Prometheus in Fetters is a work that raises many questions and causes interpretation difficulties - from the problem of the disputed authorship, through the uncertain dating, to the stage solutions (the number of actors and the possible use of a puppet in the first scene) and ideological solutions (the way Zeus is presented). All of these issues have a long history of scientific disputes, a vast literature on the subject, and - unfortunately - most of them are still far from conclusions that would be unanimously accepted by scholars. It is not the task of this short introduction to engage in a critical discussion of the various views, or even to summarize their most important theses. The most important monographs on Greek tragedy and/or the works of Aeschylus (e.g. Lesky and Chodkowski) will succinctly provide them, along with all the necessary bibliographical references. Without taking a stand in the dispute about Aeschylus' authorship of the drama, for the purpose of this introduction I assume that it was staged in Athens between 467 and 465 (Chodkowski 1994: 289-290).
The theme of sacrifice in this tragedy, called by Silver a "cosmogonic drama", appears only once in Prometheus' speech in the second epeisodion. Apart from this short passus there are no direct or even indirect metaphorical or metonymic references to sacrificial themes or terminology in the text. The text, apart from the indicated passus, does not contain a single technical term connected in any way with sacrificial terminology.
Greek text as edited: West (1992a).
493–499:
Passus from the second epeisodion, from the second part of Prometheus' speech, in which he enumerates the benefits he brought to people. The theme of sacrifice as one of Prometheus' gifts to mankind appears in the context of the mantic gifts - although the description refers to the ritual of sacrifice and mentions the technical details of the ritual procedure, it is only in the mantic context. "Invention" of the burnt offering is traditionally attributed to Prometheus (Hes. Th. 535-537; Plin. HN 7, 209; cf. Griffith 1983: 176 with citation to Eitrem 1946: 14-19). The sacrifice described here by Aeschylus is a divination sacrifice; alternatively, it can be assumed that he includes in the op-ed only those elements that remain in connection with the process of divination, combined with a blood sacrifice. Both of these gifts - sacrifice and divination - fall into the category of technai skills (v. 506: πᾶσαι τέχναι βροτοῖσιν ἐκ Προμηθέως). Prometheus is a teacher of sacrificial and divination techniques, not principles of piety (Griffith 1983: 176). A kind of "reversal" and at the same time a complement to the description of divination from burning sacrifices in the empyromantic process is the scene in S. Ant. verses 1005-1020 (see my commentary on this passus below). In the sacrifice described there, as interpreted by Tiresias, all the omens are unfavorable, and the elements of the sacrificial mantis mentioned in Prometheus' speech are missed. This passus has so far attracted no special attention from commentators in classical studies (see Harry 1905: 218-219; Thomson 1932: 158; a few sentences in: Podlecki 2005: 178 and Rose 1957a: 282), none of them accentuating the accumulation of technical sacrificial-mantic terminology.
σπλάγχνων τε λειότητα, καὶ χροιὰν τίνα
ἔχουσ᾽ ἂν εἴη δαίμοσιν πρὸς ἡδονὴν
λοβοῦ τε ποικίλην εὐμορφίαν-
κνίσῃ τε κῶλα ξυγκαλυπτὰ καὶ μακρὰν
ὀσφῦν πυρώσας δυστέκμαρτον εἰς τέχνην
ὥδωσα θνητούς, καὶ φλογωπὰ σήματα
ἐξωμμάτωσα, πρόσθεν ὄντ᾽ ἐπάργεμα.
[I was the one who pointed them out ...]. And the smoothness of the splanchness and what color the yellow might be, That it may please the gods, and the various shapes of the lobe [of the liver]; And also the parts of animals, hidden in fat, and the long tail, Having burned for a sacrifice, to hard skill I led the mortal and at the soothsaying signs from the flame, Previously incomprehensible, I opened their eyes.
493: σπλάγχνων τε λειότητα - "smoothness of splanchna"; splanchna, i.e. entrails, offal - especially liver. Cf. E. El. 827: λοβὸς μὲν προσῆν σπλάνχνοις (cf. comment ad loc. and below on v. 495). Splanchna as a technical term belong simultaneously to the language of mantics and sacrifice. The cutting out, the mantic examination, the roasting on the altar fire, and the eating of the splanchna are part of the sacrificial ritual throughout. The examination of the entrails with a view to obtaining omens is, on the one hand, an autonomous mantic activity, and on the other, an important component of the sacrificial process. In the process of divination, the physical state - "smoothness," the absence of defects or damage - was a subject of particular importance and attention (Furley, Gysembergh 2015: 11, 22; Rose 1957a: 282).
495: χολή - "bile" and/or "gall bladder". I leave "bile" in the translation for stylistic and euphonic reasons. "Gall sac" is usually χολαί (pl., see LSJ, s.v.), but not altogether (cf. e.g. S. El. 828 or Arist. HA 506a20). The passus in question draws attention to only one feature of χολή taken into account in the process of divination: χροιά - it can be a color, but it can also simply be "potop" (Furley, Gysembergh 2015: 11; D. Collins 2008: 322). The category of color can refer to both the gallbladder and the bile itself, the quality of surface - only the gallbladder. It is also possible The metonymic use of the word bile (χολή) to designate the gall bladder (χολαί), as is also the case in everyday language today. Basically, the passus is generally about the appearance, condition, quality of the internal organ, both in terms of color and as a whole. According to William Furley and Victor Gysembergh (2015: 22), in the mantal study of bile, the point is that the sac is well filled with bile, which seems to confirm the intended ambiguity of the discussed notions in the commented passages. Only a gallbladder that is filled with bile has the right colour, shape and undamaged surface.
495: λοβοῦ τε ποικίλην εὐμορφίαν - "the various shapes of the lobe [of the liver]". Λοβός is generally a 'lobe', a 'flap' - of the auricle, for example; in relation to splanchna it always refers to the liver as the primary object of mantic research, or to the whole of the given organ - the liver including bile (see Rose 1957a: 282, commentary on χολή). Ποικίλη εὐμορφία means metaphorically "variety of beautiful shapes" rather than literally "variety of beautiful shapes". (cf. LSJ, s.v. III).
496: κνίσῃ τε κῶλα ξυγκαλυπτά - κῶλα, "parts" [of the sacrificial animal] - here as much as μηρία - femurs, rolled (ξυγκαλυπτά) into κνίση, fat or peritoneum (cf. Hes. Th. 541, S. Ant. 1011 - καλυπτῆς πιμελῆς - with commentary, see Rose 1957a: 282).
497-498: μακρὰν / ὀσφῦν - "long tail"; de facto: tail bone together with the tail, i.e. as much as ἱερὸν ὀστοῦν, Latin os sacrum, an anatomical term (Podlecki 2005: 178; see van Straten 1988: 59-60 with a detailed anatomical description). The tail together with the tailbone was a necessary part burnt for the gods during sacrifice. A good sign was the curling of the burnt tail upwards (van Straten 1995: 190 and van Straten 1988: 61-67).
497: πυρώσας - "having burned for a sacrifice"; verb πυρόω - here as much as καίω: "to burn", literally: "to put into the fire". In context of this passus is, on the one hand, as much as θύω - "to burn for a sacrifice", "to turn into smoke", on the other hand - a reference to empyrean: divination from the froth (cf. the commentary below on v. 498).
498: φλογωπὰ σήματα - "foretelling signs from the flame". The passus refers to empyromancy - divination from observation of the burning process of the parts of the sacrificial animal laid on the altar, their reaction to the flame and/or the fire itself, its strength, shape and general appearance (Stengel 1898: 58; Parke 1967: 184, Johnston 2008: 98). In the empyromantic act of divination in Sophocles' Antigone (vv. 1008-1009 and 1020, see coauthors), fire does not appear at all, which in itself is the worst possible sign. Fire divination at Thebes is mentioned not only by Sophocles (so in OT 21), but also by Herodotus (8.134: τοῦτο μὲν τῷ ᾿Ισμηνίῳ Ἀπόλλωνι ἐχρήσατο, ἔστι δὲ κατά περ ἐν Ὀλυμπίῃ ἐμπύροισι αὐτόθι χρηστηριάζεσθαι); while Pindar attests this practice at Olympia on the famous altar of Zeus (Ol. 8.1-7: μάντιες ἄνδρες / ἐμπύροις τεκμαιρόμενοι and, most probably, also 6.68-74, where the term empyra itself does not appear; see Parke 1967: 184). Apollonios of Rhodes (1.145, cf. 1.437) lists "observing signs from the flotsam" - ἔμπυρα σήματ᾽ ἰδέσθαι - alongside divination from the flight of birds (οἰωνούς τ᾽ ἀλέγειν) as two components of Idmon's prophetic skills (θεοπροπία).19 The process of divination from flames may have been accompanied by other rituals: the pouring out of liquid offerings (E. IA 59: δι᾽ ἐμπύρων σπονδὰς καθεῖναι) or the casting of a curse (later, in Polybius 16.31.7: κατάρας ἐπὶ ἐμπύρων ποιεῖσθαι). Other attestations: A. Ch. 485, E. El. 405, IT 16, Ph. 1255. Cf. also Suda (s.v.): Ἔμπυρα, τὰ καιόμενα ἱερεῖα. ἔστι δὲ σημεῖα ἐν τούτοις ἀποδεδειγμένα and Hesychios (s.v. θυοσκόος): οἱ δὲ τὸν δι᾽ ἐμπύρων ἱερῶν τὰ σημαινόμενα νοοῦντα.