Euripides and His Use of Images of Local Athenian Myths Marion Meyer    The Patras Center for the Study of Myth and Religion in Greek and Roman Antiquity has, over the years, brought together scholars from various disciplines—and from around the world—for interdisciplinary discussions. As a small sign of gratitude, I offer an archaeologist’s contribution to the volume presented to a “philo-logist,” a true “lover” of logos and logia. It is about local Athenian myths as they were seen by one of the city’s greatest poets, Euripides, and shown by contemporary visual media, a hallmark of Classical Athens. The myths presented in the Athenian theater and shown in Athenian images in public and private spaces were predominantly myths shared by the Greek-speaking world. Local myths were brought to the stage, too, but only Euripides’ Erechtheus, performed ca. 420 and transmitted in fragments, [ 1] and his Ion, performed in the late 410s, [ 2] are preserved. [ 3] Both plays feature the royal family: in Erechtheus, the protagonists are Erechtheus, his wife (given the name Praxithea), [ 4] and three anonymous daughters; in Ion, they are Kreousa (another daughter of Erechtheus) [ 5] and her son Ion, presented as the child of Apollo, not of Kreousa’s non-Athenian husband Xouthos; [ 6] thus the royal family “remains fully Athenian.” [ 7] My focus is on the charter myths of Athens, originally told for Urkönig Erechtheus: the birth myth of the child born by Gaia and adopted by Athena, and the king’s successful defense of Athens (the invasion myth). I have argued elsewhere that both myths were told in new versions after the Kleisthenic reforms, when Erechtheus became one of the eponymous heroes. [ 8] If, however, elements of the earlier traditions had not survived, we would not know of their existence. [ 9] I also argue that Euripides in Erechtheus used and adapted both versions of the invasion myth. [ 10] Here I want to discuss how the poet’s presentation of these charter myths relates to the visual and material evidence for the myths accessible to him—and his audience—in Classical Athens. [ 11] The birth myth According to a passage thought to be interpolated in the Iliad, Erechtheus was born by Gaia and raised by Athena who instituted his cult in her sanctuary (Homer Iliad 2.546– 551). [ 12] This explains the association of the cults for Athena and Erechtheus on the Acropolis and highlights the mortals’ dependence on both nature (Gaia) and civilization (Athena). This balance is broken (and Gaia’s role diminished) when Hephaistos is incorporated into the myth as the child’s father [ 13] —a demonstration of male indispensability for procreation. The birth myth is narrated in a dialogue of Ion and Kreousa (Ion 267–274) [ 14] and alluded to in several passages of the play. [ 15] Ion, curious about the visitor’s identity and her reason for consulting the Delphic oracle (237–307), learns that Kreousa is the daughter of Erechtheus and is then eager to verify mythoi he has heard about her family (265). He is told that her father’s progonos, Erichthonios, was born from the earth (267– 268). Athena took him from there into her virgin arms (269–270); she did not give birth to the child (271). These lines imply that the goddess accepted the baby as her foster child. The earliest evidence for the name Erichthonios and for a figure by this name as the protagonist of the birth myth is provided by an Athenian drinking cup of the 430s (Figures 1–2). [ 16] It shows Athena receiving the baby, labeled Erichthonios, from Gaia, in the presence of various figures of early Athens, including Erechtheus. [ 17] Figure 1. Figure 2. The group of Athena with baby and Gaia on the lid of a pyxis, produced around the time of the performance of Ion or slightly later, confirms the name Erichthonios for Athena’s foster child. [ 18] There are about a dozen Athenian vases with images of the birth myth, [ 19] all dating from the early fifth century to ca. 400 (Figure 3). [ 20] Figure 3. The numbers and identities of the spectators of the event vary (Hephaistos figures prominently: see Figures 1 and 3), but the core group—Gaia, the baby, Athena—is rendered in a remarkably consistent composition, with the innovative figure type of Gaia emerging from the earth (thus visualizing her very nature). The consistency of the core group speaks for the existence of a common prototype for which the earliest vase (of the early fifth century) provides a terminus ante quem. This prototype dates the introduction of Erichthonios to the beginning of the fifth century at the latest. Interestingly, there is not a single image of the birth myth preserved or mentioned that dates to an earlier time; Athena’s foster child does not appear in Athenian imagery until the early fifth century. These observations suggest that the birth myth was told for Erichthonios (instead of Erechtheus) from ca. 500 on, [ 21] and that an image of this tale was set up in a public space in order to anchor the innovation in the memory of the Athenians (the image was then used as a model by artists for generations). The new tale was probably introduced by a poem sung at the Panathenaia. [ 22] The way Euripides presents this myth is highly remarkable. Kreousa does not share the story of her family readily; she reveals it step by step, in response to the persistent questioning by Ion who, although he grew up in Delphi, is well aware of a mythos (Ion 265) about Kreousa’s ancestor having been born from the earth (267). Ion has apparently also heard that Athena took the baby from the earth (269), but then he relies on a different source than hearsay: Athena gave the baby, ὥσπερ ἐν γραφῇ νομίζεται (“just as one is used to seeing depicted in art,” 271) [ 23] (Kreousa finishes the sentence) to the daughters of Kekrops, who were to keep it safe without ever seeing it (272). Ion knows what happened next from hearsay: the girls opened the container (273), [ 24] and Kreousa confirms that they had to die (274). Framed by the explicit reference to oral tradition—tales told and heard (265, 273)—Ion’s mention of images (271) deserves special attention. [ 25] It has been emphasized that, although the setting is nominally Delphi, it is understood that the oral, written, and visual traditions mentioned refer to Athens. [ 26] The presentation of the birth myth confirms this. This was a local Athenian myth, and there were no γραφαί of it outside Athens. Ion speaks for the spectators who knew the myth from hearsay and from images. The majority of the preserved images of the birth myth focus on Gaia’s handing of the baby to Athena. There are also seven or eight Athenian vases (from ca. 480–470 to ca. 400) with images of the Kekropids’ punishment for having opened the chest they had been entrusted with against the goddess’ order. These show the girls fleeing from a snake (that emerges from the chest) and/or from Athena (whose presence in the images conveys that she punishes disobedient persons) (Figure 4). [ 27] Snakes were appropriate companions for an earthborn creature but terrifying for the girls. Only one vase combines the girls’ flight with the less dramatic scene in which they receive the chest with the baby. [ 28] Figure 4. Euripides gives the whole story and refers to the various sources of knowledge: myths being told (265), details being heard (273), and images being seen (271). [ 29] When he speaks about the baby being handed to the Kekropids (271–272), he highlights a scene that was of particular importance for Ion (who likewise had been handed to a second “mother”), [ 30] but not for imagery. Images do not tell myths as language does. Images of classical times concentrate on the essentials of the issues. The characteristics of the Kekropids are their curiosity and disobedience (for which they are punished), and this is what is visualized on the vases. If Euripides explicitly mentions images as a reference, his audience apparently remembered the birth myth by remembering images. Line 271 of Ion supports my conclusion that the tale of Erichthonios’ birth was a new story, that for its communication an image was needed, and that copies of this image disseminated the innovation and served as reference for it. Euripides proves that visual representations were the authoritative source for the myth as he presented it. There were more images to remind the Athenians of Classical times, including Euripides, that Erechtheus and Erichthonios were distinct figures. Erechtheus was firmly anchored in Athenian cult (with a site on the Acropolis) [ 31] and myth. With the Kleisthenic reforms, he was given a new function (as an eponymous hero), concomitant with a focus on his persona as kyrios of the royal house. As Urkönig, he suggested himself as the father of local heroines and heroes [ 32] (notwithstanding their independent myths and their lack of interaction) [ 33] and thereby proved their identity as figures of early Athens. When, after the Persian Wars, the Athenians founded a cult of Boreas (in order to thank the North Wind for his support), the wind god’s arrival was signaled by his integration into the royal family. [ 34] In two of the earliest images of Boreas’ abduction of his bride Oreithyia (of ca. 480–470), the girl’s father Erechtheus witnesses the scene, together with more figures who evoke early Athens. [ 35] The only myth told for Erichthonios was the birth myth; he was linked only to Athena, Gaia, and Hephaistos. Because he did not receive any cult, he resembled the Athenians rather than gods and heroes. His birth “from the earth” placed him in the most distant past, but his relationship to Athena was different from that of Erechtheus with the goddess. His adoption by Athena did not explain a cult association, but rather his dependence on the goddess, and this reminded not only of a child’s dependence on a mother and a father (as the composition of the core group so persuasively demonstrates) [ 36] but also of mortals’ dependence on the gods. [ 37] Erichthonios founded various cult institutions and rites, [ 38] and, as a primordial figure, he attested to the origin of such institutions in distant times. [ 39] It is therefore not surprising to find him as a predecessor of Erechtheus in the extended Athenian king list of the late fifth century. [ 40] Euripides did not need such a list for his perception of Erichthonios. Athena’s foster child, kept in a chest together with snakes, had to belong to an earlier generation than Kreousa’s father Erechtheus. The Parthenon frieze, designed about 440, provided a prominent example of the prevalent view on Erechtheus and Erichthonios in Classical times. On the east frieze, Erechtheus appears as one of the ten eponymous heroes (Figure 5); [ 41] the Urkönig of Athens, with only Kekrops and Pandion as his seniors, is presented in a function introduced only two generations before the frieze was made. Figure 5. Erichthonios can be identified with the apobates in the north frieze who wears a long chiton instead of a warrior’s outfit, conveying that this figure is not a mortal participant in the contest but its mythical founder (Figure 6). [ 42] The apobates race recalls warfare as it was presented in Homer [ 43] and the figure of Erichthonios is included in order to point to the long tradition of its practice (as a visual message, not as the documentation of a fact). Figure 6. Although Erichthonios had been constructed rather recently, his (only) myth firmly rooted him in the distant past. He could thus persuasively attest to the age of institutions linked to him. Erechtheus, on the other hand, was presented in the function of his that was politically most relevant, as one of the eponymous heroes. Their position between mortals and the gods was conveyed in the frieze by their depiction between the approaching Athenians and the Olympian gods. Euripides’ play attests to a further reading of the birth myth. When, in the context of the increasing antagonism with the Spartans in the middle of the fifth century, the Athenians claimed to be autochthonous and that being so was superior to having immigrated, “birth of the earth” assumed a new meaning. Being γηγενής—earthborn— had been the equivalent of being primordial (cf. Hesiod Theogony 126–160, 183–186), and earthborn creatures tended to be monsters (not Athena’s foster child who enjoyed the goddess’ τροφή!). [ 44] It was a concept of myth and religion. Autochthony, on the other hand, was a political concept. [ 45] At the time of Perikles’ citizenship law (451/450), the construction of the Parthenon and the performance of Euripides’ plays, Erichthonios’ birth of the Earth and adoption by Athena was understood as the visualization of the idea that the progonos of the Athenian royal house (Ion 267) had been born in Athena’s land, and that his descendants—all Athenians—had always occupied Attica, that they were autochthonous. [ 46] The focus of the myth had shifted. [ 47] Erichthonios was seen as the prototypical Athenian, as six of the images of his birth (and an additional depiction) persuasively demonstrate. They show Erichthonios wearing a chain with amulets across his chest (see Figures 1 and 3), just like the one that was worn by Athenian infants for their protection. [ 48] Euripides makes Erichthonios’ function as role model explicit. [ 49] Athena had provided Erichthonios with two snakes for protection, and since that time the Erechtheidai (!) [ 50] protected their children with golden snakes (Ion 21–26). In the prologue, Hermes relates that Kreousa, when she exposed her newborn son in the cave where she had conceived him, added some χλιδή (precious ornament), according to the custom of the progonoi (Ion 10–21, 26–27). Toward the end of the play, the χλιδή turns out to have the shape of two golden snakes (that help to identify Ion). In this context, the poet again refers to Athena and Erichthonios and the Athenian custom of protecting newborn babies with strings adorned with golden snakes (Ion 1426–1431). [ 51] To sum up: in Ion, Euripides attests to the dissemination of a new version of the birth myth via images and explicitly refers to γραφή as the authoritative source for it. The poet was keenly aware of the potential of visual media. The chorus marvels at the splendor of Apollo’s sanctuary and speaks of figures on both sides of the god’s temple (Ion 187–189), suggesting that the lines that follow refer to its sculptural decoration. [ 52] This, however, is not the case. Ion lines 190–218 do not describe images actually to be seen in Delphi, [ 53] instead evoking contemporary images [ 54] known to the Athenian audience (and considered appropriate for the persons involved in the drama and their relationship to Athens and Delphi). [ 55] In the representation of a gigantomachy “on walls” (Ion 205–218), the chorus points out three duel scenes: Athena attacking Enkelados, Zeus burning Mimas with his thunderbolt, and Dionysos killing a giant with his “ivy staffs” (the thyrsus) (Ion 216–218). This iconography reveals that Euripides is not referring to the gigantomachy in the west pediment of the late Archaic temple of Apollo [ 56] —for which the thyrsus as the god’s weapon would be anachronistic [ 57] —but that he has images of his own times in mind. [ 58] In Archaic times the gods and the giants were shown fighting with the weapons of hoplites (except for Zeus who brandishes his thunderbolt). In Classical times the divinities were represented with their usual attributes, which conveyed their personal qualities —and they were superior to the giants not because of their martial prowess but because of these very qualities [ 59] (whence Dionysos’ easy victory in a duel with a giant, despite his inadequate “weapon”). [ 60] Calling Dionysos’ ivy staffs ἀπόλεμα (“unwarlike”; Ion 216–217), [ 61] Euripides catches the very idea of Classical visual language. The invasion myth The war of “the Eleusinians with Eumolpos against Erechtheus” is Thucydides’ only example of a war in Attica before the alleged synoikismos (2.15.1–2). A μάχη of the Athenians “against their neighbors in Eleusis” mentioned by Herodotus (1.30.5) might refer to the same event, whether the battle was a historical or a fictitious one. [ 62] The most elaborate source is Euripides’ Erechtheus (with the reconstruction of its plot partly based on later authors who either cite Euripides or depend on his play). [ 63] The Eleusinians do not figure as combatants, but the name of the leader of the invaders (who are Thracians), [ 64] Eumolpos, evokes Eleusis. This name, borne by the eponymous of the Eleusinian genos who provided the chief priest (hierophant), [ 65] reveals both the identity of the traditional invaders and the intention to avoid their being mentioned. In the play (and, as I think, in a later version of the invasion myth, see below), Eumolpos is Poseidon’s son who grew up in Ethiopia; [ 66] according to Apollodorus’ Βibliotheke (3.15.4), he had to flee to Thrace and then in Eleusis, but was later asked to became king of the Thracians and to help the Eleusinians when they attacked Athens. [ 67] In the play, the battle of mortals is paralleled by a conflict on the divine level: Eumolpos intends to replace the tutelary divinity of Athens, Athena, with his father Poseidon. Erechtheus succeeds in defending Athens, but at high costs: after he has killed his opponent, he is killed by Eumolpos’ furious divine father, and all his children (three daughters) lose their lives. [ 68] At the end of the play, Athena orders the foundation of a cult for the three girls and one for Erechtheus Semnos Poseidon, with a σηκός in the center of the Acropolis, “because the god killed him” (F 370, 63–94). [ 69] There was no cult for a single figure Erechtheus Poseidon, but there is evidence, from the mid-fifth century to Roman Imperial times, for a joint cult of Erechtheus and Poseidon on the Acropolis, as Menelaos Christopoulos has argued. [ 70] Poseidon’s veneration on the Acropolis is exclusively attested in combination with that of Erechtheus. [ 71] Because this cult predates Euripides’ tragedy, its aition (Erechtheus’ death caused by Poseidon) must also date to an earlier time. [ 72] I suggested that the persona of Erechtheus, Urkönig of Athens (Homer Odyssey 7.81) and earthborn foster child of Athena (Homer Iliad 2.546–551), was redefined in the context of the Kleisthenic reforms. The tale of Athena’s earthborn child was from that time on to be told for a figure called Erichthonios (see above). Erechtheus continued to be the Urkönig and defender of Athens. His cult was combined with the (newly introduced) cult of Poseidon on the Acropolis, and its foundation was explained by Poseidon’s involvement in Erechtheus’ defense, according to a new version of the myth [ 73] that combined the battle of mortals with the conflict of two gods. [ 74] The earliest two pieces of evidence for the idea that Athena’s tutelary function for the Athenians was ever a matter of dispute leave no doubt that Poseidon challenged Athena. Herodotus says that, according to the Athenians, an olive tree and a θάλασσα on the Acropolis had been set as μαρτύρια (testimonies) when Poseidon and Athena quarreled about the land (Herodotus 8.55.1). It is revealing that, although he mentions the olive tree first, he speaks of Poseidon first in connection with the ἔρις. [ 75] In the west pediment of the Parthenon, Poseidon is marked as the intruder, because he is stepping into the northern half of the pediment, Athena’s territory (see below, Figure 7). [ 76] This emphasis on Poseidon as the aggressor is in line with a Wandermotiv attested by later authors: Poseidon, the god of natural forces, attempts to replace established deities of communities (and never succeeds). [ 77] Whereas in the original invasion myth the king of Athens had fought against the Eleusinians, the gods’ strife in the new invasion myth was about the main cult of the Athenians who lived in “the land” [ 78] —all over Attica. This discrepancy supports my conclusion that Poseidon’s challenge was added to the older myth of a battle of mortals (fought within Attica) at a time when the Athenian state comprised all of Attica. [ 79] Neither the battle of the mortals nor the strife of the gods ever became popular subjects of Athenian imagery. There are only two known Athenian representations of Erechtheus and Eumolpos: [ 80] two (lost) bronze statues erected on the Acropolis, together with statues of the strategos Tolmides and his seer, after Tolmides’ death in 447/446, [ 81] and two facing warriors on an Attic hydria of ca. 400 included in a scene of Poseidon’s strife with Athena, which is the earliest image of the gods’ ἔρις after the Parthenon and the only one that combines both the conflict of the mortals and that of the immortals. [ 82] There are a few more images of the gods’ strife on later Athenian vases. [ 83] Much of Euripides’ Erechtheus is lost. Poseidon might have announced his claim to the main cult of the Athenians in the prologue. However, the play is not about strife between divinities. [ 84] The driving force is Eumolpos, determined to push the interests of his father (who also comes as an invader). Praxithea, in her famous monologue, makes this perfectly clear: “No one shall . . . cast out the ancient ordinances of our forefathers, nor shall Eumolpus or his Thracian folk replace the olive and the golden Gorgo by planting a trident upright in the city’s foundation and crowning it with garlands, leaving Pallas dishonoured.” (F 360:44–49). [ 85] At the end of the play, Athena herself orders Poseidon to stop harming the city and the land (F 370:55–62). The trident mentioned by the goddess in F 370:55 is not the token of Poseidon’s cult (as it was in Praxithea’s speech, F 360) but the instrument the god has been using to cause an earthquake (F 37:45–51). Athena reestablishes order (and decides the fate of all the members of the royal family). The play does not present her as a divinity involved in an ἔρις but as a divinity who puts an end to the disturbance of order caused by mortals (Eumolpos’ attack in order to replace Athena with Poseidon) and immortals (Poseidon’s killing of Erechtheus and causing an earthquake). After Athena has communicated her provisions, she announces the judgment of Zeus (F 370:99–100)—which apparently refers to the Eleusinian mysteries. [ 86] Zeus was not involved previously and has no part in the outcome of the gods’ conflict. J. C. Kamerbeek and others have assumed that Praxithea’s words φόνια φυσήματ(α) (F 370:40) following her mention of her dead husband (F 370:38) refer to Zeus and suggested that it was him who killed Erechtheus. [ 87] This assumption, based on Hyginus (Fabula 46.4: Zeus killed Erechtheus with his thunderbolt, having been asked by Poseidon to do so), [ 88] is unfounded. The play leaves no doubt that Poseidon has revenged his son and killed Erechtheus. Athena’s words addressing Poseidon (F 370:59–60), “κατὰ χθονὸς κρύψας” imply that the god pushed the king into the rock with his trident. Erechtheus’ grave has plausibly been identified with the cracks underneath the North Porch of the Erechtheion, framed by marble slabs (called the Altar of the Thyechoos) when the Classical building was erected. [ 89] This would have been an ancient site for libations to Erechtheus [ 90] and regarded as his grave long before his death was thought to have been caused by Poseidon (in the later version of the invasion myth). [ 91] When his cult was combined with that of Poseidon, the cracks might have suggested the idea that the god had struck here. In Ion, Erechtheus’ fate is recalled with similar words (281–282): “And, does a χάσμα χθονός really hide your father? Blows of the sea god’s trident killed him.” [ 92] φόνια φυσήματ(α) (F 370:40) are deadly drafts, in this case referring to winds caused by Poseidon when he struck with his trident. [ 93] There is nothing to suggest heat [ 94] and a thunderbolt. Hyginus, in his Fabula 46, is part of a much later tradition, drawing from Euripides’ Erechtheus (one of the king’s daughters is sacrificed, the others had sworn an oath to follow their sister into death) but speaking of four girls instead of three, giving the sacrificed one an appropriate name (Chthonia). The idea that Erechtheus was struck by a thunderbolt might have suggested itself by the setting of the cult site. Above the Altar of Thyechoos and slightly set off, an opening was left in the roof of the North Porch. [ 95] The cult site therefore resembled an enelysion, a site struck by lightning, not to be accessed. [ 96] Figure 7. Euripides’ presentation of the divine conflict differs considerably from that of its most prominent image at the Parthenon, finished in 432 (Figure 7). The pediment visualizes Poseidon’s challenge, the antagonism of both divinities (as they rush toward each other, their movement being repeated by their chariots), and its sudden end (as Poseidon and Athena lean back, still looking at each other, and the horses are abruptly stopped). [ 97] This sudden solution can only have been caused by Zeus, the divine judge, whether his interference was implied by this pointed composition or actually illustrated by the god’s thunderbolt represented between the opponents. [ 98] Zeus’ part in this conflict, as the ultimate authority, might be an invention for the Parthenon. It enabled the visualization of the solution of the conflict when it was at its height (and it sanctioned Athena’s position as the goddess of the Athenians for all times). The image at the goddess’ temple had a different function than the tragedy. The pediment focuses on Poseidon’s challenge and its rebuttal and highlights Athena as the eternal goddess of the Athenians, with their ancestors present in the corners. The tragedy is about mortals and their decisions, which might lead to disaster even when they were made with the best intentions and reasons. It is, nevertheless, intriguing to compare what is shown and what is said about Athena and Poseidon. Though the figures in the pediment are poorly preserved, enough is left to see that both gods raise their right arms and lower their left ones. [ 99] Athena would have swung her spear and protected her left side with her shield; Poseidon would have held a trident. It is understood that the gods were not shown “setting” their μαρτύρια, [ 100] because the olive tree, in all likelihood, stood between them (there was no room for it next to Athena’s right side), and Poseidon’s θάλασσα was visualized by the ketos underneath his charioteer and a marine snake next to the horses, both outside his view. [ 101] The gods’ depiction aimed at characterizing them, beyond a specific situation. Athena’s equipment represented her as the protectress of the city; Poseidon’s trident evoked the god’s epitheton “Earth-Shaker.” The μαρτύρια, on the other hand, were accidental, and they were not shown as part of the narrative (being set by the gods, see above). They indicated the locality (an important issue for the images on the west side of the Parthenon) [ 102] and pointed to sites in the sanctuary, situated only a few steps to the north: the olive tree stood in the Pandroseion, west of the Erechtheion, and the θάλασσα was contained in its western cella. [ 103] The pediment thus showed an event that had actually taken place on the Acropolis, with proof of it still to be seen. In the play, Praxithea evokes the olive tree and the golden Gorgo as tokens of Athena’s cult, and the trident as the token of Poseidon’s cult (F 360:44–49). In this context, the olive tree is not a μαρτύριον of the ἔρις (as it was for Herodotus), but a proof of Athena’s performance as tutelary goddess: she had given this precious gift to the Athenians. The face of the Gorgo, staring at the beholders, had an apotropaic function Classics@ Journal  Classics@ Journal  Customize  24  New + Edit Post  Disqus  Howdy, Keith DeStone