In 1932 Sigmund Freud published a paper which discussed the Prometheus myth in relation to his earlier thesis outlining the Oedipus complex and the manifestation of the sub-concious in mythology. It seems then that Freud was attempting to consolidate his theory by applying it to another part of the Greek mythological corpus; like a scientist making the same study of a hypothesis in multiple experiments with different subjects. However, Freud, in my opinion, cannot be associated with that sort of Baconian, fact-finding scientist. Instead he is involved here with literary analysis and criticism; literary analysis where there is no definitive authorial information, no definitive motive and a message which could potentially range from 'gospelic' religion to entertainment.
Intrinsically, a psychoanalytic reading of an individual text is no bad thing; it would be an interesting position to take on the author's purpose, imagery and textual philosophy. However, to extrapolate a general psychological theory applicable across culture, race and time would be presumptuous, tenuous and perhaps foolhardy. Whitehead, (On Prometheus, The International Review of Psycho-Analysis, http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=irp.014.0527a ) has said that Freud's personal dynamics constrained his literary interpretation and his theory formation.
To take one point of Freud's Promethean theory as a case study, the supposed conflict between fire and water is a particularly contrived motif which is focussed upon. It could be argued that Freud, after his initial success with his Oedipal theory is here trying to force the point slightly. The conflict in Hesiod is not fire against water but rather knowledge against ignorance, civilisation against primitivism, light against dark. Freud asserts that, due to the sub-concious's nature, the fennel talk which Prometheus uses to transport fire is actually meant as a fire quenching device; contending with and destroying Zeus's phallic, lightning originating fire. Whitehead has observed that Freud's interpretation of this as a pleasurable phallic duel conveniently ignores Prometheus's 'agonising' punishment and Hesiod's own continued reference to Zeus's anger. Freud says that the conflict is born out of a repressed homosexuality and the repressed desire to act out of passion in an animalistic way. I would hesitate to discard Freud's theory out of hand. I think that fundamentally, and regardless of civilisation's advances man is driven by an innate, primitive desire to survive, procreate and act through a type of sensual perception. Freud astutely observed that the god's which Hesiod described are emblematic of what he named the 'Id' - that part of our sub-concious which is the seat of the carnal desires and visceral survival instinct. The gods are undying, they can choose sexual partners at will and they do not have to experience hardship in order to feed and survive as a 'race'. They are everything we dream of being. However the Greeks, I believe, were more enlightened than Freud gives them credit for. The gods are not seen as inhabiting a realm or state that man should find desirable for in their infinite power and immortality they lack the capacity for virtue. In Homer's epic cycle the roles which became idealised are those of Hector, Achilles, Odysseus, while Mars is almost ridiculed for fleeing the battlefield after receiving a wound which cannot harm him. These characters act with strength, pride, honour; all those traits which make a man's life worthy.
In addition to this, Freud's belief that the duel between Zeus and Prometheus represents a phallic, homoerotic contest stemming from a deep repression also misses a key point of Greek culture. Homosexuality was not something that had to be repressed. It did not need to burst forth from in the author's sub-concious to colour obscure. emblematic imagery - it is prevalent and obvious in much Greek literature from the tale of Zeus and Ganymede to Plato's 'Symposium'. Freud is projecting the mentality of late 19th and early 20th century Europe onto the ancient Greeks. There I believe he made a grave error.
The Greeks were not Freud, they are not us. They must be read in relation to their own culture and any underlying messages must be regarded as being specifically related to the context of the work.
'The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.'
No comments:
Post a Comment