Download The Complex Relationship between Zeus and Hera: Beyond Wife-Beating Allegations and more Study notes Pathology in PDF only on Docsity!
Zeus the Wife-Beater
David Μ. Schaps
I. A threatened incident of domestic violence.
That the behavior of the Olympian gods was often ignoble was obvious to Aristophanes,
who exploited the fact;*1 that it was often immoral was obvious to Plato, who deplored
the fact.2 That Zeus in the first book of the Iliad should threaten to strike his wife Hera is
remarkable neither from a theological nor a psychological point of view, and it has rarely
aroused more comment than a listing of places where he cuts off argument with threats
of violence.
Modem psychology and sociology, however, do not see wife-beating4 as being iden
tical with other forms of violence. Wife-beating has a pathology of its own, not identical
with the pathology of violence between men. Husbands who beat their wives may avoid
any hint of physical violence with their peers, and conversely, men who have no qualms
about fighting each other may consider it illegitimate and even unmanly to raise their
hands against a woman.5 On the communal level as well, societies may take a different
attitude towards wife-beating than to other forms of violence.
The Greeks did not write much about wife-beating. Medea’s famous monologue
does not include physical abuse among the tribulations of women; Strepsiades complains
about his wife putting on airs7, but it doesn’t seem to have occurred to him to take a stick
to her.8 I once wondered in print whether the Athenians considered wife-beating un
An earlier version o f this paper was delivered before the colloquium o f the Department o f Classical Studies at Bar-IIan University and again at the annual meeting o f the Israel Society for the Promotion o f Classical Studies at Haifa University in May, 2005. Suggestions from
SCT s anonymous readers have been incorporated (or my reasons for disagreeing explained)
at πη. 10, 11, 14, 17, 37, 39, 41, 53, 66, 77, 87, 89, and 95.
1 As at Birds 1493-1693, Frogs in the description o f Heracles’ behavior at 549-78 and in the
behavior o f Dionysus throughout, and Plutus 1102-90. Modem comedians, too, among them
Albert Brooks in his 1999 film The Muse, have occasionally exploited the opportunities of
fered by the dysfunctional family o f the father o f gods and men.
2 Republic 386-391.
3 As in II. 8.10-17, 397-424 (by means o f a messenger), 15.14-33.
4 It is common today to refer to this phenomenon with the less emotive ‘domestic violence’, a oiore inclusive expression that can also refer to husband-beating and to various forms o f verbal and physical abuse that would not involve actual blows. I retain the older expression, since that is undoubtedly what Zeus is threatening in the passage under discussion. 5 This is not to suggest that there is no relationship between violence towards women and violence towards outsiders; at least two studies have found such a correlation (Hotaling and Sugarman 111).
6 Eur. Med. 230-251.
7 Ar. Clouds 46-72.
8 Plautus’ Menaechmi offers another example o f this reticence: Menaechmus o f Epidamnus
flees his wife at the beginning o f the play and offers her for sale at the end, but he does not
2 ZEUS THE WIFE-BEATER
thinkable or unremarkable.9 The first is not a real possibility, since there are comic
fragments that admit that men beat their wives;10 but there still might be room to wonder
whether the phenomenon extended to the entire pathology of wife-beating as observed
by modem researchers.
I wish to demonstrate that in Iliad 1.533-611 and the subsequent scenes, the gods be
have not as people involved in an ordinary fight, but as family members involved in a
threatened episode of wife-beating. This is not to say that Homer’s purpose in the scene
is to hold Zeus up to ridicule as an abusive husband; the scene is a complex one with
dramatic echoes throughout the Iliad.11 But the gods throughout the epics behave in ways
that are entirely human,12 and Homer’s description of them is always based on his
knowledge of human behavior. Once we consider the scene in these terms, I think the
conclusion inescapable that the human observation on which this scene is built is the
observation of wife-beating, and that the scene, and its acceptance almost without com
ment by later generations, suggests that the situation depicted was at least plausible, and
probably familiar, to its audience. The behavior of the principals and the reaction of the
bystanders (including the narrator) in many respects echo modem observations, and in
some respects stand in opposition to them. In both cases they may be instructive.
raise a finger against her. Menaechmus o f Syracuse, in his mad scene, threatens her with
gory violence, as he later threatens her father and the doctor (Plaut. Men. 831-956), but this
is insanity, and that is how she takes it: her exit-line is sumne ego mulier misera quae illaec
audio?, surely implying that normally a wife would not hear such threats. But the doubts re
cently raised as to whether the Menaechmi had a Greek original at all (Stärk; contra
Gratwick 23-4 n. 27) require me to restrict this example to a footnote. 9 Schaps 169, with n. 38 there. 10 That, at any rate, is how Segal 32, understands the expression πάσι κακοῖσι ῆμάς φλῶσιν (he translates, ‘beat us regularly for all the trouble we cause’), Ar. fr. 9 Κ-Α, an interpreta
tion supported (as Κ-Α note ad loc.) by Ar. Clouds 1333-6, where άράττω πολλοῖς κακοῖς
καἰσχρὸῖσι refers to verbal abuse, but ἔφλα με denotes physical violence. Cf. Plato fr. 105 Κ-Α. See also the comments o f Olson 167-8. 11 To mention a few: it serves as an introduction to the dissension among the gods between those who favor the Greeks and those who favor the Trojans (Schadewaldt 147); it provides a contrast between the power of Zeus, exercised with moderation, matched by superiority o f physical power, and acknowledged by all, and that o f Agamemnon, exercised with arro gance, based on superiority o f political but not physical power, and subject to challenge by Achilles (see Lowenstam 69-70); it shows for the first time, but not the last, the contrast be tween the gods, whose days are spent in feasting, whose cares are fleeting, and whose day ends with pleasant sleep, and men, whose days are spent in fighting, whose cares are exis tential, and whose day ends with death (Schadewaldt 148). I am less inclined to see this
scene as ‘a parody o f the earthly quarrel’ (Beye, The Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Epic Tradi
tion 124). Closest to my own analysis is that o f Olson 161-4, who sees as archetypical the
tension between the father who tries to control the family by violence and the mother who uses her own wiles and the father’s desire to subvert his authority. 12 On the seamless way in which the Olympians combine human and divine traits see Griffin 198-9.
4 ZEUS THE WIFE-BEATER
frowned upon and to the wife because she tends to see the incident as a fail
ure on her part.1 5
- Fights are almost always carried out in public — there is no honor without
witnesses, and spectators help prevent the violence from going too far.
Wife-beating generally takes place behind closed doors, and may be hidden
for long periods from neighbors, friends and family.
Most of these differences arise from one basic difference, that wife-beating is almost
always an unequal contest and hence no contest at all. An observer may not be aware of
all these differences, and there is room for disagreement about their number and de
tails.17 But since the details of wife-beating are so different from the usual rules of
fighting, a convincing portrayal of the circumstances, tactics, and emotional reactions
involved probably has some basis in behavior observable in the society.
III. The background.
Where a fight begins usually depends on who is telling the story. From Hera’s point of
view, the problem began before they ever spoke, when Zeus accepted the entreaties of
Thetis; from Zeus’ point of view, this interview was merely background. Its very terms
offer a striking example of Homer’s interweaving of the divine with the everyday: Thetis
had promised Achilles to ask for this favor, but she had had to wait until the twelfth day
because the gods had gone to visit the Ethiopians. In terms of the plot, there is no justifi
cation for the twelve-day wait, during which nothing happened on Olympus or at Troy;
nor is any explanation offered as to why Thetis, who had no difficulty in moving from
the sea to Olympus, did not have the ability (or perhaps permission) to travel to the
Ethiopians herself and speak to Zeus there. But the waiting period presents very effec
tively Zeus’ status as king and Thetis’ as petitioner, who must cool her heels until the
boss gets back from vacation. Upon his return she went to seek him, touching his knees
and chin in the traditional position of a suppliant (1.500-2). Her words were conciliatory
but pointed (1.503-10),18 and she was confident of her ability to persuade him (1.427).1 9
15 On the mutual shame, which might at first glance seem counter-intuitive, see, inter alia,
Jackson and Oates 126; on the woman’s side see Walker, The Battered Woman 32-3. Later,
however, in The Battered Woman Syndrome 80-2, 193, Walker found that battered women
saw themselves more positively than they saw other women; she considered this result sur prising and recommended further research. The observation must be treated with great caution, since she did not measure her volunteers against a control group o f non-battered women. 16 On the usefulness o f public attention as a way o f restraining domestic violence see Burbank
17 The literature describing the behavior o f the principals in wife-beating is overwhelmingly western, and particularly American. I could have wished for more description o f the phe nomenology o f wife-beating in primitive or Mediterranean societies, but the literature from those places tends to focus more on aspects such as frequency, legality, and preventative measures, matters that do not figure in Homer’s description. 18 She asked for a favor ‘if I have ever done anything for you by word or deed among the im mortals’, (1.503-4). In fact she had saved his kingship, and Homer has seen to it (1.396-406) that we know this detail.
DAVID Μ. SCHAPS 5
Zeus, however, did not answer, and Thetis had to press him, with a properly submissive
reminder that she would take a negative answer as an insult (1.514-16). Now Zeus admit
ted what was troubling him:
ἣ δῆ λοιγια ἔρ γ’, δ τε μ ’ ἐχθοδοπῆσαι ἐφῆσεις Ἡρηι, ὅ τ’ ἄν μ’ ἐρἐθησιν ὸνειδεἰοις ἐπἐεσσιν. ῆ δὲ καἱ αϋτως μ ’ αἰεἱ ὲν άθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν νεικεῖ, και τε με φησι μάχηι Τρωεσσιν ᾶρῆγειν. ᾶλλά σὺ μὲν νυν αὐτις ᾶπὸστιχε, μῆ tl νοῆσηι "Ηρη· ὲμοἱ δὲ κε ταϋτα μελῆσεταῳ ὄφρα τελἐσσω.
This is a bad business, for you are urging me to stir up Hera’s hate, when she provokes me1 9 20 with abusive words. Even as things are, forever among the immortal gods She fights with me and says that I help the Trojans in battle. But you go back again now, so that Hera won’t Notice something. I will take care o f getting this done.
At this point Zeus nodded his head ‘so that you will believe me (δφρα πεποἰθηις)’,
shaking great Olympus,22 and Thetis returned to the sea.
This prologue has already indicated some things about Zeus. He is not seeking a fight
with Hera; on the contrary, he would prefer to avoid it. He is, moreover, susceptible to
management by women. Thetis suspected in advance that she would be able to persuade
him, and persuade him she does, against his own better judgment. He knows that there
will be a scene with Hera, but he is unable to prevent it.
All of this can be interpreted to Zeus’ credit: he is receptive to Thetis’ supplication as
Agamemnon was not to Chryses’,23 and he is dismayed at the prospect of fighting with
his wife where Agamemnon was willing to introduce a rival to the house with explicit
disdain for Clytemnestra’s feelings. But Zeus’ relative sensitivity does not necessarily
contradict the violence that he will threaten later on, for wife-beaters come in various
types. There are those who use violence as a substitute for true closeness (which they
fear); these are the men who come home, often drank, looking for a fight and do not
cease their belligerent behavior until they have succeeded in eliciting from their wife a
word or an action that will justify (to their minds) the drubbing they want to give her.
Zeus is not this sort of husband, nor is there any suggestion that drinking nectar makes
19 The term Homer uses in 1.502 is λισσομὲνη, a request that is made by somebody who has some valid claim. See Aubriot-Sévin 439-94, in particular 444 n. 127, and Pulleyn’s note on 1.502. 20 As she certainly will: the subjunctive with άν that Zeus uses is a future construction. See Latacz ad loc., citing Chantraine II §380. 21 1.518-23. The Greek text is that o f West; the translations are my own. 22 We are certainly not supposed to ask why he chooses such a loud way o f making a promise he is trying to keep secret. 23 1.24-32. Zeus considers it his problem if Hera provokes him (ὅτ’ άν μ ’ ἐρἐθησιν 1.519); for Agamemnon, if Chryses provokes him, that is Chryses’ problem (ἄλλ’ ἴθι, μῆ μ ’ ἐρἐθιζε, σαωτερος ῶς κε νἐηαι 1.32).
DAVID Μ. SCHAPS 7
Not only Hera’s language but the nature of her demand is a typical trigger for vio
lence. Margareta Hydén, in a study claiming that violence is a matter of patterns of
marital interaction, paid a good deal of attention to the question of how fights get
started.3 1
According to my informants, the first step in the verbal aggressive episode was an utter ance about a commonplace issue, constructed as an opposition in regard to the issue in question.... The special type o f opposed utterance that is the precursor to my informants’ argu ments is best described as consisting both o f a difference in understanding the ‘antecedent event’, and an intention to influence the other’s behavior or attitude to the issue in ques tion. An example o f this is the following: ‘He drinks too much. Most o f our fights start with me getting impatient with his drink ing. His daily rhythm is disrupted when he drinks. He can stay up and party all night, sleep all day, and then party again all night. That makes it impossible for me to relax. And he blows a lot o f money this way. Our fights are often about money. His defense is often “This has nothing to do with you. This is my life”. That type o f answer saddens me every time’. (Ruth Η., individual interview)
According to Hydén, the request to change, which in a different model of discourse
might lead into a discussion of the proposed change, is instead construed as an act of
personal opposition. This is followed by a refusal,33 and that is what Hera gets. Zeus is
still diplomatic, assuring her that she will be the first to know whatever he is willing to
have known, but he warns her not to try to know all of his plans; they would be hard for
her, even though she is his wife (μῇ δὴ π ά ν τ α ς ἐ μ ο ὺ ς έ π ιέ λ π ε ο μ υθους / ε ἰ δ ή σ ε ι ν
χ α λ επ ο ὶ τ ο ι ἔ σ ο ν τ ’ άλόχω ι π ερ ἐοὐσ η ι, 1.545-6).
Hydén notes that the continuation of the discussion tends to move on to the personal
level: ‘What was found ... was the frequent use of a turn, not meant as an opposition to
prior utterances, but more as an opposition to the general competence and personal
characteristics or status of the person making the utterance in question’.34 Zeus, indeed,
already in his refusal makes a point of putting Hera in her place. He is trying to assert his
superiority, as part of his superiority over the gods in general, and he understands that
Hera thinks that she, as his wife, is exempt from this.
ὃν δέ κ’ έγῶν άπάνευθε θεῶν έθέλωμι νοῆσαι, μῆ τι σὺ ταῦτα ἕκαστα διεΐρεο μηδὲ μετάλλα. But what I choose to have in mind apart from the gods,
Don’t you ask me or interrogate me at all about each o f these things.
31 I have particularly relied on Hydén’s study in this article because, since she based her method o f investigation on the interviewees’ construction o f a narrative account, her study offers a good deal o f information about the way in which a discourse o f violence develops, and thus a good parallel for the narratives o f the Iliad. 32 Hydén 68. 33 Ibid. 77-80. 34 Ibid. 80. 35 1.549-50.
8 ZEUS THE WIFE-BEATER
‘Even though you are my wife’; ‘interrogate me ... about each o f these things’: Zeus is
being diplomatic, but he makes it clear that she is overstepping the limits. He wants to
have his relationship with Hera structured like his relationship with the other gods.
Hera recognizes the ominous words, and reacts not as a fighter, but as a wife: she
beats a retreat.
αἰνὸτατε Κρονἰδη, ποῖον τὸν μῦθον ἔειπες; καῖ λιην σε πάρος γ ’ οϋτ’ εὶρομαι οὺτε μεταλλῶ, ᾶλλά μάλ’ εὔκηλος τᾶ φρᾶζεαι ἄσσ’ ἐθἐληισθα.
Most terrible son of Cronus, what kind of word have you said?
Even in the past, I have surely never asked you or interrogated you,
But you plan whatever you want perfectly easily.
So far, perhaps, so good: if Zeus were looking for trouble he could take offense at the
statement that she never did what she has just done,37 but as we have seen, he does not
want an argument. Hera, however, does not yet give up her request: she ‘is terribly afraid
in her heart’ (αἰνῶς δείδοικα κατά φρἐνα, 1.555) that Thetis has been talking to Zeus,
and she thinks that Zeus nodded assent to her.
On the straightforward level, she is behaving entirely correctly: she no longer asks
him for the information he warned her not to (‘Who has been speaking to you?’), nor
does she make any direct request of him at all. Unlike the people in Hydén’s combative
model, she does not repeat her unpleasant characterizations o f his behavior. On the psy
chological level, however, she is terribly mistaken in her choice of strategy.38 Her entire
approach is the feminine tactic of trying to influence him by asserting her powerless
ness,39 the kind of approach that already made him uncomfortable when Thetis used it.
For Thetis it worked, but giving in once to Thetis is not the same as giving in to Hera in
a situation that repeats itself regularly between husband and wife. Yet worse, by men
tioning Thetis, Zeus’ assent, and what she ‘thinks’ (όίω) he has agreed to, she admits that
she has been less than straightforward with him, and knew perfectly well the information
she claimed to be trying to get from him: that is, she has been trying to manipulate him in
ways that the other gods could not use — exactly what he has just warned her against.
His answer begins with sarcasm and ends with a threat:
37 He might also take ποῖον, as one reader o f this article did, as an implied criticism ( ‘What nonsense!’), but it can equally well be taken as a deflecting pout (O h , how can a mighty god like you say such a thing?’). 38 Α common problem o f battered wives: ‘Women and children spent considerable time and energy in trying to second-guess what the man’s mood would be like so they could try to make things better ... Frequently, mothers and young people referred to being able to “cut the atmosphere with a knife”, constantly scared o f doing something “wrong” which could be used as an excuse to trigger an assault’, McGee 100. 39 Hera might have taken another tack. Embarrassed by Thetis, Zeus had made a promise to her o f the sort that a king would not normally make without discussing it with his advisors. Hera, however, keeps the matter entirely between the two o f them, and avoids claiming any rights at all, for herself or for any other god, against Zeus’ free will.
ΙΟ ZEUS THE WIFE-BEATER
and as such, it indicates that the gods recognize that they should try to defend Hera, al
though they cannot. Zeus himself will imply the same in Book 15, when he describes
how he hung her in the upper air and the clouds with anvils on her feet, ‘and the gods
scurried around great Olympus, but they were not able to free you standing by’ (15.21-
2). Among the Olympians, too, it would seem, the presence of outsiders should be a pro
tection against wife-beating. When Zeus is the offender, none of the gods can offer
physical protection, and they find the fact frustrating. For all that, it is not impossible
that their presence is a psychological protection, either because he would rather not incur
their disapproval even though unexpressed, or because they themselves can provide, by
their acquiescence, the confirmation of his superiority that he would otherwise have to
exact from Hera herself.
V. Hephaestus’ intervention.
Homer disposes o f the gods’ distress in a single line; it is Hephaestus, the son of Zeus
and Hera, who steals the scene with his intervention. The sons and daughters of Zeus and
Hera are all gods, and none of them are children or adolescents; but Hephaestus the
cripple, who ‘is repeatedly a victim’,46 is not an inappropriate choice to embody a child’s
reaction to the threat of violence.
The reaction is appropriate to a family situation. Children rarely intervene in a fight
between men, even if their father is involved; they know that they can only cause harm to
themselves. In the case o f wife-beating, however, the occasional intervention of children
to try to restrain the husband, even where they are obviously unable to overpower him, is
a well-documented strategy, though not the only one.
Hephaestus does not try to intervene physically: he tried that before with disastrous
results (1.590-4).48 Instead he tries a public and a private strategy: publicly by minimiz
ing the importance of the issue and appeasing his father, and privately by urging his
cannot do; and a psychological response o f frustration, distress and anger, all confused to gether, seems not inappropriate to his situation. This, I suggest, is ὸχθεῖν’, Adkins 15. So also Scully 14, and similarly Considine 24-5: ‘In the great majority o f passages, it expresses the frustrated reaction o f one who finds himself in a disagreeable dilemma or in disagreeable circumstances which he is impotent to alter, and about which he is therefore likely to be an gry. In nearly every case the subject feels puzzled or thwarted’. The same verb recurs at 15.101 when Hera appears among the gods, obviously frightened; but here there is another reason for their discomfort, since she has unpleasant things to tell them about Zeus’ plans. 46 Scodel 39. She is referring to his being thrown from heaven by Zeus (1.586-94) and by Hera (18.394-407), and attributes the stories to ‘a general familiarity with the gods’ personalities, which renders them credible’ (ibid. 40). Her observation is in no way contradicted by the
scene in Od. 8.266-366 where Hephaestus traps Ares and Aphrodite in bed: he wins that
round, but he is still the crippled cuckold husband o f a wife too beautiful for him. 47 For examples, and for other coping strategies, see McGee 100-110. 48 This, too, is a common phenomenon today: ‘Many adolescents are injured when they at tempt to protect their mother from their father’s violence’. (Williams, Boggess, and Carter, 170-1, quoting as their source Williams, ‘Developing an African American perspective’, which was not available to me.) ‘Another major problem faced by these children is the risk of physical injury to themselves, whether intentional or accidental, especially if they attempt to intervene on behalf o f the victimized parent’ (Carlson 154).
DAVID Μ. SCHAPS 11
mother to submit. First he addresses Hera in public, ‘offering his mother friendship’
(μητρὶ φἰληι ἐπὶ ἦρα φέρων, 1.572). His claims are three: it is ‘a bad business’ (ἦ δῇ
λοίγια ἔργα, 1.573, the same expression Zeus had used at 1.518 of Thetis’ getting him
into a quarrel with Hera) for the two of them to fight over mortals and spoil the pleasure
of the feast; he advises his mother to ‘offer friendship’50 to Zeus (πατρὶ φίλωι ἐπὶ ἦρα
φἐρειν, 1.578), because otherwise Zeus might blow them all out of their seats (1.580-1),
because he is much more powerful (δ γάρ πολὺ φἐρτερός ἐστιν, 1.581); and he assures
her that if she gives in, Zeus will calm down:
άλλᾶ σὺ τὸν γ ’ ἐπἐεσσι καθᾶπτεσθαι μαλακοῖσιν αὺτἰκ’ ἔπειθ’ ῖλαος Ὀλὺμπιος ἔσσεται ῆμιν.
But you, address him with gentle words; Then the Olympian will right away be gracious to us.5'
In the first part of his speech, Hephaestus succeeds in doing what Hera failed to do: he
sees the situation as Zeus saw it, a bad business, and so can deflect the blame from Hera
herself to the mortals over whom they are fighting. In the second part he gives Zeus what
he wants, admission of his supreme power; and in the third he paints a flattering picture
of a gracious Zeus, a picture that is well designed to encourage his father to adopt the
persona of which Hephaestus pretends to be certain. Adopting a submissive attitude is
perhaps the most obvious way to deal with a father’s brutality.
The first speech is for public consumption; but in private Hephaestus assures Hera
that he is on her side. He brings his mother a cup — something nobody had asked him to
49 This is the translation o f Μ. Schmidt in LfgrE s.v. (‘der lieben Mutter Freundlichkeit entgegenbringend’), and fits the tone o f its echo in Hephaestus’ speech, on which see below, better than L eafs ‘doing kind service’, which Pulleyn chooses. Schmidt points out that in later Greek ὴρα is replaced by χάρις, which perhaps renders it better than any English. 50 Here Schmidt in LfgrE s.v. explains: ‘Hera soll nicht Gleiches mit Gleichem vergelten,
sondern eher freundlich entgegenkommen, nachgeben'. Translators have tended to obscure
the parallel: ‘in his mother’s care (1.572) ... Give good termes to our lov’d father (1.577)’, Chapman; ‘to bring comfort to his beloved mother (1.572) ... to be ingratiating toward our father (1.577)’, Lattimore; ‘doing a kindness to the snowy-armed lady, his mother Hêra (1.572) ... better make up to Father (1.577)’, Fitzgerald; ‘to bring his loving mother a little comfort (1.572) ... work back into his good graces (1.577)’, Fagles. Pope offers ‘Peace at his heart, and pleasure his design, / Thus interposed the architect divine (1.572) ... Thou, goddess-mother, with our sire comply (1.577)’, one example out o f thousands why Bentley thought that it was a pretty poem but you must not call it Homer. Others may think that nothing but a pretty poem can be called Homer. 51 1.582-3. 52 ‘Another strategy, used particularly by younger children, was to ally themselves with their fathers to protect them selves.... Children also thought o f ways o f behaving which they hoped would protect their mother, not just themselves. For example one little boy would try to persuade his mother to be submissive in an attempt to avert his father’s violence’, McGee
- Ί blamed my mother. If only she wouldn’t talk back to him or nag and complain so much about the same old things all the tim e.... If only she’d be nicer, more loving and un derstanding, and not set him off. (Of course this is what my father said, too.)’, Jones 2-3.
DAVID Μ. SCHAPS 13
The goddess, white-armed Hera, smiled, And smiling, she accepted the cup from her son with her hand.
By her smile, and by accepting the cup, Hera yields without the indignity of having to do
so directly;57 but why does she smile? Is it because her heart is warmed by Hephaestus’
devotion? Because her affections are aroused by his mentioning his previous (ineffec
tual) effort to defend her? Because she is happy to have the quarrel ended? Or is she
simply ‘putting a good face on it’ while hiding her true feelings,58 perhaps even meditat
ing how to get her way in spite of everything? Any of these, the last most of all, would
be a possible reaction from a wife threatened with a beating and offered a gracious exit
from the situation.
Hephaestus has gotten from Hera, albeit tacitly, the concession he wanted; he does
not wait to hear Zeus’ reaction, but begins to pour nectar for all the gods.
άσβεστος δ’ ἄρ’ ἐνῶρτο γἐλως μακάρεσσι θεοῖσιν, ῶς ὶδον Ἡ φαιστον διά δῶματα ποιπνὺοντα.
And an irrepressible laughter broke out among the blessed gods, As they saw Hephaestus bustling through the house.
After his success at distracting Hera by offering her a cup, Hephaestus finally defuses the
tension by pouring the nectar for all the gods, a job in no way his — Zeus’ cupbearers
were Hebe, ‘Youth’, and Ganymede, kidnapped for his exquisite beauty — and quite
inappropriate for a cripple. The gods react to Hephaestus’ officious limping as the
Achaeans later react to the welt on Thersites’ crooked back,60 with unrestrained laughter.
The dangerous moment has passed.
Willcock61 is no doubt correct — insofar as it is ever correct to ascribe intention to a
fictional character62 — that the gods’ reaction was precisely what Hephaestus intended.
In the literature on domestic violence, I have not found any reference to children’s trying
to distract their father by drawing laughter upon themselves, nor is it easy to imagine
their doing so in a situation as tense and as violent as an actual beating. But the tactic of
intentionally turning oneself into an object of laughter in order to avoid a more painful
situation is an established one,63 and one that Hephaestus here uses to excellent effect.
56 1.595-6. On the use o f the aorist participle to describe an action concomitant with that o f the
main verb see Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 289-292; my thanks to Ra'anana Meridor for pointing
this out to me. 57 So Latacz ad loc. 58 So Pulleyn ad loc., with some interesting parallels. 59 1.599-600. 60 2.265-77. 61 Ad loc. 62 The extent to which it is true is only the extent to which the audience can be expected to infer the intention; and I do not think that Willcock is stretching matters too far when he thinks that the listeners will realize what Hephaestus is supposed to be up to. 63 Eileen Simpson used this trick to disguise her dyslexia: ‘To be a sketch was greatly prefer able to being the family idiot. Encouraged, I tried out my act in school. What had made Aunt Lucy smile ruefully made my classmates, always greedy for a diversion, explode with laughter; The same boys and girls who the previous year had laughed at the freak were now laughing with the jester. The teacher clapped her hands and said, “Class! Class!” calling it to
14 ZEUS THE WIFE-BEATER
Hydén found two factors that often aborted a potentially violent argument: interrup
tion by children, neighbors, or friends, or the resignation of the woman.64 Hephaestus’
appeal to Hera has secured her tacit retreat, but no more; he does not get from her the
‘gentle words’ that he wanted.65 He finesses the matter by offering a distraction as well,
and the gods return to their feasting. The end of the scene (609-611) is pointed, and
unlike what a modem observer might have expected:
Ζεὺς δὲ πρὸς ὃν λὲχος ἤϊ’ Όλὺμπιος ᾶστεροπητῆς, ἔνθα πᾶρος κοιμᾶθ’, ὅτε μιν γλυκὺς ὕπνος Ικάνοι· ἔνθα καθηϋδ’ ᾶναβᾶς, παρᾶ δὲ χρυσὸθρονος Ἡρη.
And Olympian Zeus, the thrower o f lightning, went to his bed, Where he was used to lie down, when sweet sleep came upon him. There he got into bed and lay down, and next to him golden-throned Hera.
I do not think that metrical reasons alone account for the epithet χρυσὸθρονος. There are
only two other times when Hera is ‘golden-throned’:66 at 14.153, when she is about to
conceive the plan to seduce Zeus in order to help the Achaeans, and at 15.5 when Zeus
wakes up afterward. Hera’s royal position is intimately connected with her being Zeus’
wife,67 and their reconciliation confirms her majesty. Her husband’s threats have not, in
the end, been shameful for her or for him.
VI. Recurrences.
There are two more scenes in the Iliad in which Zeus threatens Hera with violence. The
first of these scenes takes place on the battlefield, the second, as it were, in the transition
from bedroom to battle; neither repeats the ‘classic’ description of Book 1. The two
scenes, however, do give an indication of the ongoing relationship of the divine royal
couple, and the progression — or deterioration — of the situation will help us evaluate
the extent to which Zeus’ behavior was acceptable in the eyes of the community (i.e„ the
other gods), and the extent to which their opinion made a difference to how husband and
wife saw the situation.
Book 8 begins with a general threat addressed to all the gods and goddesses: they are
no longer to intervene, as they have been doing freely since Aphrodite whisked Paris off
order, but she was laughing too. It wasn’t long before I was acknowledged to be the class clown’, Simpson 60. 64 Hydén 87. 65 On ‘the resignation o f the woman’ Hydén comments: ‘The majority o f female informants knew how to do this, but were also aware o f what it did to their life project’ (ibid.). 66 The epithet obviously cannot have this meaning when applied to Artemis at 9.533 and at
Od. 5Ἰ 23, since Artemis is not queen o f the gods; the source o f this use is probably in cult,
where Artemis’ position was considerably more important than in Homer’s Olympus. The
use o f the term to refer to Eos {Od. 10.541 and elsewhere) refers, as the ancients took it, to
the color o f the dawn (Eustathius on 1.611). 67 As Aphrodite admits when deferring to Hera in 14.212-3: ‘It is impossible, it is not proper to refuse your word; for you spend the night in the arms o f Zeus, the greatest’. There is a good deal o f irony in the poet’s use o f these words (see Janko ad loc.), but they are not inac curate.
16 ZEUS THE WIFE-BEATER
ἕλκε’ ᾶπαλθῆσεσθον, ᾶ κεν μᾶρπτησι κεραυνὸς· ὸφρ’ εἵδηι Γλαυκῶπις, ὅ τ ’ ᾶν ὦι πατρὶ μάχηται. I will cripple both o f their swift horses on their chariots, And I will throw them out o f their seat and break the chariots; And in ten years o f revolving seasons The wounds that the thunderbolt will fasten on them will not heal; In order that Athena should know, when she fights against her own father.
This is the same threat he made against all of the gods and goddesses, though he goes
into more detail; he also makes the point that family relationships will not hold him back.
All the more noteworthy are the words he adds immediately:
"Ηρηι δ’ οὺ τι τὸσον νεμεσἰζομαι οὺδε χολοϋματ αἰεὶ γάρ μοι ἔωθεν ἐνικλᾶν, ὅττι νοῆσω.
But I do not blame Hera or get angry with her so much, Because she is always in the habit o f frustrating whatever I plan.
To Iris, at least, Zeus admits what Hera already knew when she spoke up in 4.20-9, and
what Zeus himself had denied so firmly in the first book: Hera can get away with more
than the other gods can, since she is his wife. He is even used to the fact, and does not
take it as hard as he takes his daughter’s opposition.
Iris’ threat has the desired effect; Hera turns back to Olympus with Athena, not be
fore she has said a few bitter words about how ‘that one’ (κεῖνος) will do what he wants.
When Zeus arrives they sulk and do not speak to him, but he insists on rubbing in the
point that is important to him: he is stronger than they are, stronger than all the gods to
gether. Athena does not answer; Hera does answer, as she did in Book 1, admitting his
superiority but maintaining her dissatisfaction. Zeus answers that tomorrow he will do
worse things to the Achaeans. As for Hera, he doesn’t care if she runs away to the ends
of the earth and to Tartarus. Zeus has now taken the offensive in communicating to Hera
her worthlessness; and Hera, beaten, does not answer. Night falls, but this scene does not
end with them going to bed together.
The first scene started with threats and ended in bed; the second scene started with
threats but did not end in bed; the third scene starts in bed, but ends quite differently.
The erotic beginning is a manipulative love: Hera, with Aphrodite’s unsuspecting con
nivance, has seduced Zeus in order to allow Poseidon to rally the Achaeans while Zeus is
asleep. When Zeus awakes, sees Hector vomiting blood, and realizes what has happened,
he turns on Hera with harsher words than before, and threats that are no longer depend
ent upon her future actions:
75 Kirk ad loc. thinks that these verses ‘are added, a little lamely perhaps, to take account o f Here (who is, however, to suffer the same punishment)’, and ‘suspectfs] later, even post- rhapsodic, elaboration’. Even if they are excised, however, the fact remains that it is Athena, not Hera, to whom he wants to teach a lesson in 8.406. If Kirk is right Zeus may indeed be as angry with Hera as with Athena, but he is in any event less sanguine about the possibili ties o f improving her behavior by punishment. The doubts o f Aristarchus as to whether Iris could really have repeated these words at 420-4 are not relevant to our discussion.
DAVID Μ. SCHAPS 17
ἦ μᾶλα δῆ κακὸτεχνος, ᾶμῆχανε, σὸς δὸλος, Ἡρη, Έκτορα δῖον ἔπαυσε μᾶχης, ἐφὸβησε δὲ λαοὺς, οὺ μάν οἶδ’, εἰ αὐτε κακορραφἰης άλεγεινῆς πρωτη ὲπαὺρηαι καἰ σε π λ η γῇ σ ιν ἱμάσσω. Oh, you evil, hopeless plotter! Your trick, Hera, Has stopped divine Hector from fighting, and frightened the people. I don’t know whether for this baleful scheming You will first get your reward, and I will whip you with blows.
This is where he reminds her of the time he hung her from heaven with anvils on her
feet77 and any god who tried to save her was thrown down to earth. Now Zeus is not
fooling, and Hera reacts with panic (ῥίγησεν, ‘she shivered’), swearing by Earth,
Heaven, Styx, Zeus himself, and their marriage bed that Poseidon’s interference in the
battle did not come about at her instigation.78 She is not exactly lying — it was because
of Poseidon’s actions on the battlefield that Hera had conceived the idea of seducing
Zeus, not the other way around — but like an abused wife, she is hardly interested in
opening a frank discussion of the whole matter. Neither is Zeus: he seizes on her claim
and asks her to go and tell Poseidon to desist, because, he says, if she were to agree with
Zeus, Poseidon would have to go along with them, even if he very much wanted to be
have otherwise. Go to Olympus, says Zeus, and send me Iris and Apollo. Hera rushes to
do his bidding, as quick as thought.79 When she arrives at Olympus, the goddess Themis,
‘Propriety’, recognizes immediately what is wrong:
Ἡρη, τἰπ τε βἐβηκας; άτυζομἐνηι δὲ ἔοικας, ἦ μάλα δῆ σ ’ ὲφὸβησε Κρὸνου πάϊς, ὅς τοι άκοἰτης.
Hera, why have you come? You look like someone terrified! I’ll bet Cronus’ son, who is your husband, has frightened you.
Hera doesn’t deny what she thinks of Zeus, but doesn’t want to talk about his behavior:
μῆ με, θεά Θὲμι, ταὺτα διεἰρεο· οισθα καὶ αὺτῆ, οἷος ἐκεἰνου θυμὸς ὺπερφἰαλος καὶ άπηνῆς.
77 Ibid. 18-30. Whitman holds that this picturesque detail has its source in the myth o f the
hieros gamos\ he admits, however, that this would not have been known to Homer, nor
would it have affected his treatment o f the story. Much more convincing is the hypothesis o f O’Brien 99-101, who locates the source o f Hera’s mistreatment by Zeus in a conflict be tween two originally independent but now conflicting deities: ‘So, the only two characters whom Iliadic Zeus smites or threatens to smite are Typhon and his own wife. Α strange way to treat one’s wife, one might say, but a lashing with thunderbolts is a perfect punishment for a sky god to inflict on an earth goddess plotting insurrection’ (O ’Brien 100). Homer has taken a myth whose origins are in ancient cult and domesticated it, as he regularly does, to a human-like conflict between anthropomorphic gods. 78 15.34-46. 79 Ibid. 80-83. 80 Ibid. 90-91.
DAVID Μ. SCHAPS 19
capitulation in book 15 is not devoid of scheming: she tells the gods that they cannot
fight against Zeus, but does so in bitter words that encourage Ares to do exactly that; and
it is not Hera, but Athena, who restrains him.87 If the level and effectiveness of Zeus’
threats escalate, so do Hera’s provocations, and Zeus is powerless, in the long run, to do
anything about it. He knows as much, and is resigned to the fact: he does not blame Hera
or get angry with her so much, because she is always in the habit of frustrating whatever
he plans.88 In some matters she might even get her way. Not everything in the royal cou
ple’s relationship is a power struggle. As he says in the midst of their quarrel, Hera is the
first of Zeus’ advisors to hear ‘what it is proper to hear’, though he insists on his pre
rogative to decide when she should be included and when she should not (1.547-8).
Sometimes Zeus accedes to her counsel,89 and even without persuasion she can get away
with a good deal: when Ares complained to Zeus about his wounding, Zeus’ answer was
that Hera was to blame, ‘whom I can barely control with words’.9091A beating or a threat
of one, in a society that tolerates it, can win the battle, but no matter how many times it is
repeated, it does not end the war.9'
VII. Is Zeus a wife-beater, and is wife-beating acceptable?
If we return to the criteria that we enumerated at the beginning o f the article for distin
guishing wife-beating from other kinds of violence, it is clear which kind of violence
Homer is describing.
87 Hera, though she speaks bitterly, has been careful with her words, and has not directly en couraged rebellion; when Athena speaks she tells Ares and the others to listen to what Hera has said. But I do not think that Homer intends for us to think that Hera’s calculating soul was unaware o f Ares’ probable reaction, or unable to exploit the situation — while keeping herself technically blameless — had the other gods felt as Ares did. They do not, and so at 15.143 she sends Apollo and Iris to Zeus on Ida as he had requested, ‘and she sat upon her throne’ (15.150): once again, her submission to Zeus is followed immediately by a confir mation o f her superior position among the gods. 88 8.407-8; see above, n. 75. 89 As at 4.5-68, where she reminds him, although he doesn’t like it (ὸχθῆσας again 4.30), that the war must go on and Troy must fall; or at 16.431-461, when he agrees to the death o f Sarpedon; or at 24.66, where he agrees that Hector cannot be honored equally with Achilles. This is not inconsistent with the behavior o f modem wife-beaters, whose behavior in be tween violent incidents may be exemplary. 90 τῆν μὲν ὲγῶ σπουδῆι δάμνημ’ ἐπ ἐεσσιν 5.893. My argument would be stronger if I could accept Lattimore’s translation ‘and try as I may I am broken by her arguments’, but that would require reading τῆς for τῆν and reading δάμνημ’ as passive, for neither o f which there is any justification. I do not agree, however, with Ameis-Hentze that Zeus means that he cannot control her with words, but must use physical punishment. That is a true enough description o f Zeus’ perception, but it is not what he wants to be telling Ares here, where he is shifting blame from himself to Hera: see Kirk ad loc.
91 Contra , with one example, Strauss 38; but I think he is overgeneralizing. That a single act o f
violence may never be repeated (in Strauss’ study 5.3% o f the couples had experienced beat ing during their marriage, but only 3.8% during the previous year) is at least as likely to testify to its failure as to its success.
20 ZEUS THE WIFE-BEATER
- The fight here is not between equals or near-equals, a point that Zeus points
out on each occasion.
- The outcome is known in advance, and this is mentioned with foreboding in
each case.
- What Zeus gains in each case is not more honor, but Hera’s compliance in
the matter under dispute.
- The threatened violence in each case is against Hera, although in Book 8 he
includes (and puts first) her accomplice Athena. Only in one other instance
does Zeus threaten violence, against Poseidon, and this is in the wake of
Hera’s seduction. He adds to his threat of violence a claim o f legitimacy (he
is the stronger and the elder)93, and Poseidon replies that his threats should
be used against his children.
- Hera never contemplates fighting back against Zeus; her weapons are verbal
aggression, appeasement, allies (Athena in Book 8, Poseidon and Aphrodite
in Book 14), and seduction.
- Although the incident in Book 1 begins with Hera’s aggressive words, in the
continuation she tries in each case to avoid real violence.
In two respects, however, Zeus and Hera do not reproduce the characteristics of a mod
em dysfunctional marriage. Whereas modem wife-beating normally takes place behind
locked doors, Zeus is perfectly open about his threats. He does not whisper to Hera, ‘Just
wait until we’re alone tonight’; he says in front of all the gods that if she persists he will
beat her, and none of them will be able to help her. This last comment explains his will
ingness to make his threats in public: while a mortal husband would have to take into
account the likelihood that the assembled crowd would defend his wife, Zeus need have
no qualms on this point.
For a modem wife-beater, however, there is a second reason not to abuse his wife in
public, and this is the second difference between him and Zeus: he would be disgraced if
his behavior were known to all, whereas no shame seems to accrue to Zeus from his
threats, nor indeed from his earlier violence against her. It would seem, at first glance,
that wife-beating was a perfectly legitimate behavior in the eyes of the Greek gods. Since
it was so, it was not shameful for Zeus to do it — nor, as the end of Book 1 shows, was it
shameful for Hera to suffer it. In a society that considers the practice legitimate, although
wife-beating is undoubtedly an unhappy experience, the fact that it has taken place need
be in the long run no more embarrassing for either side than the spanking of a naughty
child in a society that accepts spanking.
92 By Hephaestus in 1.587-9, by Iris in 8.415-20 (Iris is only repeating Zeus’ threat, but Hera’s reaction in 8.427-32 makes it clear that she knows the outcome would be as Zeus threatens), by Athena in 15.127-37. 93 15.165-6= 181-2. 94 Ibid. 197-99. 95 For an example o f the breezy way in which wife-beating may be considered in a society that
finds it acceptable, one may look at Goldoni’s, Two Venetian Twins (Act 2, Scene 12), in
which the intelligent twin, Tonino, argues against the claim that marriage is a weight upon a man’s spirit, body, purse, and head with the words: Ἀ weight on his head? Not so. Α woman is either honest, or she is dishonest. If she is honest, there is no danger o f cuckoldry;
