Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:46:58.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chains of imagery in Prometheus Bound

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. M. Mossman
J. M. Mossman
Affiliation:
Trinity College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Aeschylus' imagery has for some time now been discussed as a feature of his dramatic technique which does more than merely adorn his work. Lebeck, for example, has described how images articulate the Oresteia:

The images of the Oresteia are not isolated units which can be examined separately. Each one is part of a larger whole: a system of kindred imagery. They are connected to one another by verbal similarity rather than verbal duplication. Formulaic (verbatim) repetition is rare, except in the cases of single ‘key’ words; it is replaced by associative or reminiscent repetition. Such repetition may evoke several different passages, yet correspond exactly to none. Each occurrence adds a new element to those with which it is associated. Often this expansion will be a blend of two images previously separate, preserving features reminiscent of both. In this way the different systems of imagery are intricately interwoven. The significance of a recurrent image unfolds in successive stages, keeping time with the action of the drama.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , May 1996 , pp. 58 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lebeck, Anne, The Oresteia: A Study in Language and Structure (Washington, 1971), 1.Google ScholarSee also Froma Zeitlin, I, ‘The Motif of the Corrupted Sacrifice in Aeschylus ’ Oresteia ', TAPA 96 (1965), 463–508, esp. 463.Google ScholarAn excellent, and extremely concise, account of the imagery of the Oresteia is also to be found in Garvie, A. F. (ed.), Aeschylus: Choephori (Oxford, 1986), xxxvi–xxxviii. This paper began life as part of a lecture for undergraduates at Oxford University; it was then delivered to a graduate work-in-progress seminar there and finally, in a later incarnation, to a conference on Greek tragedy at the Royal Irish Academy. I am grateful to John Dillon and Pat Easterling for their encouragement and helpful comments on the latter occasion, and to Stephen Heyworth and an anonymous referee for improvements at a later stage. This paper would never have been written had I not at every stage had the benefit of the generous and stimulating conversation of Christopher Pelling, from whose imaginative and sensitive approach I have gained immensely.Google Scholar

2 West, M. L, rev. Garvie (n. 1 above), Gnomon 59 (1987), 193–8, esp. 195–6.Google Scholar

3 Lakoff, George and Turner, Mark, More than Cool Reason (Chicago, 1989), 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Lakoff and Turner (n. 3 above), 159.

5 See Lebeck (n. 1 above), 2, Garvie (n. 1 above), xxxvii, and especially Zeitlin (n. 1 above), 488.

6 Lakoff and Turner (n. 3 above), 57–8. For other accounts of the nature of metaphor, and IsWide-ranging bibliography on the subject, see Silk, M. S, Interaction in Poetic Imagery (Cambridge, 1974), esp. 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See Lloyd, G. E. R, Polarity and Analogy (Cambridge, 1966, 228 ' it is doubtful whether any general distinction between the literal and metaphorical use of a term was consciously and; explicitly drawn before the fourth century'),Google ScholarThe Revolutions of Wisdom: Studies in the Claims and Practice of Ancient Greek Science (Berkeley, 1987), 172–214; Silk (n. 6 above), 34 n. 1;Google ScholarPadel, R, In andOut of the Mind: Greek Images of the Tragic Self (Princeton, 1992, 10 n. 19, 33–40, ) 132 and 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 See Lloyd (n. 7 above), 1966, 192–3; 1987, 174–6. The use of the word to mean a comparison (e.g. Ar. Clouds 559, Frogs 906) may suggest that fifth-century Greeks thought of ‘ it as functioning as an image, using a metaphor similar to our own to describe metaphor (on the inescapability of this, see Derrida, Jacques, ‘Le retrait de la métaphore’ in Psyché. Inventions de l'autre [Paris, 1987], 63–93, esp. 64). But Lloyd (n. 7 above [1966], 228) seems to discount this possibility.Google Scholar

9 See Lloyd (n. 7 above, [1987]), 175–6: ‘before the literal/metaphorical dichotomy is available, while a speaker may have a greater or a lesser sense of some difference between “pour” said of sleep and “pour” said of wine or water, it is truistic to say that the phrase will not be seen as a metaphor. It is that dichotomy that erects that particular would-be perspicuous and definite barrier, even though in practice those who wish to erect it generally find it hard to say precisely where it comes. ’ Lloyd's concerns are formulated in the context of Greek philosophy, medicine, and science. While it would be wrong to claim that these areas are qualitatively different from poetry, one might still feel that the urge to press the issue of the 'literal ’ vs. ‘metaphorical’ use of a term or ‘literal belief vs. ‘metaphorical expression’ is one felt particularly in the context of tracing what the Greeks believed about the world at any one time. It is no accident that the metaphor in Prometheus Bound which is most elusive is the metaphor of sickness and disease. Padel (n. 7 above), 33–40 is well aware of this

10 See Lloyd (n. 7 above), 210: ‘Aristotle's invention of the metaphorical/literal dichotomy; involved the stipulation of criteria for truth that at one stroke downgraded—even ruled out—poetry, most traditional wisdom, and even much of earlier philosophy. ’ See also Padel (n. 7 above), 158.

11 So also Padel (n. 7 above), 39–40. That such ambivalence can be a productive area for criticism rather than a problem has been demonstrated with regard to the Oresteia by Nicole Loraux, ‘La métaphore sans métaphore: à propos de l'Orestie', Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'etranger 180.2 (1990), 247–68. I owe this reference to Wilson, PeterGoogle Scholar

12 The simile of the vultures who have lost their chicks at Ag. 49ff. gives way to the real eagles who tear apart the pregnant hare at Ag. 114–20; but at Cho. 247ff. the birds of prey are once again metaphoric.

13 See Garvie (n. 1 above), xxxvii, and Macleod, C. W, ‘Politics and the Oresteia ', JHS 102 (1982), 124–44, esp. 137–8 (Collected Papers, Oxford 1983, 20–40, esp. 33–4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 In what follows metaphors and similes will be treated indifferently as imagery. This can be justified: metaphors and similes are often just as metaphoric as each other and the difference is merely a matter of expression: see Lodge, David, The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology of Modern Literature (London, 1977), 113, where he points out that '…a writer does not always enjoy freedom of choice between expressing a perceived similarity through metaphor or simile because… very often the language he is using does not permit him to use the former trope. Graham Greene, for instance, describes an African baby as “ smiling like an open piano ”(In Search of a Character [1961], p. 18), and it is difficult to see how the analogy could be expressed in metaphor proper. Secondly, the factor of “distance ”between tenor and vehicle is more significant than the choice of metaphor or simile. [He then quotes an extended passage from Virginia Woolf's The Waves [1931], p. 94 as an example.] This is the metaphoric imagination running riot, and the fact that the vision is expressed sometimes through metaphor proper and sometimes through simile doesn't seem to make much difference. ’ I owe this reference to Michael Lloyd.Google Scholar

15 For P. Fire-bearer see frs. 208 and 208a Radt, and I would understand Aristophanes, Birds 1494–552 as a parody of this play's account of the theft of fire (pace Rau, P, Paratragodia: Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes, Zetemata 45 [1967], 175–7).Google ScholarThis was first suggested by Sande Bakhuyzen, W. H.van de, De Parodia in Comoediis Aristophanis (Utrecht, 1877), 89–101.Google ScholarSee N., Dunbar (ed.), Aristophanes, Birds (Oxford, 1995), ad 199–200 and 1494Google Scholarand in particular Mark, Griffith (ed.), Aeschylus: Prometheus Bound (Cambridge, 1983), esp. 281–305. All the evidence is collected there in a most clear and helpful manner.Google ScholarI cannot agree with Winnington-Ingram, R. P, Studies in Aeschylus (Cambridge, 1983), 188–9,Google Scholar or Brown, A. L, ‘Prometheus Pyrphoros ', BICS 37 (1990), 50–6, esp. 52, when they claim that Prometheus Bound is devoted to exposition and therefore stood alone or at the start of a trilogy. The exposition is certainly not complete, since it leaves us in doubt as to the meaning of 330–1 and 910–12. See Griffith (above), ad locc. The slice of myth which the poet has chosen to treat here makes Prometheus Boundlook like a middle play. From the Iliad on, Greek poets were adept at taking a slice out of the middle of a myth and managing to encompass the whole of the story in that slice, but none of the usual foreshadowing and flashback techniques is employed to a sufficient extent in Prometheus Bound to make it an independent drama. For the same reasons, I do not find the idea of a dilogy, Prometheus Bound, Prometheus Unbound, attractive, or think convincing the arguments against the existence of Prometheus Pyrphoros, or for its identity with Prometheus Pyrkaieus, the satyr play produced with Persians in 472. It is surprising, not that we have few fragments of Fire-bearer, but that we have so many of Prometheus Unbound. Finally, on Griffith's analysis the trilogy would present us with a satisfying sequence: (first play) Crime; (second play) Punishment; (third play) Regeneration. This is like the Oresteia, but not exactly like it, which is reassuring. But for a very different explanation of some of the references in Prometheus Bound, see now S. West, ‘Prometheus Orientalized’, Museum Helveticum 51.3 (1994), 129–49, esp. 131–2, 146–9.Google Scholar

16 See Griffith (n. 15 above), esp. 8–10.

17 See Griffith (n. 15 above), 20–1.

18 See Seaford, R. A. S, ‘The Tragic Wedding’, JHS 107 (1987), 106–30. On the yoking image in this play in general,CrossRefGoogle Scholarsee Petrounias, E, Funktion und Thematik der Bilder bei Aischylos (Hypomnemata 48, Göttingen, 1976), 108–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Griffith (n. 15 above), 21, illustrates the metaphorical register, but does not contrast it with the concrete benefactions of Prometheus.

20 On the images of sickness and disease in this play in general, see Petrounias (n. 18 above), 98–108, with bibliography. See also n. 9 above and Loraux (n. 11 above), pp. 250–7 on the ambivalence of expressions with (e.g.) and .

21 Here I would describe the metaphor in as plainly ‘live’, the metaphor in as more difficult to classify in Silk's terms (n. 6 above, 27–56), since, while there seems to be sufficiently regular use of ‘reject ’ in a wide range of contexts to describe this meaning as normal usage (see LSJ s.v. 2, though West ad loc. is surely right to describe Hesiod, Works and Days 726 as ‘a graphic metaphor’ ), the equation disloyalty disease occurs nowhere else. Disease does not seem to be conceived of as the sort of thing one can spit out, and therefore one might argue that the disease metaphor was able to revive the spitting metaphor by their collocation.

22 On the possible bargain see Griffith (n. 15 above), ad 1026–9 and p. 302. On Chiron as a doctor, see Homer, II. 4. 219, 11. 832, and Pindar, Pythian 3. 1–6.

23 See Silk (n. 6 above), 27–56. The fact that they are used to describe a real binding revives them somewhat.

24 It is hard to resist the idea that in these contexts the metaphor in would be ‘live’: it was a well-known feature of the word's derivation. See T., Gaisford (ed.), Etymoloeicum Magnum (Oxford, 1848), s.v. Google Scholar

25 See Griffith (n. 15 above) ad loc.: the reading is accepted by most recent editors, including West, M. L. (ed.), Aeschylus, Tragoediae (Stuttgart, 1990).Google Scholar

26 Tusc. Disp. 2. 23–25 (see Griffith [n. 15 above], pp. 291–5): ‘navem ut horrisono freto / noctem paventes timidi adnectunt navitae. / Saturnius me sic infixit Iuppiter… ”It is interesting that the Ciceronian image implies that Zeus is frightened (the sailors are ‘timidi').

27 G. B Townend, ‘The Poems’ in Dorey, T. A. (ed.), Cicero (London, 1964), 109–34, considers Cicero's tragedy translations to be closer to the originals than the Aratea is to Aratus’ Phaenomena. He says (117): ‘…they are to be judged…rather as translations of the type normally found in the Loeb classics than those of Dryden or Pope.’Google Scholar

28 See Griffith (n. 15 above), 21. He also points out in The Authenticity of Prometheus Bound (Cambridge, 1977), 182, that is sometimes used as a medical technical term (e.g. Hippocrates, Prognosticon 24, of feverish patients). If any of that meaning is felt here, it would be another example of images blending with each other. On the storm imagery see also Petrounias (n. 18 above), 122, Silk (n. 6 above), 226–7, and Padel (n. 7 above), 81–7.Google Scholar

29 See Griffith (n. 15 above), 285–6.

30 Athen. 15.674d; Hygin. Poet. astr. 2. 15. See Griffith (n. 15 above), 303–4. On the Athenian torch-festival and Athens ’ enthusiasm for Prometheus see now Dunbar (n. 15 above) ad Ar. Birds 1494–552.

31 Plut. Mor. 98c, if it comes from this play; see Griffith (n. 15 above), 304.

32 Even by Griffith (n. 15 above), 20–1. Schmid, W, Untersuchungen zum gefesselten Prometheus (Stuttgart, 1929), 58–62, set the scornful tone.Google ScholarHiltbrunner, O, Widerholungs- und Motivtechnik bei Aischylos (Bern, 1950), 75–7, saw no patterns at all in the imagery, maintaining that the metaphors were entirely unconnected.Google ScholarEarp, F. R, The Style of Aeschylus (Cambridge, 1948), 93–149, used the imagery of the play to argue against its authenticity, remarking on 168f.: ‘Prometheus's metaphors are generally simpler, both in conception and expression, than Aeschylus's’.Google ScholarPrometheus Bound is excluded from consideration at all by Smith, Ole, ‘Some Observations on the Structure of Imagery in Aeschylus’, C & M 26 (1965), 10–72, on the ground of authenticity. In density of images per line, however, it attains the same ratio as Supplices in the calculations of H. Mielke, Die Bildersprache des Aischylos (diss. Breslau, 1934), 5: 1 in 10.9 lines, as against 1 in 8.4 lines in Agamemnon. More sympathetic are Petrounias (n. 18 above), 97–126,Google Scholar and Said, S, Sophïste et tyran; ou le problème du Prométhée enchaîné (Paris, 1985), 74–5, 160–84.Google Scholar

33 The extremely limited evidence we have as to Aeschylus' use of imagery in the Theban trilogy seems to suggest another imagery pattern different from that in the Oresteia. The imagery in Seven against Thebes, which followed Laius and Oedipus, is interesting and architecturally important (see Howard Don Cameron, Studies in the Seven Against Thebes of Aeschylus [The Hague, 1971], 58–95,98–100); but, unless the description of the shields of the Seven constitutes one (and it is not easy to see how it could), there are no non-figurative uses of images from the earlier plays, leave alone benign non-figurative images. This again would suit the subject-matter. The Suppliants trilogy is so uncertain as to be totally beyond speculation: see Garvie, A. F, Aeschylus' Supplices: Play and Trilogy (Cambridge, 1969), 163–233.Google Scholar