Phil 298H podcast 2.m4a
This podcast examines the role of deception and subjectivity surrounding women in both the Theogony and Agamemnon. The podcast was designed to cover the class week of 1/26-1/30.
Recently in Theogony Category
In yesterday's class I spoke of patriarchal power as the prominent aspect of Hesiod's Theogony. I would like to take this opportunity to explore that premise in further detail and, in doing so, address the last several posts. For myself, the language of the text is the deciding factor, betraying an overwhelming deference for physical force as the decisive attribute (along with its implications of male superiority).
Early in the text, Hesiod makes a half-hearted tribute to the power of language, although it reads more like homage to his own capacity for "honeyed words":
"Whomever of kings, favored by Zeus, the daughters of great Zeus honor and see being born, the pour sweet dew on his tongue and from his lips flow honeyed words; his people all look to him as he decides issues with straight judgments; speaking unerringly he quickly and wisely ends even great strife..." (pg. 32, 81-87)
From a mortal perspective, the ability to rely on words rather than resort to force (ending great strife) is a divine gift and subsequently relegated to only a select few (those kings favored by Zeus). And as several people have pointed out already, wisdom (characterized by Gaia's foresight and planning) is omnipresent throughout the story; every action of force seems to be a product of someone's plan. But if we follow this chain of regress to its roots, we find that Gaia's initial betrayal is simple a reaction to Oraunos's initial application of force. I am not suggesting that this prioritizes force as the reigning attribute here, just that this retroactive method of inquiry leads to a slippery slope: which really did come first? More importantly, does that even matter?
The tale's initial idealism quickly yields to the violent nature of the Greek Gods as they, in turn, attempt to outmatch each other in terms of cruelty and brute force (it is no accident that the most ruthless of them all should reign at the end of the day). Hesiod offers us this glowing review of rule by force on page 52:
"Greatly she [Hekate] assists and benefits whom she will; she sits by reverent kings in judgment, and he is eminent among the people in assembly, whom she wishes; whenever men arm for man-killing war, then the goddess is there, and to whom she wishes she gladly grants victory and extends glory." (429-434, emphasis mine)
He goes on to talk about her willingness to "stand by cavalry" and those who "compete in contest", unequivocally equating victory in physical contest (i.e. battle) with "extended glory". Again, this ability is divine, granted arbitrarily by the Gods and, furthermore, a task she apparently enjoys performing.
Every instance of manipulation manifests itself in act of violence. It is after Zeus acquires thunder and lightning that the language becomes increasingly disturbing in this context. It has also been suggested that this was a product of Zeus's persuasion:
"He released them from their deadly chains his uncles, Ouranos' sons, whom their father mindlessly bound. They did not forget gratitude for his help, and gave him thunder and the fiery lightning-bolt...relying on these, he is king of mortals and immortals." (pg. 56, 501-506)
While it does appear that Zeus has employed a hearts-and-minds strategy here, it is important to not that his rewards are the very tools by which he becomes "king of mortals and immortals. Additionally, I would suggest that there lingers an unspoken alternative - a menacing "or else" that haunts any bargain (especially considering the context here).
There also seems to be a direct correlation between Zeus' rise to power and accounts of physical violence, torment, and coercion (all emphasis mine for dramatic effect):
- "Wide-seeing Zeus sent arrogant Menoitios down to Erebos, striking him with a smoking thunder-bolt..." (57, 514-515)
- "And Atlas, standing at the limits of the earth...under strong compulsion, holds the wide sky..." (517-519)
- ""He bound devious Prometheus with inescapable harsh bonds...and he inflicted on him a long-winged eagle, which ate his immortal liver..." (521-524)
And we consider water boarding inhumane? Even the once rational Gaia, for all of her planning and cunning, succumbs to anger and vengeance, bearing the monster Typhoeus in retaliation to the defeat of the Titans (820-821).
Perhaps this reading of Theogony is too superficial, but as previously discussed, both in class and on this blog, the rampant misogyny in the story only reinforces this interpretation. The male physical domination over successive generations of females is analogous to the political roles they represent. Ultimately, it is the use or threat of violence that carries the day; wisdom is just another tool by which the tyrant implements his authority.
Early in the text, Hesiod makes a half-hearted tribute to the power of language, although it reads more like homage to his own capacity for "honeyed words":
"Whomever of kings, favored by Zeus, the daughters of great Zeus honor and see being born, the pour sweet dew on his tongue and from his lips flow honeyed words; his people all look to him as he decides issues with straight judgments; speaking unerringly he quickly and wisely ends even great strife..." (pg. 32, 81-87)
From a mortal perspective, the ability to rely on words rather than resort to force (ending great strife) is a divine gift and subsequently relegated to only a select few (those kings favored by Zeus). And as several people have pointed out already, wisdom (characterized by Gaia's foresight and planning) is omnipresent throughout the story; every action of force seems to be a product of someone's plan. But if we follow this chain of regress to its roots, we find that Gaia's initial betrayal is simple a reaction to Oraunos's initial application of force. I am not suggesting that this prioritizes force as the reigning attribute here, just that this retroactive method of inquiry leads to a slippery slope: which really did come first? More importantly, does that even matter?
The tale's initial idealism quickly yields to the violent nature of the Greek Gods as they, in turn, attempt to outmatch each other in terms of cruelty and brute force (it is no accident that the most ruthless of them all should reign at the end of the day). Hesiod offers us this glowing review of rule by force on page 52:
"Greatly she [Hekate] assists and benefits whom she will; she sits by reverent kings in judgment, and he is eminent among the people in assembly, whom she wishes; whenever men arm for man-killing war, then the goddess is there, and to whom she wishes she gladly grants victory and extends glory." (429-434, emphasis mine)
He goes on to talk about her willingness to "stand by cavalry" and those who "compete in contest", unequivocally equating victory in physical contest (i.e. battle) with "extended glory". Again, this ability is divine, granted arbitrarily by the Gods and, furthermore, a task she apparently enjoys performing.
Every instance of manipulation manifests itself in act of violence. It is after Zeus acquires thunder and lightning that the language becomes increasingly disturbing in this context. It has also been suggested that this was a product of Zeus's persuasion:
"He released them from their deadly chains his uncles, Ouranos' sons, whom their father mindlessly bound. They did not forget gratitude for his help, and gave him thunder and the fiery lightning-bolt...relying on these, he is king of mortals and immortals." (pg. 56, 501-506)
While it does appear that Zeus has employed a hearts-and-minds strategy here, it is important to not that his rewards are the very tools by which he becomes "king of mortals and immortals. Additionally, I would suggest that there lingers an unspoken alternative - a menacing "or else" that haunts any bargain (especially considering the context here).
There also seems to be a direct correlation between Zeus' rise to power and accounts of physical violence, torment, and coercion (all emphasis mine for dramatic effect):
- "Wide-seeing Zeus sent arrogant Menoitios down to Erebos, striking him with a smoking thunder-bolt..." (57, 514-515)
- "And Atlas, standing at the limits of the earth...under strong compulsion, holds the wide sky..." (517-519)
- ""He bound devious Prometheus with inescapable harsh bonds...and he inflicted on him a long-winged eagle, which ate his immortal liver..." (521-524)
And we consider water boarding inhumane? Even the once rational Gaia, for all of her planning and cunning, succumbs to anger and vengeance, bearing the monster Typhoeus in retaliation to the defeat of the Titans (820-821).
Perhaps this reading of Theogony is too superficial, but as previously discussed, both in class and on this blog, the rampant misogyny in the story only reinforces this interpretation. The male physical domination over successive generations of females is analogous to the political roles they represent. Ultimately, it is the use or threat of violence that carries the day; wisdom is just another tool by which the tyrant implements his authority.
During today's class we discussed Zeus' reasons for eating Metis and how it could be looked at as attempt to take over the role of women or as a way to articulate politics. The first suggestion would have allowed him to completely take over the female role and allow him to control the generating of g-ds. The other point suggests that Zeus wanted to having more inclusion of women in politics. By swallowing Metis, she'd be able to advise him on good and evil in addition to having the balance of the male reliance on force and the female powers of persuasion, cunning, and ability to generate.
However, my feeling is that Zeus ate Metis for a combination of these reasons. He wanted to control both men and women, but use it to incorporate women's characteristics into politics. It would allow him to have a more complete view of those he was ruling over. Through this Zeus achieves stability, in addition to listening and incorporating past generations of g-ds.
Whether these assumptions are true, one thing that is clear is that Zeus had the most stable reign of power in comparison to previous generations.
Throughout Theogony, Gaia influences all of the major power transitions while maintaining a low profile because she does not use force that we commonly identify as power, instead she uses a defined ability to plan and persuade.
In the beginning when Gaia is oppressed by the wicked Ouranos, who is preventing her from giving birth to her children, she uses trickery to get her son Koronos to ambush and castrate his father. While it may seem that she was over-powered by Ouranos in the aspect that she could not defend herself from such a domestic dispute in actuality she was able to devise a plan in which she got someone else to do the job for her. In that sense I would say that Gaia is much stronger than she gets credit for.
Moreover, during the second transition of power, Gaia helps Rhea think up a plan by which she can secretly give birth to Zeus and defeat Koronos. This is another good example of Gaia's ability to have a strong influence on the power transitions. She is once again able to use her practical knowledge to influence a power transition without doing much of anything herself; she influences other characters to ensure an inevitable outcome.
Finally, once Zeus, with the advice of Gaia, succeeds in consuming his pregnant wife Metis the soft undertones of Gaia's power become even more blatant. In my opinion, power is defined by the influence that one character has on the others. One could argue that the male figures like Ouranos, Kronos and Zeus were very powerful characters because of their physical prowess and use of force to obtain such power, but it is clear that Gaia has had a major influence on the majority of characters throughout Theogony. In that sense I believe her power has been vastly underrated.
-R
In the beginning when Gaia is oppressed by the wicked Ouranos, who is preventing her from giving birth to her children, she uses trickery to get her son Koronos to ambush and castrate his father. While it may seem that she was over-powered by Ouranos in the aspect that she could not defend herself from such a domestic dispute in actuality she was able to devise a plan in which she got someone else to do the job for her. In that sense I would say that Gaia is much stronger than she gets credit for.
Moreover, during the second transition of power, Gaia helps Rhea think up a plan by which she can secretly give birth to Zeus and defeat Koronos. This is another good example of Gaia's ability to have a strong influence on the power transitions. She is once again able to use her practical knowledge to influence a power transition without doing much of anything herself; she influences other characters to ensure an inevitable outcome.
Finally, once Zeus, with the advice of Gaia, succeeds in consuming his pregnant wife Metis the soft undertones of Gaia's power become even more blatant. In my opinion, power is defined by the influence that one character has on the others. One could argue that the male figures like Ouranos, Kronos and Zeus were very powerful characters because of their physical prowess and use of force to obtain such power, but it is clear that Gaia has had a major influence on the majority of characters throughout Theogony. In that sense I believe her power has been vastly underrated.
-R
During Friday's class we discussed how the political
authority and legitimacy is transferred from one generation to the next by the use of
force. Force has very physical connotations and examples of this are seen in the various swallowing of family members and raining down of lightning bolts by Zeus. However, it seems that something else is at play when power is
transferred. To me, it seemed like deception and trickery were the main factors behind how power was transferred and it wasn't force that caused the changed.
While physical force was frequently present, it was not the driving
force. For example, if you look at the main transfers and holdings of power throughout the Theogony, you will find ploys at almost every point.
Oranous was overthrown by Gaia speaking with her children
and planning a clever coup d' etat through the use of a sickle. Kronos loses his power when he is tricked into swallowing a stone that he believes is another child. Zeus prevents a son from overtaking him by tricking his wife into turning into something that would be easy to swallow and consume.
The only major battle that occurs over taking the crown is Zeus's battle with the titans but that is brought about by the tricking of Kronos in the first place.
What I would like to ask is if this use of cunning and deception still falls under the veil of force, or is there some other designation that is more appropriate here?
Pandora, given to Epimetheus as a punishment for Prometheus' theft of fire, represents the personification of evil. While Pandora is not a gift of pure evil, she does represent a certain deceptive kind of evil. She is outwardly beautiful and irresistible, yet through her ignorance, she allows all the evils and diseases to escape into the world.
Pandora's actions parallel those of Eve in the Christian creation story. Like Pandora, Eve also released all the evils of the world by eating forbidden fruit from the tree of life. Pandora and Eve were both given as gifts to men, but ultimately resulted in a great evil to mankind. Before the creation of Pandora, men and the immortals lived in a Golden Age. Likewise, before the creation of Eve, Adam lived in a state of innocence in the Garden of Eden. Women are, therefore, the source and the embodiment of evil in the Theogony and the book of Genesis.
Pandora, a "lovely evil", is also described as "irresistible to men". Her sexuality is the ultimate punishment to men because they are unable to resist, and, thus, become dependent on women in order to fulfill their desires and also to reproduce. This dependence is seen in Zeus' "second evil", or the lack of a son, which occurs when men refuse to submit to the temptation of women. If a man chooses to avoid the first evil of a woman, he will lack a son to succeed him after death.
Finally, I argue that the stories of Pandora and Eve explain the existence of current-day patriarchy. Pandora's irresistible sexuality could certainly be seen as a source of power. Instead, it is described as a source of evil because it results in a weakness for men. Women who attempt to use their sexuality as means to achieve power are seen as manipulative or evil. Pandora and Eve were both given as gifts to a man, which explains women's inferiority in present-day patriarchal society. Likewise, women's worth in society is partly based on their reproductive capabilities (as seen in Zeus' second evil) and their role as caretakers.
Forgive me if I'm jumping the gun, or reading too much into things, but as we discussed the transfers of power in class today, I made something of an observation, and after further consideration, it seems pretty consistent with the text, so everyone let me know what you think, please.
As the story of the gods really begins, the text describes Gaia and Ouranos as equals (ln 126). However, this status of equal seems to disappear very quickly. By line 155, Ouranos is already exerting power over Gaia, pleasing himself, but causing gaia great pain. She exerts her power, too, by coming up with a plan, but (and this is the part where the question of sexism or patrairchy first really occurred to me) she is unable to execute the plan herself. She requires the help of Kronos, her son. Furthermore, the plan is to castrate Ouranos. In this sense, it is Ouranos's posession of genitals, or his identity as male, that gave him power and the removal of which marks the loss of power. In this way, Gaia and other female figures are disempowered not only by the practice of male domination, but also intrinsically by their very female-ness. And again with the overthrow of Kronos, it is Zeus that defeats him and establishes power, and continues to exert that power over his wife. It becomes a pattern of behavior.
I would appreciate comments and feedback about this idea, because it doesn't seem fully fleshed out to me. let me know what you think!
-hl
As the story of the gods really begins, the text describes Gaia and Ouranos as equals (ln 126). However, this status of equal seems to disappear very quickly. By line 155, Ouranos is already exerting power over Gaia, pleasing himself, but causing gaia great pain. She exerts her power, too, by coming up with a plan, but (and this is the part where the question of sexism or patrairchy first really occurred to me) she is unable to execute the plan herself. She requires the help of Kronos, her son. Furthermore, the plan is to castrate Ouranos. In this sense, it is Ouranos's posession of genitals, or his identity as male, that gave him power and the removal of which marks the loss of power. In this way, Gaia and other female figures are disempowered not only by the practice of male domination, but also intrinsically by their very female-ness. And again with the overthrow of Kronos, it is Zeus that defeats him and establishes power, and continues to exert that power over his wife. It becomes a pattern of behavior.
I would appreciate comments and feedback about this idea, because it doesn't seem fully fleshed out to me. let me know what you think!
-hl
This is a podcast introducing the Theogony.
Theogony Introduction.m4a
To subscribe to the podcasts posted to the blog using iTunes, do the following:
Theogony Introduction.m4a
To subscribe to the podcasts posted to the blog using iTunes, do the following:
- Copy the link to the subscription link to this blog:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/cpl2/blogs/powerforce/index.xml - Open iTunes
- Under the Advanced menu item, select subscribe to podcast
- Paste the subscription link there.