Anthropogony, Myth and Gender: Athenian Autochthony as a Case Study Di Yan Faculty of Classics University of Cambridge Murray Edwards College November 2018 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Preface Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own worK and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. Di Yan November 12, 2018 III Abstract This thesis, with its reflections on previous myth theories, especially structuralism in the 20th century and post-structuralist readings in recent decades, suggests a new approach for understanding GreeK mythology. TaKing Athenian autochthony as a case study, it argues that, instead of regarding GreeK myth as either a narrative system with one universal logic (structuralist reading) or as an ever-changing corpus without a unified concern (post-structuralist reading), it is more plausible to understand various myths as a dynamic system of social conversation, where individual authors and different genres respond to, argue with, or even compete against one another concerning core issues for a compelling explanation and understanding of the world. After an introduction in which I lay out my methodological concerns and the objectives of my study, the majority of the thesis is divided into four chapters, focusing on the themes of social order and gender order within the mythology of Athenian autochthony. Chapter 1, by looking at Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days, provides an Archaic bacKground for autochthony myths. It demonstrates that Archaic myth offered a tragic vision of social order in the human world, according to which a sexually active human society was unable to obtain social order. Chapter 2 deals with the myths of autochthony in the Classical period. It argues that Athenian autochthony, in revising the Archaic myth of social origin, attempts to establish a new social order for the human world as a response to the Archaic view. However, this new idea inevitably led to contemporary criticism, and myths of autochthony were subjected to sophisticated questioning. Chapters 3 and 4 thus discuss the conversation between accounts of civic autochthony and intellectual thinKing in tragedy and philosophy. In Chapter 3, Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Euripides Ion are examined. These two tragedies, by revising the traditional autochthony myths into new narratives, inquire into the feasibility of the mythic imagination of autochthony establishing social order in the real human world. Chapter 4 investigates Plato’s Republic, Timaeus and Critias. In these worKs, myths of autochthony are repurposed again to criticize the civic idea of autochthony. Together, the four chapters demonstrate how different and competing authors and genres self-consciously revise myths, and how the mythic feature of “variation” could be manipulated powerfully and taKen advantage of in the process of myth-maKing and theory-construction. I Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been born without the continuous inspiration from my supervisors. Simon Goldhill guided me throughout this work with his contagious enthusiasm, insight, unfailing support and patience. He is the best supervisor one could ever hope for. I cannot remember how many meetings we had over the past three and half years – we met so much – but the dozens of revisions of each chapters and the three different versions of the whole draft Keep reminding me of those inspirational moments that we together encountered. Simon always said that his job is to maKe me write and rewrite, again and again. He stucK to his promise. I learnt so much from this worKing process. My idea progressed dramatically worKing with him. Tim Whitmarsh always provided excellent teaching, Kind encouragement and sound advice. His comments were always stimulating – sometimes, even one word from him could change my whole view towards an issue. Gan Yang, my previous supervisor in China also supported me in various ways. It was he who first introduced autochthony to me and initiated my interest in it. It was also he who supervised my undergraduate thesis on autochthony, which lays a solid foundation for my further pursuit of this topic for my PhD. Studying in Cambridge, I benefited greatly from interacting with the junior and senior members of the Faculty. I am grateful for all the conversations with Richard Hunter, Robin Osborne, Gábor Betegh, Renaud Gagné, Rebecca Laemmle, James Warren, Philip Hardie, Geoffrey Lloyd and Nicholas Denyer. During my third year, I got an opportunity to visit Faculties of Classics in Harvard University and Princeton University for one year. I also gained great inspiration from people there. I especially thanK Gregory Nagy, Naomi Weiss, David Elmer, Glenn Most, Andrew Ford, Froma Zeitlin, Joshua Bilings, Melissa Lane, Martin Kern, Lowell Edmunds and Patricia Rosenmeyer. Besides individual interactions, I presented earlier versions of this research in various conferences and seminars. I obtained many insightful ideas from the audiences at these meetings, especially from the CA conference, “Murphey Hall Lecture” at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, “Classical Workshop” at Boya College of Sun Yat- sen University, and “Technical Tradition in Greece and Rome WorKshop” at Harvard University. My doctorate was funded by the Chinese Scholarship Council. I wish to express my V gratitude to this funding body for maKing my research possible. I would also liKe to thanK all my friends in Cambridge and in China, without whom the four-year study abroad would have been much harder. I would liKe to thanK especially Shen Lin and Wu Wenbin, two friends who have given me endless support; Charles ManKlow, Charles Weiss, and James Zainaldin who helped me so much in proofreading my thesis. Their time and friendship means tremendous to me. I also thanK Tim, a friend who has left me forever. He made me truly understand the power of eros. Finally, I would liKe to thanK my husband, my parents and my parents-in-law, without whom no word of this thesis would have been written. They are in China. They have never come to UK. But they trust me and are always on my side. Their love guided me through all the darKness. This is a thesis about love, sex and procreation. Greeks always find tension in these matters. I do, too. But for the moment, I find more sweetness in them because of the expectation of the arrival of a new life. I would liKe to dedicate this thesis to my first child, Wang Ji who will come to the world in the coming April. I wish him happiness in his life. VI Table of Contents List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………IX Introduction: Reading Greek Myth…………………………………………………………………….……1 Chapter 1 The Archaic Vision: Divine Order and the Human World………………….…23 I. “Order” as a Problem: Social Formation and the Pattern of Procreation………26 II. Order Constructed: from Dualistic Opposition to Monistic Order………………..34 III. What about the Human World?: A Tragic Version without Resolution…………44 IV. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………56 Chapter 2 Autochthony as Social Myths: Imitating the Divine Order…………………...59 I. Myths of Autochthony: An Imitation of Divine Order………………………………….62 II. The Acropolis: Autochthony Constructed……………………………….…………………82 III. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………89 Chapter 3 Pathology of Autochthony: Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Euripides’ Ion……..93 I. The Oresteia: Order, Dikē and the Charter for the City………………………………...94 II. The Ion: Imitating the Divine Order? Better Not Again………………………………109 III. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………….131 Chapter 4 Revolution of Philosophy: Plato’s New World Order and Revised Autochthony ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..135 I. Autochthony: Old Myth, New Order……………………………….………………….…….140 II. Here Waves Come……………………………….………………………………………………….145 III. How about Cosmos and Gods? ……………………………….……………………………….156 IV. Autochthony in Completion……………………………….……………………………………171 V. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………….175 Coda……………………………….…………………………………………………….………………………………177 Bibliography.…….………………………………….…….……………………………………….……………….183 VII List of Figures List of Figures Figure 1. Circa. 470–460 BCE, Zeus witnessing the birth of Erichthonius, London British Museum. IX List of Figures Figure 2. Circa 360 BCE, Divine Eris between Athena and Poseidon, Louvre Museum. X List of Figures Figure 3-1 (Side A). Circa 470-460 BCE, Birth of Erichthonius (Gaia hands the baby to Athena, while Hephaestus watches it), Munich, Staatliche AntiKensammlung. Figure 3-1 (Side B). Circa 470-460 BCE, Birth of Erichthonius (Zeus sits on the throne and Nike stands before him), Munich, Staatliche AntiKensammlung. XI List of Figures Figure 4. Circa. 440–430 BCE, Birth of Erichthonius (Gaia hands the baby to Athena, and KeKrops and