Penelope: A Study in the Manipulation of Myth Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Trinity Term 1997 Katie E. Gilchrist Worcester College October 1997 Penelope; A Study in the Manipulation of Myth Katie E. Gilchrist Worcester College Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Trinity Term 1997 Mythological figures play a number of roles in literature: they may, of course, appear in person as developed characters, but they may also contribute more indirectly, as part of the substratum from which rhetorical argument or literary characterisation are constructed, or as a background against which other literary strategies (for example, the rewriting of epic or the appropriation of Greek culture by the Romans) can be marked out. This thesis sets out to examine the way in which the figure of Penelope emerges from unknown origins, acquires portrayal in almost canonical form in Homer's Odyssey, and then takes part in the subsequent interplay of Homeric and other literary allusions throughout later Classical literature (with chapters focusing particularly on fifth-century Greek tragedy, Hellenistic poetry, and Augustan poetry). In particular, it focuses on the manner in which, despite the potential complexities of the character and the possible variants in her story, she became quintessentially a stereotypical figure. In addition to considering examples where Penelope is evoked by name, a case is also made for the thesis that allusion, or intertextual reference, could also evoke Penelope for an ancient audience. A central point of discussion is what perception of Penelope would be called to mind by intertextual reference. The importance of approaching relationships between ancient texts in intertextual terms rather terms of strict "allusion" is thus demonstrated. The formation of the simplified picture is considered in the light of folk-tale motifs, rhetorical simplification of myth, and favoured story patterns. The appendices include a summary of the myth of Penelope with all attested variants, and a comprehensive list of explicit references to her in classical literature. 'What seith Omer of goode Penalopee? All Grece knoweth of hire chastitee." Chaucer, The Franklin's Tale, 1443-4 Contents Section I: Introduction Ch. 1: Prolegomena p. 1 Ch. 2: The Nature and Use of Mythology p. 15 Section II: Penelope Examined Ch. 3: Penelope's Origins p.39 Ch. 4: Penelope as Exemplum p.66 Ch. 5: Penelope in Classical Art p.75 Conclusion to Section II p. 100 Section III: Literary Treatments of Penelope Ch. 6: Penelope in Homer p. 104 Ch. 7: Penelope in Greek Tragedy p. 175 Ch. 8: Penelope in Hellenistic Poetry p.227 Ch. 9: Penelope in Augustan Poetry p.246 Conclusion p.301 Appendices 1: The Myth of Penelope p.308 2: References to Penelope in Classical Literature p.314 Bibliographies Ch. 1 p.334 Ch. 2 p.338 Chs. 3-5 p.343 Ch. 6 p.348 Ch. 7 p.352 Ch. 8 p.357 Ch. 9 p.361 Acknowledgements My first and greatest debt which must be acknowledged is to Richard Rutherford, who has acted as my supervisor in an exemplary fashion and provided very sane advice over the last five years. Thanks are also due to others who have helped and advised me during those five years, including Michael Winterbottom and Don Fowler. Then there are those who read the various chapters at a later stage: Stephen Hey worth, Professor Griffin, Arnd Kerkhecker and Bert Smith; Susan Beardmore, Peter Parsons, Lillian Doherty and particularly Don Fowler, who read several chapters, are due many thanks for their help and encouragement over the final year. The CLASSICS list provided answers to various minor queries as well as providing much stimulation through the discussions; for a happy academic year 1996-7 and stimulating discussions over lunch I have the members of the Senior Common Rooms of Lady Margaret Hall and Wadham College to thank. Another large debt is to my fellow graduates, who have provided much support, both moral and academic, and who have greatly broadened my horizons, as well as allowing me to try out my ideas on them. Special thanks are due to Jonathan Jones and Lynn Fotheringham (who has been forced to field questions in many unrelated fields). Finally, I owe many people thanks for their moral support throughout the period of my research: my family, Worcester graduates and undergraduates, in particular Mark Philpott and my various house-mates, and my tireless proof-reader and precis-editor, Jeremy Marshall. Section I; Introduction Chapter 1: Prolegomena: Strategies of Reading All reading is informed by the assumptions and implicit theories of the reader, and the general realisation that one cannot "just read the text" has been of beneficial effect in obliging all would-be critical readers to examine their own prejudices and reading strategies1. Ancient texts therefore need to be approached in a manner which is informed by an appreciation of what the reader brings to the text : prejudices can be replaced by (or transformed into) acknowledged beliefs for which justification and supporting argumentation can be produced. The plethora of tools now available for informing the reading of ancient texts requires that a work of scholarship start, almost like a school science report, by setting out a statement of method and equipment used, for the results will depend on these. As even science is coming to realise, however, acknowledgement of equipment, method, and assumptions will not change personal observation into pure objective fact . However, although it is salutary to expose the impossibility of recreating "the original" reading of a text, the ideal of constructing a picture of the ways in which a text was presented and received in its original context cannot be totally discarded, if the study is to remain one of "Classics" or "the Ancient World" rather than that of "modern reception of Classical texts". My own approach cannot but be that of a woman in the late twentieth- century, but my aim is still to investigate antiquity rather than solely twentieth-century readings of antiquity4. This study of Penelope aims to create a picture of how this 1 By "readers" I mean both actual readers and other forms of audience; similarly "reading" covers all acts of interpretation. 2 Graff 1987 p.252, Harris 1996 pp. 132-36. 3 Cf. Harris 1996 ch.4 on the problems of trying to discuss literature in scientific terms; and much science acknowledges the unavoidable presence of the observer. 4 Cf.Jauss 1982ch.l. mythological figure was seen at various points during antiquity; it may thus provide a background far a broader consideration of perceptions and conceptions of mythology throughout the period. Penelope is still viewed even today as the "type" of the good wife. Rather than being uncritically accepted, this conception will be further examined in the light of the ancient texts to assess the degree to which it can be satisfactorily established as reflecting an aspect of ancient views. Such a figure would seem a good subject for the methods of earlier feminist literary criticism - methods which uncover false assumptions and stereotypes embedded in male representations of women, and highlight the ways in which women historically have fitted themselves to those stereotypes and aimed to read and write as men6. As I hope to show, the assumptions which early feminist criticism addressed are both powerfully illustrated and revealed by a study of Penelope, a figure who reaches us from antiquity shaped by male authors and sensibilities. Yet although, as we shall see, this approach may best encompass the many passing references to Penelope as paradigm (a concept whose place in ancient societies will be considered below - ch.4), where Penelope is given more than a passing reference and becomes a more fully presented figure, then more recent feminist strategies of reading - reading between the lines, in the gaps - may prove more useful tools. Although these Penelopes may still be male creations, critics such as Cixous, Jardine, and Cavarero7 have shown us how something of the female may still slip through, how we can see more in the text than simply the male view of the female figure. 5 Feminist criticism may use any other form of criticism, but is always aware of the construction of gender. For an overview of possible feminist approaches, cf. Moi 1985, Humm 1994 and 1995; Doherty 1996 shows how varied these can be by considering different feminist approaches to the Odyssey. 6 Cixous 1976 p.878, Fetterley 1978 pp.i-xxiv, especially sect. II, Cixous 1981 p.52, Culler 1983 pp.43-64. 7 Cixous 1976 pp.886-8, Jardine 1985, Cavarero 1995 pp. 1-4; cf. also Gold 1993, which cites further Classical- related bibliography. Part of what can be reclaimed from even male-centred texts is the constructions which the author and audience placed on the world around them; analysis of the text can therefore show how "woman" was constructed, and some of the complications and contradictions in o that construction . These may reveal places in which marginalised voices can come through the text, and uneasiness about the constructions in society may be discerned. The uneasiness which may be found in a text may well reflect uneasiness with the conflict between the ideal and reality9. Modern criticism has also dissuaded the critical reader from seeking a definitive meaning in a text; we are reminded that each member of the audience/readership will react differently, as will different audiences in varying times and places. The case of Penelope will bring this home, as we see different interpretations of the Homeric Penelope at various points in antiquity10. This fluidity of interpretation can be linked to the fluid and elusive nature of woman as seen by Cixous and Irigary11, which contrasts with attempts to pigeon-hole mythological figures as paradigms : this is particularly true of Penelope, who appears as a paradigm of only one virtue, unlike Odysseus, who may be seen not only as an exemplary Stoic hero of endurance, but also the prototype of the sophist who wins by words and trickery. Paradoxically, for this couple at least, it is the man whose nature is less definable, the woman closely defined by her role in the male-centred story-line. This perhaps shows the reflection in literature of the patriarchal attempt to define and so confine the female; whether these were the terms in which ancient women saw themselves must remain unknown. One can, of course, give more "open" readings of Penelope in the Odyssey, and more "closed" ones of Cf. Barthes 1957 p. 11 on myth as hiding, "in the decorative display of \vhat-goes-\vithout-saying, ... ideological abuse". 9 Cf. Barthes 1957 (p. 156), "mythology harmonizes the world, not as it is, but as it wants to create itself, Culham 1986 p. 15, Gutzwiller and Michelini 1991 p.71 on Antigone as "the working-out of a cultural puzzle". 10 Cf.Jaussl982pp.32-9. 11 Cixous 1986 pp.63-6 on the contruction of binary oppositions, (for example) pp.74, 83-100 (especially 87), 137, on "woman" as complex, Irigary 1980, Cixous 1976 pp.875-8, 883, 889, Kristeva 1974. 12 Cf. Zeitlin 1996 p.ll, who links the rhetorical use of paradigms particularly to the fixing of gender identity and expectations. Odysseus' ; however, a simplified reading will tend to be a closed reading, a fact which seems relevant for the study of mythological figures that function as paradigms. The job of a scholar of antiquity is to explore what may be found in a text, not to prescribe its meaning. Yet this does not mean that it is pointless to attempt to construct an image of at least some of the meanings which an ancient audience at a particular point in time might have seen in a text - it means merely that the results of such a search will be somewhat tentative and recognised as neither definitive nor the whole picture. As our reconstructions of such meanings must rely on ancient evidence, they must be partial, particularly as far as women's readings of the texts are concerned; we have no real evidence for how women in antiquity saw Penelope - as a heroine to be emulated, or as a negative example (showing how not to act), or as both. Showaiter's complaint may be fair, that "feminist critique", although a form of feminist criticism, is male-oriented14, but it must remind us that this is almost all we have for antiquity; "gynocritics" - studies focusing on female authorship - are not a practical method for approaching the majority of ancient texts. Our constructions of ancient views and uses of Penelope will not reveal what any ancient citizen, male or female, actually thought, but they can produce a picture of how they could have used the mythological figure of Penelope to construct their conceptions of themselves - both what they were, or should be, and what they were not, or ought not to be. Examination of Penelope as the stereotype of the good wife will not tell us how many women lived up to this ideal , nor even whether they were really expected or desired to, but rather give us an image of what that ideal consisted in, the ideal which was put forward by the society as an approved standard for emulation . 13 A "closed" reading is one which stresses the aspects in which a text tries to define its own meaning and shut off other possible interpretations; an "open" reading is one which stresses the ways in which the text resists having a definite meaning attached to it. For further discussion see Doherty 1996 pp.9-11, Hawthorn 1994 pp.203-4, Eco 1979pp.3-65. 14 Showalter 1979p.27. 15 On the dangers of confusing image and reality, see Culham 1986, whose main interest is in the "reality". 16 While, as Zajko 1995 points out, such stories can be told transgressively, such transgressive versions are told against an accepted social stereotype. Study of literature both illuminates and is illuminated by consciousness of such stereotypes: an examination of what the text suggests could be taken for granted in terms of, for example, knowledge of myths or societal conventions, may reveal the writer's expectations of the audience's assumptions (as well as, possibly, something of the writer's own assumptions). Such assumptions would include notions which were common currency throughout society and ideals with which all would be familiar (even if not all of the audience identified with them). Thus examination of the assumptions which a text can make should lead to greater understanding of the stereotypes and assumptions which were held as common in the society. The existence of stereotypes need not affect how individuals in a society are seen by other individuals , but does reflect some larger preoccupations of the society: to say "[myth] offers a model of behaviour" 1 O is almost certainly as true of ancient societies as of modern. Studies of modern stereotypes and mythical models of behaviour show how the models of behaviour proposed by the "myths" can be internalised and shape the descriptions people will give of their lives - whether they are telling a story of the past to explain the present, or describing the past in a way which shows how their actions were fitting for their ... -19 position in society . Such a method of extracting information from texts is influenced by some of the same conceptions of language use as have shaped the critical method known as narratology . Narratology analyses narratives with a formal, structural focus, separating the action of a tale 17 Cf. Oakes, Haslam and Turner 1994 p. 193 "stereotypes represent group-level realities ... not the personal characteristics of individual members [of the stereotyped group]", and Moore 1988 pp.30-38, stressing the difference between the reality and the ideas held collectively by a society. 18 Cabezali, Cuevas and Chicote 1990 p. 162. 19 For the first, cf. Samuel and Thompson 1990 pp.5-15, especially p.8, discussing the reshaping that goes on in oral history, and Burke 1992 pp.101-3; for the second, Cabezali, Cuevas and Chicote 1990 pp.168-72, who discuss the way in which women from Madrid describe their actions during the Civil War, highlighting tasks such as washing and cooking, downplaying or omitting the fighting they were involved in, the struggles to get the food for cooking. 20 Bibliography is provided by de Jong and Sullivan 1994 pp.282-3; the main names are Bal (especially Bal 1977) and Genette, but Prince 1987 and Chatman 1978 are useful, and Chambers 1984 has a clear summary in the introduction and start of ch. 2.