‘Athena the Trickster’
Week 1
Today was our first ‘Athena the Trickster’ lecture and
my first lecture as a 3rd-year student! Week 1
(Cue applause).
I was
intrigued to start this particular module, as I have never studied Athena in
this much detail and depth before. Whilst I was aware of her symbolism and
representations I am intrigued to learn more about her as a character and a
deity. This was one of the issues raised in class. Can Athena be viewed as simply a deity, or is there more to her
than this? Is she a functioning character who has evolved over time to become known as a deity? These were questions
which interested me and I hope to discover more about their answers over the
course of the module. Yet a further
fascinating aspect which we discussed was to do with Athena’s origin. Scholars
are mistakenly under the assumption that if we are to solve the mystery of
Athena’s origin, then everything else will fall into place. However that is
most certainly not the case, particularly when we are dealing with such a complex
deity as Athena.
We held a brain-storm activity and were able to come
up with a range of adjectives to describe Athena. Such examples included
wisdom, powerful, virtuous, chastity and cunning. The activity enabled me to
understand just how complex and antithetical Athena really is. Both powerful
and cunning, she certainly serves to defy and destroy the gender boundaries. Before the lecture we were asked to choose an
epithet of Athena and try to explain its reasoning. I decided to focus on
Athena as ‘cunning’. I decided that this was an appropriate word to suit such a
rebellious and quite possibly androgynous character. I thought particularly of
the many examples in the Odyssey,
when Athena comes to the aid of both Telemachus and Odysseus, as well as the Iliad.
I was very pleased to discover that when working on the individual
reflective report, we were able to choose what method the report would take.
For example a Word document, an e-portfolio/blog etc. I would go as far to say
that I prefer blogs over essays so am looking forward to getting back into a ‘blogging’
mode. Week 2 lecture
Trickster or Traitor?
This week we were in the Queen’s Building (after having been in the Howard building last week) and then next week we’re off to Parkstead House.
So I’m having fun playing musical chairs each week!
Anyway- to the important stuff….
This week we looked at Athena’s representation and
how she could be perceived as both a ‘trickster’ and a ‘traitor’. Is the
‘trickster’ aspect of Athena subsequently a less limiting model? Athena is a
deity who creates and subverts categories, she is multi-faceted and consequently
this enables it difficult to gain a ‘clear-cut’ understanding of Athena as a
whole. In terms of being a ‘traitor’ this is because Athena was represented as ‘unkind’
to women and was furthermore a friend of patriarchy. In early Ancient history
women were the sole rulers and matriarchy was law. However there was a revolution,
the males seized power and patriarchy was established. Athena transitioned from
matriarchy to patriarchy and there is the argument that Athena’s warrior-like
appearance was due to the patriarchal takeover. On one hand this could be a
demonstration of Athena supporting the emerging patriarchy, whilst on the other
it could also mean that Athena is a ‘traitor’ to her gender as a whole. [1]
Yet at the other end of this spectrum Athena has also
been represented as a ‘trickster’ figure. (The idea of Athena being patriarchal
inclined only leaves us with a very limited model). This is due to tricksters
are associated with contradictions. For example war and peace, fertility and
impotence etc. With trickster figures
the themes of dualities and binaries is a strong factor, due to said
contradictions. For example in terms of democracy, Goldhill proposes that ‘divinities
are prosecutor and judge’.[2] Subsequently
being able to ‘understand’ trickster figures becomes much more complex.
Overall in conclusion the idea of whether Athena is
a trickster or a traitor is an incredibly complex issue which I believe we are
not capable of finding a ‘clear’ answer to. (But then again, when do we?!) I
believe that Athena can be represented as both a trickster and a traitor. She is the master (or mistress) of duality,
therefore it seems fitting to label her as both.
Week 3
For our Week
3 lecture we were in the Ruskin room at Parkstead House. Before the lecture I
had analyzed an extract from Ruskin’s ‘Queen
of the Air’ lecture, presented in
1869. I was intrigued to discover how Ruskin would apply his thinking and
theories to a deity such as Athena.
In class we were asked to select a passage about an
epithet of Athena. Deepali, Lilly, Phil
and I found some interesting work. In terms of animal attributes, Athena is
compared to both the serpent and the eagle. The serpent because ‘of the swift,
forward motion’ and the eagle due to it ‘drifting and breathing through the air
and it conquers and rules itself’.[3] Again
this links back to the issue of ‘duality’-the serpent and eagle are two
radically different animals and both have different symbolisms and connotations.
However in keeping with her duality Athena is represented as having aspects of
both.
We looked briefly at the Elgin Marbles. They were a key
part of the ‘re-shaping’ of Greece. Lord Elgin ‘borrowed’ (or stole depending on how you look at the
case) the Marbles between 1801-05. They have been housed in the British Museum
since 1816. (However this is a whole
other debate! You can read more about the Elgin Marbles at my other blog here: http://godsandheroesjb.blogspot.co.uk/).
The Marbles were a symbol of the British national and cultural identity. There
is an intriguing juxtaposition, as Athena was viewed as a symbol of both British
and Greek national identity and cultural power. She is represented as a British
goddess, an Athenian one as well as being the world’s goddess. Morales has argued that goddess worship is partly
driven by the desire to challenge the roles for women in the male –dominated
religion. [4] I
certainly agree with Morales, as goddesses such as Hera, Athena, Demeter etc
are able to demonstrate their power forcefully and are able to be recognized
and viewed as powerful ‘in their own right’.
Parkstead House photograph
We then decided we
would each choose a different hero and then branch out and explain more about
them in our presentation. Deepali chose to focus on the Argonautica, Lilly chose the
Iliad and I settled on Orestes’ in The
Eumenides. I have included several photographs of the Ruskin Room and
various other rooms (which I don’t entirely know the names of!)
Ceiling
of Ruskin Room[6]
Week 4
In week 4 we looked at Athena in relation to being a networker and the Parthenon. We are able to use Athena as a vehicle/model of how to operate and function. Again the duality of Athena was discussed, for example Athena operates as a team and in her own right. Again this ‘complicates’ to a certain extent our understanding of her as a deity as she moves between the realms. Susan explained that looking at the Parthenon through a western lens would seem illogical/unreasonable to us yet ‘normal’ to an Ancient Greek perspective. The scholar Vernant argued that there are certain aspects of Athena which are ‘weird’ and working on these would solve the problem. Yet this only works until we ‘change’ the lens and then it starts to become more complex and flawed.
There are
many ways of approaching the topic of Athena and the Parthenon. Some scholars
have taken the approach of ‘structuralism’ (such as Burkett). Whereas others have
focused on the linguistic (language) theory. Susan explained that ‘In some ways
the structuralist approach challenges how we should focus and look at the
deities’.[9] I
believe that a structuralist approach would work better, as structuralism is
the study of culture, behavior etc and it would be more effective overall.
However we must remember that Vernant and Detienne
were writing as though these deities were powers and not deities/people. Their
aim was to ‘dehumanize’ the deities. This consequently is a dangerous form of
analysis as it can be misleading.
I was also fortunate enough to be able to go home to
Oxford to see The Eumenides play by
the OUCD (Oxford University Classics Drama Society). Unfortunately I was unable
to photos of the actual theatre production. However I have included some photos
I took when I went to the Classics Faculty afterwards.
The set and stage design of The Furies was intriguing. A red and black backdrop was successful
in creating a mysterious and foreboding atmosphere. The costumes as well were
spectacular and the piece de resistance was the Furies
themselves. They wore black, floaty, gauzy dresses, their faces were painted
white and finished with dark eye makeup. They were very convincing and rather
terrifying at the same time. I'm more of
a musical/comedy kind of person-so when I first learnt about The Eumenides, I was rather
apprehensive. However I was reassured when I discovered that there would in
fact be subtitles. (And it was for this that I admired the actors and
actresses. It must be complex enough to learn a play in your first language-but
one in Ancient Greek, that certainly
takes some guts!) Overall I enjoyed the play and felt pleased to have seen it.
The talk afterwards by Dr Helen Slaney was very
interesting. Slaney raised some intriguing points, such as the Furies
'represent retributive justice and ‘are not sanctioned by humanity' [10]. Slaney
also mentioned the themes of duality. For example male vs. female, is the play about
justice, power or co-ercion etc. How legitimate is it and what truths have to
be twisted in order for people to survive? Does the play represent a protest
against the silence of women's' voices? [11]Furthermore
did Aeschylus have a ‘motive’ in mind when writing the play? The subordination
of women starkly contrasted with the liberty and almost arrogant state of men.
The lecture was useful in enabling me to rethink and assess my previous
thoughts on The Eumenides and gave me
much food for thought.
Front of the Stelious Ioannou School[12]
P. Stein’s The Oresteia in 1994[13]
Clytemnestra Analysis[15]
K. Mitchell’s The Oresteia in 1999[16]
Week 5 Lecture
For the Week 5 lecture we focused on Athena’s
‘origins’. Susan explained that we must be careful when discussing the
‘origins’ of the deities, as they have been transformed and adapted so much it
is difficult to know when the lines between reality and fantasy become blurred.
(If there was any reality to begin with!) Furthermore we examined Athena’s
birth in relation to Zeus and Hephaestus. We discussed whether Hephaestus had a
‘trickster’ aspect to him. On one hand he could simply have been trying to
‘cure’ Zeus of his terrible headache, however on the other this could have been
a smokescreen, in order to divert from the fact that he wanted to kill him.
Prometheus as well as being a further
deity who could potentially have been viewed as an enemy of Athena.
There is the issue of gender-reversal as Zeus takes on the
‘maternal’ role as he is responsible for giving birth to Athena (albeit in an
unnatural way!) Can Zeus be represented
as both the mother and father figure?
On the other hand Athena could have no mother. This is highlighted when she
referred to her mother as ‘Outis’ (translated to ‘Nobody). Does this mean that
Zeus was simply the ‘surrogate’? Or in a more sinister and disturbing
meaning-did Athena give birth to herself? Sometimes scholars have
oversimplified the birth of Athena and Susan explained that this could be
dangerous. We also discussed whether the many varied representation about Athena
were correct. But then again, who is to say that the ‘real’ version is not full
of errors? Is every version ‘right’ and the artist/author etc has simply
changed the context in order to fit in with their own understanding? I have concluded that Athena was both
‘unique’ to herself, powerful in her own right and yet relied on Zeus almost as
a ‘surrogate’ type figure to give her life in the first place.
Kerenyi also considers the duality aspect of Athena’s name. ‘The duality finds expression in the name of Pallas Athene itself. The meaning of Pallas was once the name for robust maidens and implied the meaning of the masculine word for ‘robust young man’. A distinct masculinity seems to adhere to this word even in its feminine form’. [18]
Meanwhile Yasamura has argued ‘The motherless
goddess Athena is more like a man than a woman; or, as Harrison suggested, she
is rather a sexless thing, neither man nor woman’. [20]
However I disagree with Harrison’s analysis, as it would be implying that
Athena was a hermaphrodite, which she was not. Rather we can conclude that
Athena was simply a woman (albeit a female deity) born from a man. That does
not in any sense make her ‘less feminine’ or give scholars the right to refer
to her as ‘sexless’.
Kerenyi also considers the duality aspect of Athena’s name. ‘The duality finds expression in the name of Pallas Athene itself. The meaning of Pallas was once the name for robust maidens and implied the meaning of the masculine word for ‘robust young man’. A distinct masculinity seems to adhere to this word even in its feminine form’. [18]
Blundell makes an interesting argument, saying that
whilst the male gods are frequently represented as children, infant and child
goddesses are virtually non-existent. She continues onto argue that ‘the near
total absence of the artistic and literary representations of the goddesses as
child figures may perhaps reflect an inability on the part of the classical
Greek (male) artist or poet to visualize the female body as anything other than
sexual or maternal.’[19]
This was intriguing-is this a compliment (in a certain light?) or is simply a
thinly veiled misogynistic attempt to dehumanize women, and say that that was
what they were merely good for?
This week we focused on whether or not Athena was
‘black’. Susan explained that we should consider Athena as ‘ever being born’. We
discussed Bernal’s work ‘Black Athena’ which
caused a storm after its publication. Interestingly Bernal stated that he
wanted to use the term ‘African American
Athena’ as the title yet his publishers persuaded him to go with the word
‘black’. Whether this was an oversight on their part or whether it was because
they wanted to stir up controversy, it is unclear.
A further intriguing analysis was that Bernal felt
the criticism directed at him was simply ‘elitist’. Which brings me onto the
second point of discussion-is Classics really an ‘elite’ subject? This (again!)
is a question with no easy answer. I suppose there are strong arguments for and
against. Sabur has argued that studying Latin and Greek ‘offers numerous
rewards, improving analytical skills and logical reasoning-but, perhaps most
importantly, access to great literature’.[17]
This is certainly true. Classics is now everywhere-from books to (The Roman Mysteries, which I loved as a
child) television series (Atlantis, Rome
etc) which perhaps enables the subject to be brought to a wider audience. Interestingly
it was only when I dug deeper that I realized that even some of my favourite
films were in fact based on mythology. My
Fair Lady, and Ben –Hur for
example.
One could argue that Bernal was both right ‘and’
wrong for publishing ‘Black Athena’. On
one hand it was refreshing to learn that the book had sparked such a powerful
debate. It perhaps made Classicists who possibly had been set in their ways,
rethink their ideas. However perhaps it was ‘wrong’ of Bernal, as he (possibly)
set out to create as much controversy as possible.
The question of whether or not Classics is an
‘elite’ subject. I believe that Classics has built up a certain ‘stereotype’
and that only the rich, privately educated students study it etc. When I
studied Classics AS/ A-level we were a class of four. (And even then my friends
would ask me why I was studying ‘an old-fashioned’ subject.) Furthermore
perhaps people are ‘wary’ of describing themselves as Classicists due to
others’ reactions. If they are rich/
privately –educated etc, they do not want to be accused of ‘living up’ the stereotype
that Classics is a posh subject.
Week 8
In week 8 we focused on whether or not Athena had children. Was she a mother in the ‘real’ sense of the word? Or was this simply used as an analogy and she was simply the mother of the Athenians? Susan also spoke about the Postgraduate Open Evening (which I attended the next evening). I believe the evening was useful in enabling me to decide what I want to study for the MRes course. (Clytemnestra in more detail).
Week 8
In week 8 we focused on whether or not Athena had children. Was she a mother in the ‘real’ sense of the word? Or was this simply used as an analogy and she was simply the mother of the Athenians? Susan also spoke about the Postgraduate Open Evening (which I attended the next evening). I believe the evening was useful in enabling me to decide what I want to study for the MRes course. (Clytemnestra in more detail).
Athena and her ‘children’- the overall question is
very intriguing and again was incredibly complex to decipher. One myth was that
Athena was in fact a mother, to her
son Erichthonius. The legend is that Hephaestus tried to rape Athena. However
she, being so completely disgusted with him fled, yet his semen landed on her
leg. This caused Athena to wipe it off with a piece of wool and fling it to the
ground. Subsequently Erichthonius was born of this. Consequently does that make
Athena a ‘mother?’
The fact that whilst she did not give birth to
Erichthonius yet raised him-is she seen as his ‘adopted’ mother? Or not as a
mother at all, but simply as the primary caregiver? Was Athena a more paternal
or maternal figure? Was she a ‘hands-on’ mother? These are complex questions
and we have difficulty in finding the answers. Again Athena’s duality is
present, as she creates a child whilst maintaining her virginity. Whilst he was
supposedly born ‘from the Earth’ Athena was the deity who raised him. I found
this very endearing. We have almost a transformation of Athena, from a powerful
warrior goddess who is changed into a loving, motherly figure.
(Aww).
We also examined the case of Peisistratos and Phye. Peisistratos
was the tyrant who ruled Athens for a number of years. He was incredibly
cunning, even going as far as deliberately wounding himself, in order to be
given bodyguards. Another important action of his was when he rose into Athens
with ‘Athena’ beside him. (In reality she was a woman from Collytus, dressed up
to resemble the goddess). Given the fact
that the Athenians were supposed to be intelligent, I was surprised to find
that they actually believed Peisistratos’ trick.
Should we view this as merely a gullible population who
simply followed Peisistratos like sheep? Or is it more sinister? Is this in
fact a case of a ruthless and ambitious politician deliberately plotting and
subsequently deceiving an entire nation in his quest for power? Again this is a
complex question. However I am more inclined to believe that this was perhaps a
case of both factors, of the Athenians being sheep and blindly following
everyone else, as well as Peisistratos being deliberately manipulative.
Bibliography
Books
Blundell, S. & M. Williamson, (1998) The Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient Greece. London: Routledge.
Blundell, S. & M. Williamson, (1998) The Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient Greece. London: Routledge.
Morales, H. (2007) Classical Mythology: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Yasumura, N. (2011) Challenges To The Power Of Zeus In Early Greek Poetry. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Yasumura, N. (2011) Challenges To The Power Of Zeus In Early Greek Poetry. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Newspaper Articles-Electronic
Sabur, R., (9/12/2013) ‘Secondary education:
learning Latin for literacy’, The
Telegraph, Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10495484/Secondary-education-learning-Latin-for-literacy.html , (date accessed 31/10/2014).
Photographs
Bagwell, J. (2014) Ceiling of Ruskin Room at Parkstead House, [photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
Bagwell, J. (2014) Ceiling of Ruskin Room at Parkstead House, [photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
Bagwell,
J. (2014) Cabinet of books at Parkstead
House, [photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
Bagwell,
J. (2014) Ruskin’s Queen of the Air
book, [photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
Bagwell,
J. (2014) Front of Stelious Ioannou
School, [photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
Bagwell , J. (2014) P. Stein’s 1994 The Oresteia, [photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
Bagwell,
J. (2014) Information on the Eumenides,
[photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
Bagwell, J. (2014) Clytemnestra Analysis, [photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
Speeches
Slaney, H. (2014) Pre-Furies play Talk. The Stelios Ioannou School for research in Classical & Byzantine Studies: Oxford University.
[3] Ruskin, J., (1869) Lecture ‘Queen of the Air’.
[4] Morales, H., (2007) Classical Mythology: A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford
University Press (Page 105)
[6] Bagwell, J., (2014) Ceiling of Ruskin Room at Parkstead House,
[photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
[7] Bagwell, J., (2014) Cabinet of books-at Parkstead House,
[photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
[8] Bagwell, J., (2014) Ruskin’s Queen of the Air book,
[photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
[10] Dr Helen Slaney talk-given on
17/10/2014 at the Classical Institute in Oxford.
[12] Bagwell, J., (2014) Front of Stelious Ioannou School, [photograph]
Unpublished personal photograph
[16] Bagwell, J., (2014) K. Mitchell’s The Oreseteia in 1999,
[photograph] Unpublished personal photograph
[17] Sabur, R.,
(9/12/2013) ‘Secondary education: learning Latin for literacy’, The Telegraph, Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10495484/Secondary-education-learning-Latin-for-literacy.html , (date accessed 31/10/2014).
[18]
Kerenyi, K., (2008) Athene: Virgin and
Mother in Greek Religion, New York: Spring Publications, Inc
[19]
Blundell, S., & M. Williamson, (1998) The
Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient Greece, London: Routledge.
[20] Yasumura, N., (2011) Challenges To The Power Of Zeus In Early
Greek Poetry, London: Bloomsbury Academic
