A RC H I V I O

DI FILOSOFIA
A RC H I V E S O F P H I L O S O P H Y

PROMETEO.
FILOSOFIE DEL MITO
 Editor

Associate Editors

Editorial Board

Managing Editor

Editorial Assistant

Regole Online

Editorial Rules

double
blind peer review

-
 A RC H I V I O
D I F I LO S O F I A
A RC H I V E S O F P H I L O S O P H Y

P RO M E T E O.
F I L O S O F I E D E L M I TO
A cura di
E n ri co Caste l l i Gatti nar a J r. · Va llo r i R a s i n i · G i aco m o Sc a r pelli
 Online

Accademia editoriale

*
 ) et le robot

nici

Romano Guardini

Anders
Antropocene e neo-prometeismo aidosiano
 Israel Muñoz Gallarte, Prometheus in-between : Paganism, Hermeticism,
 

and Christianity

PROMETHEUS IN-BETWEEN : PAGANISM,  

HERMETICISM, AND CHRISTIANITY

Israel Muñoz Gallarte
1

Abstract · Prometheus is one of the main characters of Greek mythology. As trickster, rebel,
prótos heuretés, and aitíon of several human features and behaviours, his figure has been devel-
oped throughout Greek literature, from its origins through to modern Western culture. In this
paper we deal with one of the less-attended stages of that tradition, that of the so-called Impe-
rial Greek literature, by focusing on some of the most interesting references to the Titan that
break down the boundaries between paganism and Christianity.
Keywords : Prometheus, Imperial Greek Literature, Literary Tradition, Plutarch, Fathers of
 

the Church.

Introduction

T he archetypal figure of Prometheus has overwhelmed Western literature almost

from its beginning up to the present day. By reshuffling, tuning, and adapting him-
self to new environments, Prometheus has survived beyond the four Hesiodic genera-
tions thanks to a polyhedral mythographic story that turns its faces as a Rubik’s Cube,
fitting the predominant colour of each age.
The following pages will deal with one of these ‘turnings’ of the Greek Titan, one
that has perhaps not received its due interest in academic literature – to wit, the crea-
tions from Greek literature of the so-called Imperial age – by focusing on some of the
most important authors. Their works, in contrast to the classifications over the past
centuries that have been based on different labels – mythology, philosophy, pagan be-
liefs, Christianity, Apocryphal literature, etc.– have demonstrated that the distinctions
between them were less sharp and watertight than has been traditionally assumed.
This creates an indispensable need for a wide-reaching analysis. Consequently, in order
to approach the topic of Prometheus and to deal with the recreations of the myth
during the first to the third centuries, we will begin by making a brief resume of the
first references to the myth, from Hesiod, Aeschylus, and Aesop, through to its trans-
figuration as a key feature in the mythological philosophy of Plato. Following this, we
will focus on the tradition and fortunes of the myth during the age of interest to these
pages, by attending especially to common and divergent elements in order to sketch
Prometheus’s myth among different ideologies. Finally, having analysed the text, we
will draw some conclusions.

1. Overview of the Variants of the Ancient Myth

It is well known how the mythological activity of Prometheus is in line with his speak-
ing name. Προ-μηθ-έυς is composed of the prefix pro-, ‘before’ ; -meth-, the root of the
 

verb μήδομαι or μανθάνω, ‘to be minded’, ‘plan and do cunningly’, or simply ‘to think’ ;  

fg2mugai@uco.es, Universidad de Córdoba.

https://doi.org/10.19272/201908503004 · «archivio di filosofia», lxxxvii 2-3, 2019
40 israel muñoz gallarte
and the suffix -eus. Consequently the name Prometheus has been traditionally trans-
1
 

lated as ‘forethinker’, which is also in fitting contrast to the name of his brother Epi-
metheus, Ἐπι-μηθ-έυς, ‘afterthinker’. 2  

The mythographical development of Prometheus is a good demonstration of the

meaning of his name. Already, in the first literary works in which he is mentioned – those
of Hesiod, Aesop, and Aeschylus – there can be observed a primitive version of Pro-
metheus as the cunning trickster who attempts to manoeuvre against the sovereignty
of the Olympian gods on behalf of humanity. 3 To begin with, Hesiod introduces the
 

story of Prometheus’s clash against Zeus in Theogony, when he is commenting on the

descendants of the Titan Iapetus and the Oceanid Clymene and the negotiations in
Mekone. 4 Here, as is known, Prometheus, ἀγκυλομήτης and ἐπιμειδήσας, 5 defies Zeus
   

by attempting to cheat him in ritual by offering the worse part of the sacrificial animal.
However, not only does the deceit not succeed, because Zeus is aware of it, but it is also
used as an excuse to mete out punishment to humankind 6 and remove fire from them. 7
   

Lastly, Prometheus will recover fire for the humans, but this action will consequently
unleash the fury of Zeus, who, on the one hand, gives to Epimetheus Pandora, who
will bring about the entrance of all evils and sickness in the world from her famous jar,
and, on the other, eternally punishes Prometheus with the famous eagle. 8 Indeed, Pro-  

metheus’ action on behalf of humanity, despite being well-meaning, is an act of ὔβρις

opposed to the divine plan, which consequently can only be resolved in a negative way
against the protagonist of the myth. 9 Regarding Hesiod’s goal with this passage, it is
 

noteworthy that the author intended to explain the consequences of opposing author-
ity’s justice and also to provide an aetiological response to the questions of the origins,
firstly of rituals, 10 and secondly of the female gender, and then more widely the cause
 

of human suffering. 11  

After Hesiod, subsequent authors will focus on one or other aspect of the tradition.
Aeschylus, in his trilogy Prometheia, consisting of with Prometheus Bound, Prometheus

1
  Henry George Liddell et alii, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 19969,
μήδομαι, μανθάνω.
2
  For a different etymology, allegedly based on the Indo-European pra math, ‘to steal’, even if this has
been comprehensively disproved, see Volkmar Schmidt, προμήθεσαι BEI Archilochos, « Zeitschrift für Pa-
 

pyrologie und Epigraphik », 19, 1975, pp. 183-190 ; contra Benjamin W. Fortson, Indo-European Language and
   

Culture : An Introduction, Oxford, Blackwell, 2011, p. 31.

 

3
  This characteristic has been profusely treated by recent works, such as : William J. Hynes, Mapping
 

the Characteristics of Mythic Trickster : A Heuristic Guide, in Mythical Trickster Figures : Contours, Contexts, and
   

Criticism, William G. Doty and idem (eds.), Tuscaloosa-London, University of Alabama, 1993, pp. 33-45 ;  

Harold Scheub, Trickster and Hero : Two Characters in the Oral and Written Tradition of the World, Madison,
 

University of Wisconsin Press, 2012, p. 28.

4
  See Hesiod, Theogony, 507-616. For more on negotiating the privileges at the end of the war against the
Giants ; see Carol Dougherty, Prometheus, London-New York, Routledge, 2006, p. 36.
 

5
  See Hesiod, Theogony, 546-547.
6
  See ivi, 551-552 : οὐδ᾽ ἠγνοίσε δόλον· κακὰ δ᾽ ὄσσετο θυμῷ θωητοῖς ἀνθρώποισι ; Op. 48. Indeed, only
   

Hyginus, Poetica Astronomica, 1115, admits that Zeus was successfully cheated. See also Lucian, Prometheus
3 and Dialogi Deorum 1,1.
7
  See Herodotus 3,16 ; Aelian, On the Nature of Animals 6,51. See also Jean-Pierre Vernant, Mythe et
 

société en Grèce ancienne (1974) ; Engl. transl. Janet Loyd, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece, New York, Har-
 

8
vester Press Limited, 1980, p. 191.   See Hesiod, Theogony, 521-532.
9
  See Trijse-Marie Franssen, Prometheus through the Ages. From Ancient Trickster to Future Human, Exeter,
10
University of Exeter (PhD Diss.), 2014, pp. 28-31.   Also, see Hesiod, Works and Days, 59-64.
11
  See Carlos García Gual, Prometeo : Mito y tragedia, Madrid, Libros Hiperión, 1979, pp. 31-44.
 
 prometheus in-between: paganism, hermeticism, and christianity 41
Unbound and Prometheus the Fire-Bearer, develops the Hesiodic punishment of Zeus for
the fire stealing, in which he arranges to have Prometheus bound to a column, to which
every day an eagle comes to eat his liver. It is difficult to identify the complete story
arc of the trilogy, due to the fact that we preserve only the first play and fragments of
the other two. Nonetheless, it is accepted that Aeschylus’ intention could have been
to make a furious attack against tyranny, embodied in the character of Zeus. 1 Thence,  

Prometheus’s punishment 2 is not only due to his being the benefactor of the human
 

race against Zeus’s plans, 3 but also because Prometheus knows a secret from Gaia
 

against Zeus, according to which the son of the latter will be stronger, and eventually
dethrone him. 4 The resolution of this plot, which comes about as early as the sec-
 

ond play of the trilogy, is the reconciliation, mediated by the action of Heracles, who
will liberate the Titan and restore his dignity. All in all, rationality overcomes despot-
ism by replacing the old justice – which in the Hesiodic narrative was the capricious
will of Zeus – for compassion and reconciliation. 5 In this context, it is worthwhile to
 

attend to a new characteristic of the Aeschylean hero. In the famous verses 438-506,
Aeschylus describes Prometheus as the prótos heuretés of all arts or téchnai : ἀκούσαθ᾽,  

ὥς  σφας  νηπίους  ὄντας  τὸ  πρὶν / ἔννους  ἔθηκα  καὶ  φρενῶν  ἐπηβόλους, « listen how  

infantile they were before I made them intelligent and possessed of understanding ». 6    

Consequently, with this gift, Prometheus not only demonstrates himself to be the ben-
efactor of humanity by bringing them the arts and sciences, but also by allowing them
to progress in an autonomous manner, without the indispensable intervention of the
gods. 7 

Thirdly, the Aesopic corpus collects together at least three fables in which Pro-
metheus is the protagonist. It must again be asked whether the purpose of these was
to expand on some details of the myth that had previously remained obscure, or simply
to introduce new variations that better fitted the plot. To begin with, in fable 10 8 Mo-  

mus, the personification of sarcasm, admonishes the son of Iapetus regarding his role
as moulder of the human body, for not having make human hearts visible in order to
do detectable his virtues and vices.
The result is a possible alternative to Hesiod’s version, in which Prometheus is the
one responsible for moulding from mud the human body in the image of gods, πηλός. 9  

1
  See Aeschylus, Prometheus, 222-226.
2 3
  See ivi, 1-87.   See ivi, 264-269.
4
  See Antonio Ruiz de Elvira, La tragedia como mitografía, « Cuadernos de filologia clásica. Estudios
 

5
latinos », 2001, extra number i, pp. 55-88.
    See Dougherty, op. cit., pp. 65 and 71-73.
6
  See Aeschylus, Prometheus, 443-444 ; ed. and transl. by Alan H. Sommerstein, Persians, Seven against
 

Thebes, Suppliants, Prometheus Bound, London-Cambridge (Mass.), Loeb Classical Library, 2009.
7
  See Franssen, op. cit., pp. 25-27, following Conacher and Havelock. See also Theodore Ziolkowski,
The Sin of Knowledge. Ancient Times and Modern Variarions, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 37 ;  

Dougherty, op. cit., p. 74-78.

8
  See Ben E. Perry (ed.), Aesopica, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1952, fragment 124 = August
Hausrath et alii (eds.), Corpus fabularum Aesopicarum, Leipzig, Teubner, 1974, fragment 102. See Francisco
Rodríguez Adrados, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable, vol. 3, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2003, pp. 131-134.
9
  See Hesiod, Works and Days, 62 ; Lucian, Prometheus 12, 16, 17 ; Pausanias, x, 4.4 ; Apollodorus, 1,7.1 ;
       

as well as the version transmitted by Philemon, in Rudolf Kassel, Colin Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci,
vol. 7, Berlin-New York, de Gruyter, 2000, p. 221. Also about the Ovidian version and others, see Ruiz de
Elvira, op. cit., p. 93 ; Id., Prometeo, Pandora y los orígenes del hombre, « Cuadernos de filologia clásica. Estudios
   

latinos », cit., pp. 131-157 (pp. 131 and 153-156).

 
42 israel muñoz gallarte
Additionally, fables 259 and 240 2 make Prometheus not only the creator of men, but
 
1
 

also of animals. 3 Interestingly, the creation of animals explains why some human be-
 

ings are irascible by nature. In Aesop’s view, Prometheus modelled a greater number of
animals than of humans, so, he was ordered by Zeus to balance the numbers. Howev-
er, Prometheus merely transformed some of the animals into men without removing
their animal essence. 4 To sum up, in this popular version of the myth it can be observed
 

that at an early stage the myth was immensely enriched by keeping still-important de-
tails from the Hesiodic formulation, whilst at the same time acquiring new characteris-
tics ; to wit, from the simple rebel cunning against the status quo, Prometheus becomes
 

the figure of humankind’s civilizer and also the creator of human beings.

2. Prometheus in Plato’s Works

Plato supposes an important change in the paradigmatic hero ; these innovations re-  

sound throughout the works of subsequent authors, especially those of the Imperial
age. Indeed, from being a figure principally linked to religion and popular culture, Pro-
metheus’ story now becomes the perfect metaphor for explaining the philosophical
problems in Plato’s tractates. 5 Interpreted thus, Prometheus becomes a regular feature
 

in dialogues such as Gorgias 523C-524A and Protagoras 320C-324C.

In Gorgias 523C-524A Socrates expounds to Calicles in a mythical manner how the hu-
man soul after death must receive the judgement of his behaviour during life. Socrates
explains at this point that there are two essential elements : firstly, following the tra-
 

dition traced back to fable 100 of Aesop, he explains that, according to Zeus, human
souls used to cheat the judges using the clothing in which they attended the tribunals,
in order that the judges would not able to figure out the truthful essence of the de-
fendant : « Now many who have wicked souls are clad in fair bodies and ancestry and
   

wealth ». Secondly, to fix this problem, Zeus ordains Prometheus « to put a stop to their
   

foreknowledge of their death ». This suppression of foreknowledge paradoxically re-

 

quires an act on behalf of the human being ; once he ignores his date of death, he will
 

have to keep an ethically correct life without knowing the end. 6 Curiously, the Platonic
 

Prometheus does not play the trickster figure of the Hesiodic verses or the rebel ben-
efactor of humankind, but another different role as Zeus’s collaborator, in charge of
enabling and modifying souls in order to have a fair judgement in the hereafter. 7  

1
  See Perry (ed.), op. cit., fragment 259 = Hausrath et alii (eds.), op. cit., fragment 292. See Rodríguez
Adrados, op. cit., pp. 357-358.
2
  See Perry (ed.), op. cit., fragment 240 = Hausrath et alii (eds.), op. cit., fragment 228. See Rodríguez
3
Adrados, op. cit., p. 290.   A fruitful tradition, found also in Aelian, op. cit., 1,53.
4
  This tradition echoes in the lines of Plato, Timaeus 41E-42E.
5
  Regarding this topic, see Harald Haarmann, Plato’s Philosophy Reaching beyond the Limits of Reason.
Contours of a Contextual Theory of Truth, Hildesheim-Zürich-New York, Olms, 2017, pp. 19-23.
6
  Preferable to a fair judgment, the human being will be aware that his behaviour during his life should
be genuinely righteous and, consequently, his correct ethical condition will allow him to receive a better
fate ; Plato, Gorgias, 525B, 526C.
 

7
  See Radcliffe G. Edmonds III, Whip Scars on the Naked Soul : Myth and Elenchos in Plato’s Gorgias, in
 

Catherine Collobert et alii (eds.), Plato and Myth. Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myths, Leid-
en-Boston, Brill, 2012, pp. 165-186 ; Franssen, op. cit., pp. 37-39. About the ambiguous character of trick-
 

ster in the Hesiodic poems, Dougherty, op. cit., pp. 27 and 34-35, following Kerényi, interestingly attests :  

« Prometheus’ story calls attention to important cultural divisions and boundaries of archaic Greece – the
 

boundaries between humans and gods, between humans and beasts, between men and women. In ad-
dition, it accounts for those human institutions that defined Greek life at that time : sacrifice, marriage,
 
 prometheus in-between: paganism, hermeticism, and christianity 43
In its own way, Protagoras 320C-324C suggests a new turning of the Rubik’s Cube of
Prometheus, resorting to popular elements whose vein can be traced back from fables
240 and 259 of Aesop, as well as a good number of details that come from the works of
Hesiod and/or Aeschylus. Plato handles the different versions of the myth 1 with the  

intention of using them as argument in demonstration of his ethical thesis : the essential  

meaning of political wisdom in humankind. 2 Thence, the passage explains how the gods
 

created ensouled beings from soil and fire, whereas Prometheus and Epimetheus were
charged with distributing a closed number of natural capacities or δυνάμεις to defend
against the attacks of other animals ; firstly Epimetheus will take responsibility for this
 

and then Prometheus will supervise it. However, this distribution is unevenly done and,
as a result, Prometheus finds the man « naked, unshod, unbedded, unarmed », 3 which
     

pushes him to steal fire and technical wisdom την ἔντεχνον σοφίαν from Hephaestus
and Athena. Curiously, this action does not receive punishment – perhaps because the
crime is understood, on the one hand, to be beneficial to humankind and, on the other,
as a remedy of the unbalanced distribution executed by Epimetheus 4 – so Prometheus  

is only punished « through Epimetheus’ fault, and later on (the story goes) stood his trial
 

for theft ». However, humankind remains defenceless under the eyes of Zeus, so, with the
 

help of Hermes, he also gives to humanity αἰδός and δίκη, kernels whereby will emerge
the πολιτική τήχνη and the polis. 5 All in all, Plato offers an aetiological explanation for
 

the birth of the human as a political citizen with ethical implications.

3. Prometheus in the Tail of Platonism : Plutarch  

Despite the temporal distance between Plato’s writings and the works labelled under
the title of Imperial Greek literature, i-iii CE, it is worth attesting that the differences
are not that great. Rather, it must be considered that there is a cultural continuum, or
at most merely a revision, of the paradigms and discourses created during the Classical
period. Especially in the case of Prometheus, the Platonic framework produced such
powerful archetypes that they were able to cross boundaries not only of different phil-
osophical schools, but also of different cultural milieus that were cohabiting together
during these centuries.
Some examples of this idea are paradigmatic and concern transmission of the Greek
myths through generations. All along the links of the Golden Chain authors made
use of the myth to express an eminently mythical-religious content with clear ethical
connotations, as did Plato. In this section and, primarily, regarding the figure of Pro-
metheus, the importance of Plutarch is capital.

agriculture. And finally, its focus on hiding, deception, and trickery represents the ambiguous nature of the
human condition as the Greeks conceived it » (ivi, p. 35).
 

1
  About the hypothesis regarding that the myth could be an elaboration on a historical Protagoras’s
discourse, see García Gual, op. cit., pp. 54-55.
2
  See Clyde L. Miller, The Prometheus Story in Plato’s Protagoras, « Interpretation. A Journal of Political
 

Philosophy », vii, 1978, 2, pp. 22-32 ; Claude Calame, The Pragmatics of “Myth” in Plato’s Dialogues : The Story
     

of Prometheus in the Protagoras, in Catherine Collobert et alii (eds.), op. cit., pp. 127-144.
3
  Plato, Protagoras, 321C ; Engl. trans. William R. M. Lamb, Plato with an English Translation, iv, Lon-
 

don-Cambridge (Mass.), Loeb Classical Library, 1952.

4
  See García Gual, op. cit., p. 68 ; Oded Balaban, The Myth of Protagoras and Plato’s Theory of Measure-
 

ment, « History of Philosophy Quarterly », iv, 4, 1987, pp. 371-384 ; Dougherty, op. cit., p. 82.
     

5
  See García Gual, op. cit., pp. 57-58.
44 israel muñoz gallarte
Indeed, the Chaeronean is a product of his age, as Ewen Bowie briefly summarizes,
the product of an eminent education which did not change too much from the second
century BCE to around 40AD, as follows :  

The basic pattern and components of Hellenistic education seem not to have differed much
from one place to another and to have changed remarkably little over many centuries. The texts
to which a boy was introduced […] were chiefly Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and
Menander […], Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Plato in prose. 1  

Of course, the formation of Plutarch cannot be circumscribed to this short list of sub-
jects, but widely expanded to include his religious experiences, his travels, and his work
both as ambassador in Rome and priest of Delphi. 2  

Taking this into account, it is easy to admit that he is one of the most important
sources to deal with in the Classical tradition, and that the traces of the Prometheus
myth in Plutarch’s tractates are indebted to his predecessors : Hesiod, Aeschylus, Ae-  

sop, and Plato. 3 Of the dozen mentions to the Titan in Plutarch, some are direct quo-
 

tations from the works of the aforementioned authors made into authoritative argu-
ments in support of the Chaeronean’s discourse ; hence, they acquire new meanings in
 

this new framework. For example, Plutarch uses verse 86 of Works and Days 4 on two  

occasions 5 and offers an interesting reading whereby the cause of human troubles, after
 

Epimetheus’ acceptance of Pandora, are exclusively imputable to him, who is marked

as a « worthless man and a fool », 6 because he showed himself incapable of doing some-
     

thing good with the gift of the gods. Consequently, Plutarch deviates from the Hesiod-
ic myth by understanding that guilt is not deserved by all humankind, but only to those
men who, like Epimetheus, do not have the highest intellectual capabilities. Zeus, for
his part, is completely exonerated of causing something bad for humanity. 7  

The myth of Prometheus, in the version by Aeschylus, is of equal importance to

Plutarch. The author’s placement of the myth – always in important sections of his
works – demonstrates this. In fact, his Life of Pompey opens with two lines that are in-
tended to liken the feelings the Roman people had towards Pompey, to the feelings that
Prometheus had when liberated by Heracles, quoting the following verse of Prometheus
Unbound : 8 « I hate the sire, but dearly love this child of his ». 9 Similarly, at the beginning
         

1
  Ewen Bowie, Poetry and Education, in Mark Beck (ed.), A Companion to Plutarch, Malden-Oxford,
Blackwell, 2014, pp. 177-190 : p. 177.
 

2
  Ivi, pp. 177-179. See also Mark Beck, Introduction : Plutarch in Greece, in Id. (ed.), A Companion to Plutarch,
 

cit., pp. 2-6.

3
  Regarding his position in the Academy, see John Dillon, The Roots of Platonism. The Origins and Chief
Features of Philosophical Tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp. 79-93.
4
  Μή ποτε δῶρα / δέξασθαι πὰρ Ζηνὸς Ὀλυμπίου ἀλλ᾽ ἀποπέμπειν.
5
  Plutarch, How to Study Poetry 23E-F ; Chance 99F-100. See Francesco Becchi, Plutarco. “La Fortuna”,
 

Napoli, D’Auria, 2010, p. 238.

6
  Plutarch, How to Study Poetry 23F ; Engl. transl. Frank C. Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia in Sixteen vol-
 

umes, i, London-Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, 1969.

7
  See Christopher Pelling, Political Philosophy, in M. Beck (ed.), A Companion to Plutarch, cit., pp. 149-
162 : 156-157.
 

8
  Regarding the importance of Plutarch as transmitter of the Aeschylus’s fragments, see George W. M.
Harrison, Aeschylus in the Roman Empire, in Rebecca Futo Kennedy (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception
of Aeschylus, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2018, pp. 129-179 : 141-142.
 

9
  See Plutarch, Pompey 1-2 = Stefan Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1985, fragment 201 : ἐχθροῦ πατρός μοι τοῦτο φίλτατον τέκνον ; Engl. transl. Bernadotte Per-
   

rin, Plutarch’s Lives, 5, London-Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, 1955. The « sire » is a reference
   
 prometheus in-between: paganism, hermeticism, and christianity 45
of How to Profit by One’s Enemies, after developing an idea of the distribution of dinámeis
that is reminiscent of Protagoras, 1 Plutarch resorts to another verse, from Aeschylus’s
 

Prometheus the Fire-bearer : τράγος γένειον ἆρα πενθήσεις σύ γε, « You, goat, will mourn
   

your vanished beard », 2 to exemplify the ambivalence of matters and how the fire, in
   

spite of the fascination it can awake in the satyr, is also able to cause the comic burning
of his beard. Regarding Plutarch’s role as transmitter of the Aeschylean verses, it is
interesting to note the quotation included in his tractate Chance 98C : « Which gives the    

foal of horse and ass, and get / of bull, to serve us and assume our tasks ». 3 Here again    

Plutarch uses the quotation as a source of authority, with the intention of highlighting
that men are in charge of animals not « from chance or accidentally », but thanks to the
   

direct action of Prometheus, who in the Chaeronean’s opinion should be interpreted

allegorically as « the power to think and reason », ὁ Προμηθεύς, τουτέστιν ὁ λογισμός,
   

αἴτιος. 4 This kind of allegorical interpretation, by which Prometheus is an abstraction

 

of intelligence and reasoning, will have its echo in other authors we will deal with
below.
Thirdly, the figure of Prometheus as conceived by Plato is evidently traceable in the
tractates of Plutarch, to the point that the aforementioned passage of Gorgias now
serves the Chaeronean, quoted almost literally, 5 at the end of A Letter to Apollonius, 6 in
   

order to show his condolences to Apollonius for having lost his child. In this context,
the reference is used to argue that, by having faith in what the myth attests – that Zeus
imposed a judgment on naked souls, to wit, that ethical behaviour during this life can-
not be hidden – Apollonius need have no fear for the destiny of his child, due to the fact
that his ethical behaviour was commendable. 7  

Similarly, the stolen fire of Prometheus, understood allegorically by Plato as ἔντεχνον

σοφίαν, is used again in Plutarch’s Chance to remark that the arts are « minor forms of  

intelligence, or rather offshoots of intelligence », which Prometheus shared with the  

intention of fulfilling the common needs of human beings. 8  

Up to now the traditions treated of in Plutarch’s tractates depend on the four main
authors we targeted at the beginning of this article. As a result, the high fidelity with
which Plutarch uses his sources must be highlighted, although some innovations have
been observed, mostly concerning reinterpretations of the myth in order to fit it into

to Gnaeus Pompey Strabo, father of Pompey and not very well liked by his fellow citizens. The liberation
of Prometheus by Heracles is also mentioned in Plutarch, The E at Delphi 387D.
1
  See Plutarch, How to Profit by One’s Enemies, 86D.
2
  Ivi, 86F = Radt, op. cit., fragment 207 ; Engl. transl. Frank C. Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia ii, Lon-
 

don-Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, 1971. See Dougherty, op. cit., p. 61.
3
  See Plutarch, Chance 98C-D = Radt, op. cit., fragment 189a : ἵππων ὄνων τ᾽ ὀχεῖα καὶ ταύρων γονὰς
 

/ δοὺς ἀντίδουλα καὶ πόνων ἐκδέκτορα ; with the same meaning at Whether Land or Sea Animals are Cleverer
 

964F-965A ; Engl. transl. Babbitt, op. cit. ; see also Becchi, op. cit., p. 195.
   

4
  Also possibly following Aeschylus, Prometheus, 254 ; Plutarch, Whether Fire or Water is more Useful
 

956B uses the Prometheus’s discovery of fire to argue that water is older than fire and, consequently, better.
5
  Plutarch says a few lines above in his tractate « what is said in the dialogue On the Soul I will copy, with
 

comments, and send you separately, as you desired » (120E), which possibly means that what follows is a
 

quotation by heart. For the low number of variations from the Plato’s text, see the translation of Babbitt,
op. cit., pp. 208-209.
6 7
  See Plutarch, A Letter of Condolence to Apollonius, 121C-D.   Ivi, 121E-122.
8
  Regarding this allegorical interpretation in a Stoic context, see Becchi, op. cit., pp. 221-222.
46 israel muñoz gallarte
his own framework. On the other hand, it is interesting that, in the interpretation of
 
1

Plutarch, allegory is the main tool for understanding the myth. In this context, the
association of Prometheus with wisdom or intelligence, and the fire with the technical
arts, are paradigmatic.
However, other mentions to the Promethean myth are hardly reducible to the
aforementioned traditions. 2 For example, in two assessments included in Isis and Osiris
 

Plutarch affirms that Isis is the daughter of Prometheus in the following terms :  

ἔτι πολλοὶ μὲν Ἑρμοῦ, πολλοὶ δὲ Προμηθέως ἱστορήκασιν αὐτὴν θυγατέρα : ὧν τὸν μὲν ἕτε-ρον  

σοφίας καὶ προνοίας, Ἑρμῆν δὲ γραμματικῆς ; καὶ μουσικῆς εὑρετὴν νομίζοντες.

 

(Moreover, many writers have held her to be the daughter of Hermes, and many others the
daughter of Prometheus, because of the belief that Prometheus is the discoverer of wisdom
and forethought, and Hermes the inventor of grammar and music). 3  

Some of the ideas in this passage come from well-known sources, such as the associa-
tion of Prometheus with wisdom and forethought, while Hermes remains the inventor
of grammar and music. 4 However, the text is obscure. To begin with, there are not too
 

many texts that confirm Isis as Prometheus’s father, except for those of Clement of
Alexandria. 5 This lack of sources may be answered if we take into account the second
 

reference to Prometheus in the same tractate, where the Chaeronean mentions the his-
torian Anticleides, who had also added that the Egyptian goddess married Dionysus. 6  

Griffiths, in his monumental commentary to De Iside et Osiride, resolves that the re-
lationship of Prometheus and Isis is not an Egyptian tradition, since this attests that
Isis’s father is Geb, 7 but here Plutarch may be echoing either an association of Isis
 

with wisdom, which seem less probable, or a confusion of Prometheus and Hermes,
which may be traceable back to Plato’s Protagoras, when Zeus, after the distribution of
dinámeis, teaches humanity morality and justice through Hermes. 8  

This association between the divinity and the Titan became especially relevant in
Hermetic literature, such as at the end of the tractate Kore Kosmou, where the typical
actions and characteristics of Prometheus are now assigned to Hermes. 9 However, the  

1
  See Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta, Plutarch at the Crossroads of Religion and Philosophy, in Id. and Israel
Muñoz Gallarte (eds.), Plutarch in the Religious and Philosophical Discourse of Late Antiquity, Leiden-Bos-
ton, Brill, 2012, pp. 1-24.
2
  Regarding the Plutarch’s mention of the punishment of Prometheus as oblivion, in connection with
Sisyphus, Plutarch, Is “Live Unknown” a Wise Precept ? 1130C-D, see Israel Muñoz Gallarte, The Topic of
 

the Eternal Punishment in the Afterlife, in Stefano Amendola et alii (eds.), Immagini letterarie e iconografía nelle
opere di Plutarco, Madrid, Ediciones clásicas, 2017, pp. 194-196.
3
  See Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 352A-B ; Engl. transl. Frank C. Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia v, Lon-
 

don-Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, 1969.

4
  The good fortune of this association is also traceable in Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the
Gospel 11,18.1.
5
  Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 1.21 quotes the author of the iii b.C., Istrus.
6
  See Felix Jacoby, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2007, fragment 140F 13 ; Her-
 

odotus, 2,156. John G. Griffiths, Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride, Wales, University of Wales Press, 1970, p.
443.
7 8
  Ivi, pp. 263-264.   See Plato, Protagoras, 322C-D.
9
  See, for instance, Kore Kosmou, 48 ; Walter Scott, Hermetica : The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings
   

which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus, iv, London, Dawson, 1968,
p. 459. Regarding the relationship between Plutarch and Hermetism it is still useful George R. S. Mead,
Thrice-Greatest Hermes. Studies in Hellenistic Theosophy and Gnosis, i, London-Benares, The Theosophical
Publishing Society, 1906, pp. 261-263 ; Jacques Boulogne, Plutarque et l’hermétisme, in José Ribeiro Fer-
 
 prometheus in-between: paganism, hermeticism, and christianity 47
name of Prometheus is not mentioned in the so-called Corpus Hermeticum except by an 1
 

author from the second half of the second century, Numenius of Apamea. Indeed, in
fragment 14 2 Numenius argues how God transfers his wisdom, or « beautiful science »,
     

to human beings without losing it, and explains this process with the metaphor of a
lamp used to light another without losing its own light. To close the passage, Numeni-
us turns to Plato’s Philebus 16C in affirming that « wisdom came to men by (the) offices
 

of Prometheus ‘along with a blazing fire’ ». 3 In this manner, Numenius also continues
   

usage of the aforementioned image of Plutarch’s Chance.

To sum up, it seems that Plutarch’s allusions to the myth of Prometheus follow at
least five traditions : on the one hand, there are the written sources that the Chaero-
 

nean knows and quotes literally, even if he gives them new meaning to fit them into
his discursive strategy – the frequent use of these as arguments of authority. In these
cases, the traditions are well known, such as in the works of Hesiod, Aeschylus, Plato
and Aesop. Alongside these there is a fifth, as attested in De Iside et Oriride, which may
be traceable to the historian Anticleides, whereby the association of Prometheus with
Hermes can be highlighted, as can be seen also in Hermetic literature.

4. Prometheus in Early Christianity

Finally, the Christian works of the first centuries of our era offer a renovated version
of the Prometheus’ myth. On the one hand, the apologetic character of the writings
has the general intention of discouraging pagan beliefs ; on the other hand, the Greek
 

myth – doubtlessly attractive, especially in parallel with others such as the stories of

Genesis – could be helpful either as example or counter-example of the teachings. In
this context, the Oratio ad Graecos of Tatian 4 provides an authentic garden of references
 

to the classics. The myth of Prometheus is mentioned on three occasions.

On the first occasion, Tatian criticizes the cults dedicated to Greek gods and heroes,
especially the rituals that the author observes as strange, by arguing that the sacrificial
animals, in his view, are also worshipped :  

Θύεις πρόβατον, τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ προσκυνεῖς· ταῦρός ἐστιν ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα σφάττεις
αὐτοῦ. Ζῷον πονηρὸν ὁ Ἐν γόνασιν ἐκθλίβει, καὶ <ὁ> τὸν ἀνθρωποποιὸν Προμηθέα καταφαγὼν
ἀετὸς τετίμηται.
(You sacrifice a sheep, but you also worship it ; there is a bull and you slaughter its likeness. The
 

Kneeler crushes a horrid monster, and honour is paid to the eagle which fed on Prometheus,
creator of mankind). 5  

reira et alii (eds.), Philosophy in Society : Virtues and Values in Plutarch, Leuven-Coimbra, Katholieke Uni-
 

versiteit Leuven-Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, 2008, pp. 53-64. Of course, this association with
Hermes – and also with Phoroneus ; Pausanias 2,19.5 – is old and can be traced back from the Homeric
 

Hymn to Hermes, 4, 111-142.

1
  However, in the tractates of the alchemist Zosimos of Panopolis (iii-iv CE) the figure of Prometheus
is of capital importance ; see Michèle Mertens, Les alchimistes grecs, iv.1, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1995, cc.
 

3, 14, and 19. Also, García Gual points to Gnosis as a possible inspiration in the subsequent tradition of
Prometheus ; see op. cit., p. 60 and note 10.
 

2
  See George Boys-Stones, Platonist Philosophy 80BC to AD 250 : An Introduction and Collection of Sources in
 

Translation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018, fragment 14.

3
  André-Jean Festugière, La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste, iii, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1990, p. 46.
4
  About his background, education and literary style, see Molly Whittaker, Oratio ad Graecos and
Fragments, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1982, pp. x-xiv.
5
  See Tatian, Address to the Greeks 10,2. Ed. by Miroslav Marcovich, Tatiani, Ortio ad Graecos, Berlin-New
York, de Gruyter, 1995 ; Engl. transl. Molly Whittaker, op. cit.
 
48 israel muñoz gallarte

As is known, Prometheus was worshipped in Athens, although usually linked to the

cults of other divinities, especially Hephaestus and Athena, who are all related to the
act of giving fire to humanity. Thence, the three gods shared the altar inside the en-
closure of the Academia and, in the specific case of Prometheus, he was celebrated in
the annual festival of Promethea – with the so-called race of torches. 1 However, the  

account of sacrificed eagles honoured up to Prometheus, and that even the birds had a
cult following, must be understood as an exaggeration by Tatian, who looks to ridicule
the Greek rituals by resorting to popular anecdotes that may have come from the ac-
counts of Hesiod and Aeschylus.
The next attack of Tatian resorts to the original myth, surely following the versions
of the last two authors mentioned, in which Tatian affirms « Prometheus, chained  

to the Caucasus, endured punishment for his benefaction to men. According to you
(scil. Greeks) Zeus is jealous and hid the dream because he wanted mankind to be
destroyed ». 2 Curiously, against the interpretation of Plutarch, Tatian seems to attest a
   

common belief among Greeks that does not exonerate Zeus of his intention to punish
humanity. This is used as a discursive tool to attack their beliefs, because to describe the
god of the Olympians as « jealous » and anxious to destroy his believers is, in Tatian’s
   

words, nothing other than « nonsense » – φλήναφα. 3

     

Finally, the third reference tries to chronologically allocate the figure of Prometheus,
together with his brother Epimetheus, Atlas, Cecrops and Io, to the period during the
kingship of the mythical king of Rhodas, Triopas, a motif that Eusebio de Caesarea
will return to at the end of the third Century. 4  

Seemingly more conciliatory than Tatian, Tertullian also deals with the mythological
tradition. 5 Indeed, he uses it when he attempts to argue that God, since the beginning
 

of creation, has put in human hands the tools for achieving salvation. Regarding Pro-
metheus, the following text is enlightening :  

For from the first He sent messengers into the world, – men whose stainless righteousness made
them worthy to know the Most High, and to reveal Him – men abundantly endowed with the
Holy Spirit, that they might proclaim that there is one God only who made all things, who
formed man from the dust of the ground (for He is the true Prometheus who gave order to the
world by arranging the seasons and their course). 6  

1
  See Pausanias, 1,30.2. See Paola Pisi, Prometeo nel culto attico, Roma, Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1990 ; Jan
 

N. Bremmer, La religión griega. Dioses y hombres : santuarios, rituales y mitos, Cordoba, El Almendro, 2006, p.
 

34 ; Dougherty, op. cit., pp. 50-56.

 

2
  See Tatian, Address to the Greeks 21,3. Whittaker, op. cit., p. 43, also points to the ‘baneful dream’ as an
allusion to Homer, Iliad 2,3-6.
3
  This idea contradicts one of the Plato’s basic assessments : « He (scil. God) was good, and in him that is
   

good no envy ariseth ever concerning anything » (Plato, Timaeus 29E). About the fortune of this paradigm
 

in late antiquity, see Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta, Plutarch’s Idea of God in the Religious and Philosophical
Context of Late Antiquity, in Id. and Israel Muñoz Gallarte (eds.), op cit., pp. 144-150.
4
  See Tatian, op. cit., p. 4. About the relationship of Prometheus and Io already in the Aeschylus’ tragedy,
see Dougherty, op. cit., p. 70.
5
  See Jean-Claude Fredouille, Tertullien et la culture antique, « Cahiers des études anciennes », xiv, 1982,
   

pp. 197-206.
6
  Tertullian, The Apology 18,2 ; Engl. transl. Philip Schaff and Allan Menzies, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3,
 

Edinburgh-Michigan, T&T Clark-Eerdmans, 1896. See Franssen, op. cit., pp. 56-57.
 prometheus in-between: paganism, hermeticism, and christianity 49

Tertullian, therefore, seems to resort to the popular tradition, specifically to that

which is traceable back to fable 100 of Aesop, whereby the Titan is put in charge of
moulding the human being from mud, here denoted by the verb struere, and of organ-
izing the seasons. As we mentioned before, this reference to the Promethean myth
must be contextualized with others that are of interest for the similitudes they contain
between Greek mythology and Genesis. Here, Tertullian associates Prometheus with
God by presenting both as the creators of the cosmos, although it is noteworthy that
for Tertullian Prometheus is the name erroneously used by the pagans for the God
of the OT. 1  

A similar vein can also be traced in the works of Eusebius of Caesarea as early as the
third Century. Along with Tatian, Eusebius proposes in his Chronography a relative chro-
nology in which he dates the three Titans to the period during the kingship of Cecrops
Diphyes, a contemporary of Triopas. However, in contrast to Tatian, 2 Eusebius adds  

that the life of Prometheus occurred before the flood of Deucalion, when Moses « had  

become recognized amongst the Hebrews ». 3 More important than the low level of
   

historicity for this is the fact that it can be seen as an attempt among the early Christian
authors to not only provide a logical, temporal line of facts, but also to subsume the
stories and features of different traditions : Christian, Greek, and Egyptian.
 

In fact, Eusebius again makes reference to this issue in his Praepatatio Evangelica, but
here he adds much more detail. Firstly, after briefing the relative chronology of the
Titan, Eusebius, as does Plutarch, presents Prometheus as a contemporary of Isis, even
if he does not here specify the parental relationship between them ; he merely explains
 

that Isis is the name that the Egyptians use instead of Io, « the daughter of Inachus ». 4
     

However, he repeats later on that she was the daughter of Prometheus, on the one
hand mentioning the supposed Egyptian assimilation of Isis and Io, and on the other
resorting to Istros’s book of the migration of the Egyptians.
Besides this, Eusebius appears interested in Prometheus as the creator of human-
kind and refers to an account allegedly taken from Africanus, in which the Titan « was  

said in the legend to form men ; for being a wise man he tried to reform them out of
 

their extreme uncouthness – ἀπὸ τῆς ἄγαν ἰδιωτείας – into an educated condition ». 5    

This reference may point to the popular conception of Prometheus as the creator of
humanity and the tradition of him as prótos heuretés, due to the fact that the use of the
Greek term does not seem to be a reference to wisdom, but has possibly been refined
to relate to the teaching of practical arts.

1
  See, for example, the Lactantius’ accusations against the same ideas in The Divine Institutes 10,5-15 ; see  

Franssen, op. cit., 57-59.

2
  Mention quoted in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 10,11.3.
3
  See Eusebius, Chronicle 66,1 ; Engl. trans. by Robert Bedrosian, Eusebius’ Chronicle, 2008, http ://www.
   

tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_chronicon_02_intro.htm [12/7/2019]. However, in Preparation for the Gos-

pel 10,10.4 Eusebius refers to an account that dates Prometheus as « later than Moses, their floods, and
 

conflagration » ; also at 10,12.3.

   

4
  See Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 10,9.19 and 10,12.1.
5
  Ivi, 10,10.4 ; Engl. transl. Edwin H. Gifford, Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, Eugene, Wipf and
 

Stock, 2002. Similarly, he finds an argument of authority in the quoted verses of Callimachus : « they that
   

swim the sea or tread the earth / spake like the clay Prometheus called to life », and « If thou wast fashioned
   

by Prometheus’ hand, and not of other clay » (ivi 13,13.5).

 
50 israel muñoz gallarte

Conclusions
It is time to draw some conclusions. We are aware that we have not dealt with all refer-
ences to the myth of Prometheus in Greek literature, but such a task would go beyond
the aim of this paper. Rather, we have briefly described the genesis of the Prometheus
figure by the hands of Hesiod, Aeschylus, Aesop and Plato. Each of these adds new
faces and interpretations to the myth of Prometheus. In this regard, Hesiod seems
to be interested in Prometheus the cunning trickster who challenges the inexorable
power of justice, represented by Zeus ; Aeschylus focuses on the Titan’s tragic aspect
 

by treating of how the benefactor of humankind was tyrannically punished until his re-
demption at the hands of Heracles ; Aesop shows a brighter facet of Prometheus, more
 

concerned with his activity as the modeller of animate beings ; finally Plato, whilst
 

echoing earlier traditions, uses the myth in his own way, offering an aetiological origin
for human behaviour.
Interestingly, Plutarch represents a new stage in the tradition. On the one hand he
shows himself to be respectful to the Classical sources of the myth, which he refers to
within his own ethical point of view and conceptual framework. On the other hand, he
also shows an important tendency to explain allegorically several details of the myth,
and to apparently innovate by taking into account sources that have not been pre-
served. The Fathers of the Church, in their own way, seem ambivalent towards the
myth, using it either for comparison with biblical myths, or to ridicule pagan beliefs.
When we compare these last two corpora of sources, in the case we are dealing with
it must be highlighted that the myth’s transmission appears to have not only a vertical
movement – from the earlier texts to the later ones – but also horizontal movement
between authors of the same era. Therefore, as well as the cultural continuum that is
completely accepted by academia, there are traces of a « bricolage’ mythopoétique » or
   

« koiné philosophique » 1 typical of the second and third centuries, which would break
     

down the boundaries between paganism and Christianity, and is surely deserving of
more attention.

1
  André-Jean Festugière, La Révélation d’Hermès Trimégiste, v. 3. Les doctrines de l’âme, Paris, Les Belles
Lettres, 1990, p. 2 ; Yvonne Vernière, in her Symboles et Mythes dans la pensé de Plutarque. Essai d’interpréta-
 

tion philosophique et religieuse des Moralia (Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1977, p. 178), modifying the terminology
of Claude Levi-Strauss of « bricolage intellectuel ».
   
 co mp o sto i n ca r att e r e s e r r a da n t e dal la
fabr iz io s er r a ed i tor e, p is a · rom a .
sta m pato e r i l e gato n e l la
t i po g r a f ia d i ag na n o, ag na n o p is an o ( p is a) .

*
Febbraio 2020
( c z 2 · f g 1 3)