Prometheus es in verbis

Lucian of Samosata

Lucian, Vol. 6. Kilburn, K., translator. London: William Heinemann, Ltd.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.

So you say I am a Prometheus? If by this, my friend, you mean that my works like his are of clay, I accept the comparison and agree that I am like him. I don’t object to being called a clay-worker, even if my mud is rather dirty stuff from a road-junction, little better than filth. But if you are over-praising my words, implying that they are well wrought and graciously assigning the name of the wisest of the Titans to them, you may find that people will detect irony and an Attic sniff in your praise. In what way is my work well wrought? What superlative wisdom and Promethean foresight is there in my writings? I am quite content if you thought them not too earthy, not quite worthy of the Caucasus. Yet how much more just would it be to compare to Prometheus all you people who win fame by fighting real battles in the courts! What you do is truly alive and breathing and, yes, its heat is that of fire. [*](Prometheus stole fire and gave it to mortals.) This too is from Prometheus with the sole difference that what you fashion is not clay but in many cases your fictions are golden.

v.6.p.421

We however who come before a crowd and offer our lectures, such as they are, show you a few figurines, and our modelling is entirely in mud as I said just now, like that of doll-makers. In general there is no movement in them that corresponds to life nor any indication of breathing. No, the whole business is empty enjoyment and play. So it’s occurring to me to wonder whether you are calling me Prometheus as the comic poet called Cleon Prometheus. He says of him, you remember,

  1. “Cleon’s a Prometheus after the event.” [*](Eupolis, Frag. 456 Kock.)
The very Athenians used to call potters and oven-workers and all workers in clay “Prometheuses,” in jest at the clay or even perhaps the way they burn their products in the furnace. If your “Prometheus” means that, you have hit the mark well with an Attic pungency of wit, since our works too are as fragile as their pots—throw a little stone and you would smash the lot.

Yet someone might console me by saying “It was not in these respects that he compared you to Prometheus. No, he was praising your originality in following no exemplar, just as Prometheus at a time when no men existed fashioned them from his imagination, when he gave shape and form to such living creatures that they might move easily and be graceful to see. He was the master-craftsman, though Athena helped by breathing into the mud and

v.6.p.423
making the models live.” That is what he might say, putting at least a gracious interpretation on your words, and perhaps that was what you meant. Yet I am not at all satisfied to be thought an innovator with no older model to father this work of mine. No, if it were not thought graceful as well, I should certainly be ashamed of it, believe me, and trample it under foot and destroy it. The originality would be no help, as far as I am concerned, to prevent the ugly thing’s being obliterated. If I didn’t think this, I should consider it right to have sixteen vultures tear me for not understanding how much uglier are the things which suffer this when they are combined with novelty. Take an example.

Ptolemy the son of Lagus brought two novelties to Egypt—a completely black Bactrian camel and a man of two colours, half jet-black and half dazzlingly white, the colours equally divided. He assembled the Egyptians in the theatre, where he put on a lot of other shows for them and lastly this, the black camel and the half-white man, thinking to amaze them by the spectacle. The spectators however took fright at the camel and all but jumped up and ran away—and that though the camel was adorned all over with gold and draped in sea-purple and the bridle was set with gems, the treasure of some Darius or Cambyses or Cyrus himself. As for the man, most of them laughed, but some were disgusted as at a monstrosity. So when Ptolemy realised that he got no credit in their eyes and the Egyptians did not admire the novelty but

v.6.p.425
set more store on beauty of form and line, he sent them away and esteemed them no longer as before. The camel died through neglect, and the half-and-half man he presented to Thespis the pipe-player for playing prettily at a carousal.

I am afraid that my work too is a camel in Egypt and people admire its bridle and its sea-purple, since even the combination of those two very fine creations, dialogue and comedy, is not enough for beauty of form if the blending lacks harmony and symmetry. The synthesis of two fine things can be a freak—the hippocentaur is an obvious example: you would not call this creature charming, rather a monstrosity, to go by the paintings of their drunken orgies and murders. Well then, can nothing beautiful come from the synthesis of two things of high quality, as the mixture of wine and honey is exceedingly pleasant? Yes, certainly. But I cannot maintain that this is the case with my two: I’m afraid that the beauty of each has been lost in the blending.

Dialogue and comedy were not entirely friendly and compatible from the beginning. Dialogue used to sit at home by himself and indeed spend his time in the public walks with a few companions; Comedy gave herself to Dionysus and joined him in the theatre, had fun with him, jested and joked, sometimes stepping in time to the pipe and generally riding on anapaests. Dialogue’s companions she

v.6.p.427
mocked as “Heavy-thinkers”, “High-talkers”, and suchlike. She had one delight—to deride them and drown them in Dionysiac liberties. She showed them now walking on air and mixing with the clouds, now measuring sandals for fleas [*](In the Clouds of Aristophanes, 144 ff.) —her notion of heavenly subtleties, I suppose! Dialogue however took his conversations very seriously, philosophising about nature and virtue. So, in musical terms, there were two octaves between them, from highest to lowest. Nevertheless I have dared to combine them as they are into a harmony, though they are not in the least docile and do not easily tolerate partnership.

Well, I am afraid that I in my turn may seem to have acted something like your Prometheus in mixing female with male and may be charged with that; or rather that I may seem a Prometheus in another respect—in deceiving my listeners perhaps by giving them bones covered in fat, [*](See Hesiod, Theogony 537 ff.) comic jests under philosophic solemnity. For as to theft (he is the god of theft), away with that charge! this alone you could not say was in my works. Whom could I steal from? Unless someone has invented such fish-horses and goat-stags independently without my knowing. But what could I do? I must abide by what I chose once and for all. To change one’s plan is the work of Epimetheus, not Prometheus. [*](I.e., Afterthought, not Forethought.)