s)mighthave thought

that that poem's

own myths ell

n

the

former ategory,

ut the statement eemsto

presuppose situationwhere thersmight ot agree.

10

A good

recent iscussionn Hartmut

rbse,UntersuchungenurFunktion

er

G6tter

im homerischenpos (Berlin,

986), 1-5.Of

course,we also find ifferent

ersions f a

myth n a typical o-called

ribal ociety.

11

An

accessible

ecent reatmentf the

composition rocess

which eflectshis rend

is RobertLamberton, esiod

New Haven,

1988), 1-37.

12

The

latest chemafor

uch additionss Friedrich olmsen,

The Earliest

tages n

the

History

f

Hesiod's Text,

HarvardStudies

n Classical

Philology,

6

(1982),

1-31.

However, ome

wouldquarrelwith he extent

o whichhe takes

heoriginal exts' oher-

encetoderive romogical, s opposed opoetic, onsiderations.is paper lso raises he

issueof ustwho made the

additions.Here

one can agreewithLamberton,

oc. cit., hat

the

personality

f

Hesiod

is a tenuous onstruct.

While use that

erm,

r the

poet,




5/18

358

E.

F

Beall

cal study

hows

thatour own

liad,

Odyssey, heogony,nd Works nd

Days

use

language

as

if

they

coalesced

in

that

temporal rder; nd we

must assume that,forthe most part,

theydid.'3 Most authorities ow

hold that, arfrom etraying rimitivism,heoral-formulaiconventions

are used

at least

in Homer in a mannerwhich

enhances he

artistry.14

Thus

it would

appear

that uccessive

performances

ill

have

needed o

respect verall

structure

egardless

f

variations.15 ecently,moreover,

the

view thatthe

Hesiodic

poems

ack

structure

as been

strongly hal-

lenged,even thoughquestions

ertainly emain

s

to just what either

work's

oherence onstitutes.'6

n

particular,

he

Theogony's

rometheus

narrative

eemswell

ntegrated

ith

he

overall

oem

t the

evel

of

verbal

echoes ndsimilar

uances.17

Apartfrom versehere ndthere, vidently

it cannot

have been

added after

hebulk

of the work

not

to

mention he

Works

nd

Days)

came

together.

Thus

I

believe

we

may

ndeed

onsider he

twonarrativeso be

given,

historically

onstituted

ntities.

he

following

reatment

ompares heir

main stages ystematically,

nd

thendiscusses he

results

n

context.

Trickery

ersusOmniscience

r

Superior rickery?

The

Theogony egins

ts

account

s follows

vv. 535-70).

8

When

gods

and

men

originally ivided,

rometheus ivided n

ox, cheating

he

mind

of Zeus.

He

cunningly isguised

hemeatto

look

like the

skin,

hebones

like

the meat.

Zeus

who

knows

mperishable

ounsels saidmockingly

that

the divisionwas

unfair,

ut devious Prometheus

nvited

him

to

below as a figure fspeech, t does seempossible hateachpoem s theworkof several

hands or

rather, oices)

over a decade or

so.

13See

RichardJanko, omer,Hesiod

and the

Hymns Cambridge,

982).

The results

are consistent

or

everal

tatistical ests f

inguisticrchaism,

nd believe

re

nexplica-

ble on anyhypothesisf

conscious

archaizing

r of

regional

ialect

variation.

14

The Landmarks f World iterature iscussions or

henon-specialisteader re

not

incompatible ith he point; ee

M.

S.

Silk,Homer,

The liad

(Cambridge, 987), 16-26;

and Jasper

Griffin, omer,

The

OdysseyCambridge, 987),

14-23.

Among specialized

work

only

mention

good study

f that

inchpin

f the oral

theory,

he

noun-epithet

formula: aolo

Vivante,

The

Epithets n Homer

New Haven, 1982).

15

Cf.Griffin,3.

16

Most

recently, ichardHamilton,

The

Architecture

f

Hesiodic

Poetry Baltimore,

1989) gives

ntricatenalyses

f

the

aspects

f the

poemsmost

often

hought

ot to fit

n

overall tructure. ithout

laiming hat

his

contribution illfinally ettle he

matter,

ne

can suggest hat ts

prodigious

cholarship uts

the

burden

f

proof

n

anyonedenying

coherence.

17

Notwithstanding

he

appearance

that t

digresses hematically

rom

he

main

account

of

origins

f the

gods.

Hamilton, 3-40,

s for

he

most

part

persuasive

ere.

18

Since t

is

necessary

o

refer o

the texts, provide ynopses or he benefit f the

non-specialisteaderwhile pelling ut somekeyexpressions). number f reasonably

cogent omplete ranslations

nto

he

major

Western

anguages

re also

readily vailable;

e.g.,

R. M.

Frazer,

The Poems

ofHesiod

Norman,Oklahoma, 1983).




6/18

Hesiod and

Myth

359

choose

his

portion.

Whilerealizing

hedeception, his mperishably

oun-

seled Zeus

chose

the nferior ortion nd planned rouble

ormen. Ever

since,men

haveburned

he ox's

bones for

he

gods

in sacrifice. ngrily

chastising rometheus's reachery,mperishablyounseledZeus ceased

sending untiring

ire to ash treesfor men.However,deceivinghim,

Prometheus

tole

fire's far-shiningplendor formen,

hiding t in the

hollow talk

of the narthex

lant.Seeinguntiring ire's ar-shining

plen-

dor among

men

again angered

high-thundering

eus,

who

insteadof

fire onstructed

n

evil

for

men.'9

The

poet

has

evidently

ade use here

of

specifically

reek

raditions:

Prometheus's

ssociationwithmen,

Zeus's epithets, se of

the moldering

pithof thenarthex o transportire,20nd perhapsrecognitionhathu-

mans

once

obtained heir

ire

rom

ightning-struck

rees.

We also find

myth

n

the

generic ense:

he

aetiological

igression oting

heorigin f

the sacrifice

nd a

long

noticed

imilarity

etween rometheus nd the

so-called

Trickster.

n

incarnations

uch as

Coyote NativeAmerica)

or

Ananse

the

spider West

Africa),

he

latter

s

also known o act

in

an

impudent

nd

crafty

ashion, epeatedly,

n

a

way

which

yields

isastrous

consequences.2'

But careful onsiderationeveals more ophisticatedasis.The no

longer

heriomorphic

rickster

rometheus

eems,

unlike

Coyote, cut

above

menthemselves.22

ore

mportantly,

he

Trickster-Highod

con-

frontation

s cast

n

sharp

relief:we

actually et

n

impression

f

clashing

principles

f

stealth-concealment

nd of

angry,

bsoluteknowledge.23

he

stress n

the stamina nd

radiance

f

the

stolenfiremakes n attack

on

Zeus's

very

divinity pparent.

inally,

while

n

general

ne

can

be

too

quick

to

invoke he

concept

of

phallic

symbol,Coyote/Ananse's

vert

19

follow he Greek texts

of

M.

L.

West, Hesiod, TheogonyOxford,1966), and

Hesiod, Works

nd Days (Oxford, 978),and

cite

his

associated

ommentariess West

I and West

I, respectively. lso, W. J.Verdenius, Hesiod, Theogony

07-616. ome

Comments n a Commentary,

nemosyne,

4 (1971), 1-10, and

A

Commentary

n

Hesiod.

Works ndDays,

vv.

1-382 Leiden,

1985),

re cited s Verdenius and Verde-

nius

I,

respectively.

20

West

, 324-25,gives omeancient eferences

o the method.

21

For a review f the theory f the Trickster,ee RobertD. Pelton,The Trickstern

West

Africa

Berkeley, 980),

1-24.

A

good

collection f actual

Coyote tories s Barry

HolstunLopez,

Giving irth o Thunder, leeping

with is Daughter

Kansas City,1977);

forAnanse,

ee

R.

S.

Rattray,

kan-Ashantiolk-Tales Oxford,

930). The classic

com-

parisonwith

Prometheus

s Karl

Kerenyi,

The Trickster

n Relation o Greek

Mythol-

ogy,

tr.

R. F.

C. Hull,

in

Paul Radin, The

TricksterLondon,1956), 173-91.

22 As is notedby JaroldRamsey,Reading the

Fire

Lincoln,Nebraska,1983),

40-43.

However,Prometheuss not

as god-like s

Zeus.

23

Apart

from eus's obvious) mniscience,

here re actually

referenceso hisanger

and 12to Prometheus's eviousnessna mere36verses, ssuminghatwe readcholou t

v.

562 with

West (Zeus never

orgot is anger), ather han

dolou as

in

mostMSS (Zeus

never orgot he deception).




7/18

360

E.

F

Beall

phallicism

s

wellattested. reud'scorrespondingiew

of

thehollowplant

stalk24ust might oint

to

an abstraction f that

phallicism,

ven f t is

combinedwith

he

plant'sutility

n

transporting

ire. n

short,

rometheus

may be closerto meta-TricksterhanTrickster lready nthispoem.

However,we cannot

ellhow muchofthe Theogony'sbstraction ere

is original o t and how

much

o

ts

ources,

whereas he Works

nd Days

innovatesn tsown rightvv. 47-59).Zeusengaged

n

concealment,ngry

because crooked

Prometheus

ad deceivedhim.25

e

wroughtwoe for

men. He

hid

fire,

ut

the son

of

Iapetus (Prometheus)

tole it from

Zeus of he ounsels for

men, oncealing

t

from Zeus the

hunderer's

sight

n

the narthex.

n

anger

Zeus the

cloud-gatherer

aid

that,

while

Prometheus as an unsurpassedchemer ndmight ejoiceoverthe de-

ception,

his

would be to

rejoice

ver

greatpain

to

himselfr6

nd

to men.

Insteadof

fire

Zeus continued)

he would

give

men an evil

theywould

love.

So

(he) spoke;

and

laughed

out

loud/

did)

the

father f men

and

gods. 27

In

a sophisticated

tructural

nalysis

f

the

Hesiodic Prometheus

myth, ernant

ontributes

he

nsight

hatZeus's

concealing ctivity

ere

is importantothestory's ogic. n thishe assigns mplicit hiding, .e.,

a devious

eus,

to

the

arlier

ccount swell.28

owever,

eus as trickster

has more

facets

n

the later one:

in

a

compact

thirteen erseshe hides

things

nd

then

promises orcefully,

n

effect,

o

out-trick

rometheus,

n

high

humor

ven

f

still

n

anger.

This timethe

single

reference

o

his

counsels

eems

ronic,

while

his

mockery

s

made

graphic: you rejoice

over tealing

ire

..

and

over

great ain

..

(actually,

he

atter lready

suggestswoman:

t alludes to Hector's

bitterly

umorous emark

n

the

Iliad thathisbrother as brought greatpain for ll inbringing elen

hometo Troy29). o vowthatmenwill

ove

the

evil s

surely diabolical

24

Sigmund reud, The Acquisition nd Control

fFire, n his Complete sychologi-

cal Works,

4

vols.,ed./tr.James trachey London,

1953-74),XXII, 187-93.

25

JustwhatZeus concealed

s

syntacticallyncertain.

Most scholars ead therelevant

verb's bject s themeans f ivelihoodmentioned ive erses arlier, ut nother ossibility

is thefirementioned hree erses ater.Most simply ssume hatPrometheus's eception

citedhere

s

the Theogonyvariant's windle ver

hemeat: .g.,West I, 156; Verdenius

II, 44; Vernant, 83. However, t mayonlybe a reflection

f the Trickster's haracter s

having lready cted n form t any pointwe come

n on his story.

26

This

may refer o the Greek tradition which,

ndeed, s mentioned t Theogony

521-25) thatPrometheus'siverwas devoured y an eagle daily.

27

Ho-s

ephat',,

k d' egelasse ater andron te theon e. My translation's blique line

denotes he

verse'scaesura. Given Homeric

usage,pater andron

te

theon

e is not the

grammaticalubject f ephat'.

28

Vernant, 90-92.Cf. PeterWalcot,Hesiodand theNear East (Cardiff, 966), 60,

who cites ome subtleword

order ffects

n

the

Theogony.

29

II.

3.48-50.Verdenius I, 47, notes he syntacticalonnection.




8/18

Hesiod

and Myth

361

twist.

inally, hepoet

gives

eus the

ast

augh,

s wewould ay,

n an

impressive

erse.30

Thus, e the

differenceonsidered

ubtle

rstriking,

o far he

hrust

ofthe ater ccounts not hatZeus opposes uperior isdomer e to

Prometheuss

in the

arlier utthat

he is to

beatthe atter t

his own

game.

Fleshing ut

theBait;Nymph

r Vamp?

At the

next

tage vv.

571-84)

he

Theogony

ives etails f he

vil t

has ust

said Zeus created.

At his orders,he famous

ripple

i.e.,

Hephaestus)ashionednimage f maiden romlay.Athena ressed

her,

eiled er, arlanded

erwith lowers,nd

crowned

erwith gold

headband

n which

he

amousripple

adworked any

ntricatemages

ofmarvelous

ildbeasts

which

eemedike

iving eings.

While heres nothing

emarkable

n itself hen

myth forigins

includes

omething

s basic

s

woman,

ere he

oet oes

o

some rouble

to citedeities

n

a manner

onsistentith

heir

ompartmentalized

oles

in

thepantheon. ephaestus

s

the raftsman

od,

Athena he

goddess

f

domesticity,o that t is logical or hem ocreate female rinciple.

There

may

lsobe more

ubtle vertones:

ephaestus'shysical

nfirmity,

which endered

im

figure

ffun

n

Greek

yes,

ndAthena's

erocity.31

Homeric

models

ave

probably

eenused, pecifically

he

beautification

ofHeraby

ertain

pirits

n

order

o

deceive

eus,

nd

Hephaestus's

ork

on the

Shield

f Achilles.32

he crown

withmarvelous

eings

s

more

enigmatic.

ome cholars

ssociate

t

with

n earth

oddess.33

t s

perhaps

related

o

the mistress

f

he

nimals,

hich

was

ndeed n

aspect

f

n

earth oddessnthe ncient earEast.However,heGreeks hemselves

assimilated

his

dea

to

Artemis.34

hus t seems

o me

plausible

hat

Zeus's

image

f maiden

s

meant

s

an erotic

bject

f

ontemplation

in

henymph-like

ense, ay,

f

Homer's

omparison

f

hemaiden ausi-

caa

with

Artemis.35

n

any

ase onedoes

notfind uch vocative

magery

in

Coyote

tories.

30

Cf.

Heinz Neitzel,

Pandora

und

das

Fass, Hermes,

04 1976),

417.

I

also

suggest

the ine s enhanced y theformulaiconnectiono father f menand gods anchoring

the end

of numerous

Homeric

verses.

31

On

Hephaestus

nd

Athena,

ee

Walter

Burkert,

reekReligion,

r. John

Raffan

(Cambridge,

Mass.,

1985), 167-68

nd

139-43.

32 In

II. 14

see Heinz Neitzel,

HomerRezeption

ei

Hesiod

Bonn,

1975),20-34),

nd

II. 18 (see Verdenius

, 6),

respectively.

3

I. Trencsenyi-Waldapfel,

The Pandora

Myth, Acta Ethnographica,

(1955),

99-128,

n 105-7;

Patricia

M.

Marquardt,

Hesiod'sAmbiguous

View of

Woman, Classi-

cal Philology,

7 (1982),

283-91,

n 286-87.

34

Notwithstandingarquardt,oc.cit.;see Burkert, 49.

35

Od. 6.102-9.

See Burkert,

50-51.Other

speculations

re

of course

possible;

.g.,

Hamilton,

3.




9/18


10/18

Hesiod

and Myth

363

snare. 42 ut the

aterpoem

has it

thus vv.83-89).After eus

completed

the

sheer nescapable nare,

he sentHermes, the swiftmessenger

f the

gods

leading

he

gift Pandora)

or

the

swift

messengereading he

gift

ofthegods, depending nhowwereada syntacticalmbiguity.43ermes

led her,

namely, o a personage dentifieds

Epimetheus whose

name,

the

original udience

willhave

noticed,

meant

afterthought ).he latter

forgot he warning

f

Prometheus

forethought ) ever o

accept a

gift rom

eus. He received t and, having he

evil,realized hathe

did.44

Two

points

are

striking. irst,Hephaestus s

replaced as

transport

agent

by

Hermes.

Possibly

he

instead

of

fire

phrase

n

the

Theogony

account erves

o

counterpose

ephaestus

o

Prometheuss

two

different

conceptions ffire-god.n any case, to use Hermes nstead s, again,a

matter f

opposing rickery

ith

rickery.

t a

more ubtle

evel

though,

Hermes s

the

generalized boundary-crosser.

s

examples,

he

leads

King

Priam

to

and

fromAchilles' ent

nd,

more

pithily,

onducts

ouls

from he

and of lifeto that of death.45 hus not

only

s

he the

ogical

choice

to takethenewcreature

o

men;

his ction

tself

s

rich

n

nuance.

For

example,

t

may

be

correct

o

say,

as do

some,

hat

Zeus

gives

the

female reature

s father

f the

bride.46

n

that ase

Hermes

helps

ndow

the nstitutionfmarriage ith we aswell s diffilculty.henuanceswere

probably nhanced

or he

original

udience

by

the

segment's yntactical

ambiguity,

hichhas

the effect f

conflating

he

characters

ermes nd

Pandora.

Second,

the

clever

etymological

ssociation

n

the relative

ttitudes

of Pro-

and

Epi-metheus

owardZeus's

gift

brings

hem from

imple

personalities

o

the evelofcharacter

ypes.Mythical

haracters

enerally

have

symbolic

ssociations

which t least scholarsbelieve

hey

an dis-

cover,buthere these re relativelybvious. t seems mplied hatthere

are

people

who

perceive

vil

n

advance and otherswho do not

but are

nonetheless

ble to

learn

from

mistakes.

omething

ike

that

point

willbe

42

So Frazer translates olon aipun amechanon.

f

one could construe olos here

as

trick r deception n the bstract, hen hiswould lready mply n overtly eceptive

Zeus. As applied o Prometheus'swn ctions hewordprobably oes mean his.However,

its mostdirect ense seemsto have been the moreconcrete bait, as in fishing.

43

The ambiguityeemsbasicto the ext; f.R. Renahan, ProgressnHesiod, review

of West II), Classical Philology, 5 (1980), 339-58,on 347. In disputing his solution

Verdenius I, 61, does notconsider heoriginal udience's ctualresponse o words t had

heard only fewversespreviously.

I

The

having nd the realizing

re

simultaneous;

ee

Verdenius I, 62, contra

West

II, 168. But thismeansbothpropertiesre important,o thatEpimetheuss a two-sided

figure.

45 11.24,

Od.

24, respectively.ee Burkert, 57-58.

46

So most recently,n effect,

enevieve

Hoffman, Pandora, le jarre et l'espoir,

Quadernidi Storia, 4 (1986), 55-89.To be sure, heclaimalready ppears nBulfinch's

Mythology,

hich

suggests hat Pandora's famous

vessel

discussed below) contained

Zeus's wedding resents.




11/18

364

E. F.

Beall

made

more

xplicitlyater

n

thepoem.47

rue, heres

precedentf orts

for

uch

development

n

Trickster

olklore

roper.In

particular,nanse

once utup

a

person

amed

hate-to-be-contradictednd

scatteredhe

pieces obe absorbedyothers;hisswhyomany eople oday ate o

be

contradicted.48)

ut

at

the

east,

urnarrative

s more

rtistic.

Gynoid

r

FirstWoman?

Wisdom

iteraturer

Symbolism?

The Theogonyow oncludests

ccount

vv.

590-612).49 ehear hat

theprincipleustcreatedwasthe ncestressfmortal omen,oth he

race

nd ribe

f hese anefulreatures.Then

full

wenty-oneerses

areused

o

say

hat

a)

women re

ikedrones

n

a

beehive,iving

ff he

labor f

others,nd that b)

to remain

ingle

r

marryomes

own o a

choice etween

ying

lone

with

ne's

nheritance

tolen

y

kinsmen,

nd

life

f

t best

lternatingood

nd

evil

with

woman.

n

contrast,

n

the

most

amous ortion

f the

myth

n

either

version,

Works

nd

Days

90-104 ell

us

this.

As

v.

89

states, pimetheus

new

e had

an

evil;

or

beforehis ime,menwere ar romrudgeryndpain, ut hewoman

opened

some)

jar, 5 ispersed

ts

contents,

nd

wrought

oefor

men.

A

spirit

amed

lpis

usually

ranslated

Hope, lternatively

Expecta-

tion 52)

lone

id

not

ly

utbefore

t

closed, y

will fZeus

if

disputed

verse

s

genuine). ow

vils oam

mong

men

y

and nd

by

ea;

diseases

come

utonomouslyy day

and

by night,

ilently

ecause eus of

the

counsels emovedheir

oices.

In

an article ublished

n

this

ournal

ver our

ecades

go,

Frederick

Teggartlreadybservedhat heTheogony'semalerincipledoesnoth-

47

Vv. 293-97

compare he

strengthsndfailings f he who

plans n advance,he

who

at least

istens

o

good advice, nd he who

does neither.

Walcot,62,suggests connection

between he twopassages,

lthough

he

and most

others

ake Epimetheus o be

simply

stupid. That

would be the latter'sreputation n

later Greece,

and a segment n the

Theogony's

heogony roper lreadycalls him

wrong-headed.

owever, ome have

suspected

nterpolation. nother iew hathe is

two-sided t least n

the Works ndDays

is that fWilliam

Berg, Pandora:Pathology fa

CreationMyth,

abula, 17 1976),

25.

48

As relayed y Rattray, 06-9, nd by Pelton, 5-27.

49Apart

from moral.

Theogony

13-16

and

Works

nd Days

105

are to the

effect

thatone

cannot

fool

Zeus.

Neither specially alls

for

omment.

50

Perhaps

he mplications both

he general nd theparticular

f women; f.

Nicole

Loraux, Sur la Race

des femmes t quelques-unes

e

ses

tribus,

Arethusa,

1

(1978),

43-87. West

I,

329-30,

denies the

authenticityf

the

verse.

However,

his reasons

are

contingentn its

beingrepetitive,nd I disagree

hat hat

s

an

issue; cf. Verdenius, 8.

s The reason

we now speak,

rather, fPandora's box is that

Erasmus onfused

he

stories

f

Pandora's

pithos nd

Psyche's yxis; ee Dora and Erwin

Panofsky, andora's

Box (2nd ed.,Kingsport, ennessee, 962), 14-26.

52

Hope may unduly mport

hristian

onnotations;

ee

mostrecently aldis

Lei-

nieks, Elpis

in

Hesiod, Works

nd

Days 96,

Philologus,

28

1984), 1-8, n

8.




12/18

Hesiod

and

Myth

365

ing, n contrast

o the other's

oncrete ction

subjectingmen

to

evil.53

Alternatively,

e may put

the

structural

imilarities

nd differences

e-

tween

the two

narrative egments

n

the followingway.

In

the

earlier

account hediscoursemodemythctually ollapses nfavor f thediffer-

ent genre

f maxims.

The

principle

ephaestushas

brought ut to

show

gods

and

men does

not

participate

n a story bout

anthropomorphic

characters

with

personalities

ut

s

simply

aken

s occasionto

espouse

cracker-barrel

isogyny

f the sort

endemic

o

male-only

atherings f

many imes

nd places.

4

In

the

other ccount

somewhat

ifferent

reak-

down

has

already

aken

lace

at a

prior tage:

he

mbiguity

boutwhether

Hermesor

Pandora

is of

the

gods

and

the shift o an

etymological

focus. t maybe that hese ollaboratedo distract heoriginal udience's

attention,

hus

allowing

he

poet

to

smuggle

n

something

ew. In

any

case,

as has

long

been

recognized,

he Works nd

Days segment

erewas

originally different

yth.

t musthave

been

familiar,

ince

knowledge

of

the

ar's provenance

s assumed.55

We need

not

attempt

econstruction

f the details

of

the

prior ar

narrative

o see

that

this time

the

poet

has resorted

o

an archetypal

mythical

orm

n

order

o

develop

hefemale

rinciple

nd that

his treat-

mentof it is rich n symbolism.t is common n world folklore or a

woman

often

irst

Woman

herself)

o act

foolishly

nd

bring

n

some

Ur-calamity.56

ne can

certainly peculate

hat

ome

specifically

reek

development

f he

heme, erhaps

lready

nvolving

andora,

onstituted

the

prior

narrative.57

n

any

case,emergence

rom n earthenware

essel,

also

a common

motif,

eems

to stand

for transformation

f

the

world,

notnecessarily

he pecific

ne of

imple

ctivation

f hevessel's

ontents.

(For

example, Hopi

myth

ssigns

he

origin

f

the

tribe

o

an

originally

53 Frederick

.Teggart,

The

Argument

f Hesiod's

Works nd

Days,

JHI,

8

(1947),

45-77,on

48-50,

although e

calls thefirst

rinciple

Pandora

and believes

he

second

was originally

omeone

lse.

54 t is

easy to

believe hat

uch a

locus was the

smithy's hop

of Works

nd

Days

493

ffwhich,

o

be sure, aythat

you should

findwork

to

do

rather han congregate

here

during

he slack

wintereason.

55 his hasbeenunderstoodt least ince1913;see A. S. F. Gow, ElpisandPandora

in Hesiod's Works

nd

Days,

in

Essays

nd Studies

Presented

o William

Ridgeway,

d.

E. C. Quiggin Freeport,

N.Y., 1966),

99-109,

on 99-100.

56

One listof

examples s

Robert

Briffault,

he Mothers,

vols. New

York, 1927),

I,

571.

Cf. Trencsenyi-Waldapfel,

15-16.

Pandora

can be read

as

attemptingo

get the

id

back

on the

ar but too

late,

by willof Zeus

(if

v. 99 is genuine);

f.

Verdenius I,

71.

A

comparable

xample

rom heBlackfeet

f

Montana

s Ramsey, -9)

First

Woman

wishing

to undo

a

wager

whichhas originated

eath,but

Old Man saying

hat he aw

is

now

fixed.

5 There is archaeological videnceof pictorialrepresentationf a vesselwitha

chthonic

arth

goddess.

To

be

sure,

ther

peculations

or he

prior

narrative

bound,

not

necessarily

nvolving

andora;e.g.,

Verdenius

I, 64.




13/18

366

E. E

Beall

non-Hopiperson

scaping

from jug

in

which

he had been born.)58

he

import

f the devoicing

f

the

evils

s much

discussed.59

nd

then here

is the

enigmaticetention

fElpis

n

the ar.The meaning

ere

dmittedly

turns n a certain ispute ver whether his ays sheis kept mprisoned

awayfrom

men

or is what remains

omen.60

But if we

accept

the atter

reading,

s seems

mostnatural,

hen s

a result

f

the

myth's ctions

man

is

now an elpidic

being. 961

n

thisconnection ome

suggest

hat still

another

tymological

onnection s meant:

Men no

longer

have

fore-

thought

withPrometheus,

ut

only

fore-seeming

prosdokia,ynony-

mous

with lpis

t least

to the aterGreeks).62 citation

f elpis ater n

the poem

suggests

hat

t

amounts o

self-deception.63erhaps

the myth

givestheorigin f Sartre's

mauvaisfoi.4

In any case, in the accountof

theWorks

nd

Days

theend

result

f

Prometheus'shenanigans

s

highly

nuanced.

ReligiousAmalgamation

r Ethical Abstraction?

How do

these

Prometheus

arratives

it nto ultural

istory? iscus-

sions

of the

role have

often

een thisas a matter

f

prefiguring

hose

componentsf aterculturewhoseemotive spect s predominant,uch

as art

or

systematized

eligion.

As observed

bove,

other ections f

the

Theogonyi.e.,

creation

myth) re sometimes

hought

o

anticipatemore

academic

matters

Presocratic

hilosophy).

et

Hans-Georg

Gadamer,

for

xample,

iewsHesiod's

Prometheus

n relation o the

tragic figure

of theclassical

Athenian

rama

Prometheus ound attributedo

Aeschy-

lus.65 thers ompare

with he

Eden

narrative f

original

in n

Genesis,66

58

Relayed by H. R. Voth,The Traditions f the Hopi, Field ColumbianMuseum

Anthropological

eries,

VIII

(Chicago,

1905), 155-56.

59Most recently

y

Leinieks,

-7.

However,

ts eemsdifficult

o

determine

hatZeus's

action

meanswithout

nowing

ts time ndplace

withrespect

oPandora's, nd

on

that

point he text

s silent.

60

Represented,or xample,

yVerdenius

I, 66-70,

ndWest I, 169-70,

espectively.

The

first osition

s dependent

n reading

he ar's contents s

themselvesvil, nd

it as

a

prison,

ut this

has

long

been

disputed.

or recent

lternatives,

ee Neitzel, Pandora

und

das Fass;

and E.

F.

Beall,

The Contents

f Hesiod's

Pandora

Jar:Erga 94-98,

Hermes,

117

1989),

227-30.

61

In the terms f SiminiaNoica, La bofte e Pandoreet L'ambiguite'de l'elpis,

Platon,

36

(1984),

100-124,

n 116-18.

62

See Hermann

urck, andora und

Eva (Weimar,

931),9-10; Richard

Onians,The

Origins

f European

ThoughtCambridge,

951),404.

63

Namely,many

men

rely n

empty lpiswhen

hey ack

the meansof

ivelihood,

instead f working

vv.

498-501).

6

n the construal

f Walter

Kaufmann,

xistentialism

rom Dostoevsky

o Sartre

(Cleveland,

1956),

222.

65 Hans-Georg

Gadamer, Prometheus

nddie Tragodieder Kultur,

n his

Kleine

Schriften, vols. Tubingen, 967-72), I, 64-74. Cf. Blumenberg,99-326.

The more ophisticated

reatmentsssignmyths

where

vil/sin xistsprior

o man

to

one

type;

Adam-Eve

to another.

ee,

e.g.,

Paul

Ricoeur,

The

Symbolism

f

Evil,

tr.




14/18

Hesiod

and

Myth

367

exploiting

parallel

etween

andora

nd Eve which

as

beennoticed

since ncient

imes.67

As to

this,

t s

proper

o

relate heTheogony's

rometheus

oreligion.

The narrativehereannot eally eisolated romtsprimordialetting

of he rigins

fgods

nd

theirmutilations

fone nother

hichnforms

the overall oem.

For Prometheus

s treated

s one

of theTitans,

he

group f

beingsntermediate

etween

he

primeval

rinciples

fearth,

Eros,etc.,

which

pawned

hem nd

theOlympian

ods

who came

to

vanquish

hem.

is story

splaced

mmediately

fter he heogony

rop-

er's isting

fhim

nd some fthe thers,

nd hisdefeat

s one

example

among

thers

f Zeus's conquest

f them.68

hus

theconfrontation

f

principlesf tealth ndangry isdom oted arliers inseparablerom

theology

r something

ike

t. It is

noteworthy

ere

hat,

or

ll our

account's reater

tress

n

underlying

tructure,

oyote

toriesre ompa-

rable

nsofar

s Native

Americans

ypically

eel

hat

iving

uch narra-

tive ut

of

context istorts

t.69

But

the

Works

nd

Days

narrative

s

another

matter.

hile t can

be

interpreted

n

religious

erms,

ay,by

assigning

he

origin

f

human

autonomy

is

a

vis the

gods

to Pandora's

ct,70

tnonethelessrings

certainmoral lose o the urface:fyou Prometheus)ttemptodeceive

the world's

tructure

Zeus),

t will

ust

reflect

our

pproach

with

vengeanceZeus

out-tricks

rometheus).pecifically,

he

giving

f ife

itself

ill

become

eceptivePandora

ia

Hermes),

nd

you

will

nd

n

self-deception

Elpis)

even

s eviloverwhelms

ou.71

ou

can

earn

his

lesson Epimetheus).

lso,

he ontext

ssists

n

abstracting

hisogic.

n

the

ctual

oem

henarrative

ollows

realisticiscussion

f

working

or

a

living,

.e.,

different

enre.

t

begins

s

if twill

xplain

men's

ot,

nd

it is followedytwoother iscretelyresentedarrativeshichmany

scholarsto

be

sure,while

ebatingetails)

ee

as

offering

essons

n

their

own

ways, reparatory

o the

main idactic

ortion

fthe

poem.72

hat

is

to

say,

he econd

rometheusccount

oes

ppear

o

anticipate

ome-

thing

cademic,

ssentially

n

thedomain

fethical

hilosophy.

It is

instructive

o

compare

ith

myth

latowould

ater

ut

n the

mouth

f he sophist

hilosopher

rotagoras.

o

besure,

he

articular

logic

hat deception erpetuates

tself'

oes

not

occur

here

although

EmersonBuchanan

New

York,

1967), 175-210,

32-78;

ormorerecently,

go

Bianchi,

Prometeo,

rfeo, damo

Rome,

1976),

55-70.

67

Among

uthors

ited

here,

ee

Turck;

Trencsenyi-Waldapfel,

07;

O'Brien.

68

See

Ricoeur,

206-10;

or

for hepoetic

ntegration

amilton,

3-40.

69

Some

tribes

venbelieve

hat

elling

oyote

tories

ut

of context

psets

hecourse

of

the universe;

ee Barre

Toelken,

The

Dynamics

f

Folklore Boston,1979),

283-84.

70

See,

e.g.,

Blumenberg,

2.

71

Assumingwe takeappropriate ositions n thecontroversiesoted bove.

72

West

I and

Verdenius

I

give

numerous

eferences

oncerning

he

'five aces

of

men

and

thehawk-nightingale

able

t the appropriate

ocations.




15/18

368

E.

F.

Beall

we

find

t

implicit

lsewhere

n

European

culture.)73

onetheless, rota-

goras s made to begin speech

n the

eachability

fvirtuewith mythos,

while

distinguishing

his nd

logos argument )

n

places

as

each useful

in its respective ay.

Assigned o createmortal

beings, rometheus nd

Epimetheus greed

the

atter

would allot them heir

haracteristics. e

failed o reserve

ome

good qualities

or

men while reating he animals.

So

Prometheus

tole fire nd craft

nowledge

ormen from

Hephaestus

and

Athena.

Fearing

for

heir

urvival,

eus then

gave

them

hameand

justicevia Hermes, nsuring

hese

o

all whereas

rometheus ad allotted

crafts

ndividually.

his s

why

mentake dvice

on

virtues

rom

veryone

buton crafts nly

from ew.

Arguments

bout Athenian

iews

ndprac-

ticeson virtue

hen

follow.74

We notice

mmediately

hat the

second Hesiodic

and Protagorean

variations

n the theme

f' Prometheus ave somemotifs

n

common

(such as Epimetheus ackingforesight,airing

Hephaestus

nd

Athena,

Zeus

and

Hermes).

But the

mportantoint

s

their

ommon

uxtaposition

of

differentypes

f

discourse, ndicating onceptualization

f

each

type

as

an

entity

n and of itself. he

fiveraces of men narrative

which

followsnthe WorksndDays is even stated obe another ogos with

respect

o its antecedent.

he

understanding

f the term

ogos tself,

o

encompass

oth

narratives,

s

different,75

nd Plato

may

of

course ntend

irony

n

having

the

much

despised Sophism peak

as

if

mythwere as

useful

s

logical argumentation.76lso, Protagoras

s said

to

make his

pointdirectly,

hereas

withHesiod

the moral

notedabove remains e-

neath

the

surface.

Yet

the

ability

o see

myth

s one

discoursetype

among

others eems

ommon o both ases.

Giventhe

vagaries

fartistic

compositionwe cannotbe precise n justhow the Works nd Days au-

thor(s) graspedmyth bstractly.77

ut

surely

t

is

fairto

say

that

the

treatment

anifests

ythology,

ot

ust mythography.78

73 Notably

n

Wagner's Ring cycle.

n

Das Rheingold he

haracter ith Trickster-

likerole Loge) persuadesheHigh

God

(Wotan)

o employ tealth

o secure heNibelung's

ring,

n thegroundshat he

atter

ad

already tolen hegold to

fashiont. Heretooruin

ensues,

t the

cycle's

nd.

74

The

myth roper s at Plato, Protagoras

20C-323A, he speech

at 320C-328D. A

recent ommentary

s

Patrick oby, ocrates

nd the ophistic nlightenmentLewisburg,

Pennsylvania, 987),53-70.

75 Most translate ogon t Works nd

Days 106 as story, ollowing

omericusage

with

he

plural ogoi.

But the

ucceeding

ccount

f

entire roups

fmen,not ndividuals,

is not a story

n

the

normal ense, ven f Hesiod does not yetmean

argument s does

Plato.

I

suggest discourse.

76

Cf. Blumenberg,

28-35.

I

doubt

we can tell whereHesiod or the earliestPresocratics

tood in the gray

area between

heer

poetic nspiration nd

the methodical etting

f

prior oncepts

o

communicativeiscourse. hus

we

cannot

mpute,

or

xample,

Vernant's nalysis f

the

Prometheusmythnto hree iscreteevelsformal,emantic,ocial-cultural)oany ctual

consciousness

t

the time.

78

At least

with

respect

o

the

Prometheus

myth

tself nd

probably

more.

Cook, 54,




16/18

Hesiod and Myth

369

At the same time,however, here s a certain ontrary rend

n the

matter fwoman.The developmentrom heTheogonyrometheus

arra-

tive to that

of

the

Works nd

Days

is

in

the direction f

an essentially

mystical iewof woman s problematicntity. he earlier oem'smisog-

yny s replaced yone which, lthough

ess crudeon the urface, onethe-

less conceives

of woman as monstrous

n

a manner pproaching he

psycho-analyticallyrimordial.

oth

thatHesiodic scholarshipwhich s

feminist

n

orientation

nd thatwhich ees the Hesiodic ttitude

oward

women as

relatively enign

have

tended

toward the

common

view of

essentialdentity

fthe wo ccounts.79

owever,

he ater

ne's diabolical

detail

n

fleshing

ut the female

rinciple,

he

perversion

f thechthonic

image Pandora, andthefateful utcome fher ctiongo rather eyond

the view

thatwomen

re like drones

n

a beehive.

nstead,

he

magery

suggests orothy

Dinnerstein's

Dirty

Goddess

psychological

oncept,

whereby

e

experience

oman

s awesome ven

as we

reject

her

body.80

Her

allegedproblematic

ature

ffectively

ecomes

religion

n

the

Works

and

Days.

Presumably

he

author(s)

f the

ater

Hesiodic

poem

wished

o

com-

pose

a

piece

more relevant

o

daily

ife

n

the small scale

agricultural

settingfBoeotia nthe ateeighth r early eventh enturies

.C.,

than

had

been theearlier.

till,

he atter's

tility

s a

poetic

model

was

recog-

nized,perhaps

n

the

manner hat

he

Odyssey'suthor(s)had viewed

he

Iliad.8 We

may speculate

hat

retrenchmentnto a

purer

form f

myth

in

denigrating

omen was occasioned

by

the latter

having

become

an

easy target

n

agricultural

ircleswith

the

onset

of

male-oriented

low

techniques

omecenturies

reviously.

2

Perhaps

lso an increased

opula-

tionwas seen

as a

threat,83

nd as conditioned

y

femalewantonness.

n

backhandedlyllowsthat

the HesiodicPrometheus

myth s allegorized,

while laim-

ingthatmost fthetext f

theHesiodicpoems

remains n the Neolithic phase

ofmyth.

However, ne maydoubt ny

urningn and

off f elf-consciousnessithin

n artistically

integrated

oem.

'9

Most prominentlymong

recentwork,despite

heir

isagreements:

inda

S. Suss-

man, Workers

ndDrones: Labor, dleness

nd Gender

DefinitionnHesiod's Beehive,

Arethusa,

11 (1978), 27-41; Marquardt;

Jean Rudhardt,

Pandora, Hesiode

et les

femmes, Museumelveticum,2 (1986),231-46.Marylin . Arthur,Cultural trategies

in Hesiod's

Theogony: aw, Family, Society,

Arethusa,

5 (1982), 63-81, on 74-75,

differentiates

hem bit

more.

80

DorothyDinnerstein, he

Mermaid

nd

theMinotaur New York, 1976),

124-56.

81

As evidenced y linguistic

ependences,

he Works nd Days

is verymuch aware

of all threeearlierpoems.

Perhaps ts

author(s) also profited rom

certain rtistic

self-consciousnessomerists

ave noticed

n the Odyssey.

82

So

Thalia

PhilliesHowe, Linear

B

and Hesiod's

Breadwinners, ransactions

f

theAmerican

hilological ssociation, 9

(1958), 44-65,

on 62-63.

83

However, hattherewas objectively crisis s unproven. Nor can thisbe shown

from urpoem

tself;

ee,

.g.,ErnestWill,

Hesiode: CriseAgraire? u

reculde

'aristocra-

tie?,

Revue des Etudes

Grecques,

8

(1965),

542-56.)




17/18

370

E.

F.

Beall

any

vent

he rend etween

he

poems

s

certainly

onsistentithGreek

history:

fter

omerhad at

leastbeenwilling

o allotpersonality

o

an

Andromacher Penelope,lassicalAthens

ecame highly

exist

oci-

ety.84

or

all that, heagricultural ilieuwill haverequired ositive

appraisal

f

straightforwardness

s compared

ith rickery

n

personal

relations.

urely

his

s what roduced

nd colored

he mployment

f

Prometheus-Zeus

yth

n a

fundamentally

thical

ontext.

FromMyth

o Sociology?

The

above

discussion

oints

o a development

till ssentially ithin

myth, hich, owever, ightlso prefacemovementwayfrommyth,

toward

he

more iteral

modes f

representing

heworldwhichhe

ater

Greeks

onceived.

ne can

certainly

e

suspicious

f he deathat

Greek

myth

led to philosophy

n

any

continuous

ay,

ut nother

ossible

model

s

myth's

nadequacy

ecoming

o manifest

s tonecessitate

eeking

alternatives.

Consider

he

respective

ontexts

f

the

econd rometheus

arrative

and

the

parallel

dam-Eve

tory.

he

atter oes

ead

continuously

o

somethingore iteral, ithinheOld Testamenttself:t s integrated

into

purported

istory,

rom

he

mmediately

ucceeding

ain-Abel

story

own

o

the

uthor's ecent

ast.85

n

contrast,

heGreek arrative

is

followed y

another

ogos

bout

five aces.

t is the atter

which

begins

with primordial

ituation,oughly

rders

ther

enerations

f

men hronologically,

nd ends

with

he

poet's uotidian

resent/future.

Thus,

notwithstanding

tendency

o see t

as

myth

n the

ame ense

as

its

antecedent,

ts

treatment

f

events

n

time

s different

rom he

latter'soncegods cted;nowwe havedisease. t actuallyeads s if

therewere

hree

ven arlier

times

f

gods

beforeheone

where hey

intervened

n

Homer's attlefields,

entioned

ust

prior

o

the

present

time f

men. 86t seems

ntermediate

etween

myth

nd a

theory

f

social

evelopment

hich,

ad t

been

historically

ealized

ike henatural

science

he

earliest resocraticsnitiated,

ould

not

havebeen

spe-

cially mpirically

riented.

84

A

review

f the relevant

iteratures PhyllisCulham, Ten Years After omeroy:

Studies

f the mage

and Reality f

Women

n

Antiquity,

elios,

13.2

1986),

9-30.

85

If

the

o-called

Documentary

ypothesiss

valid

n something

ike ts

classicform,

then he

ssimilation

o a

putative

istoryown hrough

heentrance

ntoCanaan

which

surely

as some actual

historical asis) had already

akenplace

a few

hundred

ears

fter

that,

till ome hundreds

f

yearsprior

o

redaction

f the Pentateuch

s we

nowhave t.

Of

course ll this

s

controversial.

non-dogmaticnd

accessible,

f

cursory

eference

s

JohnBright,

History

f srael (3rd

ed.,

Philadelphia,

981),

67-74.

86 Thus Finley,

86-87, nd

Rowe, 132-34,

re

incorrectn saying

hat

his

narrative

contains o time lementwhatever.Whileonemight eny t the tatus f history ince

it has deviations

rom hronological

rder,

s

quite symbolic,

nd

is less critical

han

Herodotus,

t

simply

s not myth

n the

generic

enseof concrete

torywith

haracters.




18/18

Hesiod nd Myth

371

My suggestion

ere s that hefailure o

integrate

he

Prometheus

narrativetselfnto ny ype

f

quasi-historical

arratives related o ts

tendencyo transcendstory, wherehigh egreef ymbolismnds nconflatingandora ndHermes nd nstressingtymology.rue, ven

afterhat

heneed

f

concrete

llustrationhat

pimetheusnew ehad

an

evil

may

dictate

omething

ike the

ar

story

he

poet mports o

conclude

is account.

erhaps, owever,

hat

xhausts

he

momentum,

necessitatingnentirelyewmode

fdiscourse

n

order

o continuehe

poem

tself.

Hans

Blumenbergpeculates

hat he

nigmatic

aying

f he

o-called

first hilosopherhales centuryr o ater,allthingsrefull fgods,

is a reductio

d absurdum

f

myth.87owever,

ndto

speak rovisionally

(the

matter

might

e

exploredlsewhere),

he Worksnd

Days may

l-

ready ring

heTrickster

ale othe

point

f

requiring

ewmeans

f

more

is to

be

said.

Washington,

.C.*

87

As one ofa number f attemptso bringmyth o an end he notes during he

course

of his book; Blumenberg,

5-26.

*

721 6th Street, .E.,

Apt.

B, Washington,

.C.

20003.

hesiod's prometheus as a myth

Documents