The zeal of Prometheus on behalf of mankind is brought to Its chap.
acme in the institutional legend which professed to account for the
portion assigned to the gods in the distribution of victims slain in
sacrifices. They have only the bones and the fat, while the meat and 2eus.
the entrails belong to men. This practice is ascribed strictly to the
craft of Prometheus, who, in the great contest between gods and men
in Mekone, divided an ox, and placing the meat under the stomach
and the bones under the more inviting and auspicious fat, called on
Zeus to make his choice. The god with great eagerness placed both
hands on the fat, and was enraged on finding that it concealed only a
heap of bones. ^ This insult, according to the Hesiodic Theogony,
Zeus avenged by depriving men of fire— a sequel hopelessly at
variance with the more genuine form of the myth as related by
Æschylos.
But the name Prometheus ^ suggested to the Greeks a connexion Prome- with words springing from the same root with Metis and Medeia. It Pandora, came, in short, to mean Forethought or Providence, and thus they were led to its antithesis Epimetheus, Afterthought, and to exalt the one by framing a story to illustrate the vanity of the other. This is as
^ The Hesiodic poet in relating this story makes use of one or two expres- sions which imply or assert that Zeus saw through the trick from the first, and that thus it was in fact no trick at all. When Zeus saw the two heaps laid out for his choice, he is made to say that the division is not fair. The poet adds ihat this was a sarcasm from a god whose wisdom was boundless ; and in the same way. when he is sum- moned to choose, the poet says that he did so with his eyes open, yvw ^' ouS' rtyvo'iTiae S6ov. The words are intro- duced simply to save the majesty of Zeus at the cost of complete inconsis- tency with the story. Had he thus seen through the trick, he would have de- feated it, and would certainly have shown no feverish eagerness to lay his hands on the tempting heap of fat. But Prometheus succeeds m his scheme ; in other words, Zeus is really outwitted. Grote sees clearly that the poet's re- servation cannot be admitted. — ///jA Greece, i. 86. In one point, however, the ^schylean version is as singularly at variance with itself as in all others it is with the Hesiodic myth. These chil- dren of men, who are described as being unable either to see or hear, and as clustering together like ants in their sunless caves until they receive the boon of fire and the blessings which follow that gift, yet possess a knowledge of things to come, and see most clearly what is to be the course and the close of their lives, TrpoSipKecrdai fiSpov, before Prometheus brings down for them the heavenly fire. This power he takes away from them, substituting blind hopes or dreams in its place ; and when he has added to this benefit the gift of the fire, he then instructs them in divi- nation, thus supplying in a measure the very knowledge which he had wished to take away, and of which he had in fact deprived them. The contradiction could not be more complete. '^ It has been connected by Dr. Kuhn with the Sanskrit Pramantha or chum used for kindling fire with dried pieces of wood. The wood thus has reference not to his wisdom but to his giving of the fire ; and it was in this case a mere resemblance of sound which led the Greeks to explain the name as denoting forethought. Hence Epimetheus is strictly the result of a false etymology ; and the process which brought him into existence is illustrated by the language of Pindar {Pyth. v. 25), who assigns to Epimetheus a daughter Prophasis, Ex- cuse, the offspring of after-thought. — Grote, Hist. Gr. i. 102. 2 F
