From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Similar or original?[edit]

Is it possible to ad Sosruko from the Nart sagas ( to "theft of fire" or as a similar deity. Because Sosruko is from the caukasus (where Prometheus is punished) and is famous for his theft of fire from the giant (Titan? or Zeus?) for mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shauwe'shu' (talkcontribs) 17:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor fix[edit]

The reference to Loki's wife probably ought to carry a link to the Sigyn article. Can't edit the page due to its protected nature. Kandsten (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The film Prometheus 2012 should not be discussed in this wiki article. As someone who has seen the movie, the name Prometheus is the only real reference to the character, has little to nothing to do with the historical figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Any chance for a split?[edit]

As far as I recall the "In Modern Culture" and "In Arts" section of this article has been debated about quite a bit over this articles history, nevertheless little has been done to address this. At the moment I believe the Prometheus article suffers badly from the inclusion of these sections, not only because they are very lengthly and poorly organized, but more importantly because they take away for the subject of the article, which is primarily about the mythological character. For this reason, I'm proposing a spilt, similar to the one done with Hercules, where all culture and modern interpertations were moved to Hercules in popular culture. The new article would be called Prometheus in Popular Culture and would link back to the main article. If anyone has any objections please voice them. If not I'll carry this out in the next few weeks. Thanks France3470 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to create Prometheus in popular culture. Most of the information in the "in other arts" and "in modern culture" sections should just be deleted. It's quite possible to write a nice section on the influence of the Prometheus myth and the various forms it takes in modern literature, art, etc., but that section should emphatically not be a list of random stuff. If it were done well, it should be in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Bad idea. Eventually someone will nominate it for deletion, it will disappear and the material will retunr here anyway. The only way is to make a well-rounded, defined couple of paragraphs of notable depictions and discussion of them (with references). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that splitting the sections into another article is a good idea. The Prometheus article should have a concise section about the influence of the myth on modern culture, and possibly include a few notable examples. However, it is also good to have a separate article which goes into more detail about the topic, and includes a more complete list of instances of Prometheus in modern culture. This way, the Prometheus article is improved, and those who are interested can still see for themselves what has been influenced by the myth, instead of only being told that it is influential. EmCat24 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly I completely forgot about this proposal I made for a split. I'm rather unsure about what to do about this issue. Having read Akhilleus' and Casliber's comments I not convinced making a second page would be entirely beneficial. I'm going to let his mull over for a bit longer. If anyone else have any opinions please raise them. France3470 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Split declined. No consensus. SilkTork *YES! 19:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

The article is currently mostly a series of unsourced lists/notes. Information should be presented in a manner which explains and puts it into context for the general reader. Information should be gathered from reliable sources and the sources should be referenced inline. Sections which have been tagged as problematic should be cleaned up. If they haven't been cleaned up in a reasonable space of time (a month), the material should be removed. SilkTork *YES! 19:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Multiple mothers[edit]

The article introduces Prometheus as the son of Iapetus and Themis but then goes on saying that, according to Hesiod, he was the son of Iapetus and Clymene/Asia. Who said Prometheus was the son of Themis? I think the introduction should reflect this and is should say "son of Iapetus and Themis or Clymene/Asia".

ICE77 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC) puts the parentage of Prometheus and attribution as the following. Iapetos & Klymene (Hesiod Theogony 507, Hesiod Works & Days 54, Hyginus Fabulae 142); Iapetos & Asia (Apollodorus 1.8); Iapetos (Quintus Smyrnaeus 10.190, Diodorus Sic. 5.67.1, Ovid Metamorphoses 1.82, Valerius Flaccus 4.60, Oppian Halieutica 5.4); Themis or Gaia (Aesch. Prometheus Bound 8 & 211 & 873). Although I cannot vouch for the validity of this information it may be a good place to begin looking. Perhaps it would be best if the attribution was stated in the introduction as well, something along the lines of "Hesiod attributes the parentage of Prometheus to Iapetus and Themis..."-France3470 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Since most of the sources point to Iapetus and Asia/Klymene, shouldn't the introduction reflect this instead of using Iapetus and Themis? I read all the articles on Prometheus' brothers. Not one of them mentions Themis. They all point to Asia/Klymene as the mother of the four Titans.

ICE77 (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Son of Iapetus and Themis[edit]

According to, Prometheus was said to be the son of Iapetus and Clymene or Asie. Themis was mentioned as the mother of Prometheus only in the play of Prometheus Bound not particularly with Iapetus himself. (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Uncertain father and mother[edit]

According to the reply from France3470, here's the situation in terms of parentage:

1. Iapetos & Klymene (Hesiod - Theogony 507, Hesiod - Works & Days 54, Hyginus - Fabulae 142)

2. Iapetos & Asia (Apollodorus 1.8)

3. Iapetos (Quintus Smyrnaeus 10.190, Diodorus Sic. 5.67.1, Ovid Metamorphoses 1.82, Valerius Flaccus 4.60, Oppian Halieutica 5.4)

4. Themis or Gaia (Aeschylus - Prometheus Bound 8 & 211 & 873)

Does source 3 imply that only the father was known and the mother is unknown or mentioned?

For source 4, Gaia and Themis are two distinct figures in Greek myhology, Gaia being the primordial deity and mother of Themis. Why is there such an identification/uncertainty? Is Iapetus mentioned by Aeschylus at all as a father?

ICE77 (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


Why is this article (semi-)protected? Prometheus is not a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemokid70 (talkcontribs) 04:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it was getting hit with a lot of vandalism. Pages don't have to be about living people to be protected. Oreo Priest talk 07:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, "probably" isn't good enough. As far as I can see this page has been protected since the 9th of September 2009 and I see no discussion or reason regarding its sustained length of protection in the talk pages. Wikipedia isn't simply for editors who consider themselves experts on subjects and see fit to exclude edits they consider dubious because they do not wish to sign up. Remove the protected status please. (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 19 September 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

following page to be added to external links:

The three myths of Nike and Prometheus

it has three myths of prometheus and a poem called prometheus by lord byron.

thank you. (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how that link meets WP:EL - if you disagree, please elaborate here. For now, Not done  Chzz  ►  04:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please remove/rewrite insensitive section[edit]

Just like to point out that this article is quite insensitive to the point of being offensive in the section "Comparative Myths" -> Wikipedia should not be pushing an agenda whether it be atheistic or religious. Please have some respect for the religious beliefs of others and rewrite this section in a less judgemental, less insensitive and less offensive manner (i.e. please don't automatically dismiss religion as a myth, to a very large part of the world's population it is anything but). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of living people?[edit]

Tooltip over the semi-protect icon (I always read those when I notice them) says: "This article is semi-protected to promote compliance with the policy on biographies of living people." Say what? --Quintucket (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected it from {{pp-semi-blp}} to {{pp-semi-indef}}. Not sure why the article is permanently semi-protected, though. - htonl (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I have requested unprotection, and also want to put it on record that Marley23 is a twat. Egg Centric 10:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unreal - Return to Na Pali[edit]

In computer game, "Unreal- Return to Na Pali", the abandoned space station was named UMS Prometheus. Many levels of the game occur on this space-ship/station. Somebody please look up a reliable source and add this entry in modern culture. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

The Ship in Ridley Scott's Alien Series is called Prometheus and like the article already says the upcoming movie is named after Prometheus too. Mochattez 20:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mochattez (talkcontribs)


Is there some reason we can't have an image of Prometheus at the top, and images scattered throughout the text at appropriate points? I'm not seeing any controversy on this page that would explain the unusual layout. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, have tried to make everything less random. Scattered images throughout, with consideration of their illustrative value. Moved some random lists to new list articles. Sorted all the 'cultural references' into lists. Mostly just moved stuff around. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The Scott Eaton image might be back. I had emailed to verify that he had intended to release the image to Wikipedia, and he confirmed, but the people at Commons are still trying to document permission. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to put the image back in the lead if it does get the permission. I didn't really look into why it was deleted but thought it would be good to still have an image at the top with the lead. France3470 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, this has become so grotesquely complicated that I don't have time to pursue it. The artist asked me to update the license, but requested a non-commercial version. I replied that we don't do NC licenses, but that I did update it to the license most like the one he requested that didn't specify "non-commercial use", and that he could let me know if that wasn't OK and I could put him in touch with someone better informed. He didn't reply, but an OTRS tag needs to be completed to confirm. Since he's a professional of some stature, I don't feel competent to hash out the issue with him, so I'm trying to get someone who can use a Wikimedia email address to carry on. It isn't that the procedure itself is so complicated; it's that we sometimes hit the limits of what level of competence and efficiency our organizational structure, such as it is, can achieve. I should've just kept my mouth shut, used the image, and not inquired into it in the first place. So I was just explaining, not criticizing your action at all. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Nah I didn't think your comment was necessary directed towards me but I thought it might be nice to reply to let you know someone was reading your posts. The whole things sounds woefully unsatisfactory, but hardly anything that you should feel responsible for. And It's a shame it hasn't worked out despite your best intentions. It was a nice image but considering the subject we are dealing with it is also far from the only one. There are wealth of public domain images at our disposal, which will serve just as well to illustrate the subject. France3470 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone deleted a whole bunch of sections[edit]

I had been using this article for the past 3 days to obtain info on Prometheus. Once I accessed it today, I noticed a lot of sections missing. What happened??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilaBoston (talkcontribs) 16:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we all seem to have been napping. Have restored. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(section archived 9/27/2013 because of updated formatting) (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The 20th Century section fails to mention French Nobel Laureat ANDRE GIDE whose compendious works contain innumerable references and countless allusions to Prometheus, not to mention an entire work entitled "Prometheus Misbound". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to lock the article Prometheus[edit]

Can we have this article on lock, with any helpful edits to be requested via the talk page? It's constantly being vandalized for a article of such historical and cultural value.

Quote by Raggio[edit]

There's a quote by Raggio used in Middle Ages, paragraph 1, referring to a Mr. Alexander Neckman. However, this must be referencing Alexander Neckam. Would someone please verify both the quote and the Wikipedia page about this guy? One of them has it wrong. If Raggio is being misquoted it should be rectified, but if it is an accurate quote and instead it was Raggio who got it wrong it should be left as-is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousenight (talkcontribs) 23:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Προμηθεύς or Προμηθέας?[edit]

Over at the Greek Wikipedia, they spell the name as "Προμηθέας," but we have it spelled here as "Προμηθεύς."  I have to suspect that if anybody has it correct, it's them and not us.  But then again, I don't read Greek.  Is the name really Προμηθεύς?  If so, why do they list it as Προμηθέας?  If not, oughtn't we edit this page to reflect that Π-ρ-ο-μ-η-θ-έ-α-ς is the correct spelling?

allixpeeke (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

P. S.  Might this discrepancy have something to do with ancient Greek v. modern Greek?  And, if so, oughtn't both spellings be provided in this article?  21:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringment[edit]

the line "This Pythagorean view is further confirmed in the book On the Cosmos written by the Pythagorean Okellos of Lukania. Okellos, in his cosmology, further delineates the three realms of the cosmos as all contained within an overarching order called the diakosmesis which is also the world order kosmos, and which also must be eternal." is taken almost verbatim from The Esoteric Codex: Titans By Hugh McBeath seen here [1] This is extra unacceptable since this book isn't even cited here. I don't know the proper tag to put here but this sentence needs to be rewritten, or converted into a quote with the citation given. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

On second glance, the whole Pythagoras section is plagiarized from Hugh McBeath's book, even stealing his references and inserting them as first hand citations. This is very shady editing. The whole section need to be rewritten to either acknowledge its source, or to not break wiki policy with uncredited verbatim copying.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
on third glance, it is the whole article, including all of the section heads are taken word for word from a book that doesn't even get mentioned on the page! This is the biggest copyright violation I've ever seen. It look like the whole page needs to be rewritten to fix the problem. The book that this is all copied from is The Esoteric Codex:Titans by Hugh McBeath. I will add this tag to the article:

Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The same blurb can be found in the related book The Esoteric Codex: Primordial Teachers By Donnell Lefort [2]

A quick look at the book makes it clear that this is a case of reverse copyvio; the book is a collection of Wikipedia articles. Hairhorn (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, @Hairhorn: look harder. It's a published book you can buy on google and amazon. It seems highly unlikely that someone published a book with verbatim copying of information from the wikipedia page. If this is reverse copyvio than it is anything but 'clearly' so. Unless, of course, user:Ifnkovhg is also secretly the author Hugh McBeath it seems unlikely. The first entry I can find with the casual shift towards copying this book and its citations is [3], but it clearly happened incrementally. I think largely by user:Ifnkovhg. You can see his many edits to prometheus here. [4]. I guess the question is if this publisher, Lulu (company) filters their submissions for plagiarism, since it is apparently a self publishing format. In which case, should a complaint be lodged about this book? Or maybe give it a fitting online review if it's stealing wiki material.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
whoever copied who, someone is violating either lulu or wiki's rules: (I can't post this as a link since it seems to be blacklisted). It would seem his book matches all the Titans' entries here, so probably he is trying to make money off of wikipedia volunteers which is very uncool.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hairhorn is right. See also Wikipedia:Republishers; "Every contribution to the English Wikipedia has been licensed for re-use, including commercial, for-profit printing in hard copies. Republication is legal, so long as the licenses are complied with." All such publishing houses claim to carefully screen submissions for plagiarism and copyright issues. Hm. Haploidavey (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The first hint should have been that several chapters — in a printed book! — end in an "External Links" section. Amazon is full of print-on-demand books containing only Wikipedia content. Hairhorn (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments and questions[edit]

1. Is Mekone an actual place?

2. "Okellos, in his cosmology, further delineates the three realms of the cosmos as all contained within an overarching order called the diakosmesis which is also the world order kosmos, and which also must be eternal."

This sentence is unclear.

3. "In his dialogue titled Protagoras, Plato contrasts Prometheus with his dull-witted brother Epimetheus, "Afterthinker".[35][36] In Plato's dialogue Protagoras, Protagoras asserts that ..."

The repetition of Protagoras could really be avoided.

4. In summary, Pandora, the first mortal woman was fashioned out of clay by Hephaestus (Hesiod) and humanity was fashioned out of clay (Sappho, Aesop and Ovid).

Is that correct?

5. "For Campbell, Jesus mortally suffered on the Cross while Prometheus eternally suffered while chained to a rock ..."

This is not really true. The punishment of Zeus was intended to be eternal but, according some sources, Herakles freed Prometheus from eternal pain.

6. Section 6.1.2 entitled "Percy Bysshe Shelley" is a pointless argument with little or no substance. In my opinion its contents are pretty useless.

ICE77 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

1. "Mekone" may be an archaic name for Sicyon, but this is speculative and the name is not attested outside of Hesiod. For more information, see Trick at Mecone.
2. I do not think it is that ambiguous, but it could perhaps be cleared up a bit; the usage of so much Greek jargon is probably rather unnecessary.
3. I agree. The wording is unnecessarily redundant.
4. Yes. This is accurate. The story of the creation of Pandora is found in Hesiod's Theogony lines 561-616.
5. The word "eternal" should probably be removed.
6. I disagree. I think that discussion of Shelley's Prometheus Unbound is necessary. Nonetheless, I do think that the section is unduly long and ought to be condensed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, thank you for the feedback.

2. My problem with the sentence is that I find the repetition of "also" unnecessary. At a minimum, the sentence should be reworked with or without words of Greek origin.

6. Personally, I do not take much out of the section. The discussion is necessary but it does not deliver valid solid points.

ICE77 (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


The etymology of the name as "forethought" has one citation, "Smith." I should like to see that argument very briefly expanded. The usual explanation is pro before + manthano learn + agent suffix eus. There's a false etymological element in the English name of theus [which is interestingly not actually from the same etymology as Latin deus. Might be worth clarifying. Otterswimshome (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


Could we mention Marx's writings on Prometheus? His dissertation, for example, attempted to show some of the important functions fulfilled by literature. Here is Marx:

As long as a single drop of blood pulses in her world-conquering, absolutely free heart, philosophy will continually cry out to her opponents, with Epicurus: ‘The truly impious man is not he who destroys the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them.’

Philosophy makes no secret of this. The confession of Prometheus: ‘In a word, I detest all the gods’ is her own confession, her own watchword against all the gods of heaven and earth who do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity. It will have none other beside.

But to the pitiful March hares who rejoice at the apparently worsened civil position of philosophy, she repeats what Prometheus said to Hermes, the servant of the gods:‘Be sure of this, I would not change my evil plight for your servility. It is better to be slave to the rock than to serve Father Zeus as his faithful messenger.’ Prometheus is the foremost saint and martyr in the philosopher’s calendar.

Berlin, March 1841

Marx here is making the point that great literature of the past speaks across the ages to all people. See S.S. Prawer's 'Karl Marx and World Literature' (1978, Oxford University Press, p. 23). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)