#it all comes back to Herakles . . . all roads lead to that guy

[slverblood]

Why would Anne Carson do this to me?

Why does tragedy exist? Because you are full of rage. Why are you full of rage? Because you are full of grief. Ask a headhunter why he cuts off human heads. He'll say that rage impels him and rage is born of grief. The act of severing and tossing away the victim's head enables him to throw away the anger of all his bereavements. Perhaps you think this does not apply to you. Yet you recall the day your wife, driving you to your mother's funeral, turned left instead of right at the intersection and you had to scream at her so loud other drivers turned to look. When you tore off her head and threw it out the window they nodded, changed gears, drove away.

Herakles is a two-part man. Euripides wrote for him a two-part play. It breaks down in the middle and starts over again as does he. Wrecks and recharges its own form as he wrecks and recharges his own legend. Two-part: son of both Zeus (god) and Amphitryon (man) he is immortal, maybe — experts disagree and he himself is not sure. Container of uncontainable physical strength, he civilizes the world by vanquishing its monsters then returns home to annihilate his own wife and children. Herakles is a creature whose relation to time is a mess: if you might be immortal you live in all time and no time at the same time. You end up older than your own father and more helpless than your own children. Herakles is a creature whose relation to virtue is a mess: human virtue derives from human limitation and he seems to have none; gods' virtue does not exist. Euripides places him in the midst of an awareness of all this. But awareness for Herakles is no mental event, it comes through flesh. Herakles' flesh is a cliché. Perfect physical specimen, he cannot be beaten by any warrior, by any athlete, by any monster on the earth or under it. The question whether he can be beaten even by death remains open; it is a fact that he has gone down to Hades and come back alive; here is where the play starts. This becomes the turning point — the overturning point — of his cliché. ... in order to place you at the very heart of Herakles' dilemma, which is also Euripides' dilemma: Herakles has reached the boundary of his own myth, he has come to the end of his interestingness. Now that he's finished harrowing hell, will he settle back on the recliner and watch TV for the rest of time? From Euripides' point of view, the dilemma is practical. A man who can't die is no tragic hero. Immortality, even probable immortality, disqaulifies you from playing that role. (Gods, to their eternal chagrin, are comic.) [...] [...] It is as if the world broke off. Why did it break off? Because the myth ended. [...] [...] Hence the conceptual importance and symbolic possibilities of posture: you can read the plot of a play off the sequence of postures assumed by its characters. Up is winning, down is losing, bent is inbetween. [...] Herakles himself enters gloriously upright but is soon reduced to a huddled and broken form. His task in the last third of the play is to rise from this prostration, which he does with the help of Theseus. Euripides makes clear that Herakles exits at the end leaning on his friend. Herakles' reputation in myth and legend otherwise had been that of lonehand hero. Here begins a new Heraklean posture. Meanwhile throughout the play this image of collaborative heroism is embodied, movingly, in the tableau of the chorus. They are old men; they lean on sticks or on each other. All mortals come to this. Gods remain a problem. You will hear gods' names and see their consequences rawly displayed throughout the speeches and the action. You will sympathize with the chorus who cower before them and also with Herakles who decides not to believe in them — not to believe, that is, in the story of his own life. Bold move. Perhaps he is a tragic hero after all.

[zenosanalytic]

Great Beasts of Legend: Centaurs, Sirens and Chimaera: The Greeks and th...

I know I’ve posted this lecture by Dr. Jeremy McInerney before, but I was watching it again(third time; really love this one uwu) and at 41:55 he starts a discussion of a boundaries-based reading of Centaurs(good target for that given the melding/muddying of boundary btw animal and man Centaurs represent[1]), beginning with the Herakles, Deianira, Nessos Myth that I feel he doesn’t quite hit though he makes/brings up other great points and it made me want to write a short little thing about why this myth, specifically, is really open to such a reading:

Ok so the basic outline: Herakles and Deianira are traveling, they come to the river Evinos where Nessos[2], the Centaur, is selling his services as a living ferry(ppl sit on him and he carries them across). Herakles, of course, decides to swim across and pays Nessos to carry Deianira across. While doing so, Nessos attempts to rape her, Deianira calls for help, and Herakles whips out his bow and arrows dipped in Hydra’s blood, and shoots Nessos dead. As he dies but before Herakles reaches them, Nessos tells Deianira to take a vial of his blood(sometimes blood mixed with his semen). The story splits interestingly here, so remember this point for later. Years down the road, Herakles is off in some part of Greece partying in celebration of yet another city he’s plundered, and he sends a train of new slaves taken from said city-plundering back home, along with a messenger with an off-hand request to Deianira that she send his favorite cloak along cuz he plans to keep partying for quite a long while. This is another point of ambiguity in the story and its retellings so remember it, too. She steeps his cloak in water mixed with the vial of Nessos’s blood, sends it along and, while the poison doesnt kill Herakles cuz he’s part god and Hydra’s poisonous blood isn’t powerful enough to do that, it DOES cause him such enormous, unending pain that he builds his own funeral pyre and burns himself alive, apotheosizing into a god in the process.

So, regarding Boundaries:

Nessos, obvsl, is a physical manifestation of the close and ever-present boundary between humans and beasts; btw self-control and indulgence; btw “civilized” behavior and “uncivilized”, as discussed above, and particularly of the threat of rape Greek men present to Greek women.

This story involves a River, a physical boundary

Rivers are ALSO what separate the world of the living from the world of the dead to the Greeks, and this is a story ABOUT TWO DEATHS, both tied directly TO a River(one taking place in it, during the act of crossing it; the other a long-term effect of that event[but also Herakles’s hubris, though most versions, being written for men, don’t emphasize that totally obvs aspect of it]).

Not only that, it’s LITERALLY the story of Herakles’s apotheosis: of how he comes to finally transcend the boundary between God and Mortal which he has straddled his whole life.

Herakles is celebrating the sack of a city, ie, his violation&destruction of the Boundaries defining said city, when he dies. Greek cities are often protected by female divinities(Athena usually), so it’s yet another symbol of rape.

So Split 1: In most versions, the reason Nessos gives for why she should take his blood is that it is a powerful love potion that will ensure Herakles remains faithful to her if his eye ever strays. BUT, also in most versions, this is a lie and he’s secretly trying to poison Herakles, though how would he know Herakles’ arrows are poisoned with Hydra-blood? I remember reading a version where he presents it to her AS POISON, explaining about the Hydra, but I cant find any mention of it online, so maybe my brain’s just making it up(or maybe this was the Hercules TV Show version X|).

Split 2: BUT BUT, while in most version Deianira sends the cloak out of desperation to keep him faithful(and of course there’s a particular slave girl in the train she’s warned about just so all of this can be EXTRA the fault of women, rather than Herakles for being a giant asshole like he always is), in other versions she sends it OUT OF VENGEANCE, TO FUCK HIM UP because Herakles is being a giant asshole, wrecking up Greece, partying as much as he likes, flaunting his rapes and his victims in her face(this is VERY RELEVANT given the nature of other versions of this story), and leaving her to run his household alone while ordering her around like she’s a slave rather than his Wife.

These are mutually exclusive: she cannot be both seeking to punish him, and trying, in anguished desperation, to keep him faithful to her[3].

Herakles in this story, as is ALWAYS THE CASE IN ALL HIS STORIES, is flaunting the boundaries of Proper Behavior, in this case those defining a happy and successful marriage(IE Hera’s Domain; which you’d THINK would be kind of relevant, given the deep narrative connection between Hera and Herakles and her quickness to anger regarding marriage violations, yet it somehow perennially goes unmentioned), and getting punished for it.

Now here’s an ADDED kicker. There’s a version of this story were Herakles initiates the conflict. one day he visits the house of Deianira’s father, Dexamenus, and while a guest, rapes her. Dexamenus can’t fight Herakles, of course, but he demands by the gods and tradition that Herakles marry Deianira to “repair” the injury(WE LIVE IN HELL!), and Herakles agrees. After he leaves to prepare for the wedding, a local Centaur, Eurytion(name meaning “Widely Honored”) visits Dexamenus and proposes to marry Deianira himeself(you know: without the whole BEING HER RAPIST thing), and Dexamenus complies. Herakles arrives a few days later, kills Eurytion, and sees that their marriage is carried out. Presumably in this version, the blood poisoning the cloak would be Eurytion’s.

What I’ve tried to get across here is that, among other things, there are readings of this myth were Herakles is the bad guy and Deianira the agent of divine punishment, if not the actual Protagonist. And those readings suggest certain ideas we would be prone to consider “modern” about the agency of women, consent, personal and social boundaries, morality, Greek ~Heroic Masculinity~, and yes even Centaurs, might not have been so alien and “anachronistic” to the ancient Greek mind as we tend to think.

But anyway, even if you think that particular part of my little argument here is total Bunk, I hope I’ve managed to get across that Deianira and the Cloak is a myth Absolutely LOUSY with the theme of Boundaries, what they mean, what it means to Cross them, and the Consequences for which you Cross, when, how, and plain just choosing to cross them in the first place. It’s a really great example for him to suggest for this particular topic, and it really inspired me quite a lot today, and I just wish there was a lecture online where he developed it further uwu

[1]And not only that, but of course owning horses was a common sign of aristocratic status, and trading horses a common aristocratic activity(this is one way you know Hesiod’s claims of poverty are a put-on; his family breeds and sells horses). I feel like it’s pretty well understood that Centaurs are in someway a commentary and meditation upon the nature of Greek masculinity, on the capacity for violent cruelty and wanton appetite Greeks inculcated men into beside all the talk of civilized society, but I also feel it’s less well understood how open they also are to a similar reading regarding the appetites and barbaric capacities specifically of the upper classes of Greek society.

[2]In some versions Nessos and Herakles actually have a history, and the whole incident is Nessos’s attempt at vengeance. There is another story, where Herakles visits a centaur who is his friend named Pholos, and a gang of nearby Centaurs(I like to think they were Rowdy Teens myself u_u) smell the wine they’re drinking and crash the party to share some. Herakles, being Herakles, of course immediately begins killing them for the perceived insult, which inevitably leads NOT ONLY to Pholos dying(cuz Herakles isn’t careful and shoots him too, or in other vers bcuz he refuses to so much as retrieve his arrows from the bodies due to concerns with “pollution” from the corpses, and Pholos cuts himself on one of the arrows), but ALSO the poisoning, and eventual death, of Chiron, who was one of Pholos’s neighbors and who Herakles accidentally knicked while wildly chasing down and shooting the interlopers. Nessos is one of these Centaur teens, and the only centaur in the whole situation to survive (:T

[3]Which, btw, the whole “faithful” thing doesnt make much sense(even though it pops up regularly in Greek Myth), because her “competitor” in these versions is a slave. These next sentences are going to be gross and awful, but in the society which told these stories male slave-owners already had unrestricted sexual access to their slaves and, beyond that, I’ve never read a single example in Greek or Roman sources of a slave being legitimized and married as a wife(which doesnt mean such examples dont exist; I’m an amateur). So the idea that a slave could threaten Deianira’s position as Herakles’s wife seems very dubious to me(as does the general trope of slave women as threats to wives in Greek stories). Again: this is all super-awful, but it’s something complicating the traditional presentation of the myth, which is rarely addressed because most academics writing for a general audience are super-loath to deal with classical slavery as the awful, body and soul crushing institution which it was.