In Prometheus Bound, Aeschylus illustrates the clash between rebellion and conformity. Aeschylus heightens this confrontation by placing the mythological figures of Prometheus and Zeus at loggerheads over giving humans the use of fire. The stakes could not be greater and the personalities are vastly larger than life. However, this is no dry recitation of objective facts before an assembled group of impartial judges. Aeschylus, and humanity, has always been fully #TeamPrometheus. How could we not? The value of fire in all its symbolic glory is priceless, and besides we never had to pay for Prometheus’s transgression. Nevertheless, it is Aeschylus’ use of structure and wording throughout the play that demonstrates his abiding bias against Zeus.
From his origins, Aeschylus has been a creature of Athens and its city-state design. The Greeks free wheeling ways were far more in sync with Prometheus’s trickery than the kingship of one like Zeus. Certainly, the need for unwavering obedience to authority would have had a far more positive reception had Aeschylus lived amongst the militaristic and correspondingly rigid hierarchy of the Spartans.
From the first lines of dialogue, Aeschylus shows his hand. When Kratos says in discussing the punishment about to meted out to Prometheus, “That he may learn to bear Zeus’ Tyranny.” Tyrants are not loved. Despotic rulers are not met with acclaim. Zeus’ rule is something like chronic pain and it must be met with stoicism. Kratos (power) understands this. He intimates that Prometheus still needs instruction in this area. Interestingly, the slight amount of ambivalence Aeschylus shows towards Prometheus is evident in Kratos next utterance, “ And cease to play the lover of mankind.” Obviously, Kratos views Prometheus’ desire to gift human’s fire as not proof of his benevolence towards the human race. Instead, Kratos credits Prometheus with acting a role, playing humanity’s benefactor. Why Prometheus does this Kratos doesn’t say, but later it appears Aeschylus has some misgivings about Prometheus and narcissism.
Regardless, following Kratos pragmatic understanding of the situation, Hephaestus, blacksmith and all things handy to the Gods, follows on with an insightful comment about the odds of Zeus being receptive to Prometheus’ apology: “Thy voice; for Zeus is hard to be entreated, As new born power is ever pitiless.” Aeschylus uses Hephaestus to underscore that Zeus is still a young king, and as such, will want to appear hard to those who he rules. So even if Prometheus were to suddenly see the light and issue a full and formal apology, Zeus will not be receptive. This demonstrates that Aeschylus believes Zeus’ needs to make an example of the Titan and the course the King lays down is one of necessity and not all about Prometheus’ actions.
Hephaestus continues to lament his assigned tack when Kratos reminds him, “Why, all things are a burden save to rule Over the Gods; for none is free but Zeus.” This seems a particularly unsympathetic take on the tasks of a King. Strictly, of course everyone is subject to a king’s authority, but to make the assertion there’s no burden in rule seems factually inaccurate and makes me question if Aeschylus isn’t engaging in sarcasm by having Kratos make light of Hephaestus melancholy by intimating that the blacksmith is not the only one who’s got problems.
Having detailed Kratos’ no nonsense approach, Aeschylus then has him say, “with a sound rap knock the pins home! For heavy handed is thy taskmaster.” Like Hephaestus hammering into the rock Prometheus’ chains, so Aeschylus is making it clear he is no friend to Zeus. Kratos statement is the last in a long line that exhorts Hephaestus to do his job and do it well. Masterfully, the last line is both a veiled warning to Hephaestus about failing Zeus and sly take down of the King of the Gods. By naming Zeus a taskmaster he again uses the negative connotations that are akin to tyrant, and he mocks Zeus’ tactics by pointing out they lack nuance. In other words, instead of trying to get an apology from Prometheus using one’s wiles, Zeus has devised an outlandish and unending torture – how subtle.
Now, Aeschylus has Prometheus take center stage, and besides his various lamentation at his fate, he says, “I know the heart of Zeus is hard, that he hath tied Justice to his side.” The implication here is that Zeus is in the wrong. Why else the need to Confine Justice. Justice freely delivered should be able to go where it likes. Zeus’ restrictions on Justice further demonstrate his aforementioned tyranny. Prometheus is never far from the tyrant phrase, saying, “The tyrant of the Gods…but tis a common malady of power, tyrannical never to trust a friend.” So in Prometheus’ mind, and arguably Aeschylus’ as well, Zeus suffers a sickness. The ruler of the God’s is unwell, and on top of that he lacks the wisdom to see Prometheus as the friend he purports to be.” Interestingly, this last statement does bleed into the notion that Prometheus might be a bit of a drama queen. I know, hard to make the case when you’re tied to a rock, having your liver perpetually eaten, but just after, Prometheus says, “behold a thing to gaze upon, the Friend of Zeus co-stablisher of his rule.” It’s hard not to see in Prometheus’ statement as a bit of the ‘woe is me’. Prometheus takes great credit on Zeus’ victory, casts himself as the God’s friend, and then demands we look on his sorry state. There’s a gauzy line between tragedy and the maudlin, and the lines even more blurred when dealing with characters that are so much more symbols than real people, but I think Prometheus is standing right on the line at this point.
Aeschylus is on firmer ground in his support of Prometheus when he writes, “First, being himself a God, he burneth to enjoy a mortal maid, and then torments her with these wanderings. A sorry suitor.” Aeschylus comments on Zeus standing so far above the poor human woman Io and reminds us indirectly how terribly the woman has been treated(turning a woman who spurns you into a cow is a definite #MeToo moment by the way). Aeschylus goes further, writing, “Though art not even in the overture.” In other words, the depravity of Zeus is far worse than his dating habits, and now Aeschylus is just getting started.
Later, the story’s power comes from Prometheus’ interactions with Hermes, the speedy winged god. After hearing that Prometheus has the oracular insight that Zeus will fall from a doomed engagement, Zeus sends Hermes to see if Prometheus can be made to negotiate for the information. Prometheus meets Hermes with a sneer of contempt and says, “Go thou and worship; fold thy hands in prayer, And be the dog that licks the foot of power!” So not the best way to start a negotiation. Prometheus’ statement also falls under the heading of killing the messenger because one doesn’t like the message. Why make an enemy of Hermes? Here again, is Aeschylus trying to take a more ambiguous position in regards the rightness of Prometheus. Does this unvarnished anger towards Hermes. show that the Titan is not as wise, and therefore not as honorable as some might argue? A conclusion on this point is difficult to come to.
Most importantly, one must continue to see Prometheus as a symbol and less a character. Since, a character being tortured would never have much in the way of positive consideration for anyone. Nevertheless, Hermes takes Prometheus criticisms well. “Time hath not yet taught thy rash, imperious will, Over wild impulse to win mastery.” There’s definite irony here. Prometheus has been stressing and denigrating Hermes for his youth, and yet it is Hermes who keeps a cool head and reminds Prometheus of the virtues of a more mature mind(But again Hermes ain’t the one chained to the rock, so a little intellectual perspective is easier to come by).
Prometheus Bound is more a start to the question of liberty versus tyranny than any kind of end. Today, Americans enjoy far more freedom socially, economically, and politically than even the democratically minded Athenians enjoyed. Nevertheless, the core issue of the freedom of one to act against the collective wishes of a majority are still with us. When should one buck the tide and stand for what one believes? These calculations are always easy make in hindsight. Rosa Parks refusing to take her seat in the back of the bus. Martin Luther King being arrested in Birmingham are all moments of personal liberty that are easy to applaud from our position further down the stream of history.
More contemporary, what about Colin Kaepernick? Regardless of your position on what he’s protesting, or the venue he chose, anyone would agree that the issue today is quite contentious. Therefore being for liberty in the moment is far more difficult than siding with folks who are long dead. I mean are even the British still pissed we broke away from their country.
The deeper question, and the one that I think is the crux of the issue over individual liberty and following order, is when an individual is doing something that the vast majority and history has proven is wrong. Example: an individual owns a business and refuses to serve African-Americans. Obviously, that seems morally objectionable, but isn’t that person exhibiting the same bravery and individuality of a Rosa Parks? My point is that in looking at this issue of conformity one shouldn’t base their perceptions on their opinions of the individual’s actions because history demonstrates how much popular opinion can change. In a somewhat similar vein, the French Voltaire was credited with saying, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Certainly and unfortunately, that defense of principle is in short supply in today’s America.
...(download the rest of the essay above)