Promethean Figure Analysis

The distinction between archetypes and myth has often been blurred so much that myth critics have widely been using archetypal vocabulary (Reeves). Lévi Strauss’s assumption, “all human behavior is based on certain unchanging patterns, whose structure is the same in all ages and in all societies” (Morford and Lenardon 9), endorses the applicability of the mythological interpretation of the Promethean figure to the modern situation. The Promethean figure has contradictory characteristics: he is the archetype of culture god or hero responsible for all arts and science and at the same time the archetype of the divine or heroic trickster (Morford and Lenardon 60). A catholic marriage is attempted between the image and the idea in mythic conception. Therefore, the Promethean image, ignites an idea and strikes a chord in human beings everywhere and throughout time. Moreover, “the purpose of myth is to provide a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction” (Reeves), something typical of the human mind and recurrent in the Promethean dilemma.

Works dealing with Prometheus myth are compared in order to uncover the archetypes, “the universal symbols” (Aliyeva) that refer to reality. In all works, the Promethean figure advocates a sense of spiritual unity, a mandala. The

Dougherty maintains that:

As rebel, traitor, culture hero, and protector of mankind, Prometheus embodies the human condition with all its potential for brilliant innovation and for cruel suffering. Throughout the centuries since the Prometheus myth first captured the popular imagination, the fire that he steals for mortals has come to represent the spirit of technology, forbidden knowledge, the conscious intellect, political power, and artistic inspiration.