No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Much has been written about Herakles, one of the most significant figures in ancient Greek culture. However, despite the recent range of illuminating studies of various female mythical figures as reflected in both literary and pictorial sources, little attention has been paid to Alkmene, mother of the superhero. Alkmene stands, of course, alongside a number of other mortal women in Greek myth, including most notably Antiope, Danae, Europe, Io and Semele, who bear sons to Zeus. Despite her relationship with Zeus, however, and although undergoing more than her fair share of trials, she is never forced into the sort of extreme dislocation suffered by these other women, being presented to some extent as a ‘normal’ wife (of Amphitryon) and mother. The purpose of this paper is to explore the earliest surviving substantial literary portrait of her, found in a passage from Book Four of the pseudo-Hesiodic Catalogue of Women which was later incorporated as preface to the Shield of Herakles.
1 As a result of her relationship with Zeus, Alkmene does not, for example, encounter ongoing rejection by her family, or suffer death or violent transposition to an alien culture. Furthermore, Zeus’ sexual advance in the first place does not involve any extra-human shape changing, and cannot properly be described as ‘rape’. Of course, in many of the mythical sexual encounters between male divinities and mortal females the extent of mutual consent as opposed to compulsion is debateable. For a view which stresses the ‘violence’ aspect of Zeus’ ‘abduction’ of Europa, for example, see Susan Deacy, ‘The Vulnerability of Athena: Parthenoi and Rape in Greek Myth’, in Deacy, Susan and Pierce, Karen F. (edd.), Rape in Antiquity (London 1997)43–63Google Scholar, specifically 45. On the animal and shape-changing aspect of sexual encounters involving divinities, see Robson, J.E., ‘Bestiality and Bestial Rape in Greek Myth’, in Deacy and Pierce (above) 65–96.Google Scholar
2 See West, M.L., The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (Oxford 1985) 130-37Google Scholar, for the likely 6th Century B.C. dating for this work, which appears to be part of a comprehensive systematisation of the mass of existing mythical data, a process concisely discussed by Graf, F., Greek Mythology: An Introduction (Baltimore and London 1993)125-31.Google Scholar
3 On where this passage might have fitted into the overall structure of the Catalogue, see West (n.2) 112. Information about its subsequent use as a preface to the Shield is provided by the hypothesis to that poem. Many have assumed that the author of the Shield was responsible for the addition. See e.g. Janko, R., ‘The Shield of Herakles and the Legend of Cycnus’, CQ n.s. 36 (1986)38–59, specifically 39. West (n.2) 136, however, agrees with the view that the addition was the work of some later redactor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Dowden, Ken, ‘Approaching women through myth: vital tool or self-delusion’, in Hawley, Richard and Levick, Barbara (edd.), Women in Antiquity: New Assessments (London and New York 1995) 44–57Google Scholar, specifically 53.
5 Fantham, E.et al., Women in the Classical World (New York and Oxford 1994) 11Google Scholar. Just, Roger, Women in Athenian Law and Life (London and New York 1989) 1–12Google Scholar, also provides a concise discussion of the relationship between artistic representations of women and the realities of the society from which such representations emerge, and of the problems in interpreting the available evidence.
6 This is certainly not a case of the arbitrary conflation of variants, a dangerous procedure rightly censured by Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane, ‘Reading’ Greek Culture (Oxford 1991) 17Google Scholar, who states: ‘… we must read each individual articulation of the myth as it stands; we must not import narrative elements and meanings from one mythological articulation to another, and assume that one part of a myth in a text necessarily evoked for the ancient reader (and thus allows us to take account of) all the other variants.’
7 Iliad 14.323Google Scholar and 19.98-119; Odyssey 2.120-21Google Scholar and 11.266-68. Cf. also Hesiod, Theogony 526, 943 and 950.Google Scholar
8 Homeric scholia offer three names for Sthenelos’ wife, but confirm Nikippe as the Hesiodic choice. See Hesiod, Fr. 191 MW.
9 Cf. Russo, C.F., Hesiodi Scutum (Florence 1950) note on line 5.Google Scholar
10 The same association of form and stature is made in Odysseus’ ‘flattery’ of Nausikaa atOdyssey 6.152Google Scholar when the hero wonders whether he is looking at a mortal woman or a goddess. Similar statements, likening a mortal woman to a goddess are, of course, also made about Helen, e.g. at Iliad 3.158.
11 West, S., in Heubeck, A., West, S. and Hainsworth, J.B., A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey 1 (Oxford 1988) note on line 120, comments that Antinoos ‘selects three great names from the past [the others being Tyro and Mykene], but there is no reason to regard any of these heroines as particularly clever’.Google Scholar
12 Alkmene’s qualities in this regard are perhaps implied in the first allusion to her in the Iliad, again through an unfavourable comparison. Zeus is telling his wife Hera that the sexual desire he feels for her at that moment is stronger than the desire he has ever felt for any other mortal or immortal female on any other occasion. Alkmene is then cited by way of example (14.323) as one of five mortal women whose charms have supposedly not been able to match those currently being displayed by Hera. The real importance of all five women, however, clearly stems from the sons whom they have borne to their divine lover.
13 So e.g. Lefkowitz, M.R., ‘Influential Women’, in Averil Cameron and Amélie Kuhn (edd.), Images of Women in Antiquity (London 1993 [1983]) 62Google Scholar n.11, states: ‘…Alcmena refuses to sleep with Amphitryon until he has avenged her brothers’ deaths (Hesiod, Scut., 15–17).’Google Scholar
14 Schol, . at Il. 14.323Google Scholar and Od. 11.266Google Scholar (where Pherekydes is named as the source); also pseudo-Apollod. 2.4.6.
15 Cf. Lefkowitz, M.R., Women in Greek Myth (London and Baltimore 1986)43.Google Scholar
16 Early Greek Myth (Baltimore and London 1993)374-76.Google Scholar
17 One passage in Athenaios (11.474 0 mentions Zeus’ gift of a cup in return for sexual favours, no reference being made to a disguise on his part. Two other passages (11.475 c and 11.781 c), however, link the gift cup with an Amphitryon disguise, as does the schol. at Od. 11.266.Google Scholar
18 Cf. Walcot, P., ‘The Divinity of the Mycenaean King’, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 2 (1967)53–62Google Scholar who comments (60): ‘The author of the Aspis passage, since he stressed the fidelity of Alcmene, must have interpreted the need for a disguise in the same way. The two motifs, Alcmene’s loyalty towards her husband and the necessity on the part of Zeus for a disguise, go closely together, and the mention of one, in my opinion, means a knowledge of the other.’
19 Cf. e.g. Galinsky, G.K., The Herakles Theme (Oxford 1972)18.Google Scholar
20 There is doubt about the genuineness of lines 42-5. They are square bracketed in the OCT, for example. If they are genuine, they provide an interesting contrast with the return home of Hektor in Il. 6. Arthur, Marylin B., “The Divided World of Iliad VI’, in Foley, Helene P. (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity (New York/London/Paris 1981)19–44Google Scholar, stresses how Hektor meets Andromakhe only at the end of his visit within the walls of Troy, after previous encounters with the Trojan women, his mother, Paris and Helen. Her discussion of the relationship between male and female spheres in the Iliad reaches the conclusion that the interpenetration of the two spheres, as suggested in Book 6, is revealed by Book 22 to be illusory. Their essential incompatability is in fact affirmed.
21 (n. 15) 36.
22 Cf. the mutual enjoyment of Penelope and Odysseus at Od. 23.300, ‘formulaic’ though this may have been.Google Scholar
23 See n.3 above.
24 Schwartz, J., Pseudo-Hesiodeia (Leiden 1960) 462-5Google Scholar, discusses the relationship between this account and the account in the preface, noting the aspects of the story omitted by Herakles, such as the death of Alkmene’s brothers. He suggests, without conviction, that the Shield was originally preceded by about only twenty lines from the Catalogue story of Alkmene. The lack of information about events prior to the birth of Herakles would then have caused some later poet to insert lines 15-46.
25 This is despite the implication that this cohabitation is included in the Offence’ (also involving the actual murder of Elektryon) which Amphitryon has just been said to have committed against the immortal gods (79-80).
26 Schwartz (n.24) 463 suggests that these lines may well point to part of the content of the continuation of the story of Alkmene in the original Catalogue.
27 A final mention of Alkmene occurs towards the end of the Shield when Herakles and Iolaos strip Kyknos’ armour. In this context, Herakles is designated by the descriptive phrase ‘the son of Alkmene’ (467). It is, of course, a fact that Herakles is often alluded to in this way, examples already existing in the Theogony. The practice to some extent casts reflected glory on Alkmene. But it is also necessary if a poet wishes to place emphasis on Herakles’ humanity. It is not technically correct to designate this hero by reference to a human male parent, as is normally done for most heroes (Herakles is, of course, sometimes called ‘son of Amphitryon’ in ancient literature, e.g. at Bakkhylides 5.156 and Theokritos 13.5 and 55).
28 Like Andromakhe, Alkmene has lost her father and brothers, and has become completely dependent on her husband Amphitryon.
29 Murnaghan, Sheila, ‘Penelope’s Agnoia: Knowledge, Power, and Gender in the Odyssey’, in Skinner, Marilyn (ed.), Rescuing Creusa: New Methodological Approaches to Women in Antiquity (Lubbock, Texas 1987) 103-15Google Scholar, specifically 113 n.2.
30 For a discussion of this aspect of Penelope, see Marquardt, Patricia, ‘Penelope 
, AJPh 106 (1985)32–48.Google Scholar
31 (n.29); also her book Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey (Princeton 1987)Google Scholar, which pays special attention to Penelope in relationship to Odysseus’ disguise. Cf. too Gregory, Elizabeth, ‘Unravelling Penelope: the Construction of the Faithful Wife in Homer’s Heroines’, Helios 23 (1996) 3–20Google Scholar, specifically 17 n.27. Gregory’s reading emphasises Penelope’s role as ultimately the affirmation of patriarchy.
32 Felson-Rubin, Nancy, Regarding Penelope (Princeton 1994) 152 n.13.Google Scholar
33 This reaction on Odysseus’ part testifies, of course, to the convincing nature of Penelope’s bluff, which in turn serves to highlight the equality within their relationship in terms of mental sharpness.
34 Katz, Marylin A., Penelope’s Renown (Princeton 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar In connection with Books 1721, especially Books 18 and 19, Katz notes (192) that Penelope ‘appears to be pursuing simultaneously two contradictory courses of action—both remaining by the side of Telemachus and making herself available for remarriage.’ She goes on to say (193): ‘This disruption of the fixity of Penelope’s character, then, functions, like Odysseus’ disguise, as a strategy of estrangement—we do not know, in a certain sense, “who” Penelope is. Her “character” is thus rendered so as to represent an analogue to her state of sociological indeterminacy, which is defined by her lack of a kyrios or authorizing agent.’