Hey readers! Here is a copy of my undergraduate dissertation for Classical Civilizations. My aim was to show how the Promethean mythology of ancient times inspired the dystopian genre. This is the copy I submitted for grading, so it may not be perfect or up to the standard I would have liked it to be at, but I had a fixed amount of time to have this written by. Maybe at some point in the future, I will go back to it and perfect it. I know that the formatting on this is not great, so here is a link to a pdf.
Classics
School of Humanities
2017
Dystopia: a Modern Prometheus
Or
Prometheus: an Ancient Dystopia?-
A Classical Reception Study
Word count: 13,910
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iii
List of Abbreviations iv
Introduction- Prometheus and Dystopian Literature: Reception Through Structuralist Commonalities 1
Chapter 1- Dystopian Tradition: Utopian Distortion and Degradation 9
Chapter 2- Promethean Tradition: The Rise of Anarchy 17
Chapter 3- Promethean Tradition: The Journey to Civilisation 33
Conclusion- Dystopia: a Modern Prometheus AND Prometheus: an Ancient Dystopia 46
Bibliography 48
Acknowledgements
Although I am not one-hundred percent sure how acknowledgements work for dissertations, I wanted to include one because I feel like I have a lot of people I need to thank for their support throughout my researching and writing process. Firstly, I want to generally thank my friends and family, who put up with the ways in which I cope with stress and anxieties, which I admit were probably annoying, and for continuously boosting my moral. Even more, I would like to thank both of my professors who greatly helped within my dissertation process: Dr. Natalia Tsoumpra and Dr. Ian Ruffell. Without your guidance, I doubt I would have realized the potential that my dissertation topic had; as well, I doubt my submission would have been as concentrated or nicely written without your suggestions. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my mom, who believed in me endlessly and constantly encouraged me. Without her, I probably would have suffered from many mental breakdowns.
So, thanks to my friends and family, to Dr. Natalia Tsoumpra and Dr. Ian Ruffell, and to my mom (love you mom!).
List of Abbreviations
Animal Farm- AF
1984- 1984
Fahrenheit 451- F451
Lord of the Flies- LotF
The Hunger Games- HG
Catching Fire- CF
Mockingjay- MJ
~Introduction~
Prometheus and Dystopian Literature:
Reception through Structuralist Commonalities
“Over the past hundred years, Greek myth has been appropriated in many different ways and for many different purposes”.[1] Throughout Western Civilization, gods (like Zeus and Athena), Titans (like Atlas and Kronos), heroes (like Hercules and Jason), and monsters (like Cerberus and Medusa) have been immortalized in various art forms- whether it be through paintings, statues, literature[2] or film[3]- and other cultural manifestations. The survival and continued enjoyment of mythology is most likely due to the fact that mythology is quite flexible in its meaning,[4] role,[5] and reception[6] or tradition[7]; these latter two concepts, I believe, are crucial to the perseverance of myth throughout time. Reception theory explores how the understandings and meanings of ancient myths are changed within different time periods,[8] and displays a two-way process, in which not only the modern material adapts or imitates the ancient,[9] but the ancient is also reinterpreted by the present.[10] In this theory, I believe that the imitation of an ancient work then falls within that original’s tradition, a concept of which shows how material is handed down within various media, and is particularly evident within literature.[11] To me, Greek mythology is a very interesting topic in itself, but even more so is seeing how it has this dual reception and continuing tradition, especially through structural continuities.[12] By structural continuities I mean the themes or scenes that link an original text to later ones, which enables a tradition to be found. This, then, is the main method that I will be using to analyse reception studies. So summarily, in reception studies, structural continuities can be found connecting the original to its subsequent traditions, and vice versa, connecting the traditions beck to the original. While there are numerous studies on receptions of Greek mythology, I plan to focus primarily on the mythologies concerning Prometheus, specifically its reception in connection with dystopian literature.
The most prominent features of the Promethean myth are his connection to fire and technological progress, his rebelliousness, and the story of Pandora.[13] However, not only is there more to the Promethean myths once the ancient sources are analysed, but the inclusion of certain aspects and the ignoring of others are important; for this reason I will briefly discuss what aspects are included in each source, and the interpretations of each.[14] The ancient sources to be discussed are as follows in chronological order: Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days, Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, Plato’s Protagoras, Aristophanes’ Birds, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and, finally, Lucian’s Prometheus, To One Who Said “You’re A Prometheus In Words”, and Dialogues of the Gods.[15] Hesiod’s Theogony is an epic song in which the origins and genealogy of the gods are described.[16] Specific to the Promethean myth,[17] Hesiod paints Prometheus as a villain who continuously acts against the heroic and mighty Zeus through the story of the ox sacrifice and the theft of fire; in addition, Pandora is mentioned as a punishment created for humans by Zeus. In Hesiod’s Works and Days, a farmer’s almanac containing moral and practical advice,[18] he continues the negative portrayal of Prometheus and mostly focuses on the story of Pandora.[19] The characterization of Prometheus is quite different in Aeschylus’ tragic play, Prometheus Bound. More of a “rebel fighting for mankind against the tyranny of Zeus”,[20] Prometheus is the main actor, and therefore presents himself as a tragic hero who has done no wrong despite being punished. In it, his theft of fire, help of human progress, and punishment are described. Plato’s Protagoras is, primarily, a discussion between Socrates and Protagoras about whether virtue can be taught, and Protagoras uses Prometheus as an example.[21] While Protagoras includes the theft of fire, it provides more to the story of Prometheus, specifically how he and his brother, Epimetheus, were assigned the task of creating the many mortal races.[22] Progress is also included, specifically technical and moral ingenuity, the former of which Prometheus stole, the latter, Zeus willingly gave. In this account, the interpretations of both Prometheus and Zeus are positive, but also detached: both Prometheus’ theft and Zeus’ withholding are mentioned, but the focus is primarily on how they both have helped humans. Aristophanes’ Birds is a comedic play in which Peisthetaerus persuades the birds to create their own kingdom in the sky.[23] Although Prometheus’ role is not prominent,[24] “the play hinges upon the entire array of mythic resonances that he brings with him- trickster, rebel, thief of fire, master of information, and friend of mankind”.[25] Prometheus also does not have a large role within Ovid’s Metamorphoses, a ‘mythographic epic’[26] poem in which various mythologies concerning change is recounted. In this, the sole Promethean aspect explored is the creation of mankind with clay and how mankind was given intelligence.[27] Lastly are the three works by Lucian: Prometheus, To One Who Said “You’re A Prometheus In Words”, and Dialogues of the Gods. The first describes Prometheus’ punishments for the ox sacrifice, the creation of humans, and the theft of fire; the second gives a characterization of Prometheus, and also details the creation of man; and the final narrates how Prometheus gives Zeus desired information in order to be released from his punishments. These, then, are the ancient sources that survive containing the mythology of Prometheus.
Though the main focus will be on the reception of the Promethean myths in connection with the dystopian genre, it would be useful to first observe early intermediary receptions of the Promethean myths. This is because, though the authors of dystopian literature might have been knowledgeable on the ancient sources, it is even more likely that they know of the Promethean myths through these works, and therefore might have been influenced by them in ways that would not have occurred from the originals themselves. These early receptions are Milton’s epic poem, Paradise Lost (1667/1674), von Goethe’s poem, Prometheus (circa 1789), Mary Shelley’s fiction novel, Frankenstein, Or, The Modern Prometheus, P.B. Shelley’s closet play, Prometheus Unbound (1820), as well as his translation of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound (1832), and, finally, Marx’s[28] doctoral dissertation, ‘Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’. Most of these pieces, such as Goethe’s poem and both of P.B. Shelley’s plays, stick very closely to the original ancient sources, only changing them slightly to highlight a specific aspect of the Promethean myths. Marx goes beyond this by using the Prometheus myth as a basis for his doctoral dissertation, but still, he does not add much of a new perspective. Both Milton and Mary Shelley’s works, however, do ‘change’ the myth, by adapting it to fit modern appeal; in the case of Milton, this is done by applying Promethean themes to a biblical topic, while Mary Shelley creates a unique fictional work that ties Prometheus to contemporary science. These works are worth mentioning because they emphasize or exaggerate aspects originating within the ancient sources of the Promethean myths, preserving them to be carried on into later pieces of literature.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is not only an important early reception of the Promethean mythology, but is considered by some as the forerunner for the science fiction genre.[29] It is important to highlight this connection because dystopian literature is a subgenre of science fiction,[30] and therefore strengthens my argument of the Promethean reception and dystopian literature as being connected. The term dystopia, for this dissertation, will be defined as anti-utopian[31] fiction in which government systems and technology are critiqued as they are seen as the cause of the degradation of society.[32] Obviously, dystopian literature, then, is a reaction to utopian literature, and therefore can be linked to Plato’s Republic,[33] to satirized responses to utopias,[34] and more importantly, to the various ancient texts depicting a Golden Age.[35] These are, I believe, valid conceptions of the genre,[36] but I think that previous reception studies have focused solely on the obvious classical connections, and ignored the less obvious between dystopia and the Promethean myths, which I will be attempting to show within the following chapters. Though I could have chosen from a variety of dystopian literature,[37] I have decided to analyse the following modern works because of their general popularity and because they are from various time periods:[38] George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, and Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games trilogy. George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945),[39] an allegorical and satirical commentary,[40] follows a rebellion of animals against their human master to run their own farm equally, but which quickly turns into a new tyranny.[41] Considered ‘one of the central defining texts of the genre of dystopian fiction’,[42] Orwell’s 1984 (1949) contains a government system, headed by Big Brother and the Inner Party, that controls all aspects of its citizens’ lives.[43] Both of Orwell’s novels are commentaries on the events of World War II, specifically Stalin’s Communist regime in Russia and Hitler’s Nazi rule in Germany. Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 (1953) depicts a world in which the learning of information is discouraged to the point where, instead of stopping fires, firemen are given the job of starting them in order to burn books.[44] Similar to Orwell’s novels, Bradbury’s is a commentary on real-life events, in this case the rise of capitalism in 1950s America.[45] Golding’s Lord of the Flies (1954) explores the development of how a group of schoolboys try to survive being stranded alone on an island.[46] Though not a commentary on a specific event in history,[47] Golding’s novel generally remarks on human nature’s inevitable trend towards violence and all that is evil.[48] Finally, Collins’ Hunger Games trilogy (2008, 2009, 2010), is a young adult dystopian in which society is broken into districts who send two children every year to fight to the death in order to appease the rulers/upper class in the Capitol. In this, Collins comments on twenty-first century living, specifically on various entertainment media (i.e. reality shows)[49] and the excess of materials to the elite minority. It is these works of dystopian literature that will be discussed.
In this dissertation, the main aim is to analyse the reception of the Promethean myths within dystopian literature. To achieve this, I will argue, firstly, how the Promethean myths themselves are impacted its newfound connection to dystopia; secondly, and more importantly, that there are structural themes or concepts taken from the Promethean myths that are then presented within the dystopian literature. While I have previously used structuralism to distinguish the main aspects within each ancient source of the Promethean myth as well as to define dystopia, it will be more widely applied in the following chapters. In Chapter 1, I will be analysing the Promethean myths through a dystopian lens in order to provide a theoretical background for the subsequent chapters. Chapters 2 and 3 will then focus on how dystopia follows structurally within the Promethean tradition, with Chapter 2 focusing on the analysis of the rise of anarchy and Chapter 3 on the journey to civilisation. In short, Chapters 2 and 3 will display dystopia as following in the Promethean tradition while Chapter 1 will focus on the reversed impact and interpretation of the modern tradition on the original ancient sources. All in all, the aim of this dissertation is to provide a unique reception of Greek mythology concerning the subtle influence of the Promethean myths on dystopia and how there can be a new understanding when looking at the Promethean myths from a dystopian point of view.
~Chapter 1~
Dystopian Tradition:
Utopian Distortion and Degradation
Though the main focus of my dissertation is how dystopian literature adopts and adapts the structural components of the Promethean myths, it is useful to first analyse how the Promethean myths fit within the dystopian genre and what effects this has on its understanding. To do this, I will look at what structural elements the genre of dystopia usually contains, and will apply them to the sources for the Promethean myths, or on the myths in general. As stated in the introduction, dystopia is an anti-utopian fiction in which government systems and technology are critiqued and seen as the cause of the degradation of society. These italicized words will then be the basis of this chapter, both with its application to dystopian literature and to the Promethean myths. Specifically, what will be analysed are how dystopia is a reaction to utopia, how dystopia comes about through a utopia gone wrong or through a utopian guise, and dystopia’s social and scientific characteristics.[50]
Dystopia as Utopian Reaction
As displayed within Kumar (1987), a large part of dystopia is its opposition to utopia. One, it seems, cannot exist without the other.[51] Of course, the dystopian literature discussed previously follow this, as they are responses to the real-life utopian concepts of Socialism, Marxism, Nazism, Communism, Capitalism and so on, that increased in popularity during their publications. In fact, these concepts are evident within the dystopias, but ‘painted black’, showing the issues that can arise from the pursuit of ‘progress and perfectibility’.[52] Similarly, the Promethean sources have ties to utopian literature, and will be discussed with a primary focus on Cloudcuckooland and the Golden Ages.
Aristophanes’ Birds is an easy example of being a satirical response to utopia, especially when juxtaposed with Plato’s Republic.[53] In this comedy, Peisthetaerus and Euelpides decide to leave Athens, as they dislike the city’s interest in fees, fines, laws, and litigation.[54] In opposition to this, they decide to create their own city, called Cloudcuckooland or Much Cuckoo in the Clouds, of which birds were persuaded to be the inhabitants.[55] Within this utopia, the birds, and of course Peisthetaerus and Euelpides, will be treated like gods, gaining benefits from both mankind and the Olympian gods.[56] In Plato’s Republic, the initial discussion is about justice and whether it is desirable in its own right.[57] To argue that it is, Socrates creates his ideal city, which has three classes of citizens: the producers who focus on a specific trade such as carpentry; the guardians, who protect the city and enforce the system; and the rulers, who make the entire city as happy as possible;[58] Socrates believes this city should also be ruled by a philosopher-king, who is concerned with the Form of the Good.[59] Obviously, this ideal city is an early conception of a utopia. While Plato’s Republic puts forth a just utopia, Aristophanes’ Birds satirically does the opposite, as evident by Peisthetaerus’ desire for such things as luxury[60] and sexual relations with boys.[61] In this way, Aristophanes’ Birds is a satirical opposition of dystopia.
Another response to utopia, in which the Promethean aspect is more prevalent, is the concept of Golden Ages. This is usually told within the story of the ages or races of men, and is included within Ovid’s Metamorphoses[62] and Hesiod’s Works and Days.[63] In this myth, men lived in a Golden Age, in which they faced no troubles or hardships, under the rule of Kronos. However, once Zeus overthrew his father, the life of men started to decline. In the Silver Age, Ovid describes men as being no different, but that the nature in which they lived became harsher; Hesiod, however, states that men became more childish and lived for a short time in adulthood, mostly due to their impiety. Next came the Bronze Age, which was worse: both Ovid and Hesiod agree that this race of men was cruel, fierce, and violent. This race though, was still not the worst. Following this, Hesiod includes the Heroic Age, which is a resurgence of the utopic life of humankind; though war existed, men were righteous and noble, and acted under the will of the gods. Finally, returning to the destruction of mankind’s ease of life is the Iron Age, in which both Ovid and Hesiod describe men as being evil and immoral, destroying nature for selfish means as food has been concealed and ills and harsh work has manifested. Furthermore, Hesiod attributes this degradation of utopia to Prometheus and Pandora. This aspect of the Promethean myth is then highlighted in Milton’s Paradise Lost: when Adam and Eve disobey God, their utopic paradise is destroyed, and a life of dystopic hardship is created.[64]
In the sources of the Promethean myths, not only is utopia, through the inclusion of a Golden Age, a precursor to dystopia, but the sources satirize utopia or distort it into something that is reminiscent of it as well. This inclusion of utopia and its anti-utopian response can therefore lead to the reading of the Promethean myths as dystopic.
Dystopia as Utopia Gone Wrong or Utopic Guise
Similarly, dystopias usually start out as a utopian idea which has gone terribly wrong or else was disguised under a utopian façade.[65] For example, within Lord of the Flies a utopia in which rules and order are created is attempted. However, chaos ensues, resulting in barbarism in which children are murdered and the island is set in flames. The other aspect, a utopian guise, is evident through the leaders within Animal Farm, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and the Hunger Games trilogy, who all ‘believe’ to various extents that their rules are beneficial to their people, but in reality, they know to, again, various degrees, that they are hurting and subjugating their ‘inferiors’.
When looking at the Promethean myths in general, the concepts of a utopia gone wrong and a utopian guise are subtle. In Hesiod’s Theogony, Kronos is constantly referred to being crooked,[66] and for his rule to be wicked,[67] therefore needing Zeus to overthrow it.[68] However, it is during Kronos’ rule that mankind lived in peace and in ease.[69] Furthermore, through the Promethean myths, Zeus’ rule is not seen as being perfect, as Prometheus sees the need to rebel against him.[70] This, then, calls in for questioning whether Zeus, in his rule, attempted to create a utopic world in which his rule is praised as being just and good, or whether this was just a guise in which to gain power.
As with the various rulers found within dystopia, “Zeus helps us think about kings and their roles, about emperors, about life and the rules of the universe that govern it”[71]. Though rulers might have good intentions in which they plan to better the world and the people in it, it can easily be distorted, intentionally or unintentionally, to become a harsh and terrible reign.[72] Once more, by this subversion of utopia the Promethean myths can be viewed as dystopic.
Dystopia’s Social Characteristics
As stated by Booker, dystopia “is one of the most searching explorations of despotism in modern literature”.[73] Because of this, a very common trait within dystopian literature is the inclusion of an oppressive, even tyrannical, figure. Moreover, within dystopia, this figure usually struggles for power in some shape or form, whether it be against another rival or against other hurdles. This figure uses whatever means are necessary to gain total control, and rises to power through fear tactics and obscure and unwritten ‘laws’ that benefit themselves rather than society as a whole. Despite these cruel and harsh strategies, this figure inevitably wins due to the oblivious mass of people who do not pay attention their own government and therefore go along with it unquestioningly. It is only through the protagonist who, though not entirely moral or good, courageously stands up for the rights of his/her fellows. These traits are evident in all of the dystopian literature analysed, but do the Promethean myths also fit in?
I believe that the Promethean myths do fit into the dystopian model. For one, Zeus can be seen as an oppressive tyrant. This is very obvious within P.B. Shelley’s translation of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, and within his own Prometheus Unbound: various forms of the word ‘tyrant’ are applied to Jove (Zeus).[74] Though this is only a reception of the original Promethean myths, it does have some basis within the ancient sources, especially Prometheus Bound where Zeus’ depiction is more negative.[75] Additionally, Zeus gains his authority through a power struggle: he had to overthrow his own father.[76] Subsequently, when it comes to an oblivious mass, there are many groups that this concept could be applied to: namely, the other gods, who follow Zeus’ command without active objection,[77] or the human race, who are easily persuaded by Prometheus.[78] Finally, the grey hero is obviously Prometheus because, though he gives gifts to humankind and can be seen as their champion,[79] Hesiod’s interpretation of this is more negative.
Though not necessarily the most striking aspects of the Prometheus myths, the ancient sources do contain these dystopian themes concerning society, therefore allowing for the Promethean myths to be seen as a dystopic.
Dystopia’s Scientific Characteristics
Utopias were not only fascinated by perfected social structures, but also “appreciated the importance of the new science, and were often pioneers in the promotion of its legitimacy”.[80] It should be of no surprise, then, that dystopia too is interested in science or technology and its effect on society, though of course it is viewed in a more negative way. While there are dystopias in which technology proves beneficial and helpful, in most situations the opposite is true. In most cases, while actual technology progresses, the uses of the technology regresses society. This dichotomy is very crucial to dystopian literature. For this reason, technology is not always deserving of the elevated fascination or obsessive worship that it is usually given. Through this, humanity itself can be explored, and can be used as a warning, both within the novel and outside of it. Similar to the previous section, these scientific traits are common to the dystopian model, and are evident within the literature analysed, but again, can the same be said of the Promethean myths?
Once more, I think it can. First, the Promethean myths contain technological progressions, though they are very basic when compared to that displayed within the modern literature. Predominantly within Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound the technologies that Prometheus gives to humans are listed, and in most of the ancient sources, at the very least the gift of fire as a technology is described. Though the concept of progress did not exist within ancient times,[81] and therefore regression did not either, both are evident within the Promethean myths through these technologies. Specifically, though initially being seen as positive progressions of human life, there are two main sources in which these technologies are seen as a regression: Hesiod’s Works and Days, and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In the former ancient source, Hesiod sees Prometheus’ ‘gifts’ as really being hindrances: Prometheus is the reason why humans face hardships, like needing to cultivate their own food or living in difficult climates, instead of living like the gods as they did during the Golden Ages. Likewise, in the intermediary source, Frankenstein is obsessed with science to the point where he creates life, which then leads to his various miseries. He therefore warns others not to be similarly preoccupied with knowledge. Though an intermediary source, this obviously draws from aspects of the Promethean myths, and exaggerates them. As for the exploration of humanity, the mythologies as a concept in themselves delve into this, as their purpose was to explain phenomena or ways of life in a way that they could comprehend. Furthermore, mythologies in general warn its audience to be pious towards the gods, and this is indeed included within the Promethean myths, as it suggests that one should not reflect the same characteristics of Prometheus, the rebel against the gods.
While these scientific aspects, which are commonly present within dystopian literature, were not necessarily important in the original understanding of the Promethean myths, they are still included and later highlighted by the intermediary literature, and therefore allow for the Promethean myths to be viewed as dystopic.
Conclusion
Within this chapter, the structural aspects of dystopia were found to be a response to utopia, a utopia gone wrong or a utopian guise, social and scientific themes. The main purpose of this chapter was to determine whether the Promethean myths follow this structural model. By analysing the Promethean myths through each aspect of dystopia, I have come to the conclusion that it is not farfetched to understand them as an ancient dystopia.
~Chapter 2~
Promethean Tradition:
The Rise of Anarchy
Unlike the previous chapter, this chapter, as well as the subsequent chapter, will focus on how dystopian literature structurally follows within the Promethean tradition. In this particular chapter, the structural focus will be ‘the rise of anarchy’ within the Promethean myths. By this I mean to look at the socio-political Promethean characteristics and will specifically discuss the presence of a god-like ruler, the use of trickery, the inclusion of a female character who causes hardship, the opposing rebel figure, and the resulting harsh punishment. Through the application of these characteristics to the modern literature, I will prove that the dystopias implement and adopt the Promethean model. Before analysing the dystopias, it would be best to discuss how exactly the model is made within the Promethean myths themselves, and, subsequently, how the intermediary receptions emphasize this model.
Though there are numerous gods within the Promethean myths, and within ancient Greek mythology in general, Zeus is given an elevated status: he is the king of the gods.[82] Because of this, he has more power and control over his fellow gods and goddesses[83] as well as over humankind. In the case of the latter, Zeus plans on destroying the current human race,[84] and is only stopped by Prometheus.[85] Between these two opposing figures, various tricks are enacted: Prometheus tricks Zeus into choosing the worse portion of the ox for his sacrifice[86]; Zeus pretends to be tricked by this[87]; Prometheus ‘tricks’ Zeus by stealing fire,[88] and in some cases, also technical ingenuity;[89] in response, Zeus tricks Prometheus, but more so his brother Epimetheus, with the gift of Pandora, who releases all ills and hardships into the world.[90] Pandora, though, is not the only cruel punishment doled out by Zeus because of Prometheus’ actions: Prometheus himself is tortured without a just trial,[91] despite having originally helped Zeus rise to power.[92] In summary, Zeus is the god-like figure who uses trickery against and has trickery used against himself by Prometheus, the rebel; this leads to various cruel punishments, both to Prometheus and to humankind in general, the latter of which is primarily caused by the ‘gift’ of Pandora. This model was then carried into and certain aspects were emphasised within the intermediary literature.
Though Mary Shelley and Marx do display these socio-political characteristics of the Promethean model, they are more prominently emphasized within Milton’s Paradise Lost, Goethe’s Prometheus, and P.B. Shelley’s Prometheus Bound and Prometheus Unbound. Within Paradise Lost, the concepts of rebellion and punishment are accentuated, but in slightly different ways than presented within the original ancient sources for the Promethean myths. For example, Satan rebels against God because he believes he is superior to the Son, [93]and is therefore cast out of heaven.[94] Additionally, both Adam and Eve eat an apple from the tree of knowledge,[95] which was forbidden,[96] and were similarly cast out of Eden.[97] Then, the main Promethean characteristics included within Goethe’s short poem are those concerned with the gods’ treatment of humans, sacrifices,[98] and Prometheus’ rebellious nature.[99] Finally, in P.B. Shelley’s works, Prometheus is greatly highlighted as being the saviour or champion of humankind.[100] Additionally, Zeus’ cruelty to Prometheus through punishment is very much stressed, to the point where Zeus is turned into a tyrant.[101] From this, I will then argue that the Promethean socio-political elements are then adopted and adapted into the dystopian genre by analysing the modern literature.
Animal Farm
The first novel to be analysed is Orwell’s Animal Farm, where the main plot follows a group of animals overthrowing their human master, Mr. Jones, in order to run the farm in a way that betters their lives. This in itself is very Promethean, as, on the one hand, it mirrors Zeus’ and the other gods’ displacement of Kronos and the Titans,[102] but it is also reminiscent of how Prometheus himself rebels against the will of the gods in order to help humankind.[103] Additionally, this mirrors the plot of Aristophanes’ Birds, in which Peisthetaerus and Euelpides persuade the birds to denounce the gods in order to, again, gain a better life.[104] However, these are not the only similarities as Animal Farm contains similar socio-political characteristics as the Promethean myths.
Once Mr. Jones is ousted, the animals create Animal Farm, where all animals are supposed to achieve equality.[105] However this does not go as planned. At first, the pigs as a group alter the balance, namely by taking special privileges that the other animals are not given.[106] Balance is disrupted further when both Napoleon and Snowball rise as the joint leaders of the pigs,[107] and therefore the leaders of the animals. Eventually, Napoleon seizes complete power for himself[108] and ostracizes Snowball by forcing him into exile.[109] In a similar manner, this is evident within the Promethean myths, where the gods as a collective group goes against the Titans with the crucial assistance of Prometheus, without whom victory would not have happened.[110] Despite this, Zeus claims absolute power as the king of the Olympians,[111] and subsequently disregards Prometheus’ help when punishing him.[112]
In order for the animals to legitimize their ability to run the farm without human interference, they allow a human, Mr. Whymper, to occasionally visit to oversee the farm.[113] In one instance, it was rumoured that Animal Farm was facing food shortages. Though this was indeed true, the pigs did not want this to be confirmed. Instead, Napoleon comes up with a plan to deceive Mr. Whymper when he arrives: bins are to be filled first with sand, then topped with grain and meal to make it look like they had a surplus of food.[114] Mr. Whymper is convinced by this disguise, and reports his false findings to the other humans.[115] This is very comparable to Prometheus’ offer of the ox portions for Zeus to choose: in this, the good portion of meat is disguised as being the worse portion of the two, while the bad portion is disguised as being the better; of course, Zeus selects the bad-disguised-as-good portion.[116] However, while Mr. Whymper is not privy to the deception, Zeus is, and willingly chooses to go along with it.
After it is clear that Napoleon has become the true ruler, the other animals start to question his motives.[117] In fact, there are instances of outright rebellion, especially seen when the hens refuse to increase their egg production and go on strike.[118] Consequently, Napoleon punishes those who rebel in any form; in the case of the hens, they are not allowed food, and therefore a number of them starve to death.[119] Napoleon also becomes convinced that Snowball returns to the farm during the night to sabotage the farm’s progress,[120] to what extent he believes this is questionable, and accuses some of the animals of helping Snowball achieve this. Those animals then willingly volunteer to be publicly executed.[121] This draws various similarities to the Promethean myths. For one, the animals’ rebellion against Napoleon is similar to Prometheus’ rebellion against Zeus as both go against the command of the king-like ruler. These rebels, then, are cruelly punished: in Animal Farm, animals are starved, exiled, or executed; in the Promethean myths, Prometheus is chained to a rock where an eagle daily consumes his liver.[122] Furthermore, both share figures who are blamed for creating hardships: Snowball, again through Napoleon’s paranoid claims, and Pandora, for opening the jar of ills.[123]
1984
Orwell’s other dystopian novel, 1984, follows the protagonist Winston Smith’s growing distaste and distrust for his society’s government system, which leads to his attempt at rebelling. Though there are no stated laws that citizens must abide by, there are a few actions that are strongly discouraged. For example, Winston actively goes to buy a book and writes in it; while the content he includes within the writing would be a crime (for negativity against and rejection of Big Brother), the act of just possessing a diary is criminal in itself.[124] Then, when he and Julia form a relationship, they create emotional and sexual ties, which are, again, discouraged by the Party.[125] Because of his conversations with Julia, Winston becomes more and more bold about his feelings towards the Party and Big Brother, and eventually divulges them to O’Brien, who he believes is part of the rebel Brotherhood.[126] Obviously, Winston is a rebellious figure like Prometheus, as both disregard ‘laws’ that were created. However, what is more interesting is the presence of a duplicitous female figure: Pandora in the ancient, Julia in the modern. While Pandora is blamed for introducing ills to mankind, Julia opens up Winston’s mind to the negativities of the Party which leads him to actively rebel; so, it can be said that both cause trouble. However, while Pandora is taken in by Epimetheus,[127] Julia is eventually renounced by Winston.[128]
1984’s government system is very complex and contains different levels. The lowest are the proles, who do not participate at all with any socio-political concerns.[129] Above that is where Winston falls: the Outer Party. Though there are various jobs within this level, he works in the Ministry of Truth where he rewrites and rectifies past documents.[130] Julia also works at this hierarchical level, but she works in the Fiction Department of the Ministry of Truth, where she writes pornographic content for the proles.[131] The succeeding level is that of the Inner Party, where O’Brien works. The highest hierarchical level in this government is the figurehead that is Big Brother. Big Brother is a highly publicized figure, whose presence is felt everywhere, as posters depicting his face are plastered on every corner.[132] Where there is no depiction of him present, the words ‘Big Brother is Watching You’ is left as a reminder of his omnipresence.[133] Additionally, he is attributed with various positive, and even impossible, attributes, such as ‘infallible’ and ‘all-powerful’;[134] he also has a long list of favourable achievements.[135] Moreover, not much is known about Big Brother,[136] to the point where he is believed to be immortal.[137] This socio-political hierarchy greatly mirrors that within the Prometheus myths. For example, the proles represent the humans, as both are mostly ignored by the higher levels. Then, just like the Party, there are various levels of the gods: the Inner Party has the same elevated status as the Olympian Gods, while the Outer Party mirrors the lesser gods. Finally, Big Brother, the figurehead of the Party, has the same ultimate status as Zeus, who is the king of the gods.
Eventually, Winston is caught committing thoughtcrimes against the government. He is, therefore, arrested and brought to the Ministry of Love, the institution concerned with law and order.[138] Here, is intermittently waiting in a jail cell or beaten and questioned.[139] After an unknown time has passed, Winston is interrogate by O’Brien,[140] who he now realizes was a faithful government member despite previous interactions indicating otherwise. During this period, Winston is forced to understand the ‘whys’ behind the current system,[141] and then is tortured in Room 101, where he is threatened with having his face devoured by mice.[142] At this point, Winston gives in to O’Brien’s demands. However, it is not until after being released as a brainwashed model citizen that the final aim of his torture is achieved: he truly loves Big Brother.[143] In this, both O’Brien and Zeus create a false pretence in order to catch Winston and Prometheus respectively in ‘criminal’ activities. This trickery is important because it provides a reason for O’Brien and Zeus to enforce punishment. Even more striking, though, is the punishment given: both O’Brien and Zeus threaten, to different extents, the use of animals to consume flesh. As part of these torments, both Winston and Prometheus are meant to find love for Big Brother and Zeus respectively.[144] Furthermore, these punishments do not last forever; Winston is freed when he rejects Julia, while Prometheus is eventually freed by Heracles because he provided Zeus with desired information.
Fahrenheit 451
Fahrenheit 451 is a dystopian novel following Guy Montag, who, like Winston in 1984, is part of the government system.[145] However, through his younger neighbour’s provocation,[146] Montag opens his mind to question how society is currently fulfilled. Though he began questioning society and rejecting the institution of the firemen before Clarisse by collecting books from the homes that he helped burn down,[147] she influences him to openly discuss topics discouraged by society.[148] Then, when Clarisse disappears and Montag finds out she was killed,[149] he is even more open about his dislike of the current society, and does not hide himself as well in front of Chief Beatty. In this way Montag is a Promethean rebel who disagrees with the socio-political command, and Clarisse is a Pandora-esque figure, who, like within 1984, is a catalyst for Montag’s active revolt.
Inevitably, chief Beatty confronts Montag about his rebellion against the institution of the firemen.[150] As punishment, Montag is take to his own house and forced to burn it down.[151] Afterwards, he is supposed to be arrested,[152] but avoids it by killing Beatty[153] and avoiding the Mechanical Hound.[154] Though punishment for Montag’s possession of books is attempted, charging him with this crime is hypocritical because Beatty seems very well-read and knowledgeable. This is seen when he references various pieces of literature, especially classical ones.[155] This displays his sympathetic feelings towards books, and, when he allows Montag to kill him, reveals his potential disagreement with the current society, despite his superficial support towards it. Once more, Zeus’ false pretence is repeated within this dystopia; similar to how Zeus pretends to be taken in by Prometheus’ trick, Beatty pretends to agree with society even though his knowledge of literature goes against it. Beatty in this way could also be compared to Oceanus within Prometheus Bound, as this god sympathizes with Prometheus, but still does not go against Zeus’ regime.
While there is no government figurehead or leader, Beatty explains that society changed from the citizens up;[156] it was the collective people who wanted to exclude knowledge and prevent discrimination. Though this is opposing to the Promethean model, this absence of a figurehead is similar to how, in Prometheus Bound, Zeus is not physically present. Instead, Zeus uses other gods, such as Hephaestus and Hermes, to carry out his commands, in the same what that the firemen carry out the ‘commands’ of society.
Lord of the Flies
Unlike the other dystopian literature discussed, it is harder to find socio-political characteristics within Lord of the Flies that mirror the Promethean myths because of its plot: a group of boys find themselves stranded on a deserted island and therefore must try to survive until their rescue by themselves. Despite this, commonalities can still be argued.
After realizing that they are alone, the boys immediately elect Ralph as their chief.[157] Because this disappoints Jack, Ralph makes him the leader of the hunters.[158] Even though Ralph helped him into this role in which he is distinguished from the other boys, Jack does not thank him, but rather attempts to gain complete control. To do this, he manipulates the other boys to reject Ralph’s authority,[159] and eventually, he succeeds in becoming the leader of the boys.[160] However, it is not until he steals Piggy’s glasses,[161] the only means of creating fire, that his rule is absolute. From this description, Jack is reminiscent of Zeus, Prometheus, and Pandora. In the first case, similar to how Zeus abandons Prometheus despite being helped to power by Prometheus, Jack ditches Ralph even though Ralph was responsible for Jack’s role as leader of the hunters. Then, Jack is like Prometheus solely through his theft of fire. Finally, though Jack is a boy, he, like Pandora, creates hardships for the others, though Jack definitely has a more active hand in these hardships.
Though initially Ralph is friendlier towards Jack, he eventually realizes that Piggy is, like himself, more concerned with being rescued and keeping the fire lit, than Jack, who again is only concerned with hunting.[162] Because of this, Ralph continuously sides with Piggy over Jack. Jack expresses his dislike for being deemed inferior to Piggy by punishing the two. Firstly, Piggy is murdered by Roger through Jack’s command.[163] Once Piggy is gone, Ralph is an outcast who is then hunted by the other boys.[164] In this way, Jack views Ralph’s actions as rebellion because Ralph does not agree with Jack, in a similar way to how Zeus views Prometheus’ help towards humans. Both Jack and Zeus then decide to cruelly punish Ralph and Prometheus for this rebellion in cruel ways: Ralph is hunted, and, when viewing his punishment generally, Prometheus is also prey.
Although Jack wins out as the leader of the boys, he is not the most powerful entity on the island. Instead, this status is given to the atmosphere of the island, which is personified as the Beast. Goulding uses this as the cause behind Jack’s horrific actions. Additionally, the beast creates fear among the boys, making them disregard Ralph’s attempt at order and instead favour chaos.[165] Though the comparison is not exact, the beast creates fear among the boys in a similar way to how Zeus creates fear in Hephaestus: both command those they scare into doing unwanted actions.
The Hunger Games Trilogy
Within the Hunger Games trilogy, the main premise is that a male and female child are chosen from each District to fight to the death for the Capitol’s entertainment, this is because the Districts decided to revolt against the Capitol and lost, so this is their punishment.[166] When the novel starts Primrose Everdeen is chosen as a tribute to fight in these Games,[167] but her sister and the protagonist, Katniss, volunteers in her place.[168] In order to increase her chances of winning, and therefore surviving, she pretends to be in love with the male tribute from her District, Peeta.[169] Because of this, they make it to the final two, and thought that, because of a rule change made mid-game,[170] they were both winners; however, that rule change was redacted.[171] Katniss then comes up with the idea for them both to eat poisonous berries to trick the Capitol into allowing them both to win; it works.[172] Katniss is not the only one, however, to use trickery and manipulation: Snow, the President of the Capitol, uses it against her. For one, he tricks Katniss into believing that she can quiet the rebellion, even though he knows it is a loss cause.[173] Additionally, he forces her to wear a wedding dress at the ceremony for the Quarter Quell. This backfires, however, because the wedding dress was a façade disguising the true appearance of the dress, which resembled a mockingjay.[174] Though there are other instances of trickery and manipulation within the trilogy, these are representative of the types used throughout. Although manipulation is the main form of trickery within the Hunger Games trilogy, it is still implemented in similar ways to the Promethean model. For one, both the Promethean myths and this dystopian series have multi-sided uses of trickery and manipulation. Additionally, the wedding dress façade within the dystopia is very reminiscent of the ox sacrifice scene in the Prometheus myths. Likewise, the Hunger Game trilogy contains female figures who, like Pandora, are the impetus of hardships; they are Prim, and, more so, Katniss. However, Pandora’s hardships are just that, but the hardships created namely by Katniss are necessary in the pursuit of a better society.
Because of this act of trickery in which the Capitol’s authority was challenged, Katniss is viewed, though unwantedly, as the symbol of the rebellion. This is furthered when she is chosen to fight in the Quarter Quell, and completely destroys the arena and escapes.[175] Additionally, she attempts to get other districts to join in the revolt against Snow,[176] President of the Capitol and all of the Districts, and uses his elevated status, unfair treatment of the districts, and his exuberant wealth as her reasons why rebellion is needed. Once she takes up her role as the Mockingjay, the symbol of the rebellion, and agrees to work with President Coin of District 13, she rebels further. However, at this point, she does not just go against Snow, but also ignores Coin’s demands. Eventually, when it Katniss is supposed to kill Snow and validate Coin as the new leader, she instead decides to kill Coin, as she believes that Coin would have ruled just as badly as Snow.[177] Obviously, Katniss is the leading rebellious figure in the same way that Prometheus is in the Promethean model: both go against the ruling regime in order to better life; however, Prometheus willingly accepts his role, while Katniss hesitates. Additionally, both ruling regimes are headed by figures who are elevated from other characters: Zeus is king of the gods; Snow is the president who has more luxury, especially when compared to members of the Districts.
President Snow widely enforces punishment against the Districts. Most obviously, this is evident within the purpose of the Hunger Games, which is to discourage further revolts.[178] Additionally, he uses the Quarter Quell in order to punish Katniss for her rebellious acts.[179] When this does not work, he turns to punish and destroy everything she cares about. This is first implemented when new brutal Peacekeepers arrive in her District to strictly enforce the laws.[180] In fact, Katniss’ best friend, Gale is publically whipped by them.[181] When this does not deter her from rebelling, Snow destroys her District with bombs.[182] Snow then goes on to punish her by high-jacking Peeta to be brainwashed into wanting to kill Katniss.[183] Though Katniss is not physically punished in the same way as Prometheus is, the punishments of the Hunger Games trilogy resemble those in the Promethean model because Prometheus is not the only figure punished. Instead, just as those close to Katniss are punished, the humans of the Promethean myths are punished as well.
Conclusion
From this analysis, it is evident that these dystopias are similarly concerned with the rise of anarchy as the Promethean myths are. In fact, there are instances where clear adoptions are being made: both Animal Farm’s bin scene and the Hunger Games trilogy’s disguised Mockingjay dress are near copies of the sacrifice scene within the Promethean myths; another similarity is punishment by an animal eating flesh, which is threatened in 1984, but enforced within the Promethean myths. However, what is even more important is how the dystopian literature adapts the socio-political characteristics of a god-like ruler, trickery, a female figure who causes hardship, a rebel figure, and harsh punishment within the Promethean model in order to suite their own purpose. For example, nearly all of the modern novels alter the female figure characteristic: either it is more suitably applied to a male character (Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies), or the female figure is not as simply the scapegoat to be blamed with causing hardships (1984 and Fahrenheit 451). More commonly, these dystopias do not explore the socio-political characteristics to the same extent or in the exact same ways as the Promethean model, but are still similar enough that the distinctions are not necessary to be highlighted. Despite this, these socio-political characteristics, both within the Promethean model and the dystopian interpretation, are closely connected to the characteristics discussed within the following chapter.
~Chapter 3~
Promethean Tradition:
The Journey to Civilisation
Similar to the previous chapter, this chapter will focus on how dystopian literature follows within the structural Promethean tradition; however, this chapter will be concerned with civilising characteristics. In particular, the points to be discussed are the withholding of knowledge, the importance of fire, advancements concerning technology, the concept of technology as impacting civilisation, and the importance of hope. Again, it will be helpful to first analyse how these traits fit within the Promethean myths themselves, and how the earlier receptions emphasize them, before applying them to the dystopian literature.
Within the Promethean myths, the race of humans living during the rule of Zeus[184] originally are without fire, technological ingenuity, or social comprehension. This is because, for one reason or another, Zeus decides to withhold these pieces of information from humankind. However, Prometheus saves and civilizes the human race by stealing these tools, especially fire,[185] for human use.[186] While a large list of tools which Prometheus gave to humankind is provided within the ancient sources,[187] the most important, or, at the very least, most emphasized, gift apart from fire is that of hope.[188] Within the Prometheus myth, hope is viewed both as an intangible concept[189] and as a personified/objectified entity.[190] Stated simply, Zeus withholds various pieces of knowledge from humankind, which Prometheus then steals, gifting them to humankind so that they can advance and civilize themselves; fire and hope are especially two advancements of importance to this mythology.
While Goethe and P.B. Shelley do include technological aspects of the Promethean myths within their works, the true emphasis of Promethean technology, and specifically its relation to science, is emphasized by the listed work of Mary Shelley and of Marx. Within Frankenstein, the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, is fascinated by natural philosophy and science, reading various ancient authors who contemplate these topics and later attending university to study them further. Victor goes on to mirror Prometheus when he attempts to, and succeeds in, creating life through scientific means. Less connected to the Prometheus myths, Marx’s doctoral dissertation is primarily concerned with scientific debates, and is tied to Prometheus through his mention within Marx’s forward.[191] More generally, the search for knowledge is highlighted within Milton’s Paradise Lost: Adam constantly questions Raphael.[192] However, just like within Frankenstein, this curiosity is deemed dangerous. Furthermore, within Kumar 1987, the term ‘Prometheus’ is constantly used as a synonym or metaphor for progress, especially technological or scientific progress.[193] As the use of the civilising characteristics within the Promethean myths are described, and the emphasis of these traits within the intermediary and secondary literature has been stated, they will be subsequently applied to the dystopian literature.
Animal Farm
Once the animals of Animal Farm overthrow Mr. Jones and run the farm on their own, one of the first things they do is burn all of the things that remind them of Jones’ reign.[194] In this way, fire becomes a symbol of the change of power. After this is done, the animals’ next task is to learn how to read and write.[195] This is important because the resolutions that the animals created can be recorded for all to see.[196] Despite this crucial aspect of literacy, a lot of the animals are unable to grasp the concept completely,[197] which leads to the pigs’ ability to gain control and distort the resolutions. Though not exactly the same, fire is also an important symbol within the Promethean model. While in the dystopia it is used to depict a change in power, in the myth it is more or a symbol of the rebellion against the regime. In both cases, however, fire is connected to socio-political aspects. Furthermore the importance of writing within the novel is similar to its importance within the Promethean myths: in both instances, literacy is a characteristic that civilises society.
Along with the rewriting of the resolutions,[198] the pigs, especially Napoleon, works in secrecy. This is first evident when Napoleon takes new-born dogs to teach by himself.[199] When the dogs finally appear, the other animals find that they are ruthlessly violent and loyally under Napoleon’s command.[200] Secrecy is further used when Squealer mentions secret documents that corroborate Napoleon’s claims; however, the documents are never physically shown, so their existence comes into question.[201] Moreover, secrecy is implemented when the pigs sneak off without explanation. Later, the other animals discover that the pigs were practicing walking on two legs and training the sheep to chant ‘four legs good, two legs better’.[202] In this way, knowledge is withheld from the majority, mirroring how Zeus withholds fire and other technologies from the humans. Additionally, both in Animal Farm and the Promethean model, the knowledge that is initially withheld is, in some way or another, eventually made accessible.
Although conditions worsen rather than improve, the other animals still have hope. The main source of hope is brought by Boxer, whose work ethic inspires the animals to work harder. Additionally, Boxer represents the hope that by working hard, living conditions on the farm will get better.[203] Furthermore, the construction of Napoleon’s windmill, first suggested by Snowball, gives the animals hope, as they are told it will be used to generate power to provide electricity to the barn and therefore improve living conditions.[204] However, Boxer is killed[205] and the windmill is first destroyed,[206] and later used to benefit the pigs; because of this, hope for a better future dwindles. In this way, hope is both represented as being brought by a figure, and as a symbol. This then resembles the Promethean myths, where, not only is Prometheus the bringer of hope, but hope is also an objectified entity. Additionally, though life for the animals are grim, similar to how Prometheus’ torture is awful, hope still persists: the animals still believe that things will get better, and Prometheus knows he will not be punished forever.
1984
In 1984, technology is a very contradictory concept. On the one hand, technology, especially mass media, is crucial to the government, as it is initially what allowed Big Brother and the Party to rise to power because they were able to monitor, and therefore control, their citizens.[207] On the other hand, however, the only other technological advancements made concern warfare[208] rather than technology that helps its citizens. Supplies are short, living conditions are bad,[209] and The Party does not have any intentions of fixing this. This contradictory nature of technology within 1984 mirrors that presented in the Promethean model. However, in this dystopia, the dichotomy is depicted as being a tension between the technological advances made purely for the government and the lack of technological advancements available to the citizens; the dichotomy within the Promethean model is instead focused on whether the technological advancements gifted by Prometheus are helpful or harmful to human society.
Again, mass media is crucial to the Party, not only for monitoring their citizens, but also for manipulating facts. As evident in Winston’s job as a rectifier within the Ministry of Truth, the Party is constantly changing facts and rewriting history in order to make any previously made statements or predictions correct.[210] Similarly, this concept relates to doublethink, where the citizens are meant to understand and even believe in two contradictory opinions.[211] For example, this is portrayed when citizens believe that Oceania had never been in an alliance with Eurasia, but is contradicted by Winston’s memory of having been in alliance with Eurasia at least four years before.[212] Furthermore, whilst being tortured, O’Brien tries to convince Winston that four is five.[213] This shows the process of doublethink, and eventually Winston is convinced. Connectedly, fire can be a symbol for this annihilation of truth, as any evidence from the past that does not support the present are put into memory holes to be burned.[214] Though the withholding of knowledge depicted within 1984 is quite different than that in the Promethean myths, because in the former the truth is hidden while in the latter technology is refused, both are crucial to the rebel figure’s decision to rebel: it is when Winston realizes that what he remembers cannot be supported as true, and when Prometheus decides to help save the human race, that each go against the ruling regime. Fire then fits into this for both as well: fire is the main way to destroy previous information in the dystopia, and in the Promethean model, fire is the most important technology that is being withheld.
Despite the fact that at the end of the novel Winston loses hope, up until his torture he believes that Big Brother and the Party can be overthrown. In his mind, the only way this can be achieved is through the proles, the large group of people who are ignored by the government system. Additionally, Winston finds hope within his glass paperweight. It is a trinket with no immediate purpose that survived from the past where times, in Winston’s mind, better. Though Winston inevitable loses hope, which is not depicted in the Promethean myths, there are still some similarities concerning it. In both cases, hope is viewed as something that can be introduced by a figure/group of people, and depicted as an object. In the former instance, the proles are to Winston potential bringers of hope in a similar way as Prometheus is to the human race. In the case of hope being objectified, the personification of hope of the Promethean myths is similar to the depictions of the glass paperweight.
Fahrenheit 451
Similar to 1984, Fahrenheit 451’s technology is mostly apparent within mass media. However, instead of being used to monitor its citizens, the media of this dystopia is primarily used to distract them. For example, multi-wall televisions are greatly desired, as portrayed by Montag’s wife, Mildred, who desperately wants a fourth wall television put in despite just having had the third one put in and therefore not having enough money to put in another.[215] Additionally, the shows depicted on the televisions are very simple with unmemorable plotlines. The Seashells are used in a similar way: to distract people.[216] In short, this technology is only available to prevent the citizens from thinking. Other than wall televisions, there are different forms of technology implemented that facilitate various aspects of life, such as medical tools,[217] robot bank-tellers,[218] and house technologies.[219] Though, like 1984, a dichotomy is presented concerning technology, in Fahrenheit 451, this more so is a resemblance of the Promethean example. In both this dystopia and the myth, technology is available to all, and so the question becomes whether its existence is helpful or harmful to society; arguments can be equally made for both. In the Promethean model, Prometheus’ gifts to humans are seen as the chief factor that allows humankind to civilize; in Fahrenheit 451, technology is beneficial because it helps with everyday activities and provides entertainment. However, in Hesiod especially, Prometheus’ gifts are seen as worsening society, and, likewise, Montag views technology, and connectedly the removal of knowledge and books, to be a detriment to society.
Continuing with the encouragement of citizens to not think, not only are books banned, but they are actively burned.[220] This is because knowledge is discouraged as it is a discriminating concept, and the aim of this society is eliminating controversy and making all citizens equal.[221] So, books are burned, and once more, fire is a symbol for the eradication of knowledge. However, fire is more important than that. For one, fire metaphors are constantly used to describe unrelated subjects, which proves its importance within society.[222] Moreover, the institution concerned with enforcing the banning of books are firemen. Furthermore, though fire is more widely seen as a necessary destructive force, Montag, when he meets the book-rememberers, realizes that fire can also be used for warmth.[223] Once more, this example of withholding knowledge follows 1984, and therefore is similar to the Promethean model. Furthermore, like 1984 and the Promethean model, fire is important because of its connection to the withholding of knowledge.
In this way, books are a symbol of hope. Montag, and later his fellow book-rememberers, believe that books and knowledge are the necessary means of righting society.[224] In fact, Beatty’s desire for Montag to kill him prove that society,[225] as it is at that moment, is not enjoyable and must be changed, and potentially his knowledge of literature was a way to combat it. Yet again, the depiction of hope within this dystopia is similar to the Promethean model as both are portrayed as a bringer of hope and also the personification of hope.
Lord of the Flies
Once more, Lord of the Flies proves difficult. Though it compares in most of the civilising aspects to the Promethean model, there is no instance where knowledge in any form is being withheld. However, in all other respects, this dystopia is comparable to the Promethean myths.
Because the boys are stranded on an island on their own, their ‘society’ starts out very primitively. However, under Ralph and Piggy’s guidance, civilisation is attempted. For example, Ralph creates rules, namely that the boys can only speak during meetings when they are holding the conch, and, as chief, stresses the importance of keeping the fire going for their rescue.[226] Additionally, he also focuses on creating shelter for all of them.[227] Opposing this striving for civilisation and order, Jack represents barbarism because he is primarily concerned with hunting.[228] Furthermore, he also favours ritualistic practices, as evident by his face-painting[229] and by the sacrificial dance he leads the other boys in.[230] In this instance, social advancements are depicted as being necessary for civilisation to be attained. This follows in the Promethean model, as it is not until human kind are given technical ingenuity and social reasoning that they are able to reach civilisation.
Fire, then, is very crucial to the novel. For one, Ralph stresses its importance in concern with them being rescued, and therefore makes keeping the fire burning a continuous task shared between all of the boys.[231] Additionally, fire is important enough that, when Jack creates his own tribe that excludes Ralph and Piggy, he steals Piggy’s glasses and therefore their ability to create fire.[232] His use of fire, though, is not the hopeful prospect of being rescued, but instead is used in his large feast and ritual.[233] In the end, it is fire that symbolizes the destruction of their society as it burns down the entire island during Ralph’s chase,[234] but at the same time, this fire is what allows the boys to finally be rescued.[235] It is evident, then, that fire is commonly used within both Lord of the Flies and the Promethean myths in order to bring about civilisation: in the former case, fire is closely linked with Ralph’s attempt at order, and in the latter, fire is necessary for technical ingenuity and social knowledge.
Along with the hope symbolized within the fire, it is also evident through the boys’ hope of being rescued. In particular, Ralph sees views his father as a bringer of hope,[236] because he believes that his father will find and rescue them. Another example of hope is that symbolized by the conch. This is because the conch signifies order, which, similar to the fire, is necessary for the boys to survive and be rescued. As with the previous dystopian novels which follow the Promethean model of hope, Lord of the Flies contains hope as seeing it both as being brought by a figure and as being represented by an object.
The Hunger Games Trilogy
Similar to both 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, media is the most widespread example of technology within the Hunger Games trilogy. However, unlike the other two, this dystopia uses it as a form of punishment. This is because televisions are most notably used to force the citizens of the Districts to watch the Hunger Games.[237] Furthermore, these televisions are the most advanced form of technology given to the districts, while the Capitol is living in technological luxury. Because of this, technology creates a crucial disparity between the Capitol and Districts, and leads to the tensions that start the rebellion. In this way, there is a duality of technology and therefore, like Fahrenheit 451, and more so 1984, is comparable to the Promethean model.
Besides the lack of technological advancements within the Districts, knowledge is being withheld. This is first made evident when Katniss reveals that the Districts know very little about the other Districts.[238] No information is given about how many people live in each district or how well off they are, instead, they are privy only to the basic productions within each district. Moreover, District 13 hides itself from the other Districts after it was destroyed by the Capitol. Obviously, the Hunger Games trilogy contains the withholding of knowledge just as the Promethean model does. More than just the inclusion of this concept, though, is what makes them comparable: both Zeus and President Snow withhold in order to subjugate their inferiors, especially because Zeus initially wanted to destroy the human race and Snow does not want the Districts to know that they have the numbers to successfully rebel.
Finally, in the Hunger Games trilogy, fire and hope are crucial concepts. Within the novels, fire is used as a symbol of rebellion as it is closely connected to Katniss. Not only is she called ‘the Girl on Fire’,[239] but she also uses metaphors concerning fire when describing the rebellion, for example ‘If we burn, you’ll burn with us’.[240] Furthermore, fire is constantly used within the titles of the books and their sections. Most importantly, though, is the connection that fire has with hope because of its use as the symbol of the rebellion. Similarly, hope is connected to the rebellion by its representation as the mockingjay.[241] Additionally, though, hope is brought by figures like Katniss,[242] the past victors of the Hunger Games,[243] and by District 13.[244] Fire and hope are likewise important symbols within the Promethean myths. In fact the Hunger Games trilogy’s connection of fire to hope and rebellion is very reminiscent to the Promethean myths. Furthermore, hope is similarly depicted through a bringer of hope and as a symbolized object as done within the Promethean model.
Conclusion
Similar to the analysis of the rise of anarchy, this analysis of the journey to civilisation is comparably utilised within the dystopian literature as within the Promethean myths. Again, there are instances where clear adoptions of the Promethean myth are being made within the modern works: in Lord of the Flies, Jack’s act of stealing fire greatly resembles that by Prometheus, and in both Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies, advancements are not just technological, but are also, more importantly, social. Just as important, if not more important, is how these dystopian novels adapt the civilising characteristics of withholding knowledge, fire, social and technological advancements, technology impacting society, and hope within the Promethean model to support their own motivations. For example, the duality of technology, though present in both the Promethean myths and some of the dystopian literature, are used for different reasons; 1984 and the Hunger Games trilogy especially alter the model (Fahrenheit 451, meanwhile, uses the duality of technology in the most similar way to the Promethean model). Additionally, the connection of fire to the withholding of knowledge is different when depicted in the Promethean myths than that of 1984 or Fahrenheit 451. Once more, in most instances, these dystopian novels do not explore the civilising characteristics to the same extent or in the exact same ways as the Promethean model, but are still similar enough that the distinctions are not necessary to be discussed.
~Conclusion~
Dystopia: a Modern Prometheus
AND
Prometheus: an Ancient Dystopia
Within this dissertation, it was my goal to provide a new perspective on reception theory, the concept of tradition, and structuralism. To do this, I applied these ideas to both the Promethean myths and dystopian literature. It was my intention to prove that, as the title of this concluding chapter suggests, modern dystopia does follow within the Promethean tradition, and likewise, the Promethean myths can be considered dystopic. To support my claim, in Chapter 1 I explained how the Promethean myths can be received as a dystopia by looking at the structural components of the modern genre. I then reversed this concept in Chapters 2 and 3, where I analysed how the modern dystopian literature fit structurally within the Promethean tradition, first by looking at the rise of anarchy, and finally by looking at the journey to civilisation. Through this analysis, I believe I have provided enough evidence to validate that dystopia is a reception of the Promethean myths, as it follows structurally within the Promethean tradition, and that the Promethean myths themselves can be understood through a dystopic lens.
However, while I do believe that the Promethean myths were a necessary component in the creation of the dystopian genre, there are undoubtedly outliers that do not fit within the socio-political and civilising characteristics of the Promethean model as analysed in Chapters 2 and 3. In fact, my analysis of Lord of the Flies, because of its difficulty in being compared to the Promethean myths, can potentially refute my argument. Furthermore, dystopian novels that focus primarily on religion or politics, such as Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, and, more generally, eastern, especially Russian, dystopias, are more likely to oppose the Promethean model. Likewise, while I have interpreted the Promethean myths as dystopia, this can be contested, primarily by the fact that the concept of dystopia did not exist during ancient times, and therefore the initial reception of these myths would not have been viewed in this way.
Despite these possibly objections to my arguments, I have at the very least proven that both the Promethean myths and the dystopian genre are more complex than at first glance: the Promethean myths are more than just fire and rebellion, dystopia is more than just a degraded society. More so, though, I believe I have validated the fact that the ancient Promethean myths and the modern dystopian literature do have ties, whether consciously made or not. This substantiates the importance of classical reception, as there is a hidden web that carries the ancient to the modern in ways more subtly done than translations or retellings. My dissertation shows how, though the mythologies of ancient Greek culture were created thousands of years ago, to this day, “the gods and heroes of classical antiquity are part of our culture”.[245]
Bibliography
Primary Texts
Ancient
Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, trans. Phillip Vellacott
Aristophanes, Birds, trans. David Barrett
Hesiod, Theogony, trans. M.L. West
Hesiod, Works and Days, trans. M.L. West
Lucian, Dialogues of the Gods, trans. J. Loeb
Lucian, Prometheus, trans. J. Loeb
Lucian, To One Who Said “You’re a Prometheus in Words”, trans. J. Loeb
Ovid, Metamorphoses, trans. David Raeburn
Plato, Protagoras, trans. Adam Beresford
Intermediary
Marx, K.H. (1975) ‘Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’ in Karl Marx Fredrick Engles Collected Works vol. 1: 25-109.
Milton, J. (2008) Paradise Lost. Oxford.
Shelley, M. (1998) Frankenstein, Or, The Modern Prometheus. Oxford.
Shelley, P.B. (2011) Prometheus Bound + Prometheus Unbound. Massachusetts.
Von Goethe, J.W. (2011) ‘Prometheus’ in P.B. Shelley Prometheus Bound + Unbound. 208-210.
Modern
Bradbury, R. (1991) Fahrenheit 451. New York.
Collins, S. (2008) The Hunger Games. New York.
Collins, S. (2009) Catching Fire. New York.
Collins, S. (2010) Mockingjay. New York.
Golding, W. (2016) Lord of the Flies. New York.
Orwell, G. (1961) 1984. New York.
Orwell, G. (1996) Animal Farm. New York.
Secondary Texts
Aldiss, B.W. (1973) Billion Year Spree. London.
Booker, M.K. (1994) Dystopian Literature: A Theory and Research Guide. Connecticut.
Bowie, A. (2007) ‘Myth in Aristophanes’, in R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (New York), 190-209.
Boyle, A.J. (2007) ‘Ovid and Greek Myth’, in R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (New York), 355-381.
Brown, S.A. (2007) ‘“Hail Muse! et cetera”: Greek Myth in English and American Literature’, in R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (New York), 425-452.
Brown, S.A. (2008) ‘“Plato’s Stepchildren”: SF and the Classics’, in L. Hardwick & C. Stray (ed.), A Companion to Classical Receptions (Oxford), 415-427.
Brumble, H.D. (2007) ‘Let Us Make Gods in Our Image: Greek Myth in Medieval and Renaissance Literature’, in R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (New York), 407-424.
Budelmann, F. & Haubold, J. (2008) ‘Reception and Tradition’, in L. Hardwick & C. Stray (ed.), A Companion to Classical Receptions (Oxford), 13-25.
Clay, D. (2007) ‘Plato Philomythos’, in R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (New York), 210-236.
Cettl, F. (2015) ‘Revisiting Dystopia: the Reality Show Biopolitics of The Hunger Games’, in Kultura (MI-AN) vol. 12: 139-145.
Dougherty, C. (2006) Prometheus. Oxon.
Dowden, K. (1992) The Uses of Greek Mythology. London.
Dowden, K. (2006) Zeus. Oxon.
Gottlieb, E. (2001) Dystopian Fiction East and West: Universe of Terror and Trial. Quebec City.
Graver, B. (2007) ‘Romanticism’, in C.W. Kallendorf (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Tradition (Oxford), 72-86.
Graziosi, B. (2008) ‘The Ancient Reception of Homer’, in L. Hardwick & C. Stray (ed.), A Companion to Classical Receptions (Oxford), 26-37.
Hardwick, L. & Stray, C. (2008) ‘Introduction: Making Connections’, in L. Hardwick & C. Stray (ed.), A Companion to Classical Receptions (Oxford), 1-9.
Haynes, K. (2007) ‘Modernism’, in C.W. Kallendorf (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Tradition (Oxford), 101-114.
Kallendorf, C.W. (2007) ‘Renaissance’, in C.W. Kallendorf (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Tradition (Oxford), 30-43.
Kaminski, T. (2007) ‘Neoclassicism’, in C.W. Kallendorf (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Tradition (Oxford), 57-71.
Kirk, G.S. (1970) Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures. London.
Kumar, K. (1987) Utopia & Anti-Utopia in Modern Times. Oxford.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1955) ‘The Structural Story of Myth’ in The Journal of American Folklore, 68 (270): 428-444.
Martindale, C. (2007) ‘Reception’, in C.W. Kallendorf (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Tradition (Oxford), 297-311.
Porter, J.I. (2008) ‘Reception Studies: Future Prospects’, in L. Hardwick & C. Stray (ed.), A Companion to Classical Receptions (Oxford), 469-481.
Rey, F.E. (2010) ‘Weapons, Technological Determinism, and Ancient Warfare’, in G.G. Fagan & M. Trundle (ed.), New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare (Leiden/Boston), 21-56.
Rowland, I.D. (2007) ‘Baroque’, in C.W. Kallendorf (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Tradition (Oxford), 44-56.
Stray, C. (2007) ‘Education’, in C.W. Kallendorf (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Tradition (Oxford), 5-14.
Vance, N. (2007) ‘Victorian’, in C.W. Kallendorf (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Tradition (Oxford), 87-100.
Winkler, M.M. (2007) ‘Greek Myth on the Screen’, in R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (New York), 453-479.
Woodard, R.D. (2007) ‘Hesiod and Greek Myth’, in R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (New York), 83-165.
Zajko, V. (2007) ‘Women and Greek Mythology’, in R.D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (New York), 387-406.
Ziolkowski, J.M. (2007) ‘Middle Ages’, in C.W. Kallendorf (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Tradition (Oxford), 17-29.
[1] See Brown 2007: 440.
[2] See Brumble 2007 and Brown 2007.
[3] See Winkler 2007.
[4] See Clay 2007 for specific challenges of defining myth in ancient times, and Zajko 2007: 387 for general difficulty at different timer periods. Dougherty 2006: 11-3 attempts to give a more modern definition of the term.
[5] See Dowden 1992 for myth as historical evidence, and Kirk 1970 for more general and potential roles of myth.
[6] See Hardwick 2008 for a definition of reception and ways it can be used in approaching ancient material.
[7] See Budelmann 2008 for an explanation of tradition and how it is connected with reception.
[8] See Zajiko 2007: 389.
[9] See Graziosi 2008: 32.
[10] See Porter 2008: 474, Stray 2007: 5, and Martindale 2007: 298.
[11] See Martindale 2007: 298. A more general history of receptions/traditions during different time periods can be found within Ziolkowski 2007; Kallendorf Renaissance 2007; Rowland 2007; Kaminski 2007; Graver 2007; Vance 2007; and Haynes 2007.
[12] See Levi-Strauss 1955 for the general structural theory and for its application to the Oedipus myth, and Kirk 1970 for the application of structural theory by Levi-Strauss to mythologies from various cultures. I will be performing a simpler version of structuralism in two ways: comparing the Promethean events included within each ancient source; and comparing the various themes/concepts that are evident in both the ancient sources for the Promethean myth and in the modern dystopian literature.
[13] A very helpful and complete analysis of Prometheus is provided by Dougherty 2006.
[14] While a complete structuralist analysis of each source would be interesting and would add to my argument, it would require more space and would therefore be better suited for a separate essay.
[15] While all of these works add to the overall Promethean myth, the first three sources (both of Hesiod’s as well as Aeschylus’) are usually the most useful and applicable to my argument.
[16] See Woodard Hesiod 2007: 85-9.
[17] See Theogony lines 507-616.
[18] See Woodard Hesiod 2007: 105-6.
[19] See Works and Days lines 42-105.
[20] See Dougherty 2006: 65.
[21] See Protagoras lines 320d-323a.
[22] See Clay 2007: 216-7.
[23] See Bowie 2007: 105.
[24] He only appears in Birds lines 1494-1552.
[25] See Dougherty 2006: 86.
[26] See Boyle 2007: 358-9.
[27] See Metamorphoses 1.76-1.88 and 1.363—1.364.
[28] It is also interesting to note that, as well as having knowledge on classical mythology, and especially on the Promethean myths, Marx is also connected with utopian thoughts, and his ideas have influenced Socialism, Communism, and Nazism, all which were real-life attempts at utopia, that more so resembled dystopia.
[29] See Aldiss 1973: 3. This source, as well as Brown 2008, provides detailed information on the science fiction genre.
[30] See Kumar 1987: 385 and 403-4, which displays dystopian literature as being part of the science fiction genre.
[31] Utopia can then be defined as a ‘paradise on earth’ in which society is idealized. See Kumar 1987: 11.
[32] This is my own definition, created through the research I performed of the secondary sources listed in footnotes 29 and 30, and through my readings of the primary dystopian texts which will be discussed shortly. It is this definition which cements dystopia as being a subgenre of science fiction.
[33] See Brown 2008: 416-22 or Kumar 1987: 2-6.
[34] See Kumar 1987: 7-8, in which Birds especially is provided as an example of a satirized utopia.
[35] See Kumar 1987: 3, 11.
[36] I will specifically return to the latter two conceptions in a later chapter.
[37] See Booker 1994 and Gottlieb 2001 for a larger, but by no means complete, list of dystopian literature. As well, these books are good references for brief summaries of all of the dystopian literature to be discussed, except for Collins’ Hunger Games trilogy.
[38] Granted, I only included novels that were published around or after World War I, and from American or British authors. Admittedly, I could have included a wider scope of the genre, but for sake of space, I believe that opting for popular dystopias made more sense. Furthermore, these novels together display the progression of how societies become dystopic: both Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies observe the creation of dystopia, 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 display the height of the dystopic society, and the Hunger Games trilogy exhibits the overcoming of the dystopian society.
[39] This, and the dates in parentheses following the subsequent dystopian novels are the original publication dates, which may differ from the dates shown in the Bibliography section.
[40] See Booker 1994: 206.
[41] See both Booker 1994: 206-7 and Gottlieb 2001: 149.
[42] See Booker 1994: 208.
[43] See Booker 1994: 208-13 and Gottlieb 2001: 78.
[44] See Booker 1994: 88-91 and Gottlieb 2001: 88-91. It is important to note that there are various obvious classical references within this novel, so it is likely that Bradbury had direct knowledge of the Prometheus mythology.
[45] See Booker 1994: 88.
[46] See Booker 1994: 161-4. Golding’s novel is an outlier among the other dystopia to be discussed in that it does not have the same governmental structure. This will be outlined more in Chapter 1.
[47] Though it is set, presumably during WWII or a fictional world similar to this.
[48] See Booker 1994: 162-4.
[49] See Cettl 2005.
[50] These last two aspects might appear to be replications of the previous two chapters; however, they will be viewed in a different light.
[51] This is supported also by Booker 1994: 3-4, and Gottlieb 2001: 8.
[52] See Kumar 1987: 68. Though, of course, Nazism and Communism are distorted utopias themselves.
[53] Though Republic was created after Birds, by comparing the two it is evident how the latter comedy play subverts the utopian ideal. Also, see Kumar 1987: 99-100.
[54] See Birds lines 27-48, and 114-42.
[55] See Birds lines 162-97, 410-37, and 817-9.
[56] See Birds lines 516-38.
[57] See Republic: Books I and II.
[58] See Republic: Books II, II, IV, and V.
[59] See Republic: Books VI and VII.
[60] See Birds lines 114-22. In Republic, Socrates removes money from society so there is no wealth or poverty. See Republic: Book IV.
[61] See Birds lines 137-42. In Republic, Socrates believes in the relationship between men and boys, but believes sexual eroticism should not be implemented. See Republic: Book III.
[62] See Metamorphoses 1.89-1.150.
[63] See Works and Days lines 42-6, 90-3, 106-201.
[64] See Paradise Lost: Book XII.
[65] See Gottlieb 2001: 8.
[66] See Theogony lines 137, 168, and 475-6.
[67] See Theogony lines 207-10.
[68] See Theogony lines 492-506.
[69] See above section, titled Dystopia as Utopian Reaction.
[70] As will be described in detail in Chapter 2- Promethean Tradition: The Rise of Anarchy.
[71] Dowden 2006: 6.
[72] This concept will be further developed in the subsequent part of this chapter, Dystopian Social Characteristics.
[73] See Booker 1994: 1.
[74] See P.B. Shelley’s Prometheus Bound pp. 33, 34, 37, 46, 62, 63 [twice], 72, 73, and 75; Prometheus Unbound definitely applied to Jove on pp. 88, 94, 96, 104, 116, 157, and 175, potentially used to describe him on 98, 113, 117, 119, 173, 188, and 193.
[75] See Prometheus Bound lines 49-50, and 144-51.
[76] See Theogony lines 492-506.
[77] See Prometheus Bound: Hephaestus and Hermes.
[78] See Theogony lines 507-616.
[79] See Prometheus Bound lines 442-71 and 476-506.
[80] See Kumar 1987: 36.
[81] See Rey 2010: 27.
[82] See Prometheus Bound line 98, 149, and 736.
[83] See Prometheus Bound lines 12-3, 14-35, 39, 40-1, 49-50, 388, and 393-6; Theogony lines 570-612; Works and Days lines 59-92.
[84] See Prometheus Bound lines 231-2.
[85] See Prometheus Bound lines 231-2. The explanation for how he does this will be further explored in the following chapter.
[86] See Theogony lines 535-53; Lucian’s Prometheus 3; To One Who Said “You’re A Prometheus in Words’’ 7; Dialogues of the Gods 5(1) 204.
[87] See Theogony lines 550-7.
[88] See Prometheus Bound lines 7-8, and 109-11; Theogony lines 565-7; Protagoras lines 321c-321e; Works and Days lines 50-3; Lucian’s Prometheus 3 and 5; Dialogues of the Gods 5(1) 204.
[89] See Protagoras lines 321c-321e.
[90] See: Theogony lines 570-612; Works and Days lines 59-92.
[91] See Prometheus Bound lines 12-35, 88-100, and 1007-35; Theogony lines 521-5; Protagoras lines 322a; Dialogues of The Gods 5(1) 204; Lucian’s Prometheus 1-2. I include ‘just trial’ because Zeus is usually closely associated with justice, see Dowden 2006: 3-4.
[92] See Prometheus Bound lines 197-223.
[93] See Paradise Lost: Book V.
[94] See Paradise Lost: Book I.
[95] See Paradise Lost: Book IX.
[96]See Paradise Lost: Book VIII.
[97] See Paradise Lost: IX.
[98] See Goethe’s Prometheus p. 208.
[99] See Goethe’s Prometheus p. 210.
[100] See P.B. Shelley’s Prometheus Bound pp. 50-1.
[101] This point was analyzed further in Chapter 1: Dystopian Tradition: Utopian Distortion and Degradation.
[102] See Theogony lines 492-506.
[103] See Prometheus Bound lines 442-71 and 476-506.
[104] See Birds lines 162-97, 410-37, and 817-9.
[105] See AF: pp. 24-5.
[106] See AF: pp. 35-6.
[107] See AF: pp. 32 and 35.
[108] See AF: pp. 66, 82, 93, 94-5, 99, 114, and 116.
[109] See AF: pp. 52-3.
[110] See Prometheus Bound lines 197-223.
[111] See Prometheus Bound line 736.
[112] See Prometheus Bound lines 12-35, 88-100, 1007-35; Theogony lines 521-5; Protagoras lines 322a; Dialogues of The Gods 5(1) 204; Lucian’s Prometheus 1-2.
[113] See AF: pp. 62-6.
[114] See AF: pp. 74-5.
[115] See AF: p. 75.
[116] See Theogony lines 535-53; Lucian’s Prometheus 3; To One Who Said “You’re A Prometheus in Words’’ 7; Dialogues of the Gods 5(1) 204.
[117] See AF: pp. 66-7.
[118] See AF: pp. 76-7.
[119] See AF: pp. 76-7.
[120] See AF: pp. 58, 64, 69-70, 78-82, 97, and 107.
[121] See AF: pp. 83-4, 84, and 95.
[122] See Prometheus Bound lines 12-35, 88-100, 1007-35; Theogony lines 521-5; Protagoras lines 322a; Dialogues of The Gods 5(1) 204; Lucian’s Prometheus 1-2.
[123] See Works and Days lines 42-105.
[124] See 1984: pp. 6-9, 18, 19, 28, 63-4, 67, 68, 69, 72-3, 80, and 81.
[125] See 1984: pp. 65-6, and 164-5.
[126] See 1984: p. 170.
[127] See Works and Days lines 42-105.
[128] See 1984: p. 286.
[129] See 1984: p. 71.
[130] See 1984: pp. 38-9.
[131] See 1984: p. 130.
[132] See 1984: pp. 1-2.
[133] See 1984: pp. 1-2.
[134] See 1984: p. 208.
[135] See 1984: p. 208.
[136] See 1984: p. 208.
[137] See 1984: p. 260.
[138] See 1984: pp. 4-5.
[139] See 1984: pp. 239-43.
[140] See 1984: pp. 243-59.
[141] See 1984: pp. 260-73.
[142] See 1984: pp. 282-7.
[143] See 1984: p. 298.
[144] See Prometheus Bound lines 9-11.
[145] See F451: pp.3-4.
[146] See F451: pp. 5-10.
[147] See F451: pp. 65-6, and 102.
[148] See F451: pp. 5-10, 11-4, 28-31.
[149] See F451: p. 47.
[150] See F451: pp. 52-63.
[151] See F451: pp. 113-7.
[152] See F451: pp. 117-8.
[153] See F451: pp.119-21.
[154] See F451: pp. 132-41.
[155] See F451: pp. 50, 76, 83, 86, 87, 113, 115, and 151. The classical reference found on F451 p. 115 is potentially a direct Promethean reference.
[156] See F451: pp. 52-63.
[157] See LotF: pp. 22-3.
[158] See LotF: p. 23.
[159] See LotF: pp. 38, 42-3, 69-73, 106, 118-21, 125-7 and 139-40.
[160] See LotF: p. 140.
[161] See LotF: pp. 166-8.
[162] See LotF: pp. 48-9.
[163] See LotF: pp. 180-1.
[164] See LotF: pp. 188-202.
[165] See LotF: pp. 88, and 143-4.
[166] See the Hunger Games series: HG pp. 18-19 and 42.
[167] See the Hunger Games series: HG p. 20.
[168] See the Hunger Games series: HG p. 22.
[169] See the Hunger Games series: HG pp. 69, 71, 79, 261-5, and 281.
[170] See the Hunger Games series: HG p. 244.
[171] See the Hunger Games series: HG p. 342.
[172] See the Hunger Games series: HG pp. 344-5.
[173] See the Hunger Games series: CF pp. 19-29.
[174] See the Hunger Games series: CF pp. 251-2.
[175] See the Hunger Games series: CF pp. 385-7.
[176] See the Hunger Games series: MJ pp. 214-7.
[177] See the Hunger Games series: MJ p. 372.
[178] See the Hunger Games series: HG pp. 18-19 and 42.
[179] See the Hunger Games series: CF pp. 171-3, and 175.
[180] See the Hunger Games series: CF pp. 104-19.
[181] See the Hunger Games series: CF pp. 106-7.
[182] See the Hunger Games series: MJ p. 3.
[183] See the Hunger Games series: MJ pp. 180-2, and 194-5.
[184] This concept of different races of humans was discussed further in Chapter 1: Dystopian Tradition: Utopian Distortion and Degradation.
[185] See Prometheus Bound lines 7-8, 109-11; Theogony lines 565-7; Works and Days lines 50-3; Lucian’s Prometheus 3 and 5; Dialogues of the Gods 5(1) 204; Protagoras lines 321c-321e.
[186] It is interesting to note here that Prometheus means forethought, as he does not only have some extent of knowledge of the future, but that he provides knowledge to the human race; see Protagoras lines 321c.
[187] See Prometheus Bound lines 442-71 and 476-506.
[188] In one case, Zeus allows Pandora, and therefore humankind, to possess hope; see Works and Days lines 96-9.
[189] See Prometheus Bound lines 250.
[190] See Works and Days lines 96-9.
[191] See Marx: p. 31.
[192] See Paradise Lost: Book VIII.
[193] See Kumar 1987: 36, 85, 389.
[194] See AF: p. 21
[195] See AF: p. 32.
[196] See AF: p. 24-5.
[197] See AF: pp. 32-3.
[198] See AF: pp. 66-7, 91-2, and 106-9.
[199] See AF: pp. 34-5.
[200] See AF: pp. 54, 63, and 82.
[201] See AF: pp. 80, and 116-7.
[202] See AF: pp. 132-3.
[203] See AF: pp. 5, 29, 61, and 74.
[204] See AF: pp. 48-9.
[205] See AF: pp. 121-4.
[206]See AF: pp. 68-71.
[207] See 1984: pp. 2, 3, and 37.
[208] See 1984: p. 189.
[209] See 1984: p. 189.
[210] See 1984: pp. 38-9.
[211] See 1984: pp. 33-5.
[212] See 1984: pp. 34-5.
[213] See 1984: pp. 243-59.
[214] See 1984: pp. 37-8.
[215] See F451: p. 20.
[216] See F451: p. 12.
[217] See F451: pp. 14-5.
[218] See F451: p. 92.
[219] See F451: pp. 10, 18, and 53.
[220] See F451: p. 8.
[221] See F451: pp. 52-63.
[222] See F451: pp. 11, 12, 37, 63, 78, 82, 92, 103, 105, 113, and 126.
[223] See F451: pp. 145-6.
[224] See F451: pp. 82-6, and 151-4.
[225] See F451: pp.119-21.
[226] See LotF: pp.80-1.
[227] See LotF: pp. 50-2.
[228] See LotF: p. 48.
[229] See LotF: p. 148.
[230] See LotF: pp. 114-5, and 151-8.
[231] See LotF: p. 42.
[232] See LotF: pp. 136-40.
[233] See LotF: pp. 140, and 148-53.
[234] See LotF: pp. 194-201.
[235] See LotF: pp. 201-2.
[236] See LotF: pp. 13-4.
[237] See the Hunger Games series: HG pp. 17-9.
[238] See the Hunger Games series: HG p. 203.
[239] See the Hunger Games series: HG pp. 354-5.
[240] See the Hunger Games series: MJ p. 100.
[241] See the Hunger Games series: CF pp. 135, and 139-40.
[242] See the Hunger Games series: CF pp. 99-100 and MJ pp. 89-90.
[243] See the Hunger Games series: CF pp. 175.
[244] See the Hunger Games series: CF pp. 147-8.
[245] See Dowden 2006: ix.