I present here my random notes from a CHS Online Open House | “Beautiful Bodies or
Beautiful Minds: Disability Studies in Homer.” Joel Christensen
Joel Christensen came to speak to the Kosmos Society again. He gave us much to think about! I could only attend half of your great
presentation before I had to leave for work.
I am looking forward to watching the rest of it.
I loved how he quoted Zeus (Od. 1.32-34) as his theme,
namely that mortals are a bunch of hyper-morons that bring most of their troubles
on themselves. Good examples on how the
quote resonances throughout The Odyssey, too. What follows are random notes and vague thoughts
loosely following the outline of the presentation.
As to the mutilation of Melanthios towards the end of
the Odyssey (22.474-477) and the death of the handmaidens that followed. Melanthios was definitely a slave and “handmaiden”
is often an English translator’s euphemism for “slave”. From the perspective of
a bronze-age aristocratic (and my classical) audience slaves were not entitled
to the power of choice that Zeus implies above, that all mortals have. Slaves were not entitled to lives as is
demonstrated by the treatment of Odysseus’ own nanny (4.743-3 and 19.479-489)
Joel discussed at length on the Homeric idea of beauty. Beauty implies goodness. Any deviation, mental or physical from the
theomorphic ideal (Zeus and Apollo) can be considered a disability in his study.
Which led us promptly to Hephaestus, the lame smithy
of the gods, in a story told by a blind poet.
The smithy’s disability was not a birth defect but rather when one or
the other of his parents tossed him from Olympus they affectively lamed
him. One of Oedipus’ parents pierced his
ankles with a pin affectively laming him.
Both Hephaestus and Oedipus accomplished great things and were
considered manly. (Hera’s second
parthenogenetic fire-daemon son she did not lame and he almost destroyed the
universe. Maybe laming the perceived threat
to the throne at an early age was the motivations here.)
Although Joel states that the disabled are not granted
compensatory talents or senses; aged Nestor is famous for his charm and
abilities as an orator, “blind” Homer is the creator of the great epic ever
composed and blind Tiresias of Thebes had long-life and second sight.
Joel talks of a Phaeancian prince (Book 8) who mocks
Odysseus and says he is too old to participate in the games. I have always thought of the prince’s
comments as just a ploy to get the recently weeping Odysseus to come outside
and play. As the description of
Thersites, I always thought that was just Homer over-drawing the bad guy, so we
would know.
Finally, if we agree that the Greeks marginalized
disabled people, is that true of the gods too?
The sky is full of winged gods and daemons. The sea full of gods with fishy body
parts. Hera breast-feeds or befriends
many of the monsters in Greek myth. (Monsters, by my definition, being immortal or mortal beings that
are asymmetric or do not meet the theomorphic ideal.)
Were the alternately-able gods better treated
by their peers than the dis-abled mortals by theirs? And if Hephaestus, Oedipus, Nestor, Homer and
Tiresias can live happy successful lives, is Thersites a hyper-moron for what
happens to him?
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that beauty implies goodness. Apollo, the paragon of male beauty, kills at a mere whim and (maybe even worse) tends to support Barbarians against Greeks. In the mortal world, Paris is very handsome but nobody regards him as virtuous. Same for Jason and Medea. I suspect that beauty was a default quality of demigods, and likely of the entire Heroic Generation.
Hephaestus apparently had some birth defect that made Hera throw him off Olympus. I made it a cleft lip. In contrast, mortals in Greek myth never expose disabled newborns, or at least I do not remember such cases. Newborns were thrown off for being a perceived threat or illegitimate, except for Atalanta, who was exposed because of her sex. I suppose that there are simply no birth defects in the Heroic Generation, the same way as babies and mothers never die in birth.
Hephaestus was eventually accepted by Olympians, but only after he proved himself more capable than the entire idle bunch combined. Even then, they used him as cupbearer and mocked him. Other disabled gods were excluded from Olympus. Non-disabled gods regularly sent heroes to kill "monsters", often for no apparent reason. So I don't think that gods were less ableist than mortals.
Maya,
ReplyDeleteTotally agree; ugly doesn’t mean bad.
Interesting that there is no mention of birth defects in the abandonment of children nor death in childbirth. And yes there is proof of ableism between the Olympians and Pontides. But the relationship between Hera and Echidna, plus Gaea and various means something. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteBill
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI think this Hera made a tactical alliance with Echidna and her children because she (Hera) hated the heroes and maybe wanted to overthrow her husband and his order.
I wonder why the mythmakers didn't remove Deidamia by having her die in childbirth.
Maya,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you got the wrong in of the stick here. "Typhoeus...is described as the youngest son of...of Hera alone, because she was indignant at Zeus having given birth to Athena." (Dict. of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology.) She passing him off to the Python to be raised and eventually marries him off to Echidna. Regrets the whole idea when he eventually attacks Olympus bring Chaos in his wake and the potential destruction of the universe. (Now she thinks about this!) Of course she loves her grandchildren and helps raise them, but the moment it becomes clear they are mortal, she loses interest.
Bill
Bill,
ReplyDeleteSee what some say about Thersites:
Schol AbT 212b1-2 ex
“they say that [Thersites] is the poet’s agent, that he appropriates his essence.”
Schol. bT ad Il. 2.212b ex. 12–19 [= FGrH 3.123]
“Pherecydes says that [Thersites] was one of those who gathered to hunt the Kalydonian boar but that he was avoiding the fight with the boar and was thrown from a cliff by Meleager. This is how his body was deformed. People say he is a child of Agrios and the daughter of Porthaon. But if he is Diomedes’ relative, there is no way Odysseus would beat him. For he would only hit common soldiers. Hence, [the poet] has deployed him not [because of] his father or his country but only because of his manner and form, the things which the current situation needs.”
https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2018/09/13/what-happened-to-thersites-the-origin-of-his-deformity/
(BTW, I wonder why some disliked Thersites so much that accused him of cowardice, an accusation clearly in contradiction with the Iliad and the logic of the situation.)
Maya,
ReplyDeleteDiomedes and Thersites were cousins, but not on good terms. From Maicar.com
"Although Diomedes 2 married an Argive woman, daughter or granddaughter of Adrastus 1, he still kept an eye on Calydonian politics, punishing the usurpers that deposed his grandfather Oeneus 2, king of Calydon. Behind this conspiracy were the sons of Agrius 3 (brother of Oeneus 2 and the man who had banished Tydeus 2), who put their own father on the throne and Oeneus 2 in jail. Diomedes 2 then, being helped by Alcmaeon 1 (one of the EPIGONI), attacked Calydon and punished the plotters by slaying most of them, except perhaps Onchestus 1 and Thersites, who escaped to Peloponnesus, and Agrius 3, who killed himself"
As to Thersites being "Homer's agent" or why people hated him so much; Thersites, though a "noble" is represent or is assumed to be a commoner. So people who naively put themselves in the "commoner" category see him as their hero. Those that see themselves as part of the elite find him hubristic. Their is a belief that Thersites was a poster boy for Socialism in the early days of the "ism"
Bill
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI think that it is not always a good approach to try to reconcile all mythological versions and traditions, esp. when literature is overlaid upon mythology. There was clearly a tradition in which Thersites was a nobleman and a relation of Diomedes. However, in the Iliad, Thersites is portrayed as a commoner. His father is not even named (which puts Thersites in a sense below the female slave Eurycleia, whose father is named). Given the fact that all sources making Thersites noble are more recent than the Iliad, it is a mystery for me why they are regarded as more authentic in this respect.
Why do you think it is naive to put oneself in the "commoner" category? (This reminds me of the US political debates in recent years.)
Maya,
ReplyDeleteAs to Thersites and Homer; When telling a story you have to pick and chose what you are putting in the story. For the Choice of Achilles to have any significance in the Iliad, Homer can't mention in anyway the Isle of the Blest, or the White Isle. He barely mentions the Isle of the Blest in the Odyssey.
Likewise whoever Thersites actually was, Homer has so over written him that clearly he his a literary-device and not a "historical" person .
As to people naively putting themselves in the commoner category; Sorry, I was probably having a bad day. Have you heard of a "First World Problem"? That is people that whine all day because the barista put skim milk in their five dollar extra dark mocha instead of soy milk. The sort of people with two kids that think they need a five bed rooms house with three car garage. They take their great good fortune for granted. They don't understand how lucky they have it. That a good portion of the world would swap places with them in a heart-beat