Finally, in the case of ecclesiastical writers, we can also mention Lactantius (fourth century), who is interesting in relation to Prometheus only because he finds in ancient myths a motif about the creation of human beings by Prometheus, or rather, the creation of their bodies from clay and earth, a motif that is interesting to us for the sole reason that in ancient literature itself it is extremely rare. Lactantius writes: "The poets, although they did not clearly explain the creation of man, did not fail to say that he was composed of dust and clay by Prometheus. In essence they were not mistaken, but they were mistaken in the name of the creator."44 "What need was there for Prometheus to borrow clay or finger for the creation of man, when he could have begotten him in the same way as Iapetus his father had begotten him?" 45 "The narrative they cite of how Prometheus created man is contrary to the truth: they did not completely destroy it, but only obscured and confused it. The reason for this was probably that Prometheus was the first to invent the art of making figures and images from earth and clay and lived in the time of Jupiter, when people began to erect temples and establish the service of the gods."46

In this depiction of Prometheus in Lactantius, not everything is equally important to us. That Lactantius, in refuting the pagan gods, takes the point of view of Euhemerus is, of course, of some kind of historical significance, but it is not so important. Euhemerus, a Greek thinker and historian of the third century B.C., believed that the idea of gods appears in people as a result of the deification of certain historically real, great and famous heroes. This theory does not stand up to any criticism for us, since it is based on the logical fallacy idem per idem: the gods are the deifications of men. Wishing at all costs to refute the existence of pagan gods, Lactantius stands precisely on this point of view, although they could be refuted from a more correct logical position. Further, having in mind the creator in the absolute sense of the word, he, of course, treats with contempt the pagan creators, who have always had not an absolute, but only a relative meaning. From this position, it cost Lactantius nothing to criticize not only Prometheus, but also Jupiter himself - Zeus. Much more important, however, is the fact that Lactantius understands Prometheus as the creator of men, or rather as their creator in an inanimate form of earth and clay. It is true that Lactantius is silent about Prometheus' stealing of heavenly fire and the bestowal of it on men, a motif that could have greatly enriched Lactantius's idea of the creation of human beings in an inanimate form. However, for us at the present time, when studying the history of Prometheus as a symbol, it is very important to note that, despite the rarity of the motif about the creation of people by Prometheus, as early as the fourth century A.D., powerful voices were heard about the ancient Prometheus as the creator of people. Such a Prometheus in the church writer of the fourth century, of course, was subjected to various kinds of criticism. But at the present moment it is not so important to us. It is important that the ancient Prometheus in antiquity, namely in the era of Hellenism, was in one way or another still interpreted as the creator of people. In this form it passed to Christian writers, to whom it was convenient to oppose it with their own teaching about the Creator.

8. Caucasian Prometheus. Before passing on to the Prometheans of the Modern Age in Europe, let us touch, at least briefly, on those Prometheans who were known in the Caucasus and who also came out of the depths of folk art. These Caucasian giants, also chained to a rock, also powerful in spirit, also defenders of this or that idea, though by no means always lofty, do not at all bear the Greek name of Prometheus, but have their own names in connection with the peoples among which they appeared. This indicates that the Caucasian Prometheus have their own origin, independent of antiquity. And in general, this image in the Caucasus is much more developed and has much more ramifications than in the ancient world. Perhaps only pride and steadfastness of spirit and heroic endurance of suffering are the common features that unite these numerous Caucasian Prometheans and which unite them also with the ancient Prometheans. Prometheus is everywhere here, whatever name he bears, a symbol of proud and rebellious humanity, which is not afraid of any elemental forces of nature or spirit.

The plan of the present exposition by no means includes a systematic analysis of these Caucasian Prometheans. However, it is possible to avoid this analysis with the support of the major pre-revolutionary literary critic Alexei Veselovsky, who was able to give a general summary of these Caucasian Prometheans in the shortest possible form, so there is no need for us to enter into this analysis in more detail.

Here is what Alexei Veselovsky47 writes, giving a summary of all (210) these rather complex images of Prometheus in the Caucasus: "A sharp and authoritative manifestation of personality, rebellious resistance to the gods, violence and harm towards people are the ancient attributes of the titan, in whom, on the contrary, later centuries saw the friend of mankind, its enlightener and protector. The punishment of such an insolent rapist is therefore well deserved: attempts to free him threaten with the greatest disasters. Such are the titans of Caucasian fairy tales.

Whether the hero of a folk legend is a nameless hero in the form of an old man, with a beard long to his feet, fiery eyes, and the claws of a predator (the Kabardian version) or a monstrously huge giant, whether he bears a certain name (in most cases, Amiran, among the Armenians, Artavazd, Shirad, Mher), whether the legend recognizes him as a mythical person or tries to attach his exploits to a really existing, historical person (the Artavazd of Armenian legends is the son of King Artashes II), The legend of the hero-prisoner repeats, with variants of secondary details, several basic formulas. His most grievous crimes, which impel him to cruel punishment, are either injustice to people, the unbridled bloodthirsty destroyer of life, or disobedience to the father's will (the legend reported about Artavazd by Moses of Choren), or resistance to the divine will, reaching the breaking of the oath given to the god, and finally to fight with him, to go to a duel, which almost ends in the victory of the Titan. He is locked in a crevice in the mountains, or in a cave, or in a deep pit, or in a "glass house" on a mountain (Georgian version); he is chained on an iron chain to an iron stake (Svanetian version), or to a rock (Kabardian version; the Armenian legend about Artavazd points to Masis-Ararat), or to a giant tree. The Pshavan legend, with its extraordinarily majestic features, combines this motif with the classical attachment to the mountain: thrice thrusting his staff into the ground, Christ calls Amiran to take it out, and for the last time he commands him to put down roots that cover the universe, and to rise with the trunk to the heavens, ties the opponent to this tree and moves two mountains, Kazbek and Gergety, to it. Only in the legend of Mhera, which was included in the Armenian poem of the 11th-12th centuries about David of Sasun and is still alive among the people in our time (it is recorded by the Turkish Armenians in the vicinity of Van), the hero is imprisoned together with his horse, and in front of him he eternally sees "a wheel that sets the earth and the sky in motion." In most legends, the inseparable companions of the prisoner are dogs; One, more often two dogs, white and black, are constantly licking or gnawing at his chains, which are therefore becoming thinner and thinner, but growing stronger again, obeying a heavy vow, or blacksmiths come (211) once a year from the ground and tie the links of the chain with hammer blows, or (Georgian version) a blacksmith appears from the bowels of the earth, or, finally, (Abkhazian version), a mysterious woman in a black dress touches the chain, and it thickens again.

The prisoner gives himself over to anguish (Mher's tears "dug through the earth and flowed over it like a stream"), but most of all he thinks about liberation. Anyone who happens to see him, he showers with questions about what is happening on earth, wanting to know if there are signs of his imminent deliverance, or he tries to take possession of his sword with the help of the newcomer, to break the chain. But his sufferings are endless. He will be released only when "the wheat will be like the plum, and the barley will be like the rosehip"; if the wheel of the world, which is forever revolving before Mkher, stops, then he will break free — and ruin the world.

Such is the basic fabric of the Caucasian legend, reduced to the main features, such is the summary biography of the chained titan. The predominant features in it are the instincts of evil, destruction and arbitrariness."

All the legends about the Caucasian Prometheus mentioned so far do not depict this Prometheus in a positive sense. These 'Prometheans, on the contrary/ are the bearers of evil and suffer their punishment quite deservedly, on the basis of universal justice. From this point of view, the Caucasian Prometheus is evidently the complete opposite of the Prometheus we find in ancient Greece, and who is invariably the friend of men and their benefactor. The cruel punishment he endured is interpreted in Greece as an act of injustice, as a purely temporary act, followed by the quite just release of Prometheus.

But among the Caucasian Prometheans one can also find representatives and defenders of human welfare, human civilization, so that his punishment is carried out either according to the supreme will of fate, or by virtue of the merits and wisdom of Prometheus himself. In this regard, Alexei Veselovsky continues the following.

"However, in the Caucasus, although represented by a minority of legends about the chained bogatyr, there is an independent (mainly Georgian) version, which explains his suffering by martyrdom for the people's welfare, for justice, for the right of people. He cleanses the earth of devas, consumes everything evil, "fights with heaven, because not everything on earth is just." His courage and audacity in relation to the divinity acquire the character of intercession for humanity, godlessness becomes heroism, and the payment for it — eternal captivity and severe torment — evokes not schadenfreude, but deep sympathy. If such a prisoner is released, he will not cause destruction and ruin, but universal (212) happiness. The Armenian legend that believes that Artavazd was kidnapped and imprisoned by the devas, attaches to the capture the significance of the triumph of evil over good and desires the return of the prisoner, seeing in him (in the words of the latest commentator) the "Messiah of the Armenians". In such glimpses of a positive understanding of the personality and fate of the Titan, there is a noticeable connecting link between the Caucasian legends and the Hellenic myth of Prometheus, the thief of the sacred fire for the benefit of mankind."

Let us add to this that of the two most important Georgian poets, Book II. A. Chavchavadze in his poem "The Caucasus" also mentions the chaining of Prometheus. And Akaki Tsereteli in his poem "Tornike Eristavi" creates the image of Amiran, chained to a rock for stealing fire, and his liver is eaten by a raven.48 A completely different understanding of Prometheus as a symbol, different in comparison with antiquity and the Caucasus, we find in Europe in modern times.

9. Boccaccio. On the eve of the Modern Age, we meet with the Latin treatise of the famous Boccaccio "Genealogy of the Gods" (1373). Boccaccio expounds ancient mythology with various fictions and conjectures, which are in no way characteristic of ancient mythology. But for the history of Prometheus as a symbol, this work of Boccaccio is important, since it not only sets forth all the main motifs of the myth of Prometheus, but also quite clearly carries out the understanding of this symbol, which is characteristic of the Modern Age. First, let's look at in detail what Boccaccio says about Prometheus, and then we will evaluate this Prometheus Boccaccio from the point of view of the history of Prometheus symbolism.

Boccaccio49 sets forth the sources known to him on Greek and Roman mythology.