Herakles and Helen Defined by Their Paternity, Liminality, and Relationship with Hera

by

KRISTEN FULTON

(Under the Direction of Naomi Norman)

ABSTRACT

Herakles and Helen are comparable figures from Greek mythology. They are known for their great strength and great beauty, respectively, but are rarely examined in relation to each other. This thesis explores their commonalities in regards to their paternity, liminality and relation to Hera. They are both children of Zeus, and this

(negatively) impacts them in various ways. They both hold liminal positions because of their semi-divinity as they exist between the world of the gods and that of men. This liminality is compounded for Helen because of her gender. Finally, Herakles and Helen must both interact with Zeus’ wife Hera. She is vengeful and destructive to Herakles, but kind and benevolent to Helen. These three factors shape the characters and how they are represented across the chronology of Greek literature.

INDEX WORDS: Helen, Helen of Troy, Herakles, Hercules, Heracles, Zeus,

Paternity, Liminal, Liminality, Semi-divine, Hera

HERAKLES AND HELEN DEFINED BY THEIR PATERNITY, LIMINALITY, AND

RELATIONSHIP WITH HERA

by

KRISTEN FULTON

BA, Emory University, 2011

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF ARTS

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2014

© 2014

Kristen Fulton

All Rights Reserved

HERAKLES AND HELEN DEFINED BY THEIR PATERNITY, LIMINALITY AND

RELATIONSHIP WITH HERA

by

KRISTEN FULTON

Major Professor: Naomi Norman Committee: Charles Platter Benjamin Wolkow

Electronic Version Approved:

Julie Coffield Interim Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER

1 PATERNITY ...... 3

Herakles: The Popular Accounts ...... 3

Helen: The Popular Accounts ...... 14

Variation on the Theme: Two Fathers and Two Mothers...... 22

Final Observations ...... 24

2 LIMINALITY...... 26

Herakles’ Semi-Divinity ...... 26

Herakles at War ...... 30

Herakles in Death...... 35

Helen’s Femininity ...... 39

Helen’s Semi-Divinity ...... 46

Final Observations ...... 49

3 RELATIONSHIP WITH HERA ...... 51

Hera and Herakles...... 52

Hera’s Relationship with Herakles Compared with that with Hephaistos

and Dionysos ...... 57

iv Hera and Herakles’ Twelve Labors ...... 61

Hera and Helen ...... 66

Final Observations ...... 69

CONCLUSION...... 71

REFERENCES ...... 73

v

INTRODUCTION

Herakles and Helen are two characters from ancient Greek mythology who have captured the imaginations of audiences1 for millennia, even up to today. Their stories have been remade and renewed since their conception because of their exceptional and super-human natures. Of course, besides their resonance with modern audiences, they were important to the corpus of ancient Greek myth. Around each figure there exists an entire cycle of stories, which in turn provide the soil in which many other myths take root.

Both figures are admirable, but each has fatal flaws. Herakles is a tragic figure whose faults are overlooked in favor of his brute strength and bravery in the face of danger. He has stood as an example of a “manly man” since his inception. Helen is also somewhat of a tragic figure, but it is her flaws and mistakes for which she is best known.

She is a paragon of feminine beauty, while simultaneously serving as a cautionary figure.

From even these basic facts, one can see that there is ground for a comparison of the two figures. By juxtaposing Herakles and Helen, one may more easily see the personality and attributes the Greeks gave to each as an individual. Before this thesis,

Herakles and Helen have not been handled together in such a direct manner, but this sort of study will be valuable to the examination, and thus understanding, of both characters.

1 I take some liberties with my usage of the term audience throughout this thesis. Depending on the medium and chronology, the audience may be spectators of a play or readers of a text. 1 Beyond the sort of superficial comparison mentioned previously, the two share other characteristics which will be the main focus of this thesis. First, they are both the offspring of Zeus, but each was raised by a surrogate father. Their paternity constantly influenced their lives and impacted the ways they are represented in literature. Second, as a result of their paternity, they are both liminal figures. Herakles and Helen exist between the mortal and immortal worlds, and they must constantly find a balance between the two. Then, beyond the issue of her mortality, Helen must also figure out how to exist as a woman in the male-dominated world of her myth. Finally, also as a result of their paternity, they are both impacted by the presence of their stepmother, Hera.

I shall explore all three of these aspects of the two figures through the lenses of the ancient writers. Because the works dealing with Herakles and Helen are so numerous,

I will restrict my survey to the Greek sources.2 I will focus on the ones that are most germane to each topic across a chronology ranging from Homer to Pseudo-Eratosthenes.

2 As Padilla mentions, “the great multiplicity of religious and narrative associations” of Herakles (and the same can be said for Helen) presented problems even for the ancients. cf. The Myths of Herakles in Ancient Greece (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1998): 1.

2

CHAPTER 1

PATERNITY

One characteristic that Helen and Herakles have in common is their dual paternity. Throughout myth, both of their mothers, Leda and Alkmene respectively, had intercourse with Zeus, which led to their births. After each birth, however, the child was raised not by Zeus but by the woman’s mortal husband. This chapter explores how Greek literature discusses the paternity - both immortal and mortal - of Herakles and Helen, focusing primarily on how their paternity is described at birth and secondarily on how their paternity is described at other times in their lives. The way the issue of paternity is handled reveals how the authors writing the myths conceived of these divine figures, which in turn should inform the modern readers’ view of them.3

Herakles: The Popular Accounts

The earliest mentions of Herakles’ parentage are in Homer and Hesiod. The references to Herakles’ birth in these works are rather brief, but notable nonetheless for establishing a divine father for Herakles and, thereby, the reason for his great abilities. In the Iliad, Zeus lists all his previous sexual exploits to Hera, ultimately attempting to

3 There are a few foreseeable issues that will arise from such a study, which will be discussed after the previously mentioned information is laid out. First, preliminarily, each character has two fathers, but not two mothers. An explanation, or at least exploration, of this fact may serve to clarify our perception of each character. Second, the authors variously refer to Helen and Herakles as the child of either their mortal or immortal father. We shall examine under what circumstances an author may choose one lineage over the other.

3 prove that none of those other women were as arousing as Hera herself. He says, “[I was never so enamoured by]…Alkmene in Thebes, who bore a dauntless son, Herakles”

(οὐδ᾽ Ἀλκµήνης ἐνὶ Θήβῃ, / ἥ ῥ᾽ Ἡρακλῆα κρατερόφρονα γείνατο παῖδα…, 14.323-24).4

Later, Agamemnon explains how Hera gets her revenge on Zeus for sleeping with other women. “On that day when Alkmene was about to bear Herakles in well-crowned

Thebes…” (ἤµατι τῷ ὅτ᾽ ἔµελλε βίην Ἡρακληείην / Ἀλκµήνη τέξεσθαι ἐϋστεφάνῳ

ἐνὶ Θήβῃ…, Il. 19.98-99) - Zeus makes an announcement that the child born that day, referring to Herakles, will rule over men. Hera seizes the moment to take advantage of

Zeus’ vagueness, and she makes him swear that whatever child is born that day will be king, and then manipulates Eileithyia, the goddess of childbirth, so that Herakles’ birth is delayed, and the birth of another child, Eurystheus, is hurried. Thus, it is Eurystheus, not

Herakles, who fulfills Zeus’ proclamation.

In the Odyssey, Amphitryon is described as Alkmene’s mortal husband. Odysseus lists the women who visit him during the nekyia: “And after her, I saw Alkmene, the wife of Amphitryon…” (τὴν δὲ µέτ᾽ Ἀλκµήνην ἴδον, Ἀµφιτρύωνος ἄκοιτιν…, 11.266-68). In other words, Odysseus himself seems to know the whole story of Alkmene, her husband

Amphitryon, and Zeus. He is able to identify the shade that approaches him as Alkmene and describes her according to her relationships with a mortal man, an immortal god and her semi-divine son. As Gantz mentions, Herakles is only ever said to be the son of

Zeus;5 Amphitryon does not receive any credit in the Homeric epics for raising the child who was a product of his wife’s (unwitting) faithlessness.

4 All translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 5 Gantz, Early Greek Myth (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 193): 374-377 provides an excellent summary of the primary sources for Herakles.

4 Hesiod, in his turn, reconciles both of Herakles’ fathers neatly in the Theogony.

Hesiod speaks first about Herakles in his role as the killer of the Hydra of Lerna.

…ἣν θρέψε θεὰ λευκώλενος Ἥρη

ἄπλητον κοτέουσα βίῃ Ἡρακληείῃ.

καὶ τὴν µὲν Διὸς υἱὸς ἐνήρατο νηλέι χαλκῷ

Ἀµφιτρυωνιάδης σὺν ἀρηιφίλῳ Ἰολάῳ

Ηρακλέης βουλῇσιν Ἀθηναίης ἀγελείης.

…[Hydra] which the white-armed goddess Hera nourished,

because she had become exceedingly angry at Herakles.

And the son of Zeus slayed [Hydra] with pitiless bronze,

he the son of Amphitryon, with Ares-loved Iolaos,

Herakles, by the will of Athena, driver of spoils. (Th. 314-18)

This excerpt supplies multiple facts about Herakles in a condensed form. First, Hesiod recounts that Herakles has brought Hera’s wrath upon himself by his βίῃ (his force), but the exact connection is unclear. Second, Hesiod reveals that the Διὸς υἱὸς, son of Zeus, has slain the Hydra, and leaves the audience to infer from the first fact who is exactly

“the son of Zeus.”. Third, Hesiod tells that this “son of Zeus” is also Ἀµφιτρυωνιάδης,

“the son of Amphitryon.” Each of these identifiers comes nearer and nearer to the beginning of each succeeding line, as emphasized by the emboldening above. The first phrase, βίῃ Ἡρακληείῃ, comes at the end of its line. The second phrase, Διὸς υἱὸς, comes in the middle of the next line. The third phrase, Ἀµφιτρυωνιάδης, is the very first word of the following line. This creates a kind of crescendo both on the page and in the listener’s

5 ear, as Hesiod’s way of encouraging his audience to come to the identification on their own, until at last Hesiod provides the name of Herakles.

In this case it is difficult to say which father takes pride of place since Zeus is mentioned first after the adjectival form, but Amphitryon is mentioned in closer proximity to the actual name of Herakles. In this difficulty, however, may be an answer - that neither male takes particular precedence in his role as Herakles’ father figure.

The second occurrence in Theogony is when the poet lists Zeus’ many mates6 and among them is Alkmene who “bore Herakles having been mixed in love with cloud- gathering Zeus” (Ἀλκµήνη δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔτικτε βίην Ἡρακληείην / µιχθεῖσ᾽ ἐν φιλότητι Διὸς

νεφεληγερέταο, Th. 943-44). Here is Hesiod’s most explicit account of Herakles’ birth, and it is brief and concise with no mention of Amphitryon. Since Herakles earns his place in the Theogony because of his immortal father it is only fitting that at this moment, Zeus is the only father mentioned.

On the heels of Hesiod, let us discuss Pseudo-Hesiod. The Shield of Herakles begins by describing the loyalty of Alkmene to her mortal husband Amphitryon,

“[Another woman] like to Alkmene, who left her home and fatherland and went to

Thebes with the war-making Amphitryon,” (ἢ οἵη προλιποῦσα δόµους καὶ πατρίδα

γαῖαν / ἤλυθεν ἐς Θήβας µετ᾽ ἀρήιον Ἀµφιτρύωνα / Ἀλκµήνη, Shield 1-3). Amphitryon is called “ἀρήιον” because he has just killed Elektryon, Alkmene’s father. Then, the author tells that Amphitryon has been ordered by Zeus not to lay with Alkmene until he has cleansed himself of the murder by completing an arduous task. Zeus delivers this edict

6 Both Herakles and Helen stand out from the rest of Zeus’ offspring because of the attention paid to them, either hatred or love, by Hera. This topic will be discussed more in-depth in the third chapter.

6 not for Amphitryon’s benefit, but to provide himself with time to plan how to have intercourse with Alkmene; he is “brooding over a trick in his mind” (δόλον φρεσὶ

βυσσοδοµεύων, Shield 30). The author never explicitly reveals Zeus’ precise plan, but does recount the result in detail. This is the first time in Greek literature that the tale is told in length:

On the same night in the bed of the slim-ankled

daughter of Elektryon he was mixed in love,

and he accomplished his desire.

Then, people-rousing Amphitryon, splendid hero,

having completed the great task, came home.

…

All night he lay with his modest wife

rejoicing in the gifts of golden Aphrodite.

Alkmene, having been subject to a god and to a very

excellent man,

bore twin sons in seven-gated Thebes,

…

The one [Alkmene bore] having been overpowered by

cloud-shrouded Zeus,

And the other, Iphicles, from her having been mixed

with lance-brandishing Amphitryon,

Offpsring different from each other: the one from mixing

with mortal man,

7 The other from mixing with Zeus, son of Kronos,

leader of gods and men.

(Shield 35-56)

Zeus enacts his plan and succeeds in lying with Alkmene on the same night that

Amphitryon has finished his penance and returned to his wife. Alkmene, having lain with both males in such a short time span, conceives one child by each. The children are described as twins, but are technically only half-brothers. Each father is given a noble epithet; Zeus as κελαινεφέι is referred to in his guise as the weather god, while

Amphitryon as δορυσσόῳ is no coward himself. No matter how good a man Amphitryon is, however, it is impossible that his offspring would be as great as Zeus.’

Pindar too gives an account of Herakles’ birth in the first Nemean ode, which was written ca. 476 B.C.E. This ode further illuminates Herakles’ complicated relationships with his fathers. Pindar lets himself be distracted from singing the praises of Chromius, the intended recipient of the epinician poem, admitting that, “I hold onto [speaking] of

Herakles eagerly…” (ἐγὼ δ᾽ Ἡρακλέος ἀντέχοµαι προφρόνως…, Nemean 1.33). He opens Herakles’ story with the hero’s birth, “When from his mother’s womb, he came at once to wondrous light, the son of Zeus,”(ἐπεὶ σπλάγχνων ὕπο µατέρος αὐτίκα

θαητὰν ἐς αἴγλαν παῖς Διὸς /…µόλεν, Nemean 1.35-36). For Pindar, Herakles is the son of Zeus; his mother Alkmene is not mentioned, nor is his brother Iphicles, except in passing and not by name. All emphasis is on Herakles alone.

Pindar tells the story of the snakes sent by Hera, who is still vengeful against the offspring of her husband’s extramarital affair. Although Herakles has successfully

8 grabbed the reptiles, nonetheless Alkmene and her maids send up a fearful cry as they rush to aid the babies.

ταχὺ δὲ Καδµείων ἀγοὶ χαλκέοις ἀθρόοι

σὺν ὅπλοις ἔδραµον:

ἐν χερὶ δ᾽ Ἀµφιτρύων κολεοῦ γυµνὸν

τινάσσων [φάσγανον]

ἵκετ᾽, ὀξείαις ἀνίαισι τυπείς.

Quickly, as a crowd, the leaders of the Kadmeians ran in

with their bronze weapons:

and Amphitryon, brandishing in his hand a sword

uncovered by the scabbard,

came, he having been struck by sharp distress.

(Nemean 1.51-53)

Pindar seems to say that Amphitryon’s paternal instincts and presence are stronger than

Zeus’ omnipotence and omniscience. Amphitryon is sensitive to the needs of his wife and children, and he knows that something is wrong, ὀξείαις ἀνίαισι τυπείς, while Zeus, once again, is (seemingly) complacently absent from the rearing of his offspring. Zeus not only did not protect his son, but also was in fact the reason for the danger.7

Around the same time as Pindar, Bacchylides wrote odes in which he also references Herakles. In his encomium to Hieron of Syracuse, Ode 5, Bacchylides calls

Herakles by the names of all three of his parents: the “son of Alkmene” (Ἀλκµήνιος, 71);

7 In discussion of Herakles in Pindar, it is important to keep in mind that the poet generally discussed the hero in a favorable, reverent light, but by the next century, the hero was not such an inspirational figure any longer. cf. Karl Galinsky, The Herakles Theme (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972): 57.

9 the “son of Zeus” (υἱὲ Διὸς µεγἀλου, 79); then twice does Bacchylides call him the “son of Amphitryon,” (Ἀµφιτρυωνιάδας, 85 and Ἀµφιτρύωνος παιδα, 156). In Ode 16,

Bacchylides only calls Herakles “the son of Amphitryon” (Ἀµφιτρυωνιάδαν, 15) and then later on, “the son of Zeus” (Διὸς υἱὸς, 28). Though Bacchylides does not give a birth story for Herakles, he does acknowledge all three parents.

Sophokles’ Trachiniai (ca. 450 B.C.E.) is primarily about the relationship of

Herakles and Deianeira as husband and wife. In this play, Herakles is consistently called

“the son of Zeus and Alkmene,” or “the son of Alkmene.” Amphitryon is never mentioned. Not only is Zeus referred to as Herakles’ father, he is also seen as the controller of Herakles’ fate. When Zeus’ name is brought up, it is often in order to blame him for the tragic events that occur.8 By contrast, Amphitryon, as a mortal, cannot influence the fateful events, so his role as father is secondary to Zeus,’ who leaves his son to suffer, but this time with no parental figure to guide him.

In the opening monologue of the play, Deianeira tells how the river Achelous

“courted” her and how Herakles saved her from the repulsive river’s advances. She calls him, “The famous son of Zeus and Alkmene” (ὁ κλεινὸς… Ζηνὸς Ἀλκµήνης τε παῖς,

Trachiniai 18). She refers to Herakles’ divine parentage, since it is his immortal abilities that allow him to defeat the river. Slightly later in the play, Herakles is simply called by the chorus, “the son of Alkmene” (τὸν Ἀλκµήνας… παῖς, Trach. 97), or, by a messenger,

“the offspring of Alkmene” (τὸν γὰρ Ἀλκµήνης τόκον…, Trach. 181). The matronymic is generally not used as much as the patronymic is, making this instance particularly

8 In her opening speech, Deianeira praises Zeus’ judgment in joining her to Herakles as his wife, only then to blame that same decision for all of her hardships since her marriage to the hero (Trachiniai 26-31).

10 interesting;9 its use here highlights Zeus’ absence at the times of his son’s need. The matronymic also reminds the audience of Herakles’ mortal lineage and that he is therefore subject to the vicissitudes of human life. He cannot just magically accomplish his labors, or escape his own death, which comes at the end of the play.

Euripides’ Herakles (produced ca. 420 B.C.E.) also explores Herakles’ relationships with his fathers. At the very beginning of the play, Amphitryon dives headlong into the issue of paternity:

Τίς τὸν Διὸς σύλλεκτρον οὐκ οἶδεν βροτῶν,

Ἀργεῖον Ἀµφιτρύων᾽, ὃν Ἀλκαῖός ποτε

ἔτιχθ᾽ ὁ Περσέως, πατέρα τόνδ᾽ Ἡρακλέους;

What mortal did not know the bed-partner of Zeus,

Argive Amphitryon, whom Alkaeus,

the son of Perseus, once bore, he [Amphitryon] the father of Herakles?

(Herakles 1-3)

This is an interesting introductory fact that Amphitryon chooses to share. Amphitryon has derived his fame from his connection with Zeus, even though that connection has made him a cuckold. He is proud of himself, or perhaps proud of the fact that his wife was chosen by the god. He calls himself the father of Herakles, a title that few other authors or characters bestow on him. This too is a source of pride for him.

Euripides, by first mentioning Amphitryon in this way, shows that it will be

Amphitryon who is key in the play, which highlights Zeus’ absence. In the course of the play, numerous tragedies befall Herakles, all of which might recall Pindar’s story about

9 It is even more rarely used alone, without any reference to the father.

11 the snakes sent by Hera. Once again, Hera tries to destroy Herakles, this time by sending

Iris and Lyssa to drive him mad. And once again in response to Hera’s hatred, Zeus does nothing to protect Herakles while Amphitryon fulfills the role of a protective and dutiful father.

The events of Herakles’ madness are told through a messenger who was present at the scene. Herakles has used his bow and arrows to shoot and kill his children as well as his wife.10 He also tried to kill Amphitryon, but it was then, thanks only to Athena’s intervention, that the frenzied hero fell into a deep sleep. While Herakles is asleep, the messenger and Amphitryon tie him up:

ἡµεῖς δ᾽ ἐλευθεροῦντες ἐκ δρασµῶν πόδα

σὺν τῷ γέροντι δεσµὰ σειραίων βρόχων

ἀνήπτοµεν πρὸς κίον᾽, ὡς λήξας ὕπνου

µηδὲν προσεργάσαιτο τοῖς δεδραµένοις.

We stopped running and

together with the old man, bound the fetters of twisted rope

to a pillar, so that [Herakles] having awoken

would not do any more damage in addition to what he had

already done.

(Herakles 1010-1013)

10 Although Herakles is not generally thought of being an archer, he was usually depicted as one in early Greek literature and iconography; this association of Herakles with archery only later gave way to his association with the club. cf. Beth Cohen, “From Bowman to Clubman: Herakles and Olympia,” ArtB 76, no. 4 (Dec. 1994): 696-697.

12 Emma Stafford states the situation succinctly when she says that although Amphitryon is not a god, he performs the function of the deus ex machina.11 Euripides emphasizes both that it is Herakles’ mortal father who tries to protect his son and that Amphitryon is an old man, a γέρων rather than an ἀνήρ. Because of his age he finds the task exceedingly difficult both mentally and physically. Indeed, the chorus remarks that, “The old man, just like some bird lamenting the wingless anguish of her children, [comes] on halting foot” (ὁ δ᾽ ὥς τις ὄρνις ἄπτερον καταστένων / ὠδῖνα τέκνων, πρέσβυς ὑστέρῳ ποδὶ…,

1039-1040). The fragile ability of the old man is juxtaposed against the (momentarily) incapacitated power of the hero.

Herakles’ dual parentage is also illustrated on the chest of Kypselus in the temple of Hera at Olympia, an amazing object described in detail by Pausanias in his second century C.E. text. As Pausanias explains, Kypselus was a tyrant of Korinth, who as a child was hidden from the Bacchidae within this large, and elaborately decorated cedar chest (5.17.5). Among the scenes on the chest is one that Pausanias interprets as,

“[representing] the story of the Greeks that Zeus, looking like Amphitryon, joined with

Alkmene…” (πεποίηται δὲ ἐς τὸν λόγον τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὡς συγγένοιτο Ἀλκµήνῃ Ζεὺς

Ἀµφιτρύωνι εἰκασθείς, 5.18.3). According to this document, Zeus takes on the appearance of Amphitryon. This small detail adds nuance to the story, suggesting that

Alkmene remained, to her knowledge, a faithful and blameless wife. This disguise may also shed light on what the author of the Shield may have meant when he mentioned

Zeus’ “unrevealed plan.”

These examples are representative of ancient views about Herakles’ parentage.

First, Zeus is an absent father. He does not use his omnipotence for his son’s benefit, but

11 Emma Stafford, Herakles (New York: Routledge, 2012): 89.

13 entrusts his offspring to the care of Amphitryon. Second, Amphitryon is an excellent mortal, but at the same time he is only a mortal and limited, therefore, in what he can do.

Third, Herakles may be referred to as the son of Zeus, the son of Alkmene or the son of

Amphitryon - or by various combinations thereof; below I will examine why authors make the choices they do in naming Herakles. Fourth, Herakles is born with a mortal twin, a secondary aspect of dual paternity that he shares with Helen, as I will explore in detail below.

Helen: The Popular Accounts

Helen’s parentage is even more disputed than Herakles.’ Both Leda and Nemesis are said to be her mother. In the more prevalent and popular version of Helen’s biography, Leda gives birth to Helen, Zeus is her father, and Tyndareus, Leda’s mortal husband, is her surrogate father, equivalent to Amphitryon in Herakles’ story.12

Throughout the Iliad and the Odyssey, Helen is consistently called the daughter of

Zeus. In Book Three of the Iliad, it is Helen, “born of Zeus” (Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα, 199) who replies to Priam. In the famous scene in Book Three when Helen attempts to leave Paris’ bed and reject Aphrodite, Helen’s divine parentage is invoked. She is both Διὸς

ἐκγεγαυῖα (418) and “daughter of ” (κούρη Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο, Il. 426). By emphasizing her divine father, Homer shows that, like Herakles, even the offspring of the gods are prone to divine will. Despite her divine father, Helen cannot afford to ignore Aphrodite and her plans for her.

It is only Book Three that places any emphasis on Helen and conveys much information about her. In this book, Homer paints a picture of Helen that makes her a

12 This version will be discussed more later in the section about Euripides’ Helen.

14 sympathetic figure; she, like all other humans, is a toy of the gods and bullied by them.

Aphrodite commands Helen to attend to Paris as his wife. Helen refuses but suggests that

Aphrodite take over Helen’s wifely duties and care for Paris herself. While Helen is brave in this moment and tries to leverage the strength that her semi-divinity gives her, she is no match for the goddess, who is provoked to anger by her defiance. When confronted by the goddess’ wrath “Helen born of Zeus was fearful” (ἔδεισεν δ᾽

Ἑλένη Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα, 418).

Later in Book Three, during the teichoscopy, after Helen describes a number of the heroes that she and the Trojans can see from the walls, she notices that her brothers are missing, “[I do not see] Kastor the tamer of horses and Polydeuces the skilled boxer, my own brothers, whom one mother bore” (Κάστορά θ᾽ ἱππόδαµον καὶ πὺξ ἀγαθὸν

Πολυδεύκεα / αὐτοκασιγνήτω, τώ µοι µία γείνατο µήτηρ, 3.237-238). Although Homer never mentions this “one mother” by name, the fact that Helen identifies the Dioskuroi as her siblings indicates that Homer knew the version of the myth in which they are all related.

In the Odyssey, Helen continues to be “Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα,” (4.128, 219; 23.218).

She is a primary figure in Book Four, but Homer conveys little information about her including leaving out mention of her mother Leda. Homer, however, does briefly talk about Tyndareus in regards to his daughter with Leda, Klytemnestra, “And not thus did the daughter of Tyndareus intend evil works, killing her wedded husband” (οὐχ ὡς

Τυνδαρέου κούρη κακὰ µήσατο ἔργα, / κουρίδιον κτείνασα πόσιν…, 24.199-200). While

Tyndareus is mentioned, it is not in relation to his more famous, divine adopted daughter.

15 Similarly, during the nekyia in Book Eleven, Tyndareus is mentioned. One of the women in the procession that greets Odysseus in the Underworld is Leda:

καὶ Λήδην εἶδον, τὴν Τυνδαρέου παράκοιτιν,

ἥ ῥ᾽ ὑπὸ Τυνδαρέῳ κρατερόφρονε γείνατο παῖδε,

Κάστορά θ᾽ ἱππόδαµον καὶ πὺξ ἀγαθὸν Πολυδεύκεα,

And I saw Leda, the wife of Tyndareus,

who bore to Tyndareus two strong-minded sons,

Kastor, the tamer of horses, and the skilled boxer

Polydeuces.

(Ody. 11.298-300)

In this passage, Helen is conspicuous in her absence, especially since Leda, Tyndareus and the Dioskuroi are all mentioned. There are lines connecting Tyndareus with all of

Helen’s other family members, but no line directly between him and Helen. It is only in late sources that we see Tyndareus assuming a paternal role for Helen.

One of those later sources is the first/second century C.E. text known as

Apollodorus’ Library, in which it is Tyndareus who must deal with his wife’s daughter’s astounding beauty and her many suitors.13 He is a mortal and so cannot exercise the same power over men that Zeus does; therefore, he fears the repercussions of choosing one of the many suitors as Helen’s husband. “Seeing the great number of them, Tyndareus had feared that if he chose one [suitor] the rest would rebel” (τούτων ὁρῶν τὸ πλῆθος

13 Or perhaps Pseudo-Apollodorus; for more on Apollodorus versus Pseudo-Apollodorus, cf. Aubrey Diller, “The Text History of the Biblioteca of Pseudo-Apollodorus,” TAPA 66 (1935): 296-313.

16 Τυνδάρεως ἐδεδοίκει µὴ προκριθέντος ἑνὸς στασιάσωσιν οἱ λοιποί, Lib., iii.10.9). So he turns to Odysseus, with his wily ways, for advice; only then is he successful in dealing with the suitors. In this text and others, Tyndareus is not depicted as someone who is as brave as Amphitryon, who was able, with sword bravely drawn, to help Herakles. In addition, Tyndareus appears very rarely in Helen’s biography before she is ready to marry. This marriage is a pivotal moment because it forces the presence of a father-figure in order that Helen may be seen as passing from her father’s house to her husband’s, as is proper.

Euripides’ Helen (ca. 412 B.C.E.), like his earlier Herakles, tells the familiar story about its main character, but he renews Stesichorus’ version of events as that poet relates in his Palinode.14 In the Helen, Euripides says that Helen, after her abduction by Paris, was sent to live with Proteus in Egypt. In her place at Troy, the gods put an εἴδωλον, or likeness similar to her in every way, to live as Paris’ wife, thereby preserving Helen’s chastity and loyalty to her husband Menelaos. By the device of the εἴδωλον, Euripides seeks to exonerate Helen.

Throughout the play, Helen is referred to frequently as both the daughter of Zeus and of Tyndareus. Helen opens the play by introducing herself. Among the facts about herself that she lists, she says that her father is Tyndareus, “πατὴρ δὲ Τυνδάρεως,” (Helen

17). She also recites the familiar story or λόγος that Zeus, in the form of a swan, raped

Leda. She simultaneously casts doubt on this story by adding the phrase, “If this story is true” (εἰ σαφὴς οὗτος λόγος, Helen 21).15 In this poignant speech, Helen does not accept that Zeus is her father because she cannot believe that the all-powerful Zeus would let his

14 Stesichorus tells the following version of the story in his Palinode as a retraction of slanders he had originally written about her. 15 The chorus later tells a very short version of this story, lines 214-216.

17 daughter suffer as she has. The very next line emphasizes this disbelief, “I will tell the evils which I have suffered” (ἃ δὲ πεπόνθαµεν κακὰ / λέγοιµ᾽ ἄν, Helen 22-23).

This same line of reasoning occurs in Sophokles’ Trachiniai, whose chorus comments on Zeus’ lack of care for his children:

ἀνάλγητα γὰρ οὐδ᾽

ὁ πάντα κραίνων βασιλεὺς

ἐπέβαλε θνατοῖς Κρονίδας:

…

…ἐπεὶ τίς ὧδε

τέκνοισι Ζῆν᾽ ἄβουλον εἶδεν;

For not painless lots

does he, the king who brings about all things,

the son of Kronos, distribute to mortals:

…

…when in this way did someone

see Zeus as inconsiderate to his children?

(Trachiniai 126-140)

As a modern reader, one might think that Zeus, as the king of gods and men, should have mankind’s best interests at heart; surely this should include the health and safety of his own children and his presence in their lives. It seems, however, that having Zeus as a father is more of a curse than a benefit since his children are not usually attended by him.

In the Helen, after casting doubt on whether Zeus raped Leda, Helen is called “the daughter of Zeus” twice, in rapid succession (lines 77 and 81) during a conversation with

18 Teuker. Later, she questions Teuker about her loved ones in Sparta whom she has not seen in many years. She asks about her husband, and her mother, “Is the daughter of

Thestias [alive]?” (Θεστιὰς δ᾽ ἔστιν κόρη; Helen 133), and the Dioskuroi, “Are the sons of Tyndareus alive or not?” (οἱ Τυνδάρειοι δ᾽ εἰσὶν ἢ οὐκ εἰσὶν κόροι; Helen 137). In this passage she does not refer to her mother or brothers by name although she does mention

Menelaos; nor does she mention that Thestias’ daughter is her mother or that the sons of

Tyndareus are her brothers. Nor does she enquire directly about Tyndareus himself. In a passage replete with what should be biographical details, Helen does not reveal her relation to these figures so that she might not reveal her own identity to the messenger.

Later in the play, Menelaos (who, Teuker told her, is widely believed to be dead) arrives in Egypt and comes to the house of the late Proteus as a beggar. He speaks with the old woman who keeps the door, and she tells him that Helen, the daughter of Zeus, is in the house, “Ἑλένη κατ᾽ οἴκους ἐστὶ τούσδ᾽ ἡ τοῦ Διός” (470). After Menelaos does not believe her, the old woman reaffirms what she said before, “The child of Tyndareus, who once was in Sparta, [is here]” (ἡ Τυνδαρὶς παῖς, ἣ κατὰ Σπάρτην ποτ᾽ ἦν, Helen 472). She identifies Helen by both of her fathers in turn, one immediately after the other. It is almost as if Tyndareus’ name is the password to Menelaos’ belief that it is indeed his

Helen. The identification of Helen as Zeus’ daughter seems to be almost meaningless to

Menelaos.

In this play especially, Helen’s dual paternity has meaning. The standard myth of

Helen is complicated by the appearance here of her εἴδωλον; moreover, that εἴδωλον further complicates her paternity. Reference to Helen as the daughter of both Zeus and

Tyndareus persists throughout the play, but the difference is emphasized in the following

19 lines. In this passage, a messenger is speaking to Menalaos and quotes the words of

Helen’s phantom:

…ὦ ταλαίπωροι Φρύγες

πάντες τ᾽ Ἀχαιοί, δι᾽ ἔµ᾽ ἐπὶ Σκαµανδρίοις

ἀκταῖσιν Ἥρας µηχαναῖς ἐθνῄσκετε,

δοκοῦντες Ἑλένην οὐκ ἔχοντ᾽ ἔχειν Πάριν.

ἐγὼ δ᾽, ἐπειδὴ χρόνον ἔµειν᾽ ὅσον µε χρῆν,

τὸ µόρσιµον σῴσασα, πατέρ᾽ ἐς οὐρανὸν

ἄπειµι: φήµας δ᾽ ἡ τάλαινα Τυνδαρὶς

ἄλλως κακὰς ἤκουσεν οὐδὲν αἰτία.

…O miserable Phrygians,

and all the Achaeans, because of me on the Scamandrian

headlands you were dying by the plots of Hera

you thinking Paris had Helen when he did not.

And I, since I waited as much time was necessary,

in keeping with fate, to the sky father

I go: and the wretched [daughter] of Tyndareus,

otherwise not guilty, heard evil rumors.

(Helen 608-615)

The messenger is reporting the words that Helen’s εἴδωλον speaks at its departure, which occurs at the same time that Menelaos has come upon his real wife at Proteus’ house. The

εἴδωλον makes it clear that her father is the one in the sky (πατέρ᾽ ἐς οὐρανὸν), most

20 likely meaning Zeus, while the real Helen is the “wretched daughter of Tyndareus”

(τάλαινα Τυνδαρὶς). The εἴδωλον is an exact replica of Helen, so nearly perfect that

Helen’s own husband did not recognize the difference; but the references to parentage show that it is more divine than Helen. The εἴδωλον is Helen as she would be if she were totally divine and totally the child of a god. The lines here do get blurry because as the creator of the εἴδωλον, Hera should be credited as its mother, but when the εἴδωλον goes to the “sky father,” it is a representation of the divine aspects of Helen uniting with her divine father.

Around the beginning of the fourth century B.C.E, the orators Gorgias and

Isokrates wrote speeches praising Helen and supporting Euripides’ exoneration of her from blame for the Trojan War. Their accounts of the beautiful woman’s birth do not differ drastically from those given before, and they continue the already established tradition. Gorgias, in his Encomium of Helen, does not mention Helen with the formulaic,

“Helen, daughter of…” but he very briefly gives her parentage at the opening of the speech, including the names of both Zeus and Tyndareus: “Clearly, thus her mother was

Leda, and her father was…Tyndareus and Zeus” (δῆλον γὰρ ὡς µητρὸς µὲν Λήδας,

πατρὸς…Τυνδάρεω καὶ Διός, sect. 3).

In his rebuttal to and continuation of Gorgias’ praise of Helen, Isokrates gives a new perspective on the issue: “Of the many demigods born from Zeus, he [Zeus] deemed it worthy to be called father of this woman only” (πλείστων γὰρ ἡµιθέων ὑπὸ Διὸς

γεννηθέντων µόνης ταύτης γυναικὸς πατὴρ ἠξίωσε κληθῆναι, 10.16). Zeus’ full acknowledgement of one of his children is rare; rarer still was his acknowledgement of a female child. Isokrates makes this connection between Helen and Zeus to bolster his

21 argument that Paris was justified in choosing Aphrodite as the winner of the golden apple, and thus, Helen as his prize. Having a child by Helen would insure that Paris’ offspring would be of divine ancestry. In this way, Isokrates un-demonizes Paris, so that instead of being motivated merely by lust, he is depicted as a man planning ahead for the health and prosperity of his progeny; Isokrates also implies that Helen’s value was not wholly in her beauty, but lay in her more internal characteristics. In the same section,

Isokrates goes on to explain that Zeus even preferred Helen above her twin brothers, the

Dioskuroi, and above Herakles; it was for this reason, he argues, that Helen was endowed with such beauty.

Helen is in a position very similar to that of Herakles. They are both the offspring of Zeus and a mortal and, though gifted with divine qualities by him, are virtually abandoned by their immortal father. Unlike Amphitryon’s care and concern for Herakles,

Tyndareus rarely filled the role of father for Helen. She was left a somewhat independent figure, and was thus, in effect, abandoned twice. The lack of stories about the period of her life from infancy to marriageable age leaves Helen a mysterious figure whose motivations are not fully clear to her audience.

Variation on the Theme: Two Fathers and Two Mothers

In Lykophron’s Alexandra from the third century B.C.E., Herakles is said to have a second mother. Though the reference is vague, it is clear from context and surrounding clues that it speaks of Herakles and Hera, “he presses down the unwounded chest of his second mother having struck it with an arrow” (ὁ δευτέραν τεκοῦσαν ἄτρωτον βαρεῖ /

τύψας ἀτράκτῳ στέρνον, 38-39). These lines allude to the occasion in the Iliad when

22 Herakles shot Hera (5.392). Later in the Alexandra, there is an allusion to Herakles suckling at Hera’s breast, “By the initiate [Herakles] the milky breast of the goddess

Tropaia [was taken],” (Μύστῃ Τροπαίας µαστὸν εὔθηλον θεᾶς, 1328). So though Hera may not be filling the complete maternal role, she does take on the aspect of nourisher.

Likewise, Diodorus Siculus says that Alkmene gives birth to Herakles, but

Alkmene, fearing the jealousy of the goddess, exposes him. By chance, Hera and Athena come upon the baby while walking, “At that time, Athena walking with Hera and being amazed at the body of the child, persuaded Hera to place him under her breast” (καθ᾽ ὃν

δὴ χρόνον Ἀθηνᾶ µετὰ τῆς Ἥρας προσιοῦσα, καὶ θαυµάσασα τοῦ παιδίου τὴν φύσιν,

συνέπεισε τὴν Ἥραν ὑποσχεῖν τὴν θηλήν, 4.9.6). Thus in Diodorus, Hera, at least briefly, suckles Herakles and thereby saves the life of the child whom she hates. Diodorus follows this account immediately with the story of Hera sending the snakes to attack baby

Herakles. Suckling a baby is shorthand for being either a mother or a wetnurse; either identity is shocking for Hera, especially in relation to Herakles.

While the most popular version of Helen’s story lists Leda as her mother, several authors record an alternative version in which the goddess Nemesis gave birth to her.

According to Apollodorus, the Kypria, a seventh century B.C.E. poem, said that “After them [the Dioskuroi] she bore Helen, a wonder for mortals; beautiful haired Nemesis bore her having been mixed in love with Zeus…by overwhelming force,” (τούς δὲ µέτα

τριτάτην Ἑλένην τέκε θαῦµα βροτοῖσι / τήν ποτε καλλίκοµος Νέµεσις φιλότητι µιγεῖσα /

Ζηνί … τέκε κρατερῆς ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης, fr. 9 PEG). In this version, Zeus pursues the unwilling Nemesis whom he finally catches after chasing her across land and sea as she

23 changes into various creatures. While Zeus’ pattern of being a persistent lover continues, there is no evidence of his absence or presence in Helen’s life afterwards.

(Pseudo-) Eratosthenes, in the first century C.E., introduces another variation:

Nemesis is the mother and it was her, rather than Leda, with whom Zeus had intercourse while in the form of a swan, “[It is said] that Zeus was loved by Nemesis, and looking like to this bird [swan], he flew down to the Rhamnousian” (…τόν Δία Νεµέσεως

ἐρασθῆναι, καὶ ὁµοιωθέντα τῷ ὀρνέῳ τούτῳ καταπτῆναι εἰς ῥαµνοῦντα, Katast. 25). It is safe to assume that it is from this union that Helen was born from an egg, since it is here that she is the product of an avian father. Even later, Pausanias conflates the two versions, claiming to have seen in the sanctuary of Hilaeira and Phoebe in Sparta an egg tied with ribbons and hanging from the roof, calling it, “the egg that Leda brought forth” (3.16.1).

Final Observations

The births of Helen and Herakles are equally fraught. Each character’s biography varies in time and place and according to literary genre. But some things are clear. Each is the product of one of Zeus’ extramarital affairs, and Zeus removes himself from their lives once he impregnates the mother (who may or may not know she has been with a god). Herakles, who, like Helen, is the result of Zeus’ infidelity to Hera, experiences far more of Hera’s wrath than Helen does. He constantly has to prove himself as worthy of his divine heritage. By contrast, Helen receives help from Hera who provides an image to take her place at Troy and thus redeems her reputation. In his absence, Zeus, by default, entrusts his children to the care of the husbands of the mothers. In this regard, Herakles is the luckier one for he is often portrayed as having his adopted father, Amphitryon, in his

24 corner through his struggles. Helen is oddly left to be much more independent, especially given the gender constraints of Greek society; the role of her father is mostly unfilled by

Tyndareus.

While the dual paternity of Helen and Herakles is apparent from the main versions of their myths, one must also remember that there are variations in which each has dual maternity, or at least contested dual maternity. Herakles, having been birthed by

Alkmene, suckles briefly at the breast of his future great enemy, Hera. And Helen may be the result of Zeus’ tryst with one of two women, Leda or Nemesis, or born from one and raised by the other. These mother figures seem to have little impact on their children’s lives, which may explain why these versions of the myths fell out of fashion.

The parentage of each character is formative. The circumstances of Herakles’ birth burden him with life-long struggles before he is even born because of Hera’s vengeful temperament and jealousy. Helen, too is cursed, having been endowed with tremendous beauty, presumably drawn from the bloodline of the divine Zeus, who then abandons her to deal with the negative repercussions of such outstanding good looks.

Although there was a stigma associated with the bastard children of mortals in ancient

Greece, and thus, they were often left in their mother’s care, Zeus with all his wealth, resources and pure power could have provided a carefree life for his children if he so wished. Both characters spend their lives dealing with and trying to recover from the effects of having Zeus as their father.

25

CHAPTER 2

LIMINALITY

The dual paternity of Helen and Herakles places each of them in a state of liminality, a state in which each wrestles with special challenges and exists between two defined roles. For Herakles, it is the struggle between the world of the gods and the world of mortals since he is a demi-god. Helen also struggles with semi-divinity; her struggles are compounded by her gender. These conflicting roles make each character more dimensional and relatable than many other (full) gods to the mortal audience, which listens to their stories. This chapter explores Herakles’ and Helen’s liminality and explores how they reconcile their divine and human roles.

Herakles’ Semi-Divinity

Herakles is torn between the strength derived from his father’s divinity and the all-too-human flaws imparted to him by his mortal mother. Herakles’ labors stand as one of the strongest testaments to his liminality. On the one hand, his immortal strength enables him to accomplish his tasks, but on the other hand, the aftermath of these exploits focuses our attention on his mortality. The accounts of the ancient authors vary, but the end results of his labors are usually insanity and death. That he eventually experiences apotheosis and joins the company of the gods on Olympos further highlights his essential liminality.

26 Euripides’ Herakles is the primary source that explores the madness Herakles suffers when he returns home having completed his labors. In the opening of the play,

Amphitryon reveals the backstory: while Amphitryon and his family were in Tiryns, he killed Elektryon, Alkmene’s brother, and, as punishment, the entire family was exiled from Tiryns. In order to gain permission to return to Tiryns, Herakles offers himself in service to Eurystheus in order “to tame the land” (ἐξηµερῶσαι γαῖαν, 20), meaning that he will get rid of all the evil monsters that plague men. After Herakles conquers the monsters and finally returns home, he is faced with conquering a human evil in the form of the tyrant Lykus who is trying to kill Herakles’ sons by Megara. Herakles has arrived just in time to help.16

At one point in the play, Lykus goes inside of his palace to lead out Herakles’ wife, Megara, and their sons to their deaths. While he is inside, Herakles kills Lykus. No one describes how Lykus was slain; all we hear is a brief line sung by the chorus, “The godless man is no more” (οὐκέτ᾽ ἔστι δυσσεβὴς ἀνήρ, 760). Unlike the earlier monsters that Herakles defeated, Lykus’ evil acts were not instigated by the gods; rather, Lykus threatened Herakles on his own. Before the play opens, Lykus has already killed

Megara’s father, Creon, and has become fearful that Megara and Herakles’ sons would one day seek to avenge his death. He decides to kill them while they are still young.

Whereas the beasts that Herakles slays are monsters created by divine unions,17 Lykus created his own evil by killing Creon. When Herakles kills Lykus, therefore, he is conquering a mortal evil in much the same way that earlier he had conquered divine evils.

In other words, Herakles’ actions in conquering evil bridge the mortal-divine gap and

16 Lykus’ persecution also serves to underscore Herakles’ role as family man. Galinsky, The Herakles Theme, 57. 17 As told by the Theogony 316-318.

27 emphasize his liminal position between those two worlds, by positioning him against both types of evil.

Iris appears in the play only after Herakles has killed Lykus. Her arrival is sudden and unexpected. As she explains, “Since he finished the labors of Eurystheus, Hera wishes to fasten to him new murder by slaying his children, and I agree,” (ἐπεὶ δὲ

µόχθους διεπέρασ᾽ Εὐρυσθέως, / Ἥρα προσάψαι καινὸν αἷµ᾽ αὐτῷ θέλει / παῖδας

κατακτείναντι, συνθέλω δ᾽ ἐγώ, 830-32). Apparently the goddess’ hatred of Herakles is so intense that she demands more bloodshed and this time she seeks to make Herakles kill his own children. Why Iris agrees is left unexplained. To fulfill Hera’s wish, Iris summons Lyssa, or Madness, another evil creation, sprung from the same parents as many of the monsters with which Herakles has just done battle.18

Lyssa pleads with the goddess to rethink her plan to destroy Herakles because

“The man is not without distinction either on earth or among the gods” (ἀνὴρ ὅδ᾽ οὐκ

ἄσηµος οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ χθονὶ / οὔτ᾽ ἐν θεοῖσιν, 849-850). Even Lyssa, an agent of malice, recognizes the respect that Herakles has earned for himself among both mortals and immortals. She fails to convince Hera and accomplishes Hera’s will against her own: “I do not wish to do [it]” (δρᾶν οὐ βούλοµαι, 858). This conflict between the goddesses about how to deal with Herakles shows the “profoundly unjust treatment…of noble

Herakles.”19

Nevertheless, Lyssa sets Herakles into a frenzy, “And indeed he shakes his head from the beginning and quietly he rolls his distorted and wild eyes about”

(καὶ δὴ τινάσσει κρᾶτα βαλβίδων ἄπο / καὶ διαστρόφους

18 Lyssa was born from Nyx and Ouranos (Herakles, 843-844). 19 Galinsky, The Herakles Theme, 57.

28 ἑλίσσει σῖγα γοργωποὺς κόρας, 867-868). Having overcome the previous obstacles that the gods have set out for him, he is helpless at this last, most invasive torment.

His craze continues in a striking way:

…ὁ δ᾽ οὐκέθ᾽ αὑτὸς ἦν,

ἀλλ᾽ ἐν στροφαῖσιν ὀµµάτων ἐφθαρµένος

ῥίζας τ᾽ ἐν ὄσσοις αἱµατῶπας ἐκβαλὼν

ἀφρὸν κατέσταζ᾽ εὐτρίχου γενειάδος.

…He was no longer himself,

but in the rolling of his eyes he was distraught,

the vessels in his eyes were bloody,

he threw about foam which dripped from his bearded cheeks.

(Herakles 931-934)

With these words, Euripides paints a compelling picture of the physical manifestation of a mental condition. At the peak of his insanity, the hero “prepared his ready quiver and bow against his own children, thinking he was about to murder the children of

Eurystheus” (φαρέτραν δ᾽ εὐτρεπῆ σκευάζεται / καὶ τόξ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ παισί, τοὺς Εὐρυσθέως /

δοκῶν φονεύειν, 969-971). Clearly what is happening to Herakles is not just physical, but a real mental break. He thinks he is killing the children of his enemy, but really they are his own. He kills not only his children but also his wife as she tries to protect them.

Although Herakles is powerful enough to prevail over physical obstacles, his mind is weak and vulnerable. Indeed, it is clear that he would have gone on to kill

29 Amphitryon if not for Athena’s wise intervention.20 Herakles is physically as powerful as the gods, but he is no match for their mental games. Hera asserts herself over Zeus’ son, reaffirming his mortality.21

Apollodorus tells a different story. He places Herakles’ madness before the

Labors and explains that they were imposed on the hero in expiation for the murders of his wife and children. He, too, provides an abbreviated excuse for Hera’s anger against

Herakles, merely saying “he was driven mad on account of the jealousy of Hera” (κατὰ

ζῆλον Ἥρας µανῆναι, Lib. 2.4.12). The nature of Apollodorus’ work keeps the entire account brief, hardly describing the madness - and certainly not in the gory detail that

Euripides uses - but he reports that Herakles kills his children not with his bow and arrow, but by throwing “his own children into the fire” (τούς τε ἰδίους παῖδας …

εἰς πῦρ ἐµβαλεῖν,” (Lib. 2.4.12). This particular method of filicide calls to mind the eventual cremation and apotheosis of Herakles himself.

Herakles at War

In the Iliad, Herakles blurs the line between himself and the gods when he becomes an aggressor against them. When Aphrodite is wounded by Diomedes, she goes to Olympos for solace from her mother Dione. Dione explains that many gods have suffered because of mortal men22 and she names a few of these unfortunate immortals.

The first was Ares who was put into a jar by two mortal brothers, Otus and Ephialtes; she

20 cf. Iliad 1.194-222. Athena prevents Achilles from killing Agamemnon. In the Iliad, she comes at the will of Hera, rather than on her own. The state of mind of Achilles is not as disordered as Herakles,’ but he is angry. It should also be noted that Achilles is also a liminal figure, being the son of a mortal man and a goddess. 21 For more on Herakles’ psychosis in general, cf. Karelisa Hartigan, “Euripidean Madness: Herakles and Orestes,” GaR 34, no. 2 (Oct. 1987): 126-129. 22 Although surely nowhere nearly as much as men have suffered because of the gods!

30 also names two other gods who were injured by Herakles (who is here called the son of

Amphitryon), Hera and Hades:23

τλῆ δ᾽ Ἥρη, ὅτε µιν κρατερὸς πάϊς Ἀµφιτρύωνος

δεξιτερὸν κατὰ µαζὸν ὀϊστῷ τριγλώχινι

βεβλήκει: ...

τλῆ δ᾽ Ἀΐδης …

εὖτέ µιν ωὐτὸς ἀνὴρ υἱὸς Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο

ἐν Πύλῳ ἐν νεκύεσσι βαλὼν ὀδύνῃσιν ἔδωκεν:

Hera suffered when the strong son of Amphitryon

her right breast with a three-barbed arrow

had struck…

And Hades suffered…

when the same man, the son of aegis-bearing Zeus

striking him in Pylos among the dead gave him to pains.

(Il. 5.392-397)

While Herakles has finally struck a blow against his enemy Hera, he earns no satisfaction from it. He is addressed after that act as “the son of Amphitryon.” This may be for one of two reasons. First, perhaps this is a sort of temporary demotion. Herakles has dared take action against a goddess who is mightier than he, and so he must be put in his place as a half-mortal. Second, and more persuasively, Herakles is addressed as the son of a mortal in order to show that Hera is a weak god who can be injured by an opponent who is supposed to be less than her in every way because of his mortal roots.

23 In his capacity as transgressor against the gods he is called the son of Amphitryon.

31 Soon after, Herakles, again referred to as the son of Zeus, is literally able to strike a blow against the king of death, which reaffirms his fierceness as a warrior.

In other stories, we see Herakles fighting on the side of the gods rather than against them. In the Theogony, Herakles’ role in the Gigantomachy is spoken of in somewhat vague terms, “because he completed his great work among the immortals, he lives all his days unharmed and ageless” (ὃς µέγα ἔργον ἐν ἀθανάτοισιν ἀνύσσας / ναίει

ἀπήµαντος καὶ ἀγήραος ἤµατα πάντα,” (954-955). In this line, ἐν ἀθανάτοισιν most likely means that Herakles completed his great work while he was among the immortals, but it may be hyperbaton, and may instead refer to how Herakles now lives, leaving the

µέγα ἔργον as having been done by Herakles alone. If Herakles did the work ἐν

ἀθανάτοισιν, then the line most likely refers to the Gigantomachy and shows Herakles as an asset to the divine forces.

Hesiod’s Ehoiai also claims that Herakles slew the Giants: “In Phlegra, the strong son of Zeus killed the overweening Gigantes” (Διός ἄλκιµος υἱὸς... / ἐν Φλέγρηι δὲ

Γίγαντας ὑπερφιάλους κατέπεφνε, Hes. fr. 43a.61-65 M-W). Διός ἄλκιµος υἱὸς is a common way of referring to Herakles, who here, after sacking his own city and sailing from Troy in the previous lines, killed the Giants in Phlegra, the site of the

Gigantomachy.

Pindar too speaks of Herakles as a conqueror of the Giants in Nemean 7. The poet invokes Herakles’ protection for Sogenes, the recipient of the ode, and in doing so calls

Herakles, “you who overpowered the Gigantes” (Γίγαντας ὃς ἐδάµασας, 90). Elsewhere, though, in Nemean 1, more information is transmitted. In this ode, Pindar has the seer

Teiresias describe Herakles’ future exploits to a concerned Amphitryon, who has recently

32 recognized his adopted son’s supernatural strength. Teiresias sees Herakles’ feats against the Giants: “And [he said] that whenever the gods might face the Gigantes on the plain of

Phlegra to fight them, by the swing of his missiles, [their] shining hair will be defiled by the earth” (καὶ γὰρ ὅταν θεοὶ ἐν πεδίῳ Φλέγρας Γιγάντεσσιν µάχαν / ἀντιάζωσιν, βελέων

ὑπὸ ῥιπαῖσι κείνου φαιδίµαν γαίᾳ πεφύρσεσθαι κόµαν…, 67-68). In this context,

Herakles is undeniably among the gods, ἐν ἀθανάτοισιν, in the midst of their battle with the Giants, and, according to Teiresias’ prophecy, he will be one of their foremost fighters. This battle depicts Herakles as a team-player, with his divine equals as his

σύµµαχοι, rather than as a lone warrior fighting his personal battles. He has been accepted amongst the immortals, at least momentarily.

Euripides, too, has Herakles allied with the gods in their battle against the Giants:

ἐν οἷς βεβηκὼς τοῖσι γῆς βλαστήµασιν

Γίγασι πλευροῖς πτήν᾽ ἐναρµόσας βέλη

τὸν καλλίνικον µετὰ θεῶν ἐκώµασεν:

Having advanced among them, and having pierced

the offspring of the earth, the Gigantes, in the ribs

with the winged missiles, he reveled in the victory alongside the gods.

(Herakles 178-180)

Herakles is a colleague of the gods, participating in the battle and partaking in the victory celebration. Here, his not-quite-a-god status is ignored because of his god-like abilities on the field of battle.

33 Later, Apollodorus gives another variation of the story, in which the gods depend on Herakles precisely because of his mortality.

τοῖς δὲ θεοῖς λόγιον ἦν ὑπὸ θεῶν µὲν µηδένα τῶν Γιγάντων ἀπολέσθαι δύνασθαι,

συµµαχοῦντος δὲ θνητοῦ τινος τελευτήσειν.

There was a prophecy for the gods that by none of the gods would it be possible

for any of the Gigantes to be killed, and that some mortal, being an ally, would

accomplish it.

(Lib. 1.6.1)

In response to this prophecy, Zeus takes action, summoning Herakles as an ally,

“Ἡρακλέα δὲ σύµµαχον δι᾽ Ἀθηνᾶς ἐπεκαλέσατο,” (1.6.1). In this turn of events,

Herakles is summoned because he is not a full god, and it is his mortal half that the gods need. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that in this version Herakles’ divine parentage is not mentioned and any patronymic is omitted.

It is perhaps telling that Herakles does depend on Athena in his battle with the

Giants; although he possesses sufficient brute strength, he cannot discover on his own that his enemy’s weakness lay in being taken from his native land: “With Athena advising, he dragged him from Pallene [to kill him]” (Ἀθηνᾶς δὲ ὑποθεµένης ἔξω

τῆς Παλλήνης εἵλκυσεν αὐτόν, Lib. 1.6.1). This is the only time in Apollodorus’ version of the Gigantomachy that Herakles receives aid. Throughout the rest of Apollodorus’ description of the battle, Herakles holds his own amongst the gods, shooting and killing as many Giants as the gods. In fact, Herakles is on par with Apollo when it comes to skill

34 with the bow: after Apollo shoots Ephialtes in the left eye, Herakles shoots him in the right.24

Scholia on Nemean 1.101 mention that the gods need the help of two hemitheoi in order to prevail over the Giants. In order to satisfy the prophecy, the gods enlist Herakles and Dionysos.

The story of the Gigantomachy illustrates Herakles’ existence on the boundary between gods and men. In some cases Herakles is celebrated for his superhuman, divine strength against the Gigantes. In other sources, the gods need him precisely because he is not fully a god. This speaks to his versatility and, therefore, the audience’s ability to relate to him. When those who know his stories need him to be a savior, he is one; but he is also imperfect and vulnerable, giving the audience room to dream of achieving equally stunning feats.

Herakles in Death

Herakles further blurs the line between mortal and immortal in his death; some texts record merely that the hero dies; others bestow immortality on him after his mortal death. In the Odyssey, for example, Odysseus sees Herakles’ phantom amongst the many shades that approach him in the so-called nekyia.

τὸν δὲ µετ᾽ εἰσενόησα βίην Ἡρακληείην,

εἴδωλον: αὐτὸς δὲ µετ᾽ ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι

τέρπεται ἐν θαλίῃς καὶ ἔχει καλλίσφυρον Ἥβην…

24 1.6.2.

35 And after [Sisyphus], I saw Herakles,

a phantom: for he himself, being with the immortal gods,

enjoys the merriment and has beautiful-ankled Hebe [as a wife]…

(Ody. 11.601-603)

This passage implies that there are two parts of Herakles. One part is the phantom, or

εἴδωλον, that resides in the Underworld after the hero’s death. This “Herakles” sorrowfully compares himself to Odysseus, noting that they have each been burdened with enormous trials. The other “Herakles” now lives happily with the gods, presumably on Mt. Olympos, and is married to the goddess Hebe.25 It seems clear that Homer is attempting to represent both the mortal and immortal halves of Herakles. The demi-god’s mortal half has taken its proper place among the other mortal dead, and his immortal half has appropriately risen to the place meant for immortals.26 This representation of

Herakles after death shows Homer’s conception of him as a liminal figure. Homer must place the hero both in the Underworld and on Olympos in order to convey his dual nature.

The Theogony does not separate Herakles into parts, but it leaves him whole.

Immediately before Hesiod describes Herakles’ actions during the Gigantomachy, the poet says that, “Having completed the painful labors…he made [Hebe] his shy wife on snowy Olympos” (τελέσας στονόεντας ἀέθλους…αἰδοίην θέτ᾽ ἄκοιτιν ἐν Οὐλύµπῳ

25 Homer commonly refers to the ghostly dead as ψυχαί. Only three of the spirits that Odysseus sees are referred to as an εἴδωλον: first Elpenor, then Odysseus’ mother, Antiklea, then Herakles. Though it is not within the scope of this thesis to explore the implications of the various terms for spirits on the Odyssey, it is interesting to note this usage. 26 Achilles is the only other demi-god Herakles sees in the Underworld. Achilles is not represented as having any counterpart, not to mention one that is living amongst the gods. His immortal mother is not an Olympian and thus she cannot afford a place for her son there.

36 νιφόεντι, 951-953). Hesiod does not articulate the labors; instead the emphasis in the main clause of the sentence is placed on his immortal wife, a fitting prize for his wonderful feats, and his home on Olympos. Although other mortal men may marry goddesses, no other man is given the honor of living on Olympos.27 What Hesiod leaves vague is how Herakles came to Olympos. There is no indication of death or ascension, or any separation of the hero’s mortal and immortal parts.28

The Ehoiai is the earliest extant text to say that Deianeira kills Herakles. The poem does not include many of the details of Herakles’ death that appear in later texts, but the poem makes it clear that Deianeira has covered a cloak with a potion which kills

Herakles when he puts it on. Her motives are not stated. What is important in this poem is first that Herakles actually died (θάνε) and went to Hades, (Ἀϊδαο... ἳκετο δωµα, Hes. frag. 25.25 M-W) and second that Herakles became a god (νυν δ᾿ ἤδη θεός ἐστι) Hes. frag. 25.26 M-W). Just as the poet skips over Deianeira’s motives, so too he chooses not to explain how Herakles became a god. Instead he focuses on the death, the trip to Hades, and his life as a god. Along with being a god comes the privilege to live with the gods with Hebe as his wife.

The Ehoiai hints at the same kind of dichotomy as occurs in the Odyssey, but does not follow through in the same way. There is no differentiation in the divine and non- divine parts of Herakles. First, he dies, and then he is assumed into the company of the gods, with no mention of an εἴδωλον or any similar “phantom.” In this narrative, the entire Herakles undertakes the progress from Hades to Olympos.

27Peleus and Thetis are a primary example of a mortal man’s union with an immortal goddess and not even mighty Peleus is accepted amongst the ranks of Olympians. 28 Padilla brings up suspicion that the apotheosis may be a later, Hellenistic, addition. Myths of Herakles, 15.

37 Sophokles’ Trachiniai closes with the death of Herakles. The play picks up on the

Ehoiai’s mention of Deianeira as murderess, and it is the first extant source to flesh out the details of her motivations and the situation of her relationship with Herakles.29 In the

Sophoklean version, Deianeira covers a cloak with a potion, but it is apparent that she means no harm to come to her husband. In fact, she intends the opposite - for she thinks the potion will ensure that Herakles never loves another woman as much as he loves her

(576-577). She gives the cloak to Herakles as a gift. When Herakles puts on the cloak, he is driven mad by the pain it inflicts. Deianeira sends their son Hyllus to look for his long- absent father and when Hyllus finally reaches his father in his tormented state, Herakles demands that his son burns him alive on a pyre in order to put him out of his misery, threatening that “Unless you [burn me], I, being accursed and suffering, will await you from below” (εἰ δὲ µή, µενῶ σ᾽ ἐγὼ / καὶ νέρθεν ὢν ἀραῖος εἰσαεὶ βαρύς, Trachiniai

1201-1202). Clearly Herakles means Hades when he says “below,” showing that

Herakles expects to spend his afterlife there with the other mortal souls. In his penultimate speech, Herakles rejoices at the idea of dying, “This is respite from evils, the very end of this man” (παῦλά τοι κακῶν / αὕτη, τελευτὴ τοῦδε τἀνδρὸς ὑστάτη, 1255-

1256). Perhaps Sophokles uses ἀνδρὸς pointedly to show the end of the man Herakles, but not of the god Herakles, as the audience was well aware of the hero’s ultimate fate. In the moment of the play, however, Herakles only conceives of himself as a man and is unaware apparently of what awaits him.

Just as in Trachiniai, Herakles seems ignorant of his divinity in Euripides’

Herakles. He does not die in the Euripidean play, but, after he has killed his wife and sons, he does contemplate suicide; he does finally reject this idea saying, “I considered if

29 Gantz, Early Greek Myth, 458.

38 even being among such evils, I would be seen as a coward leaving such a life”

(ἐσκεψάµην δὲ καίπερ ἐν κακοῖσιν ὤν, / µὴ δειλίαν ὄφλω τιν᾽ ἐκλιπὼν φάος, 1347-1348).

That he can even contemplate suicide shows that he believes in his mortality. At the end of the play, Herakles chooses exile over suicide and asks Theseus to help him with another Labor: to fetch Kerberos from the Underworld and bring him to Argos.30

Herakles is repeatedly caught in the liminal space between the worlds of mortals and immortals, between his humanity and divinity. The madness which he receives from

Hera highlights his vulnerability, his mortality. On the one hand, his mortality is, according to some authors, exactly what makes the gods seek him out as an ally during their battle with the Giants, while on the other hand, his super-human strength makes him a worthy ally of the gods in that fight. Finally, Greek authors depict him as either dying and living in the Underworld or ascending to Olympos to wed a goddess and live with the other immortals. Herakles’ existence is a constant struggle to find a position for himself in either the world of the gods or that of men. This struggle highlights his liminal position in the hierarchy of gods and men, as he teeters between the human and divine.31

Helen’s Femininity

Like Herakles, Helen too is poised between mortals and immortals. Her situation is further complicated by the fact that she must toe the line between the male and female worlds. More often than not, she handles these liminal positions gracefully.

30 The Labors of Herakles serve as the model for the labors of Theseus; the connection of the two figures here shows the Athenian adoption of Herakles as one of their favored deities, cf. Galinsky, The Heracles Theme, 40. 31 Beyond the liminality I discuss here, Padilla notes that Herakles embodies the human dichotomy of “aristocratic virtue and lower class laboring.” cf. Myths of Herakles, 18.

39 An early and striking instance of Helen as a woman in a man’s world is the so- called Teichoscopy scene in the Iliad. Iris, in disguise, takes Helen away from her weaving (quintessential women’s work) and brings her to the walls of Troy in order to watch the battle unfolding on the plain below (3.125-140). When she arrives, she will join “[Priam] and Panthoos and Thymoetes, and Lampon and Klytios and Hiketaon…

Ukalegon and Antenor…” (Πρίαµον καὶ Πάνθοον ἠδὲ Θυµοίτην / Λάµπόν τε Κλυτίον θ᾽

Ἱκετάονά … / Οὐκαλέγων τε καὶ Ἀντήνωρ…, 3.146-148), the “leaders of the Trojans”

(Τρώων ἡγήτορες, 3.154).32 These men comment on Helen’s appearance as she comes nearer to them, saying that they cannot blame the Greeks for fighting for this woman who is “strangely like to the immortal goddesses in her face” (αἰνῶς ἀθανάτῃσι

θεῇς εἰς ὦπα ἔοικεν, 3.158).

After Helen joins the group of men, Priam asks her what she knows about the three main Greek warriors that they can see fighting on the plain, Agamemnon, Odysseus and Ajax.33 Although Helen does not tell Priam anything pertaining to a specifically masculine field of knowledge such as fighting technique, number of kills or number of battles fought, the very fact that Priam asks for her knowledge shows a kind of respect for

Helen which is usually reserved for males. Rarely is a woman in Greek literature asked to tell what she knows about any subject, let alone about war. Presumably, Priam could have obtained the same information from his own advisors,34 but instead chose to ask

Helen, furthering Iris’ work in drawing her out of the female interior of the palace and

32 It is interesting to note that although the previous text had been from Helen’s perspective, rather than getting Helen’s reaction to the group of elders, the reader sees the group’s reaction to Helen - she is objectified. 33 He also tells her that he does not blame her for the war, implying that there are those who do blame her. These questions and answers stretch from line 162 to 244. 34 Though these advisors may have been past the age of being able to fight in battles, they are surely communicating with the generals in the fray, who would at least be able to identify the enemy’s leaders to them.

40 bringing her into the outer realm of men. Soon after this exchange, Priam is called away abruptly when Menelaos and Paris decide to fight each other one-on-one to settle the war.

Just as quickly as attention is given to Helen for her knowledge, it is pulled away to show her being again objectified as the prize of the war.

εἰ µέν κεν Μενέλαον Ἀλέξανδρος καταπέφνῃ

αὐτὸς ἔπειθ᾽ Ἑλένην ἐχέτω καὶ κτήµατα πάντα,

ἡµεῖς δ᾽ ἐν νήεσσι νεώµεθα ποντοπόροισιν:

εἰ δέ κ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρον κτείνῃ ξανθὸς Μενέλαος,

Τρῶας ἔπειθ᾽ Ἑλένην καὶ κτήµατα πάντ᾽ ἀποδοῦναι...

If Alexandros kills Menelaos

then he would take back Helen and all of the wealth

and we will sail away in the seafaring ships.

And if fair-haired Menelaos kills Alexandros,

then the Trojans will give up Helen and all the wealth…

(Iliad 3.281-285)

Helen returns to the usual female position in the world. She is no longer sought for her knowledge, but because she is a thing that can be fought over.

Shortly after this episode on the walls, Helen is called by Aphrodite to tend to her

Trojan husband, fresh from battle. In the role of wife, Helen is, understandably, harsh to

Paris, who does not listen to Helen at all, but uses her only for sex. After Aphrodite snatches Paris away from his fight with Menelaos, Helen says in no uncertain terms that she wishes Menelaos had killed him, “I would prefer that you had died there...”

41 (ὡς ὤφελες αὐτόθ᾽ ὀλέσθαι, Iliad 3.428). Paris easily shrugs off Helen’s seething malice, suggesting that she should ignore her anger and focus on tending to him, “But come then, laying in love we ought to rejoice” (ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δὴ φιλότητι τραπείοµεν

εὐνηθέντε, 3.441). Though unaware of Aphrodite’s sharp rebuke of Helen, Paris happily capitalizes on the fear that the goddess has instilled in his reluctant wife.

The wifely side of Helen is on display in the Odyssey as well, but in that text she is loyal to Menelaos and content to be with him. She first appears in the fourth book of the poem as a radiant queen resembling the chaste “golden-spindled Artemis” (Ἀρτέµιδι

χρυσηλακάτῳ ἐικυῖα, 4.122). As in the Iliad, she is likened to a goddess. In addition she is surrounded by the accoutrements of weaving, the very objects which signify a virtuous wife in the epics:35

τόν ῥά οἱ ἀµφίπολος Φυλὼ παρέθηκε φέρουσα

νήµατος ἀσκητοῖο βεβυσµένον: αὐτὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ

ἠλακάτη τετάνυστο ἰοδνεφὲς εἶρος ἔχουσα.

Phylo, the handmaid, bringing [the basket] placed it beside her,

after it had been filled with fine yarn; and on it

she laid the distaff holding deep-violet wool.

(Odyssey 4.133-135)

The virtuous wife who weaves in the Odyssey is of course Penelope who is presented as a paragon of female virtue in the poem. Because of that association, the presence of a weaving basket in this scene may be read in two ways. First, the basket may represent

35 Maria Pantella, “Spinning and Weaving: Ideas of Domestic Order in Homer,” AJP 114, no. 4 (Winter 1993): 493.

42 Helen’s role as modest, proper wife, who attends to her household duties, among which are the tasks of spinning yarn and weaving. Second, the scene may serve to show Helen as rejecting the expectations of her as a woman. Though the basket is placed beside her, she never touches it or its contents. Instead she participates in the conversation between

Menelaos and Telemachos, making the astute observation that Telemachus looks very much like their friend Odysseus, leading Menelaos to say, “Thus now I see it, wife, as you compare [them]” (οὕτω νῦν καὶ ἐγὼ νοέω, γύναι, ὡς σὺ ἐίσκεις, Odyssey 4.148). The messenger confirms that Helen’s identification of the relation between Odysseus and his son is correct. While not a major point, this small scene is an example of Helen’s keen eye for detail; the same keenness she showed when identifying the Greek soldiers to

Priam.

Helen is able to hold her own amongst the men, but she does not stray far from feminine tendencies. Soon after Telemachus has told his sorrowful story, Helen puts a potion in the wine during dinner. Potions are generally associated with women, as we have seen previously when Deianeira unwittingly poisons Herakles’ cloak.36 Helen’s potion is for the benefit of the guests at the banquet, “Immediately she threw a drug into the wine, from which they were drinking, which drove away sorrow and allayed anger, causing forgetfulness of all bad things” (αὐτίκ᾽ ἄρ᾽ εἰς οἶνον βάλε φάρµακον, ἔνθεν

ἔπινον, / νηπενθές τ᾽ ἄχολόν τε, κακῶν ἐπίληθον ἁπάντων, 4.220-221). When Helen drugs the wine, she moves the meal away from the sadness felt at the possible loss of

Odysseus and towards a more cheerful mood. To manipulate the emotions of the men with the drug is representative of how much power Helen has.

36 Cf. both Medea and Kirke for examples of female use of poison/potions.

43 Later in the epic, as Helen is saying goodbye to Telemachus and sending him off with a woven garment, the type of gift which it is appropriate for a hostess to bestow, she takes on another role. She becomes an augur. As Telemachus is leaving, an eagle flies over the group. Telemachus asks Menelaos what it might mean; while the king is pondering what to say, “long-robed Helen spoke these words before Menelaos had a chance…” (τὸν δ᾽ Ἑλένη τανύπεπλος ὑποφθαµένη φάτο µῦθον…, Odyssey 15.170).

Helen seizes the moment and, as if reading the symbols, promises Telemachus that his father will come back. While women often have the gift of foresight, as with Cassandra and Theonoe, the reading of omens is usually left to men.37 Helen does not allow

Menelaos the chance to make his reading, but asserts her abilities over his.

In Euripides’ Helen, Helen is her own savior, independent of, and in spite of any man. Helen has found herself in Egypt, carried away by Hera, so that she will not be involved in the Trojan War. In the early scenes, Helen awaits the arrival of Menelaos; meanwhile, she avoids the local tyrant, Theoklymenos, who seeks to take advantage of his position as her protector and to make her his wife. Finally, Menelaos is shipwrecked nearby, and when he comes to the tyrant’s palace seeking aid, he discovers his wife.

Together they must escape Theoklymenos. The first obstacle is Theoklymenos’ sister,

Theonoe, who is a seer. Menelaos fears that Theonoe will sense his presence and prevent his escape with his wife.

Helen is able to solve this problem by volunteering to employ a skill rarely attributed to her - verbal persuasion, ἀναπείσαιµεν (“we might persuade [Theonoe],”

37 Women are involved in other forms of divination, as the Sibyl at Delphi, but do not appear as augurs, specifically. Even the Sibyl had little to do with deciphering Apollo’s babble which was delivered through her as explained by Lisa Maurizio, “Anthropology and Spirit Possession: A Reconsideration of the Pythia’s Role at Delphi,” JHS 115 (1995): 70. Sarah Iles Johnston also has a short section on females as prophets in Ancient Greek Divination (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 44.

44 825). Helen’s gift usually lies in her feminine charms, and it is for this reason that men value her. Now, however, Helen must verbally persuade a woman, someone immune to her feminine beauty. Menelaos is skeptical of his wife’s abilities, but entrusts the task to her, “It is your task, since it is suitable for a woman [to deal with] a woman” (σὸν ἔργον,

ὡς γυναικὶ πρόσφορον γυνή, 830). Helen does beseech Theonoe, and she is successful at winning her silence.

Once the couple has gained Theonoe as an ally, they must contrive a plan that will take them away from Egypt. The two plan their escape, but Helen is able to see the downsides to each plan that her husband proposes.38 He suggests they ask one of the stable hands to give them a chariot and horses, and Helen responds that even if they had transportation, they do not know the surrounding country (1039-1042). Menelaos suggests that he storm the palace and simply kill the tyrant, and Helen counters that they could not expect Theonoe to keep silent about her brother’s murder (1043-1046). Finally,

Menelaos mentions that they could escape across the sea, and it is from this idea that

Helen formulates her cunning plan. Helen’s plan is to pretend that the real Menelaos is a messenger who has come bearing the news of Menelaos’ death. Helen will ask

Theoklymenos for a ship in order to give Menelaos his proper funeral rites, which she also fabricates saying it is necessary that a Greek man who has died in a shipwreck be buried at sea. Once Theoklymenos has provided the ship, she will bring the messenger-

Menelaos along with her in order to help her conduct the rites. At some point far off shore, Menelaos will reveal himself and he and his disguised men will kill

Theoklymenos’ sailors and take possession of the ship, sailing it from there back to

38 Since perhaps she has considered each of the plans he suggests during the many years she has been held in Egypt.

45 Sparta. In a reversal of their previous roles, Menelaos identifies what he considers to be the flaws of this plan, but Helen is able to rebut each of them (1055-1066).

Helen’s plan is quite smart. She takes advantage of the facts that Theoklymenos cannot know who Menelaos is without his sister’s help and that he is not familiar with

Greek burial customs. These deceits make her plan more complicated, since there are more lies to remember, but they also make her plan more believable. Throughout this situation, Helen is completely in charge. Such plots usually use the woman as the pawn, while it is the man who devises it and sets it in motion.

Helen’s Semi-Divinity

Besides walking the line between male and female, Helen exists between mortals and immortals. Being the daughter of Zeus sets her apart from humans, but it does not allow her to fit in among the gods. In a few places, her position between the two states is tacitly discussed.

In Book Three of the Iliad, Helen interacts directly with Aphrodite (390-421).

These lines invest Helen with a verve that she has not exhibited before in Greek literature. Aphrodite comes to Helen in the guise of an old woman with whom Helen is familiar and says, “Go hither, Alexander calls you to go home,” (δεῦρ᾽ ἴθ᾽: Ἀλέξανδρός

σε καλεῖ οἶκον δὲ νέεσθαι, 3.390), suggesting that Helen should go have intercourse with her husband. Helen, with her keen eye, recognizes that the old woman is actually a goddess, and says to her, “O daimon, why do you desire to deceive me in this way?”

(δαιµονίη, τί µε ταῦτα λιλαίεαι ἠπεροπεύειν; 3.399). It is generally regarded that the disguises of the gods are imperceptible to humans. The fact that Helen is able to identify

46 the goddess reminds us that her father is a god; indeed, she may have inherited her ability to “see” the presence of the goddess from her immortal father.

A few lines later, however, Aphrodite reminds Helen that she is (half) mortal, despite her acute powers of observation. Helen refuses the goddess’ request to attend to

Alexander saying, “But always you suffer and you watch over him, until he might make you his wife or his slave” (ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ περὶ κεῖνον ὀΐζυε καί ἑ φύλασσε, / εἰς ὅ κέ σ᾽ ἢ

ἄλοχον ποιήσεται ἢ ὅ γε δούλην, 3.408-409). Helen tells Aphrodite that if she would like to make Alexander happy, instead of forcing Helen to be his wife, Aphrodite herself should attend him. Helen refuses to accept the role that Aphrodite has thrust upon her, thereby thwarting the goddess’ will and implicitly attempting to assert her own (semi-) divinity.

As can be expected, Aphrodite does not react well to this blatant, arrogant refusal and quickly rebukes Helen, “Do not provoke me, wretch, lest being angry I might abandon you, and lest I would hate you, although now I love you exceedingly” (µή

µ᾽ ἔρεθε σχετλίη, µὴ χωσαµένη σε µεθείω, / τὼς δέ σ᾽ ἀπεχθήρω ὡς νῦν ἔκπαγλ᾽

ἐφίλησα, 3.414-415). Aphrodite threatens Helen, and reminds her that without her protection, Helen, being in the walls of a foreign king, might find herself in a terrible predicament. Hearing this rage from the goddess of love, “Helen born from Zeus was fearful” (ἔδεισεν δ᾽ Ἑλένη Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα, 3.418). Although the blood of the king of the gods runs through her veins, Helen is cowed by a few sharp words from a full-blooded goddess. Helen has come toe-to-toe with Aphrodite and seen that she, in her own semi- mortality, is no match for a powerful goddess. While Helen stands out among mortal

47 women, and even among mortal men, she is far from exceptional when compared to the gods.

Aphrodite quashes Helen’s defiance immediately, but the scene provides a glimmer of the feisty Greek queen’s disdain for Aphrodite and her controlling actions.

Helen stands up for herself. Similarly, in this scene, the bard shows that Helen is not a demure whore, but instead a woman in difficult circumstances who has been given no choice but to obey the gods. One might imagine that this is not the first stand Helen has taken against the goddess in the ten years she has been at Troy, and from there it is easy to see that her quickness to back down is the result of expectation of the same reaction she has received before.

Ancient literary sources say nothing about Helen’s death or her status after death; this is in stark contrast to what the sources say about Menelaos. In Book Four of the

Odyssey, Proteus gives a prophecy to Menelaos about the fates of the Greek warriors who left Troy. Proteus tells Menelaos that Ajax and Agamemnon have died, but that Odysseus is still wandering the seas. Then the old man of the sea foretells Menelaos’ own death:

σοι δ᾽ οὐ θέσφατόν ἐστι, διοτρεφὲς ὦ Μενέλαε,

Ἄργει ἐν ἱπποβότῳ θανέειν καὶ πότµον ἐπισπεῖν,

ἀλλά σ᾽ ἐς Ἠλύσιον πεδίον καὶ πείρατα γαίης

ἀθάνατοι πέµψουσιν, ὅθι ξανθὸς Ῥαδάµανθυς,

τῇ περ ῥηίστη βιοτὴ πέλει ἀνθρώποισιν:

…

οὕνεκ᾽ ἔχεις Ἑλένην καί σφιν γαµβρὸς Διός ἐσσι.

48 It is not decreed by god for you, O Menelaos,

to die and meet your fate in Argos where horses graze,

but to the Elysian plain and the ends of the earth

the immortals will send you, where fair-haired Radamanthos is,

where there is the easiest life for men:

…

Because you have Helen and you are the son-in-law of Zeus.

(Odyssey 4.561-569)

It is clear from these lines that her status as the daughter of Zeus has imparted a special afterlife to her husband Menelaos while Helen herself is deathless. She is allowed to live on, though in obscurity.

Final Observations

Herakles and Helen are liminal figures because of their precarious positions between men and gods. Herakles has to deal only with the divide between the gods and men; he is imbued with superhuman, god-like strength, and in that sense is equal to the gods. But mentally he falls victim to Hera’s madness and succumbs to the gods’ will.

While Herakles’ strength saves many mortals from the havoc that supernatural monsters wreak on them, madness set upon him by the gods compels him to bring ruin upon his own family. In various versions of his myth he dies like a mortal, while in others he moves from earth to Olympos where he lives with the gods and marries the divine Hebe.

Helen not only has to exist in the void between men and gods, but she also has to deal with her position as a woman in a man’s world. She asserts herself against both her

49 human male and goddess oppressors at appropriate times, but when it is necessary she hides her disdain for her position as Aphrodite’s pawn and is an elegant queen. As such, she advises the leader of her people’s enemy not in a spirit of betrayal of her own people, but in one of friendship and nostalgia. She is a gracious hostess in her husband’s court and is as outspoken as ever when she knows the words that need to be said.

50

CHAPTER 3

RELATIONSHIP WITH HERA

Helen and Herakles are two of Zeus’ most famous offspring, both in antiquity and today.39 This longevity of their fame attests their power over audiences, but the source of this power has, as of yet, been unclear. They are but two of a large number of Zeus’ children - many of whom were, and are, nowhere near as well known. What sets them apart from their less famous half-siblings is Hera’s influence over their lives. Hera has been in the background of the previous two chapters, and it is now time to bring her, her anger, and her role as stepmother to Helen and Herakles to the forefront.

Hera’s anger is perhaps one of her most characteristic attributes. Her rage stems from her husband’s philandering and faithlessness. Zeus had intercourse with countless women while married to Hera, and he fathered a child from almost every single one of these encounters. Many of those children live on Mount Olympos where Hera is daily confronted with proof of Zeus’ extramarital affairs.

This chapter explores Hera’s relationships with Herakles and Helen. Herakles, on the one hand, was constantly persecuted by Hera’s rage; it was this rage that tested his super-human strength, thereby finally proving his mettle. Helen, on the other hand, was

39 This fame is evidenced by a variety of works about the two, which range from the cycle of myth that surrounded both Herakles and Helen in antiquity to the movies made about them in recent years. The most recent example is the screenplay Hercules (2014) in which “The Rock” played the eponymous figure in a reimagining of the Herakles story.

51 one of Hera’s prized pawns. It was thanks to Hera that Helen’s tarnished reputation was restored.

Hera and Herakles

Hera’s relationship with Herakles was fraught from the very beginning.40

According to Probus who quotes Pindar, Herakles’ name was derived from the fact that

Hera’s hatred of the hero ultimately brought him much fame, or kleos; thus, Herakleos

(fr. 291 SM). Diodorus Siculus gives a similar etymology (4.10.1). These three citations together indicate that Herakles does owe much of his fame to Hera. Without her constantly presenting trials for him to overcome, he would not have had the chance to display his superhuman strength. I examine Hera and Herakles’ relationship through the lens of Hera’s interactions directly with Herakles from the time of his birth and then through the lens of Hera’s interaction with the other gods.

Hera’s first test for Herakles came in the form of snakes while he was an infant.

This story was previously discussed in the chapter on paternity, but we will now review that tale from a new perspective.

…ἐπεὶ σπλάγχνων ὕπο µατέρος αὐτίκα θαητὰν ἐς αἴγλαν παῖς Διὸς

ὠδῖνα φεύγων διδύµῳ σὺν κασιγνήτῳ µόλεν,

ὡς οὐ λαθὼν χρυσόθρονον

Ἥραν κροκωτὸν σπάργανον ἐγκατέβα:

ἀλλὰ θεῶν βασιλέα

σπερχθεῖσα θυµῷ πέµπε δράκοντας ἄφαρ.

40 Hugh Lloyd-Jones, “Curses and Divine Anger in Early Greek Epic: The Pisander Scholion,” CQ 52, no. 1 (2002): 10.

52 …when the son of Zeus from the womb of his mother came to the brilliant light of

the sun

leaving behind the pains of birth, with his twin brother,

he did not escape the notice of golden-throned

Hera as he was placed in his yellow swaddling clothes:

but the queen of the gods,

having been angered in her heart sent snakes right away.

(Nemean 1.35-40)

Hera, as the goddess of childbirth, could have prevented Herakles’ birth entirely, or she could have killed Alkmene in childbirth. By killing either mother or son, however, she risks provoking the anger of her husband, Zeus. Though Hera does not usually shy away from confrontation with her husband, in this instance she chooses the more passive- aggressive method of toying with his illegitimate offspring. By allowing Herakles to be born Hera provided herself with a long-term plaything, on which she was able to exact her revenge over and over, protracting his suffering and multiplying the difficulties with which he was faced. In essence, the method for punishing of Herakles that Hera has chosen may be considered to be crueler than other options available to her.

Snakes are a fitting way for Hera to choose to deal with a baby. Human infants have no concept of self-protection, and they spend much of their time on the ground or near it. While a child might have the inclination to cry out if it felt the menacing breath or heard the growl of a larger mammalian predator, the snake in its silence is a less terrifying threat and one that might not draw the child’s screams, or even attention, until its bite has been inflicted. These characteristics of the snake make Herakles’

53 apprehension of the two snakes that Hera sends against him all the more impressive. He senses the presence of the snakes, as well as the danger they present. Of course, one must also consider the symbolic aspect of snakes in Greek mythology. Generally, they represent evil and are attributed to the chthonic gods.41

The snakes came into the room of the sleeping children:

…τέκνοισιν ὠκείας γνάθους

ἀµφελίξασθαι µεµαῶτες: ὁ δ᾽ ὀρθὸν µὲν ἄντεινεν κάρα, πειρᾶτο δὲ πρῶτον

µάχας,

δισσαῖσι δοιοὺς αὐχένων

µάρψαις ἀφύκτοις χερσὶν ἑαῖς ὄφιας:

… wishing to swiftly wrap their jaws around the children:

He [Herakles] lifted his head straight up, and attempted his first battle

taking hold of the throats of both of the snakes

in his two inescapable hands.

(Nemean 1.42-45)

Herakles strangles both of the snakes, saving himself and his (twin) brother. While Pindar does not provide Hera’s reaction to this defeat, one can only imagine her regretting not having killed Herakles while his fate was in her natal domain. She has tested Herakles,

41 For example: the Gorgons, evil women who turn men to stone, are commonly described as having snaky hair; and Apollo must kill Python, a giant snake, in order to establish his oracle at Delphi. For an in-depth analysis of this last myth specifically, cf. Joseph Fontenrose, Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and Its Origins (New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1974). For the symbolism of snakes in general, cf. James Charlesworth, The Good and Evil Serpent: How A Universal Symbol Became Christianized (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010); for Herakles and snakes see page 145.

54 and he has proven his precocious acknowledgement of danger and ability to react to it.

Hera can now understand exactly what kind of opponent she is up against.

Before their rivalry, however, Herakles suckles at Hera’s breast, according to

Pseudo-Eratosthenes in his Katasterismi. The mythological chronology connecting this story to Pindar’s is unclear, but Pindar himself predates Pseudo-Eratosthenes by about

250 years. One may conclude that Pseudo-Eratosthenes either had Pindar’s story in mind but chose to leave his new version unanchored in the older one or he was not aware of

Pindar’s version. Thus, the timeline becomes nebulous here, and there is no telling whether the snakes might have been intended to come before or after Hera nursed her little opponent. Despite issues with order of events, Pseudo-Eratosthenes provides important insight into the mother-son dynamic connecting the two figures.

One must also keep in mind the different goals for which Pindar and Pseudo-

Eratosthenes wrote. On the one hand, Pindar writes to praise a victorious athlete, and thus he prefers to focus on the powerful aspects of Herakles, rather than show him as a helpless, suckling babe. Pseudo-Eratosthenes, on the other hand, writes from an astronomical/astrological perspective and so he has no vested interests in depicting

Herakles in a certain way. In the Katasterismi he writes:

οὐ γὰρ ἐξῆν τοῖς Διὸς υἱοῖς τῆς οὐρανίου τιµῆς µετασχεῖν εἰ µή τις αὐτῶν

θηλάσειε τὸν τῆς Ἥρας µαστόν. …φασὶ τὸν Ἑρµῆν ὑπὸ τὴν γένεσιν ἀνακοµίσαι

τὸν Ἡερακλέα καὶ προσσχεῖν αὐτὸν τῷ τῆς Ἥρας µαστῷ, τὸν δὲ θηλάζειν.

For it was not possible for the children of Zeus to take a share of the heavenly

honors if they were not suckled at the breast of Hera. …They say that Hermes

55 lifted up Herakles from his family and brought him to the breast of Hera, and he

suckled.

(44)

Hermes acts as Herakles’ advocate since he understands the need for Hera to nurse

Herakles. It is only with Hera’s blessing that any of the offspring of Zeus could come into their power as his children. Herakles unknowingly needs Hera in order to become the demigod he is meant to be. While Hera plays a nourishing role here, rather than her usual destructive one, the theme of dependency remains the same.42

Lykophron, too, describes Hera as nurse to Herakles. This section has already been examined, but merits additional comment here. Lykophron writes, “by the initiate

[Herakles] the milky breast of the goddess Tropaia [was taken],” (Μύστῃ Τροπαίας

µαστὸν εὔθηλον θεᾶς, 1328).43 The label “Initiate” here refers to Herakles as an inductee into the rites of Eleusis, which he underwent when he was a man.44 Since the title

“Initiate” belongs to a grown man, this story may be revealing that Herakles went back again at a later time to the breast of Hera, thereby returning his relationship with her to its original state. This mention of Herakles is rather brief, however, and gives no other aspects of the story.

42 It is at the end of this section of Pseudo-Eratosthenes that Hera pushes Herakles away from her breast, allowing milk to spill out, and thus creates the “Milky Way.” Also, there is much left to say about Hera in the role of nourisher. She raises monsters and suckles Herakles. What does this say about Hera? What about Herakles? Hera creates Typhon, but does not raise him. All of these bits should contribute to a fuller idea of Hera as mother/nourisher. 43 Mair’s commentary on the Alexandra identifies Tropaia as Hera. 44 Initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries was reserved for certain adults. Though the nature of the Mysteries is mostly a secret to scholars today, it is clear that the cult was not meant for children. cf. Kevin Clinton, “Epiphany in the Eleusinian Mysteries,” Illinois Classical Studies 29 (2004): 85-109.

56 Diodorus Siculus gives the most complete account of Herakles’ birth and the events surrounding it. He employs the motif of the abandoned child when he says that

Alkmene gave birth to Herakles but “fearing Hera’s jealousy,” (φοβηθεῖσα τὴν τῆς

Ἥρας ζηλοτυπίαν, 4.9.6), she left the newborn in a field.45 Athena and Hera come upon the child as they are strolling through the field. Athena is Herakles’ advocate now (in lieu of Hermes), since it is she who persuades Hera to nurse the baby (συνέπεισε τὴν Ἥραν

ὑποσχεῖν τὴν θηλήν, 4.9.6). Hera does as Athena suggests, but she finds that the child’s suckling is too strong and painful, and so thrusts him away from herself. Diodorus concludes with the paradoxical statement:

ἡ µὲν γὰρ στέργειν ὀφείλουσα µήτηρ τὸ ἴδιον τέκνον ἀπώλλυεν, ἡ δὲ µητρυιᾶς

ἔχουσα µῖσος δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν ἔσωζε τὸ τῇ φύσει πολέµιον.

The mother who ought to love her own son was trying to kill him, while the one

holding the hatred of a stepmother towards him, was ignorant that she was saving

her natural enemy.

(Lib.4.9.7)

According to Diodorus, it is Hera’s anger at the realization that the baby is her enemy that motivates her to send the snakes to attack him. It is at this point that the pair’s rivalry truly begins.

Hera’s Relationship to Herakles Compared to that with Hephaistos and Dionysos

One of the reasons that Hera is jealous of Herakles is his strength and ability, which her own son, Hephaistos, lacks. In the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, Hera compares

45 We see this motif elsewhere in various other mythologies including the story of Oedipus.

57 Hephaistos to Athena, envying the qualities of her husband’s offspring and resenting the lameness of her own parthenogenic son.

καὶ νῦν νόσφιν ἐµεῖο τέκε γλαυκῶπιν Ἀθήνην,

ἣ πᾶσιν µακάρεσσι µεταπρέπει ἀθανάτοισιν:

αὐτὰρ ὅ γ᾽ ἠπεδανὸς γέγονεν µετὰ πᾶσι θεοῖσι

παῖς ἐµὸς Ἥφαιστος, ῥικνὸς πόδας, ὃν τέκον αὐτή:

And now apart from me, [Zeus] bore grey-eyed Athena,

who stands out from all the other blessed gods:

but the other one has weak standing among all the gods,

my son Hephaistos, whom I bore, for he has shriveled feet:

(Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo 314-317)

Herakles’ qualities that, like Athena’s, overshadow Hephaistos’ trigger Hera’s anger, hatred and envy even before Herakles is born. In fact, she is so ashamed of Hephaistos when compared to Athena that just a few lines later in the same hymn, she admits that she threw Hephaistos from heaven into the sea (ἔµβαλον εὐρέι πόντῳ, 319). Though

Herakles’ birth does not fall into the same category as Athena’s and Hephaistos,’ his relative perfection compared to Hephaistos draws Hera’s wrath.46

As further proof of Hera’s intolerance of her own son’s lameness, let us look at the Iliad. Thetis seeks help from Hephaistos, and he willingly obliges because of help she rendered him:

46 By saying that Herakles’ birth is not in the same category as Athena’s and Hephaistos’ I mean that Herakles was born in a more traditional way than either of them. Herakles was born from his mother’s womb, while Athena, although she had a mother, was born from the head of her father, and Hephaistos was created by Hera without sexual intercourse.

58 ἥ µ᾽ ἐσάωσ᾽ ὅτε µ᾽ ἄλγος ἀφίκετο τῆλε πεσόντα

µητρὸς ἐµῆς ἰότητι κυνώπιδος, ἥ µ᾽ ἐθέλησε

κρύψαι χωλὸν ἐόντα:…

She [Thetis] rescued me when, having been thrown from afar, pain overcame me

by the will of my dog-eyed mother, and she was willing

to hide me since I was lame.

(Il. 18.395-397)

Hephaistos must seek maternal care from someone besides his mother. He is more than happy to pay the debt he owes to Thetis by making armor for her son Achilles, but momentarily remembers his own mother for her cruelty before he begins to aid his adoptive caretaker.

Hera forcibly injures her son because of his weaknesses, instead of trying to nurture him for his other qualities. In this kind of mother it is not difficult to see a stepmother who would be resentful of her husband’s illegitimate offspring for the very qualities that she believes her own son lacks. Rather than toss Herakles to the depths of the sea, however, she sets up a series of obstacles that he must constantly work to overcome with the very strength she begrudges him.

Both Hera’s envy of Herakles’ ability and her anger at Zeus’ faithlessness are noteworthy, as illustrated also by her relationship with Dionysos. Dionysos was Zeus’ son born to the mortal Semele. Hera’s reaction to her husband’s affair with Semele was to trick the pregnant Semele into bringing the full weight of the repercussions of intercourse with a god upon herself. After their relationship has begun, Apollodorus tells that:

59 ἡ δὲ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ὑπὸἭρας, κατανεύσαντος αὐτῇ Διὸς πᾶν τὸ αἰτηθὲν ποιήσειν,

αἰτεῖται τοιοῦτον αὐτὸνἐλθεῖν οἷος ἦλθε µνηστευόµενος Ἥραν.

[Semele], having been deceived by Hera, and Zeus having assented to do

everything she asked, asked him to come to her the same way as when he was

wooing Hera.

(Lib. 3.4.3)

Zeus does as his lover requests, knowing that it will not end well for her, and, in fact,

Semele dies frightened by the full majesty of the king of gods and men. Hera’s manipulation of the trusting Semele leads the poor girl to her death, and it leaves her unborn son motherless. Zeus scoops up the prenatal Dionysos from the remains of his mother and sews the child into his thigh as a replacement womb, so that months later the demi-god is born from his father’s leg.47 Presumably, Hera knew precisely the consequences of a mortal seeing the full power of a god and chose a method of death for

Semele in which she herself could not be blamed.48 By situating in Semele’s mind a grain of curiosity about Zeus, Hera orchestrates the girl’s death and lets it play out according to the rules by which she knows mortals operate - curiosity as motivator. Curiosity49 kills

Semele, not Hera, leaving the goddess’ hands (mostly) clean.

Through these examples of Hera’s interactions with Hephaistos and Dionysos, we see why Hera reacted so violently to Herakles. When confronted with her own son’s deformities, the action Hera takes is to throw him down from Mount Olympos into the

47 Apollodorus, Library 3.4.3. 48 This punishment which Hera chooses for Semele also reinforces the primary difference between herself and Semele. Hera, since she is a goddess, can handle Zeus’ full power, while Semele in her mortality, is vulnerable to it. 49 Or arguably, Zeus.

60 sea. When confronted by Zeus’ illegitimate child, Dionysos, Hera manipulates the god’s mortal mother into, basically, killing herself. Herakles is a representation, for Hera, of the negative aspects of each of the other gods. Herakles possesses the strength and ability that Hephaistos never would, , like Dionysos, he was a constant reminder of Zeus’ philandering. Both of these characteristics draw Hera’s jealousy and, eventually, her vengeance.

Hera and Herakles’ Twelve Labors

One of the primary ways in which Hera exacts her vengeance is through the Twelve

Labors for which Herakles is so well known. Eurystheus who was king of Tiryns orders

Herakles to perform the Labors. The kingship of Tiryns, which was intended by Zeus for

Herakles, was given to Eurystheus by the manipulations of Hera. In Book 19 of the Iliad,

Agamemnon tells the story of Hera’s deception:

…ἀλλ᾽ ἄρα καὶ τὸν

Ἥρη θῆλυς ἐοῦσα δολοφροσύνῃς ἀπάτησεν,

ἤµατι τῷ ὅτ᾽ ἔµελλε βίην Ἡρακληείην

Ἀλκµήνη τέξεσθαι ἐϋστεφάνῳ ἐνὶ Θήβῃ.

…But even him [Zeus]

did Hera, although she was a woman, deceive by her craftiness,

on the same day when Alkmene was destined

to bear Herakles in well-crowned Thebes.

(Il. 19. 96-99)

61 Zeus promises that the child born that day will be the king of Tiryns. Hera makes Zeus swear to fulfill this promise. He does swear it, intending Herakles to be the king, but Hera finds a loophole in his words through her power as a goddess of childbirth. She commands Eilytheia, her minion in the works of birthing, to delay the birth of Herakles and to hasten the birth of Eurystheus. When Hera breaks the news to Zeus that

Eurystheus was born that day and should succeed to the throne per Zeus’ promise, Zeus realizes that he has been duped, and throws Ate, the goddess of deception and ruin, out of

Olympos for working with Hera against him. He realizes the impact of Hera’s deception on Herakles, “Always [Zeus] would groan [at Ate] whenever he would see [Herakles] doing one of the shameful tasks from Eurystheus” (τὴν αἰεὶ στενάχεσχ᾽ ὅθ᾽

ἑὸν φίλον υἱὸν ὁρῷτο / ἔργον ἀεικὲς ἔχοντα ὑπ᾽ Εὐρυσθῆος ἀέθλων, Il. 19.132-133).

Zeus never has any regrets (and surely as king of gods and men he should not second- guess himself), except in this instance.

By ordering that Eurystheus be born first, Hera sets into motion the series of events that result in Herakles becoming enslaved to Eurystheus. This enslavement happens in one of two ways. In Euripides’ Herakles, the Labors which Herakles performs are in expiation for the murder of the king of Mycenae, which Herakles’ mortal father

Amphitryon committed; Herakles does the Labors for the new king of Mycenae,

Eurystheus, in hopes that he will lift the punishment of exile that had been put upon the family. According to the Library of Apollodorus, the Labors are Herakles’ expiation for murdering his own family; the Labors were ordered as penance by the oracle at Delphi.50

In the Herakles, the play begins while the eponymous hero is away completing the Labors. Amphitryon introduces the background events of the story and mentions that

50 Lib. 2.4.12

62 he is not exactly sure why Herakles chose that time to indenture himself to Eurystheus.

He thinks that perhaps it was Hera who put the idea into his son’s mind, “[I am not sure] whether he was overpowered by the goad of Hera or by his own desire [to go to

Eurystheus]” (εἴθ᾽ Ἥρας ὕπο κέντροις δαµασθεὶς εἴτε τοῦ χρεὼν µέτα (20-21). So, Hera has not only put Eurystheus in a position where Herakles’ family owes his family penance, but she also makes sure that Herakles pays that penance by inciting Herakles to yearn to bring his family back to their homeland.

Herakles finally makes it home with only one task left to complete,51 but before he can set out to complete it, after a visit with his family, Hera decides to thwart him again. Zeus has not permitted her to inflict any more problems on Herakles while he is completing his Labors, but she seizes the first opportunity she can now that they are mostly done.52 She sends Madness, escorted by Iris, upon him. Iris says, “Hera wishes to affix to him the fresh blood of his own, by slaying his own children, and I agree [with her]” (Ἥρα προσάψαι καινὸν αἷµ᾽ αὐτῷ θέλει / παῖδας κατακτείναντι, συνθέλω δ᾽ ἐγώ,

831-832). Madness herself, however, disagrees, “I advise you to not wish such great evil

[on him]” (σοί τ᾽ οὐ παραινῶ µεγάλα βούλεσθαι κακά, 854). Her imprecations as an advocate for Herakles fall on deaf ears, and at last, she does do Hera’s evil will.

Madness invades Herakles and makes him think that he is killing his enemy’s children while he really kills his own. Perhaps even worse, Herakles does return to sanity with the help of Amphitryon and Athena, and he comes to the realization of what he has done. He is immediately overcome with sorrow and confusion, “Alas, what sort of sight is this that I suffering see?... Who killed these [children]?” (οἴµοι: τίν᾽ ὄψιν τήνδε

51 He has caught Kerberus, but must still bring the dog to Eurystheus. 52 For Zeus holding Hera back, cf. 827-829.

63 δέρκοµαι τάλας; … τούσδε τίς διώλεσε;, 132-134).

In Apollodorus, Hera decides to drive Herakles mad for no reason, besides her jealousy. The account is given succinctly:

µετὰ δὲ τὴν πρὸς Μινύας µάχην συνέβη αὐτῷ κατὰ ζῆλον Ἥρας µανῆναι, καὶ

τούς τεἰδίους παῖδας, οὓς ἐκ Μεγάρας εἶχεν, εἰς πῦρ ἐµβαλεῖν καὶ τῶν Ἰφικλέους

δύο:

After the battle against the Minyans, it happened that Herakles was maddened on

account of the jealousy of Hera, and he threw onto the fire his own children, that

Megara bore him, and the two children of Iphikles.

(Lib. 2.4.12)

Not only does Herakles kill his own children, but also his nephews from his half-brother

Iphikles. Herakles exiles himself as punishment, and during his exile goes to Delphi. The priestess there tells him to hire himself out “to Eurystheus for 12 years, and to accomplish the ten tasks assigned to him” (Εὐρυσθεῖ … ἔτη δώδεκα, καὶ τοὺς ἐπιτασσοµένους

ἄθλους δέκα ἐπιτελεῖν, 2.4.12). Thus, in this story, Herakles performs the Labors in order to redeem himself of the murders of his family.

Although different accounts may give a slightly different number of Labors, the general consensus is that there were 12. For the first two of these Labors, Herakles was assigned to kill the Lernaean Hydra and Nemean Lion. These monsters have a rarely acknowledged connection with Hera as recounted first in the Theogony. Hesiod tells that the Hydra was born to Typhon and Echinda, two monsters, and he proceeds to give more detail:

64 τὸ τρίτον Ὕδρην αὖτις ἐγείνατο λυγρὰ ἰδυῖαν

Λερναίην, ἣν θρέψε θεὰ λευκώλενος Ἥρη

ἄπλητον κοτέουσα βίῃ Ἡρακληείῃ.

Third, [Echidna] bore the evil-minded Lernaean Hydra,

whom the white-armed goddess Hera raised

because she bore a terrible grudge against Herakles.

(Theog. 313-315)

Κοτέουσα is a causal participle, which makes it clear that Hera’s hatred for Herakles motivates her into raising the fearsome creature. Perhaps she knows that the hero is destined to fight the monster, or maybe she keeps the monster just in case she might have the chance to use it against her enemy. A few lines later, Hesiod reveals how the Hydra died - at the hands of Herakles with the help of Iolaus.

Then, Echidna bears the Nemean Lion “which Hera, the glorious wife of Zeus, having raised it, settled in the hills of Nemea, a plague for men” (τόν ῥ᾽ Ἥρη θρέψασα

Διὸς κυδρὴ παράκοιτις / γουνοῖσιν κατένασσε Νεµείης, πῆµ᾽ ἀνθρώποις, 327-329). There is no mention of Herakles in Hera’s motivations for nourishing this creature. The Lion does illustrate Hera’s generally evil intent though, since she lets it ravage the people whose queen she is supposed to be. Hesiod says that this animal also was conquered by

Herakles. By raising the monsters, Hera places herself in the role of mother of evil. She once mothered Herakles at her own breast, and now she nourishes the beings that she hopes will be the hero’s undoing.53

53 Though the variants exist separately, they are both characterizing of the same goddess, so they can be brought together as events in her life.

65 Hera had both direct and indirect impacts on Herakles’ life. From the beginning she ordained when he would be born, and after she allowed his birth, immediately tested him with the appearance of snakes at his cradle. Her hateful actions are not directed at

Herakles alone. She displays the same rage against her own son Hephaistos and her bastard stepson Dionysos. These two attract her anger for their disability and illegitimacy, respectively. Herakles’ strength and physique remind Hera of Hephaistos’ handicap; much like Dionysos, Herakles’ reminds Hera of her husband’s faithlessness. Thus, Hera rages twice as hard against Herakles. She plays a very long game when she establishes from their births that Eurystheus will rule over Herakles and put him through terrible trials. She herself even nourishes the beasts that Herakles will one day go up against.

Hera and Helen

Hera’s relationship with Helen is less complicated and is described far less often in Greek literature than her relationship with Herakles. Helen owes her fame mostly to

Aphrodite for bestowing seductive charm upon her, and it is her father Zeus, who directly bestows on her divine qualities. Hera has little to do with Helen until the time comes for the demi-goddess’ reputation to be remade.

The first interaction that Hera and Helen have is during the Judgment of Paris, and this encounter is hardly interaction at all. Paris is set to judge the beauty of Hera,

Aphrodite and Athena, and any one of the goddesses may have chosen to step down, but none of them do; this reveals the vain side of each of them (even Athena!). Each goddess offers a reward to Paris if he should chose her as the fairest.54 Hera offers kingship,

54 This is recounted in Proclus’ summarizing fragment of the Kypria in his Chrestomathia; this is fragment number one of the Kypria. cf. Pausanias’ Description of Greece 5.19.5.

66 Athena offers skill in war, and Aphrodite offers Helen. Paris chooses Aphrodite in order to gain Helen, simultaneously snubbing Hera and Athena, and giving the two losing goddesses grounds for raging against him and Troy and ultimately against Helen, too.

Paris’ motives in choosing Helen are debatable: perhaps he is merely succumbing to his lust for beauty, or perhaps he is thinking ahead. Perhaps he realizes that the decision would garner for him not only a beautiful woman, but also a woman who would provide him a relation to the king of gods and men, as he would be Zeus’ son-in-law. 55

Paris’ possible motivations reveal a higher level of Helen’s significance. The Greeks and

Trojans would be fighting not only for a beautiful woman but also for divine heirs.56 So although Helen is certainly still objectified, it is at least for a deeper (or perhaps higher), purpose.

Paris’ acceptance of Aphrodite’s offer begins the Trojan War. Because Hera was insulted by Paris’ decision, she fights fiercely against the Trojans during the war, making it impossible for them to win and at the same time protracting the conflict. In Euripides’

Helen, not only does Hera fight on the side of the Greeks, but also she aims to deny the

Trojans Helen. In order to remove Helen from behind enemy lines, Euripides introduces an εἴδωλον contrived by Hera to make the Trojans think that they have the real Helen while they only have her phantom.57 Not wanting to reveal her plot, Hera allows the

Trojans and Greeks to fight until Menelaos is able to recover what he thinks is his real

55 Though many believe Paris is simply succumbing to lust when he chooses Helen, cf. Isokrates’ “Encomium to Helen” for a defense of Paris on the grounds that the Trojan was thinking not of lust but of the fact that his offspring with Helen would be of Zeus’ bloodline and provide him a relation with the king of the gods; cf. section 43. 56 This makes the Trojan War seem quite a bit less petty. 57 Allan comments that this play is the earliest source that attributes the creation of the εἴδωλον to Hera. cf. William Allan, edit. Euripides’ Helen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008): 152.

67 wife. When he arrives in Egypt after leaving the war, he discovers the real Helen, and the phantom, with which he had been traveling, disappears.

The Helen in Euripides’ play is a smart, conniving woman who is unafraid to take a lead role in her own life. She does remain for many years in Egypt, where Hera has deposited her after creating her εἴδωλον, but upon the arrival of her husband, to whom she has remained loyal all the while, she is motivated to take their rescue into her own hands.58 Helen devises a complicated plan to get herself and Menelaos away from the rule of the tyrant under whose lustful reign she has been living. Her plan is successful.

Hera, as the creator of the εἴδωλον, is its mother. She has created it singlehandedly (Helen, 33-35). This image is perfect. It has deceived the Trojans and

Menelaos for years in its ability to replicate Helen. This εἴδωλον has given Hera the chance to be the mother of something beautiful, unlike her other offspring and adoptive children Hephaistos, the Nemean Lion and the Lernaean Hydra.

In the Iliad, on the other hand, Helen is resigned to her fate. She fulfills the role of

Paris’ wife, albeit begrudgingly, and does not ever plan to make an escape or sabotage the Trojans - who are her people’s enemy by her own account. Throughout this epic,

Aphrodite has Helen firmly in her grasp, and Helen is scared to contradict the goddess.

Helen cannot even use reasoning against her own husband, when at last she does come into contact with him, but depends on her beauty to shield her from his wrath.59

In the Odyssey, Helen is shown as a regal woman, who was able to resume her proper position as the wife of Menelaos in Sparta, as discussed in the chapter on

58 Helen’s plan for escape has been discussed previously so I will not go into much detail here. 59 Little Iliad, fr. 13 EGF; it is Helen’s naked breasts which prevent Menelaos from killing her at the fall of Troy.

68 liminality.60 Hera again rescues Helen’s reputation, since Helen has returned to the realm of Hera’s purview - her proper marriage. To state it simply, when Helen was in an improper (according to Hera61) relationship with Alexandros, she was perceived as an entirely improper woman; in the marriage that is appropriate for her (according to Hera) she is perceived as a proper lady.62

In all, Hera represents Helen’s redemption. Hera brings to life the εἴδωλον by which Helen is plausibly excused from what otherwise would have been seen only as an extramarital affair with Alexandros. She also allows Helen to be accepted back into her proper marriage that, in turn, further exonerates the shamed woman.

Final Observations

Hera is a motivating force for the stories of both Herakles and Helen. Hera was a constant obstacle for Herakles. She plagued him from his birth and hounded him throughout his life. However, the difficulties she created for Herakles are the very opportunities that allowed him to be recognized as a super-human hero. Her effect on

Helen was directly opposite. Because of her jealousy of Aphrodite for winning Paris’ favorable judgment, the reinstatement of Aphrodite’s protégée, Helen, as proper wife to

Menelaos became Hera’s goal, which collaterally improved Helen’s reputation. The longer the Trojan War dragged on, the more famous it became and, by extension, the more famous Helen became. Ironically, Hera’s jealousy was one of the most important factors in the protraction of the war.

60 To summarize, I spoke earlier of Homer’s comparison of Helen to the goddess Artemis and Helen’s place among suitable wifely objects such as the tools of weaving; cf. Odyssey 4.122. 61 In her position as goddess of (faithful) marriage. 62 Norman Austin, Helen of Troy and Her Shameless Phantom, ed. Gregory Nagy (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1994), 171-172.

69 Hera’s spiteful and revenge-seeking nature is what drove the legends of both

Herakles and Helen. Herakles was known for his brave feats in the face of dangers that were presented by Hera, while Helen, who was infamous for being the cause of the

Trojan War, was redeemed by Hera.

70

CONCLUSION

The three main characteristics that Herakles and Helen share are their paternity, their liminality and the impact that Hera had on their lives. Herakles and Helen were both shaped by these factors, and although at times they were negatively effected by them, they ultimately contributed to the fame of each figure.

Zeus fathered both Herakles and Helen, and then he left them to be raised by mortals. This allowed both figures to be invested with immortal powers (strength and beauty), but made them vulnerable to the suffering which mankind must undergo. Their mortal parents are left to guide their semi-divine offspring through the tribulations that accompany humanity (compounded by those accompanying divinity), with varied degrees of success. Amphitryon rescues the grown and married Herakles from his Hera- induced fit of madness, while Helen’s parents mostly abandon her once she is in the care of her husband Menelaos.63

Balancing their mortal lives with their immortal capabilities is a continuous battle for Herakles and Helen. Herakles would rather live his life peacefully as a family man,64 but finds himself forced, by his own internal motivations and those of Hera, to use his great strength to accomplish extraordinary labors as penance for himself or his mortal father. While the ultimate outcome of the labors is for the good, his life most probably would have been much simpler, and freer from pain, if he had never possessed the

63 Who does a debatable job of keeping an eye on her. 64 Euripides depicts Herakles in his role of father (Herakles 630-635)

71 strength which allowed him to consider taking on the labors. Helen too was cursed by the immortal beauty that her divine parentage bestowed on her. She never intended herself to be the object of desire for so many men, and she certainly never delighted in the destruction which her beauty caused, but she is thrown into the role of harlot and must bear the accompanying hatred.

Finally, Hera’s jealousy impacted Herakles and Helen. Hera’s jealousy of, and therefore hatred for, Herakles motivated her to subject him to never-ending struggles.

Beginning even before he is born by changing the timing of his very birth, she constantly contrives bad things for him. She shapes him into the powerful man who he is recognized as being throughout Greek literature. As for Helen, although Hera did not start the Trojan

War, she, as Zeus’ wife, could certainly have come up with one of her devious plans to abbreviate it. She did not stop the war, however, but preferred to participate in it and openly support the Greeks. As the war dragged on, the more famous Helen and her shameful actions became. Ultimately, in a much less well-known story, Helen is delivered from her ruined reputation by one of Hera’s most compassionate plans.65

The traits which Herakles and Helen share are also relatable to mankind. Mortals commonly suffer the loss of or abandonment by their parents. The struggles of daily life often pull men and women in conflicting directions, forcing them to learn how to balance their lives and the decisions they make. And, finally, humans are acted upon by outside forces which sometimes make their lives more difficult and sometimes more easy. These outside forces are not always relatives or even people, but simply the general vicissitudes of life. It is this relatable nature of Herakles’ and Helen’s stories which keep them popular with audiences and keep their stories changing over time.

65 Although Hera was motivated more by revenge on Aphrodite than repairing Helen’s reputation.

72

REFERENCES

Primary Sources

Anonymous. Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo in Homeric Hymns and Homerica.

Translated by Hugh Evelyn-White. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1914.

Apollodorus. The Library. Translated by James Frazer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1921.

Euripides. Helen in Euripidis Fabulae, vol. 3. Translated by Gillbert Murray. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1913.

Euripides. Heracles in Euripidis Fabulae, vol. 2. Translated by Gillbert Murray.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.

Gorgias. “Ἑλένης Ἐγκώµιον.” Last modified December 2004. Accessed August 2014.

http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/elenhs_egwmion.html

Hesiod. Theogony in The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Translated by Hugh G.

Evelyn-White. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914.

Homer. The Iliad in Homeri Opera in 5 Volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1920.

Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by A.T. Murray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 1919.

73 Isokrates. “Encomium to Helen” in Isocrates with an English Translation. Translated

by George Norlin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Lykophron. Alexandra. Translated by A.W. Mair. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921.

Pausanias. Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903.

Sophocles. Trachiniae in Ajax, Electra, Trachiniae, and Philoctetes. Translated by F.

Storr. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1913

Pseudo-Eratosthenes. Katasterismi. Edited by Alexander Olivieri. Leipzig: Teubner,

1987.

Secondary Sources

Allan, William, edit., Euripides’ Helen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Austin, Norman. Helen of Troy and Her Shameless Phantom. Edited by Gregory Nagy.

Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1994.

Charlesworth, James. The Good and Evil Serpent: How A Universal Symbol Became

Christianized. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Clinton, Kevin. “Epiphany in the Eleusinian Mysteries,” Illinois Classical Studies 29

(2004): 85-109.

Cohen, Beth. “From Bowman to Clubman: Herakles and Olympia.” ArtB 76, no. 4 (Dec.

1994): 695-715.

Diller, Aubrey. “The Text History of the Biblioteca of Pseudo-Apollodorus,” TAPA 66

(1935): 296-313.

Fontenrose, Joseph. Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and Its Origins. New York: Biblo

and Tannen, 1974.

74 Galinsky, Karl. The Herakles Theme. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972.

Gantz, Timothy. Early Greek Myth. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,

1993.

Hartigan, Karelisa. “Euripidean Madness: Herakles and Orestes,” GaR 34, no. 2 (Oct.

1987: 126-135.

Johnston, Sarah Iles. Ancient Greek Divination. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing,

2008.

Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. “Curses and Divine Anger in Early Greek Epic: The Pisander

Scholion,” CQ 52, no. 1 (2002): 1-14.

Maurizio, Lisa. “Anthropology and Spirit Possession: A Reconsideration of the Pythia’s

Role at Delphi.” JHS 115 (1995): 69-86.

Padilla, William. The Myths of Herakles in Ancient Greece. Lanham, MD: University

Press of America, 1998.

Pantella, Maria. “Spinning and Weaving: Ideas of Domestic Order in Homer.” AJP 114,

no. 4 (Winter 1993): 493-501.

Stafford, Emma. Herakles. New York: Routledge, 2012.

75