Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Guy G. Stroumsa Myth Into Metaphor The C

    Uploaded by

    GordanaSoldat
    6 views9 pages
    nice

    Original Title

    Guy G. Stroumsa Myth Into Metaphor the C

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    nice

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views9 pages

    Guy G. Stroumsa Myth Into Metaphor The C

    Uploaded by

    GordanaSoldat
    nice

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 9
    308 = THE PARABOLIC USE OF NATURAL ORDER The View of the Fourth Book of Ezra. In this context, therefore, the position of 4Ezra is somewhat surprising. In other literature that we have cited the animation of na- tural phenomena is quite striking. In 4Ezra, however, it lies only in the background of his usage. Nature serves as a paradigm of regulari- ty precisely because of the sorts of ideas that are present in sources like the Enochic writings we have cited. Its regularity is a result of the willed action of its elements. Nonetheless, reference to natural forces as individuals or spirits, or to their angels, is strikingly absent. This sort of position in 4Ezra coheres with the book’s tendencies on other matters. 4Ezra's reservations about the possibilities of spe- cial knowledge have been stressed.2? Its angelology is moderate, it exhibits less of the resurgent mythological elements than other simni- lar works. It has no serious interest in speculations about the heaven- ly realm. So too, in its view of nature, it holds a position that as- ‘umes the process of remythologization that has taken place, and is only comprehensible in light of it. Yet in the Fourth Book of Ezra the remythologization is softened and suppressed. % Stone, Lists," 420f. I am indebied wT. Bergren and A. Roitman, who made ‘helpful comments on this paper, and particularly tothe remarks of D. Satta. MYTH INTO METAPHOR: THE CASE OF PROMETHEUS Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, Jerusalem Do myths die? Like religions, and more than religions, myths show a rare capacity to evolve, adapt and transform themselves, even When the social and cultural context which first nurtured them is long Bone. Were we to accept Claude Lévi-Strauss’ famous dictum, according to which a myth is defined by the sum of all its versions, even contemporary interpretations of archaic myths would constitule an integral part of these myths.’ Hence, the nature of a myth would include its own history; this would make it difficult to argue that myths can dic at all. Yet, although myths are in a large measure resi- ent to the erosion of time, they are not quite immune from it. The following pages deal with some avatars of one Greek mythological figure after the emergence of Christianity, thus following the For a thorough analysis of Prometheus, according to the main Greek texs, see U. Bianchi, "Prometheus, der ttanische Trickster," in his Selected Essays on Gnoe ticism, Dualism and Mysteriosophy (Suppl. Numen 38; Leiden, 1978), pp. 126-190. One can still consult with great profit K. Bapp's article in W. H. Roscher’s ‘Ausfthliches Lescon der griechischen und rimuschen Mythologie, 1 cols. 3032 3110, “ For s survey ofthe place of Prometheus in the history of Wester thought, see H, Levin, “Prometheus, Dictionary ofthe History of Ideas, I, col. 238 ff Levin refers to various studies which I was unable to consult, such ss R.Trowson, Le theme de Prométhde dans la literature européenne (2 vols, Geneve, 1964), J Duchemin, Promethée, histoire de mythe, de ses origines orienales d ses incarna, ‘ions modernes (Paris, 1974); or L. Sechan, Le mythe de Promethce (Pais 1951). 2 H. Blumenberg, Arbeit am Mythos (Frankfurt, 1979), now also in # good En- lish translation, Work on Myth (Cambridge, Ma. 1985). Cl. my review in Revue de Maaphysique et de Morale, forhcoming. STROUMSA 31 radical transformation of Greek culture by an alien Weltanschauung, but also the last full-fledged attempt in Antiquity to revive mytholog. ical pattems of thought. At the dawn of the Christian era, Gnosti- cism, this “‘acute hellenization of Christianity,"” as Hamack called it, offers the most radical rejection of culture and civilisation to be found in Westem history. It is to a great extent as a reaction to the Snostic challenge that Christian consciousness asserted itself and crystallized. Hence, the bearing of Gnosticism upon perceptions of Prometheus, In Prometheus and Lucifer, his first published book, RJ. Zwi Werblowsky noticed the “‘interesting ambivalence"* of Prometheus, 1s figure “capable of developing in two directions,” close sometimes to Christ, and sometimes to Satan.° It is on this ambivalence and on the radically new status of Prometheus in the interpretatio christiana that thees pages seek to reflect. ‘The ambiguity from which Prometheus seems never to depart is that of a trickster. Despite recent attacks, the category of the trickster remains of considerable use for analysing mythical figures who revolt by cunning against higher deities, often to the direct or indirect benefit of humans.’ Tricksters are by definition liminal and intermediate figures, who seem to be crossing freely the borderline between good and evil. Sometimes they even appear as belonging to the “‘other’” power. They are daring, and they are cunning.® Cunning intelligence, or métis, belongs to Prometheus already in Hesiod, who applied to him the epithet agkulométés, “‘crooked of counsel." ‘Métis was a major quality in early Greek thought, as Marcel Deti- enne and Jean-Pierre Vernant have shown." Together with mythical © R12. Werblowaky, Lucifer and Prometheus: a Study of Milton's Satan (Lon- on, 1952), p. 63. 7 Se¢,©: Grotmelli,“Trcksters, Scapegoat, Champions, Saviors," in History of Religions 23 (1984), pp. 117-139, a remarkable study which could be subtiled Apology for the Trickster,” on Prometheus, see p. 135. On tricksters sce also V. Tumer, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 10, pp. 516-581, “Myth and Symbol.” 5 Set: for instance, Lévi-Strauss, Antvopologie structurale, ch. 11, and Myth ‘and Meaning (Toronto, 1978), ch. 3; cf. Grottanelli, art. cit, p. 136, 9 Theog. 546; Opera 4, it M. Desienne and J-P Vernant, Les ruses de intelligence: la mls des grees (Paris, 1974), esp. pp. 62-66 and 84-103. 312 MYTH INTO METAPHOR Pattems of thought, however, méris was almost blurred by the suc- ess of philosophy - a fact which accounts for its neglect by modem Scholars. Characterised by ambivalence, méds is an integral part of mythological thinking, which could not be integrated in thought pat- tems established on the rule tertium non datur. Ambivalence characterises the Greek Prometheus, as it does any mythical hero. From Hesiod to Lucian, Prometheus is described. st once as positive and negative, both in bonam and in malam partem. through his cunning with the parts of sacrifice, through his responsi- bility for the creation of man and woman, and finally by stealing fire. The revolt motif is thus not always viewed quite favourably in Greek texts, although no malice is attributed to Prometheus, ‘The tragedians view Prometheus’ stealing of fire as his main achievement. Sophocles calls him ho pyrophoras theos titan, while Acschylus, in his Prometheus Bound, insists on his audacity, his over-daring. He also describes Prometheus giving men ‘blind hopes,”’ yphlas elpidas, taking away their foreknowlege in order 1o make human life bearable,12 From the fourth century B.C.E. on, as a new, pessimistic attitude fowards culture becomes pervading, more’ clearly expressed 1 laian. Dialogues of the Gods, in Works, VI, ed, trans. M.D. Macled, (LCL: Cambridge, Ma, London, 1961), p. 259. 1 Sepbacles, Oedipus at Colonas, 55; Aescyhis, Prometheus Bound 148-150; Fx 237238, on Prometheus’ dering. Cf. E. Meron, “Une lecture socraique ds Prométhée d'Eschyle ou: Prométhée, fondatcur de la religion,” Revue des Plades Anciennes 85 (1983), pp, 199-213, who describes Prometheus as « “quasi chiistc mediator” For the “blind hopes" given to mankind, xe C. Sega, Tragedy and Civilization: an Interpretation of Sophocles (Cambridge, Ma, 1981), 241, aed Wc Sgr, Moira: Foe, Good and Evi in Greek Thought (Cambridge, Ma. 19829, p. 120. An analysis of the dialectical relationship between bodily and inner blindnevs snd vision (ef Tereisias and Oedipus) in Greek texts would be worthwhile. STROUMSA 313 condemnations of Prometheus appear. For Menander, Prometheus is justly condemned since he moulded women, “‘an abominable cast, hated of all the gods, methinks. Is some man bent on marrying? on marrying?’"!3 Even more radically, Diogenes of Sinope deseibes Prometheus as the author of men’s comuption. From now on, the for. Matin of human beings is more and more attributed to Prometheus." Noanos of Panopolis (ith century C.E.) is alate wit. ‘ess to the dubious heritage which Prometheus left mankind: Nay - Prometheus himself is the cause of man's misery - Prometheus who cares for poor mortals! Instead of fire which is the beginning of all evil he ought rather to have stolen sweet nectar, which rejoices the heart of the gods, and given that to ‘men, that he might have scattered the sorrows of the world with your own drink. 15 Yes, let's look about, Hermes: we mustn't crucify, (estaurésthai) him low and close to the ground for fear that man, his own handiwork, may come to his aid, or yet on the ‘Summit either, for he would be out of sight from below...17 f phlesanses. The Principal Fragments, PG. Allinson, ed, wansl. (LCL; Lene don, New York, 1921),. 483. 1 See Blunenberg, Work on Myth, pp. 325 ff 'S Nonnos, Dionsiaca 7. $8.63; W.HD. Rowe, wans. (LCL; London, Cam- bridge, Ma. 1962), p. 249. CE. 2.576, '6 Seen. 11 above. The whole dialogue is shor: pp. 256-261. seit, Works I, ed wans. AM, Harmon (LCL; Londoo, New York, 1916), 242. 314 MYTH INTO METAPHOR ‘This text is noticeable on two accounts. First, as far as I know, Lucian is the only author - the Church Fathers included - to describe impunity. No picture could express more poignantly Prometheus’ ‘status as a savior himself in need of salvation, a salvator salvandus 10 use the term coined by Augustine in his anti-Manichaean ‘Lucian’s play presents in a nutshell the legacy of Prometheus for classical antiquity. In his dialogue with Hermes, Prometheus at- tempts to justify himself: his acts have done no wrong to the gods, while they have given so much to ‘mankind: the whole world is no longer barren and unbeautiful, but ‘adomed with cities and tilled lands and cultivated plants, the ‘a is sailed and the islands are inhabited, and everywhere there are altars and sacrifices, temples and festivals.,.19 Despite this plea for human culture - and for his own sake - Prometheus remains the author of “‘that reprehensible theft’ (else- where, Lucian calls him the god of theft, kleptikés ho theos,® who deserved his punishment and who owes his eventual release only t0 his deal with Zeus. ‘crucified titan, half Christ, half thief. This icon, as it were, illustrates the radical difference between Christianity and the classical world. '# On te mythological conception ofthe erie Erlaser in gnostic contents sce ©. Colpe, Die religionsgeschichliche Schule: Darstellung und Kritk ihres Bildes vom gnosischen Erlasermythus (FRLANT 78; Gdtingen, 1961). Calpe docs not ‘fer to Prometheus in this sidy, Lucian, Works, Il p. 257. % Lacian, Works, Vi, K. Kilbum, ed. tems. (LCL: Cambridge, Ma, London, 1959), “To one who ssid: “You're « Prometheus in words", p. 426 STROUMSA 315 Yet, this is the penultimate, not the last representation of Prometheus in Greek pagan literature. In his Oration VI to the Uneducated Cynics, Julian the Apostate refers to Prometheus in these terms: ‘The gift of the gods sent down 10 mankind with the glowing flame of fire from the sun through the agency of Prometheus, along with the blessings that we owe to Hermes, is no other than the bestowal of reason and mind... ‘What is striking in this text is not so much the total spiriualisa- tion of the civilisatory mission of Prometheus, as the fact that he is only the gods" envoy. The revolt motif has totally disappeared and with it the ambiguity which we have seen to be a constitutive quality of Prometheus throughout Greek culture. We are left with an abstract figure, quite disconnected from any mythical context. In the fourth century, indeed, the times had changed. And even Julian, the last herald of paganism, was influenced by the abhorred Galilean faith of his youth in deeper and more subtle ways than he realised: for him, myth had become metaphor.” This transformation through which the dying myth reappears is directly connected with the emergence Of the new faith, as we shall presently see. The myth of Prometheus has faded out, but the figure of Prometheus himself survives, how- ever univalent. Prometheus now represents a clearly defined quality, and has lost the autonomous life which was his when the myth was still alive, In Lucian’s Prometheus, men are said to have been created in the gods" shape, a fact which has fuelled some speculation about Works, Il, W.C. Wright, ed, trans. (LCL; London, 21 Julian, Oratio V1, C1 New York, 1913),p. 89, ® J, Bidez was the frst to unveil the deep-reaching Christan influences on Jli- an in his La vie de f Empereur Julien (Pais, 1930), See also G.W. Bowersock, Juli ‘am the Apostate (Cambridge, Ma., 1978). On the transformation of myth into mita- hor with the passage from the mythology of archaic cultures into “cultural languages" of « non-mythological type, see an important paper of two Rossian semiologists, JM, Lotman and B. Uspensiij, which T could read only in Spanish translation, “Milo, nombxe, cultura,” in J. M. Lounan et alii, Semiotica de la cul. ‘ra (Madi, 1979), pp. 111-135, esp. pp. 124-125 and 133. The author insist that ‘metaphors cannot occur in mythological texts proper, but only as the conclusion of the “tumultuous processes which accompany the disintegration of mythical sons- 316 MYTH INTO METAPHOR possible Jewish influences.” Lucian, however, remains poles apart from the monotheistic conception. For him, itis rather the gods who seem to be made in the image of men and to behave like them, in highly dubious ways. The advent of Christianity implanted in the Greco-Roman world the ethical dualism inherited from Judaism. God was enthroned above, beyond any ethical ambiguity, and next to him was his Son, the Savior of mankind. The strong ethical bent in carly Christian thought was often, although not always, combined with cosmological, anthropological, or even theological dualism (see already Qumran). Among pagan thinkers, this ethical eamesmness was widely recognised as one of the more respectable sides of a reli- gion seen as despicable on various other accounts.” It entailed a radi-cal suppression of those elements of playfulness and ambiguity ubiquitous in Greek mythology. Hence, in Christian Weltanschau- ung, the polarity between Satan and Christ as the perfect epitome of Every man who has chosen evil and to live an evil life so that he does everything contrary to virtue is a Satan, that is, an adversary of the Son of God, who is righteousness, truth, and wisdom, ‘This duality represents a radical departure from mythological thinking* It creates, as it were, a split between the two sides of the titan who had both revolted against divine order and offered his salvific help to mankind. Moreover, early Chiistian soteriology was Quite alien to the major trends of Greek thought. Prometheus’ gift Permitted mankind to build and rule the world; Jesus’ sacrifice ® Blumenberg, op. cit. p. 347. % ‘See among many other instances, towards the end ofthe third century, the be Binning of Alexander of Lycopolis, Critique of the Doctrines of Manichaces, wana, P. W. van der Horst and J. Mansfeld (Leiden, 1974), & Origen, Conira Celsum VIA4, tans. H. Chadwick (Cambridge, Ma., 1980), 361 2 The new thinking also offered an fondamentally different from ‘hat propounded by mythology: “Cet tat de choses aurit pa durer mille ans il s'est ‘modifié parce que le champ du savoir a vu sa carte bouleversée parle formation de nouvelles puissances d’affirmation qui concurrengaient le mythe et, 4 la difference * On the other hand, despite in Hernias and Clement of Alesandi,” Vigiiae Chrisianae 39 (1985), pp. 313- 330, 3 On the influence of West Asian myths onthe formation of Greek mythology, see for stance GS. Kisk, The Nature of Greek Myths Harmondsworth 1974), th n ote MY “Paradosis: doctrines éotéiques dans lechisimnisme des premiers sites." in P. Geoluin et al, Linértwre Apocryphes (Turnout: Brepols), for coming. }® Fer «bibliography, se my Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Nag, Hammadi Satis 24; Leiden, 1984, p10, 40, > ‘See for instance M. Scopello, “Le mythe de la ‘chute’ des anges dans "'Apscryphon de Jean (1) de Nag Hammadi." Revue des Sciences Religieues 54 (1980), pp. 220-230, and B. Barc, trl, L'Hypostase des archontes: trae” {nostigue sur Forigine de P homme, du monde e des archontes (Bb. Cope de Nag Hammadi, Texte 4; Quebec, Louvain, 1980), esp. fp. 32 1. Se also FT. Fallon The Enitvonement of Sabacih: Jewish Elomens in Gnostic Creation Myths (Nog Hammadi States, 10, Leiden, 1978), pp. 2833. STROUMSA 319 some random speculation and a few parallels, common elements between gnostic and Greek myths seem to remain very scarce. A better insight, perhaps, on similarities and dissimilarities between both mythologies might be gained by comparing structures. Expulsed from philosophy, métis retumed to the fore with Gnosis, the last full-blown attempt in the ancient world to revive ‘mythical patterns of thought. Karl Kérényi has referred to the gnostic Anthropos, the divine Primal Man of gnostic myth, as the only figure ‘comparable in many ways to Prometheus (although he also alluded in the same sentence to “‘important differences’ between the two figures).%5 What mainly seems to have struck Kérényi in this context is the strong bond with mankind of a divine trickster. In gnostic con- text, however, it is not primarily the Anthropos, but rather the demi- urge, and to a certain extent the Savior, who partake in some of the trickster’s qualities. ‘A recent study devoted to the gnostic demiurge insists on his ability to cross boundaries and on his “lack of determination’” as basic features qualifying him as a particular instance of a wickster.36 ‘Yet the gnostic demiurge, whether he is called Yaldabaoth (ic., crea- tor of chaos), Saklas (the fool) or Samael (the blind one), does in no ‘way partake in the ambivalence inherent to the trickster. He does not hhave any redeeming features and can only be considered as an anti- 20d, either threatening and dangerous or foolish and ridiculous. Actually, only a few features are common to Prometheus and ‘Samael: both appear in myths of creation, origin of evil, and salva- tion. Like Prometheus, Saklas is a bringer of civilisation, but this civilisation is regarded as wholly evil. Similarly, fire is always described in strongly negative terms in gnostic texts, where work plays no role whatsoever.? Prometheus brought blind hopes; Samael’s very name reflects his innate blindness. The son of lapetus hhad saved his son, Deucalion, from the flood by advising him to °K. Kéeéayi, in P, Radin, The Trickser: A Study in American Indian Mythology (New York, 1956) pp. 180-181; cf. C. Kécéayi, Prometheus: Archetypal Image of Human Existence (Bollingen Series 65.1; New Yerk, 1963), pp.3,53-55. % LS. Gills, “The Gnostic Demiurge - An Agnostic Trickster,” Religion 14 (1984). pp. 301-311. 7 See my remarks in “Ascise et Gnose: aux origines de la spiimalité monas- Yique,"* Revue Thomiste 81 (1981), pp. 557-573. 320 MYTH INTO METAPHOR ‘man’s help; boéthos, helper, is an important epithet in some of the ‘gnostic texts. Rather similarly to the bringer of fire, the gnostic savior is called the phdstér, the illuminator. Finally even more than Prometheus, the gnostic savior is the classical instance of the erldster Erléser 9 In other words, although Samael and Christ can each boast of some Promethean traits, neither of them seems to fully integrate the god. But it is against men that Samael’s cunning is oriented, while Christ's métis is oriented towards the demiurge, a false god, essen. tally lower than himself. Thus the functions which were filled in the Greek myth by Prometheus seem to be divided in Gnosticism between the two major protagonists, Ambiguity was an essential feature of Prometheus in the Greek myth, The change of paradigms initiated by the emergence of Christianity and of Gnosticism, through the spliting of mythical functions and the establishment of 4 system in which good and evil are radical polarities, has suppressed this ambiguity. From the meeting of early Christianity and the classical world a {wo-tiered culture emerged. The Greek legacy, even through a radi- Cal interpretatio christiana, could not hope for more than an honour. able second place as a culture of reference. The first rank was 2° or instance in the Apocalypse of Adam, 69-72, where Noah is expiily ‘dentfied with Deucalion. English text in J. Robinson, ed, The Nag Hammadi Li brary" (New York, 1977), p. 258. » Seen 18 supra. ‘The radical rejection of Zeus permitied at least a partial rehabili- {ation of Prometheus. For Tertullian, for instance, God the creator is ‘the true Prometheus: verus Prometheus Deus omnipotens. Lactan- although in a rather perfunctory way. As expected, the Church Fathers follow the trend initiated among pagan writers: for them Prometheus was not so much the creator of man as the creator of the world. It is an intriguing fact that Prometheus does not appear to have been described as a prototype of Christ before Shelley, whose “Prometheus Unbound" is a pacan to human freedom, in which Christ revolts against Jehovah's tyranny. Giordano Bruno, on his Side, was the first thinker to identify Prometheus and man, both Entmythologisierung of Prometheus was enacted only with the Renaissance, it had been prepared by the establishment of Christian

    You might also like