Academic literature on the topic 'Heracles (Greek mythology)'

ABSTRACT Epilepsy is one of the most dreaded and terrifying human afflictions. One of the many names it has received was Sacred Disease, during Greek times. Heracles served as a source of the divine connotation that epilepsy received in ancient times, as he was one of the most important demigods in Greek mythology. However, several authors have attributed Heracles’ actions to a seizure, including Hippocrates, who described the sacred disease on his “Corpus Hippocraticum.” This paper reviewed some of the publications on the myth and content of the text of Hippocrates, in relation to the current knowledge of the disease.

The story of Herculesʼ achievements, like many others in Greek mythology, has undergone various changes since Hesiodʼs early transmissions helped to consolidate the essential elements of the myth and its characteristics. With the translocation of myths from Caucasian Iberia to Western Iberia, certain places, characters and events associated with the land were also transferred. The Fortunate Islands, the Garden of Hesperides, the place of the 10th and 11th labours of Hercules have been relocated, and the origin and meaning of the pillars set up by the hero have been identified and interpreted. The aim of this article is to show how one of these myths, namely that of Hercules and Geryon, was shaped in the classical and later periods. The transformation of three elements of this myth will be analysed: its location, the figure of Geryon and the description of Herculesʼ achievements.

This article examines how 21st-century cinema has embraced one of the most important figures in classical mythology, the Greek hero Herakles. How cinematic art has captured and adapted the events that classical sources tell of the myth of the son of Zeus. And beyond his story, how it has assumed, varied or decontextualized the personality, values and attitude of a being that was undeniably of his time. In this way, by comparing the written story with the filmed story, we examine which episodes of the hero’s life have been brought to the big screen and which of them have not, and try to explain why. This comparison will also help us to determine the interrelations between the production of the films and the literary work on which they are based.

AbstractA gem in the Museum of Castelvecchio (Verona) depicts the god Sandas of Tarsos with his terrible animal: the lion-goat. On the reverse side there is the inscription YOYO. The epigraphical and archaeological evidence from Anatolia, from Hittite to Hellenistic times, proves that Sandas was a underworld god protecting tombs and sending pestilences when angry. He was appeased by offerings to his terrible ministers, who were usually seven. Similarly Nergal or Erra (similar to Sandas) in Mesopotamia, and Sekhmet in Egypt had seven animal-headed terrible ministers, who were able to bring pestilences and death. A Hittite inscription mentions Yaya as Sandas' female partner. Her name is very similar to the Yoyo on the Verona gem. Sandas was identified with Heracles because of his relations with the underworld realms and his warlike features. The lion-goat of Tarsus was the model of Greek Chimaera. In fact the myth of Bellerophon took its place in Lycia and Cilicia. In Hellenistic age the original form of this monster was better known and therefore we find its typical features in Hellenistic and Roman sculptures and reliefs.

This article examines the so-called ‘Africa’ dish, part of a treasure trove of silver table-ware discovered in a cistern at the Villa della Pisanella, avilla rusticadestroyed in the eruption of Vesuvius inad79. It proposes a new interpretation of the dish's iconography and argues that the woman in the centre of the emblema is Cleopatra Selene, while the attributes surrounding her reference her parents Cleopatra VII and Marcus Antonius, her brothers Alexander Helios and Ptolemy Philadelphus, her husband Juba II of Mauretania, and their mythological ancestor the demi-god Heracles. Thus the emblema serves as a meditation on the fates of Antony and Cleopatra VII, descendants of Heracles who chose the path of vice, a choice that resulted in their defeat by Octavian at the Battle of Actium. Octavian's virtue, victory and clemency, combined with his guardianship of their children, ensured the subsequent promotion of their daughter Cleopatra Selene as a key figure in his dynastic and political strategy, through her marriage to Juba II and the couple's appointment as client rulers of Mauretania. Also supposedly descended from Heracles, Juba II and Cleopatra Selene chose to follow in their illustrious ancestor's footsteps along the path of virtue. In common with other pieces from the treasure trove, the ‘Africa’ dish alludes to recent historical events and personages, utilizes death as a means of promoting the enjoyment of life, and incorporates popular elements of Greek mythology, all the while offering banqueters an erudite puzzle to solve during the course of their banquet.

Many analysts in the past faced Atlantis’ main city with the same way they faced his idealised concentric cities which he described in his dialogues. However, Atlantis’ concentric city has a marked difference which is recognisable if the analyst has geological knowledge. For instance the concentric scheme, the geothermal springs and the black, white and red rocks correspond in volcanogenic, impactogenic and diapeirogenic craters. It is known that building material from rocks existing in the vicinity of the two first, from the three, types of craters have been used in the past. It is also known that cities have been developed both on volcanogenic craters such as Santorin in the Aegean Sea, or on impactogenic craters such as in Nordlichen in Germany and in Yemen’s capitol respectively. A simulation experiment was carried out exactly in the platonic geomorphological conditions assuming that the concentric scheme could be of impactogenic origin. The result showed that such multi-ringed crater exhibits the platonic characteristics presented in Critias. However, such solution is not unique because the other two types of craters have not been tested yet. The statistical criterion which may be applied in all three simulations in the described platonic environment will decide by itself which is the most optimal solution between all three. Many experts who know nothing about Plato’s views about science and mythology can not differentiate between genuine and fabricated myths utilised by Plato. Most of them do not understand that the multiringed crater called Atlantis too by Plato is revealed in the ancient myths prior to Plato and was placed by these writers West of the Gibraltar Straits. Philostratus, in Roman times, is the only Greek writer who described its geological nature in detail and presented its position in Southern Spain. That crater Geryonis was associated with Heracles’ visit in Iberia. In the latter’s sea environment there are several submerged gigantic diapeirogenic craters and a small one visible even today in Andalucía’s. The geological age of the submerged craters, in Cadiz, precedes the prehistoric Greeks’ and Iberians’ presence in the area. One of them possibly became the object of observations of prehistoric Greek mariners who passed Heracles’ Pillars and it was interpreted as Poseidon’s act. These Greek mariners were accustomed to interpret craters in the Aegean Sea such the Nisyros’, for instance, one as Poseidon’s act too.

Introduction. In ancient mythology, the image of Hercules is one of the most popular, and his heroic cult is one of the most common. Having emerged from the “conglomerate of folk tales”, the image of Hercules was actively assimilated by the Greek and then Roman literary tradition. Hercules was a very popular hero among Greek tragic and especially comic poets. In Roman times, the final systematization of the image took place. The key role in this process was played by the works of Apollodorus “The Mythological Library” (2nd century BC), “Pictures” by Philostratus the Younger (2nd century BC) and “Description of Hellas” by Pausanias (2nd century BC). Within the framework of the classical tradition, the image of Hercules in Roman times was finally formed and unambiguous. Hercules is a hero, a demigod, the son of Zeus and Alcmene, who possessed amazing strength, who killed his children (and the children of his brother Iphicles) in an act of madness. He performed 12 labours at the request of Eurystheus. Hercules lived with the Lydian queen Omphale dressing in a woman’s dress. He was poisoned by his wife Deianira, burned at the stake on Mount Eta and ascended to Olympus, where he became the spouse of Hebe. Methods. The hermeneutic methodology, which ensured the correct understanding and interpretation of the text of the Suda dictionary and the ancient texts, on which this “antique” dictionary was based, is used in the article. The toolkit of the hermeneutic circle (pre-understanding and understanding of the text, interpretation of the whole based on knowledge of its parts) made it possible to highlight key elements (plots, signs and symbols) of the philosophical image of Hercules in the entries of the dictionary. Results. We can see a kind of “muscular Christianity”, when the strength of the body still corresponds to moral perfection and the withdrawal from the world does not contradict the active entry into the still polis institutions of urban life in Byzantine cities, among which the most important was the hippodrome and sports competitions. Christian authors actively used traditional sports metaphors and images of wrestling, but filled them with new Christian content. In the dictionary of the Suda, there is a kind of replacement of images that embody the samples of virtue. Hercules always loses to Job. It is indicative that the Christian rhetoric, relying on the philosophical symbolism of the apotheosis of Hercules, using the “sports” terminology of struggle, ignores the developed philosophical symbolism of Hercules, and fights against the mythological “fables” about Hercules. Using cynical and stoic terminology, Christian rhetoric opposes the comedic and dramatic image of Hercules, as Herodore of Heracles did in the 5th century BC. That is, the enemy is borrowed from Christian rhetoric along with philosophical symbols and terminology describing a difficult life full of trials as a virtue.

Zusammenfassung Die Tötung der drei Söhne von Necht Scéne in Einzelkämpfen mit Cú Chulainn in seiner letzten ‘Jugendtat’ wurde schon in einer frühen Arbeit Dumézils (1942) mit dem legendären Kampf zwischen zwei Gruppen von Drillingen verglichen, in dem der einzige überlebende römische Horatius die drei Curiatii aus Alba Longa der Reihe nach umbrachte. Später (Dumézil 1956 und 1970) wurden diese und weitere Parallelen, vor allem die Siege von Trita ‘Drittem’ (dreier Brüder) und Herakles über dreiköpfige Ungeheuer in der indischen resp. griechischen Mythologie, unter den gemeinsamen Nenner ‘der Dritte erschlägt die Dreiheit’ gebracht und auf einen uridg. Mythos zurückgeführt: Dieser sei in den griechischen und indoiranischen Versionen am treuesten bewahrt, in den römischen und irischen jedoch zum Teil der rationalisierend-historischen (im Gegensatz zur mythologischen) Denkweise angepasst worden. Der vorliegende Beitrag stimmt weitgehend mit Dumézils Analyse überein, fügt aber einige Modifizierungen und Erweiterungen hinzu, vor allem: (1) Herakles’ Ermordung seiner drei Söhne (die naturgemäß Brüder waren), die für eine schon uridg. Variante mit drei erschlagenen menschlichen Brüdern neben dem Mythos der Tötung eines dreiköpfigen Ungeheuers spricht; (2) die Geschichte von Coriolanus, dessen Begegnung mit seiner eigenen Mutter und anderen römischen Matronen in mancher Hinsicht der Begegnung Cú Chulainns mit den Frauen von Ulster näher steht als der von Dumézil herangezogene Streit zwischen Horatius und seiner Schwester; (3) eine bisher unbeachtete Parallele für das dreifache Tauchen von Cú Chulainn in kaltes Wasser nach seiner Heimkehr am Ende seiner letzten Jugendtat, nämlich die dreiteilige (Seebad, Bad, Salbung) Abkühlung und Reinigung der griechischen Helden Diomedes und Odysseus nach ihrer Heimkehr aus einem erfolgreichen Ausflug im zehnten Buch der Ilias.

Introduction. This article aims to compare two seemingly different patterns of attitude towards such a significant figure as a teacher. Considering it was the Greeks who have established the entire prototype for such a relationship in our culture it seems interesting to look at the development and meaning of such a relationship within their context.Materials and Methods. Based on the texts from The Library of Greek Mythology by Apollodorus and other sources that draw attention to some aspects of upbringing described already in the ancient myths, as well as on the basis of Plato's dialogues dedicated to the character of Socrates, this study compares two lines of such relationship, one derived from the story of the mythological hero Heracles and his relationship with his teachers, and that of the teacher of all Athens – Socrates and his students. This study is based on such methods as comparison, juxtaposition, interpretation, and generalization, as well as the psychoanalytic approach developed by Z. Freud and J. Lacan.Results. Acknowledging certain parallels in how the relationships mentioned earlier end, this study draws attention to the fact that a person must take the path of self-transformation with a considerable degree of necessity to learn something new. A noteworthy aspect in this process is the role of what is commonly referred to as “love”.Discussion and Conclusions. The figure of Socrates is central to this study in two ways. He is interesting to us not only as a philosopher who is in love with wisdom and discussion but also as one who educates, with all the dynamics of relationships that follow. As the author of the dialogues about Socrates, Plato reveals his views on love deriving from his grief about the loss of his teacher. His reflections represent the work of sorrow, and the dialogues that immortalize him in history seem to be its natural fruits.

Prometheus, chained to a rock, having his liver pecked out by a great bird only for the organ to grow back again each night so that the torture may be repeated afresh the next day must be the quintessential image of masculinity in crisis. This paper will consider Promethean myth and the issues it raises regarding 'creation' including: the role of creator, the relationship between creator and created, the usurping of maternal (creative) power by patriarchy and, not least, the offering of an experimental model in which masculine identity can be recreated. I argue that Promethean myth raises significant issues relating to anxieties associated with notions of masculinity and gender, which are subsequently transposed in Shelley's modernist recasting of the myth, Frankenstein. I then consider 'Promethean' science fiction film, as an area particularly concerned with re-creation, in terms of construction of the self, gender and masculinity. Prometheus & Creation Prometheus (whose name means 'forethought') was able to foresee the future and is credited with creating man from mud/clay. As Man was inferior to other creations and unprotected, Prometheus allowed Man to walk upright [1] like the Gods. He also stole from them the gift of fire, to give to Man, and tricked the Gods into allowing Man to keep the best parts of sacrifices (giving the Gods offal, bones and fat). Thus Prometheus is regarded as the father and creator of Mankind, and as Man's benefactor and protector; whose love of Man (or love of trickery and his own cleverness) leads him to deceive the Gods. Prometheus's brother, Epimetheus (whose name means 'afterthought'), was commissioned to make all the other creations and Prometheus was to overlook his work when it was done. Due to Epimetheus's short-sightedness there were no gifts left (such as fur etc.) to bestow upon Man – the nobler animal which Prometheus was entrusted to make. Prometheus, a Titan, and illegitimate son of Iapetus and the water nymph Clymene (Kirkpatrick, 1991), helped fight against the Titans the side of Zeus, helping Zeus seize the throne. More than simple indication of a rebellious spirit, his illegitimate status (albeit as opposed to an incestuous one – Iapetus was married to his sister Themis) raises the important issues of both legitimacy and filial loyalty, so recurrent within accounts of creation (of man, and human artifice). Some hold that Prometheus is punished for his deceptions i.e. over fire and the sacrifices, thus he is punished as much for his brother's failings as much as for his own ingenuity and initiative. Others maintain he is punished for refusing to tell Zeus which of Zeus's sons would overthrow him, protecting Zeus' half mortal son and his mortal mother. Zeus's father and grandfather suffered castration and usurpment at the hands of their offspring – for both Zeus and Prometheus (pro)creation is perilous. Prometheus's punishment here is for withholding a secret which accords power. In possessing knowledge (power) which could have secured his release, Prometheus is often viewed as emblematic of endurance, suffering and resistance and parental martyrdom. Prometheus, as mentioned previously, was chained to a rock where a great bird came and tore at his liver [2], the liver growing back overnight for the torture to be repeated afresh the following day. Heracles, a half mortal son of Zeus, slays the bird and frees Prometheus, thus Man repays his debt by liberation of his benefactor, or, in other accounts, he is required to take Prometheus's place, and thus liberating his creator and resulting in his own enslavement. Both versions clearly show the strength of bond between Prometheus and his creation but the latter account goes further in suggesting that Man and Maker are interchangeable. Also linked to Promethean myth is the creation of the first woman, Pandora. Constructed (by Jupiter at Zeus's command) on one hand as Man's punishment for Prometheus's tricks, and on the other as a gift to Man from the Gods. Her opening of 'the box', either releasing all mans ills, plagues and woes, or letting all benevolent gifts but hope escape, is seen as disastrous from either perspective. However what is emphasised is that the creation of Woman is secondary to the creation of Man. Therefore Prometheus is not the creator of humankind but of mankind. The issue of gender is an important aspect of Promethean narrative, which I discuss in the next section. Gender Issues Promethean myths raise a number of pertinent issues relating to gender and sexuality. Firstly they suggest that both Man and Woman are constructed [3], and that they are constructed as distinct entities, regarding Woman as inferior to Man. Secondly creative power is posited firmly with the masculine (by virtue of the male sex of both Prometheus and Jupiter), negating maternal and asserting patriarchal power. Thirdly Nature, which is associated with the feminine, is surpassed in that whilst Man is made from the earth (mud/clay) it is Prometheus who creates him (Mother Earth providing only the most basic raw materials for production); and Nature is overcome as Man is made independent of climate through the gift of fire. Tensions arise in that Prometheus's fate is also linked to childbirth in so far as that which is internal is painfully rendered external (strongly raising connotations of the abject – which threatens identity boundaries). The intense connection between creation and childbirth indicates that the appropriation of power is of a power resting not with the gods, but with women. The ability to see the future is seen as both frightening and reassuring. Aeschylus uses this to explain Prometheus's tolerance of his fate: he knew he had to endure pain but he knew he would be released, and thus was resigned to his suffering. As the bearer of the bleeding wound Prometheus is feminised, his punishment represents a rite of passage through which he may earn the status 'Father of Man' and reassert and define his masculine identity, hence a masochistic desire to suffer is also suggested. Confrontations with the abject, the threat posed to identity, and Lacanian notions of desire in relation to the other, are subjects which problematise the myth's assertion of masculine power. I will now consider how the Promethean myth is recast in terms of modernity in the story of Frankenstein and the issues regarding male power this raises. Frankenstein - A Modern Prometheus Consistent with the Enlightenment spirit of renewal and reconstruction, the novel Frankenstein emerges in 1818, re-casting Promethean myth in terms of science, and placing the scientist (i.e. man) as creator. Frankenstein in both warning against assuming the power of God and placing man as creator, simultaneously expresses the hopes and fears of the transition from theocratic belief to rationality. One of the strategies Frankenstein gives us through its narrative use of science and technology is a social critique and interrogation of scientific discourse made explicit through its alignment with gender discourse. In appropriating reproductive power without women, it enacts an appropriation of maternity by patriarchy. In aligning the use of this power by patriarchy with the power of the gods, it attempts to deify and justify use of this power whilst rendering women powerless and indeed superfluous. Yet as it offers the patriarchal constructs of science and technology as devoid of social responsibility, resulting in monstrous productions, it also facilitates a critique of patriarchy (Cranny Francis, 1990, p220). The creature, often called 'Frankenstein' rather than 'Frankenstein's monster', is not the only 'abomination to God'. Victor Frankenstein is portrayed as a 'spoilt brat of a child', whose overindulgence results in his fantasy of omnipotent power over life itself, and leads to neglect of, and lack of care towards, his creation. Indeed he may be regarded as the true 'monster' of the piece, as he is all too clearly lacking Prometheus's vision and pastoral care [4]. "Neither evil nor inhuman, [the creature] comes to seem little more than morally uninformed, poorly 'put together' by a human creator who has ill served both his creation and his fellow humans." (Telotte, 1995, p. 76). However, the model of the natural – and naturally free – man emerges in the novel from an implied pattern of subjection which demonstrates that the power the man-made constructs of science and technology give us come at great cost: "[Power] is only made possible by what [Mary Shelley] saw as a pointedly modern devaluation of the self: by affirming that the human is, at base, just a put together thing, with no transcendent origin or purpose and bound to a half vital existence at best by material conditions of its begetting."(ibid.) Frankenstein's power expressed through his overcoming of Nature, harnessing of technology and desire to subject the human body to his will, exhibits the modern world's mastery over the self. However it also requires the devaluation of self so that the body is regarded as subject, thus leading to our own subjection. For Telotte (1995, p37), one reflection of our Promethean heritage is that as everything comes to seem machine-like and constructed, the human too finally emerges as a kind of marvellous fiction, or perhaps just another empty invention. Access to full creative potential permits entry "into a true 'no man's land'…. a wonderland...where any wonder we might conceive, or any wondrous way we might conceive of the self, might be fashioned". Certainly the modernist recasting of Promethean myth embodies that train of thought which is most consciously aiming to discover the nature of man through (re)creating him. It offers patriarchal power as a power over the self (independent of the gods); a critique of the father; and the fantasy of (re)construction of the self at the cost of deconstruction of the body which, finally, leads to the subjection of the self. The Promethean model, I maintain, serves to illuminate and further our understanding of the endurance, popularity and allure of fantasies of creation, which can be so readily found in cinematic history, and especially within the science fiction genre. This genre stands out as a medium both well suited to, and enamoured with, Promethean reworkings [5]. As religion (of which Greek mythology is a part) and science both attempt to explain the world and make it knowable they offer the reassurance, satisfaction and the illusion of security and control, whilst tantalising with notions of possible futures. Promethean science fiction film realises the visual nature of these possible futures providing us, in its future visions, with glimpses of alternative ways of seeing and being. Promethean Science Fiction Film Science fiction, can be seen as a 'body genre' delineated not by excess of sex, blood or emotion but by excess of control over the body as index of identity (Cook, 1999, p.193). Science fiction films can be seen to fall broadly into three categories: space flight, alien invaders and futuristic societies (Hayward, 1996, p.305). Within these, Telotte argues (Replications, 1995), most important are the images of "human artifice", which form a metaphor for our own human selves, and have come to dominate the contemporary science fiction film (1995, p11). The science fiction film contains a structural tension that constantly rephrases central issues about the self and constructedness. Paradoxically whilst the science fiction genre profits from visions of a technological future it also displays technophobia – the promises of these fictions represent dangerous illusions with radical and subversive potential, suggesting that nature and the self may be 'reconstructable' rather than stable and unchanging. Whilst some films return us safely to a comforting stable humanity, others embrace and affirm the subversive possibilities advocating an evolution or rebirth of the human. Regardless of their conservative (The Iron Giant, 1999, Planet of the Apes, 1968) or subversive tendencies (Metropolis 1926, Blade Runner 1982, Terminator 1984), they offer the opportunity to explore "a space of desire" (Telotte, p. 153, 1990) a place where the self can experience a kind of otherness and possibilities exceed the experience of our normal being (The Stepford Wives 1974, The Fly 1986, Gattaca 1997 [6]). What I would argue is central to the definition of a Promethean sub-genre of science fiction is the conscious depiction and understanding of the (hu)man subject or artifice as technological or scientific construction rather than natural. Often, as in Promethean myth, there is a mirroring between creator and creation, constructor and constructed, which serves to bind them despite their differences, and may often override them. Power in this genre is revealed as masculine power over the feminine, namely reproductive power; as such tensions in male identity arise and may be interrogated. Promethean (film) texts have at their centre issues of what it is to be human, and within this, what it is to be a man. There is a focus on hegemonic masculinity within these texts, which serves as a measure of masculinity. Furthermore these texts are most emphatically concerned with the construction of masculinity and with masculine power. The notion of creation raises questions of paternity, motherhood, parenting, and identification with the father, although the ways in which these issues are portrayed or explored may be quite diverse. As a creation of man, rather than of 'woman', the subjects created are almost invariably 'other' to their creators, whilst often embodying the fantasies, desires and repressed fears of their makers. That otherness and difference form central organising principles in these texts is undisputable, however there also can be seen to exist a bond between creator and created which is worthy of exploration, as the progeny of man retains a close likeness (though not always physically) to its maker [7]. Particularly in the Promethean strand of science fiction film we encounter the abject, posing a threat to fragile identity constructions (recalling the plight of Prometheus on his rock and his feminised position). I also maintained that 'lack' formed part of the Promethean heritage. Not only are the desires of the creators often lacking in Promethean care and vision, but their creations are revealed as in some way lacking, falling short of their creator's desire and indeed their own [8]. From the very beginnings of film we see the desire to realise (see) Promethean power accorded to man and to behold his creations. The mad scientists of film such as Frankenstein (1910), Homunculus (1916), Alraune (1918), Orlacs Hande (1925) and Metropolis (1926) and Frankenstein (1931) all point to the body as source of subjection and resistance. Whilst metal robots may be made servile, "the flesh by its very nature always rebels" (Telotte, 1995, p. 77). Thus whilst they form a metaphor for the way the modern self is subjugated, they also suggest resistance to that subjugation, pointing to "a tension between body and mind, humanity and its scientific attainments, the self and a cultural subjection" (ibid.). The films of the 1980's and 90's, such as Blade Runner (1982), Robocop (1987) Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1994), point towards "the human not as ever more artificial but the artificial as ever more human" (Telotte, 1995, p.22). However, these cyborg bodies are also gendered bodies providing metaphors for the contemporary anxieties about 'masculinities'. Just as the tale of Prometheus is problematic in that there exist many variations of the myth [9], with varying accounts capable of producing a range of readings, concepts of 'masculinity' are neither stable nor uniform, and are subject to recasting and reconstruction. Likewise in Promethean science fiction film masculine identities are multiple, fragmented and dynamic. These films do not simply recreate masculinities in the sense that they mirror extant anxieties but recreate in the sense that they 'play' with these anxieties, possibilities of otherness and permeate boundaries. We may see this 'play' as liberating, in that it offers possible ways of being and understanding difference, or conservative, reinstating hegemonic masculinity by asserting old hierarchies. As versions of the myth are reconstructed what new types of creator/creature will emerge? What will they say about our understanding and experiences of "masculinities"? What new possibilities and identities may we envision? Perhaps the most significant aspect of our Promethean heritage is that, as Prometheus is chained to his rock and tortured, through the perpetual regeneration of his liver, almost as if to counterweight or ballast the image of masculinity in crisis, comes the 'reassuring' notion that whatever the strains cracks or injuries the patriarchal image endures: 'we can rebuild him' [10]. We not only can but will, for in doing so we are also reconstructing ourselves. Footnote According to Bulfinch (web) he gave him an upright stature so he could look to the Heavens and gaze on the stars. Linking to Science Fiction narratives of space exploration etc. (Encyclopedia Mythica – [web]) -The liver was once regarded as the primary organ of our being (the heart being our contemporary equivalent) where passions and pain and were felt. Both physically constructed and sociologically, with woman as inferior lesser being and implying gender determinism. This is further articulated to effect in the James Whale film (Frankenstein, 1931), where 'Henry' Frankenstein's creation is regarded as his 'first born' and notions of lineage predominate, ultimately implying he will now pursue more natural methods of (pro)creation. Frankenstein is seen by some as the first cyborg novel in its linking of technology and creation and also often cited as the first science fiction film (although there were others). For example in Andrew Niccol's Gattaca (1997), the creation of man occurs through conscious construction of the self, acknowledging that we are all constructed and acknowledging that masculinity must be reconstructed if it is to be validated. Patriarchy has worked to mythologise our relationship to (mother) nature, so that the human becomes distinct from the manufactured. What is perhaps the most vital aspect of the character Vincent in Gattaca is his acknowledgement that the body must be altered, restructured, reshaped and defined in order to pass from insignificance to significance in terms of hegemonic masculine identity. It is therefore through a reappraisal of the external that the internal gains validity. See Foucault on resemblance and similitude (in The Gendered Cyborg, 2000). See Scott Bukatman on Blade Runner in Kuhn, 1990. The tale of Prometheus had long existed in oral traditions and folklore before Hesiod wrote of it in Theogeny and Works and Days, and Aeschylus, elaborated on Hesiod, when he wrote Prometheus Bound (460B.C). Catchphrase used in the 1970's popular TV series The Six Million Dollar Man in relation to Steve Austin the 'bionic' character of the title. References Bernink, M. & Cook, P. (eds.) The Cinema Book (2nd edition). London: British Film Institute Publishing, 1999. Clute, J. Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia. London: Dorling Kindersley, 1995. Cohan, S. & Hark, I.R. (eds.) Screening the Male. London: Routledge, 1993. Hall, S., Held, D. & McLennan, G. (eds.) Modernity and its Futures. Cambridge and Oxford: Polity Press in association with The Open University, 1993. Jancovich, M. Rational Fears: American horror in the 1950's. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1996. Jeffords, S. Can Masculinity be Terminated? In Cohan, S. & Hark, I.R. (eds.) Screening the Male. London and New York: Routledge, 1993. Kirkup, G., Janes, L., Woodward, K. & Hovenden, F. (eds.) The Gendered Cyborg: A Reader. London: Routledge, 2000. Kuhn, A. (ed.) Alien Zone: Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema. London and New York: Verso, 1990. Sobchack, V. Screening Space. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press 1999. Telotte, J.P. A Distant Technology: Science Fiction Film and the Machine Age, Hanover and London: Wesleyan University Press, 2000. Telotte, J.P. Replications. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995 Bulfinch's Mythology, The Age of Fable – Chapter 2: Prometheus and Pandora: (accessed 21st March 2000) http://www.bulfinch.org/fables/bull2.html Bulfinch's Mythology: (accessed March 21st 2000) http://www.bulfinch.org.html Encyclopaedia Mythica: Greek Mythology: (accessed June 15th 2000) http://oingo.com/topic/20/20246.html Encyclopaedia Mythica: Articles (accessed 15th June 2000) http://www.pantheon.org/mythica/articles.html

Abstract The previous chapter traced the influence of Athenian ideals on Euripides’ reinvention of the myth of Heracles’ madness. Theseus’ encounter with Heracles is almost certainly Euripides’ own extension of older traditions of Athenian hospitality to distressed suppliants, so as to include Greece’s greatest hero in the list of clients of Athens. In Oedipus at Colonus, Sophocles takes the process of Athenian reinvention even further. Although Oedipus, like Heracles, is a well-established figure in Greek mythology, he has no close or early connections with Attica, and the help Athens gives to him has no roots in mainstream Greek tradition. Sophocles’ account may instead be seen as a kind of local variant of the Oedipus story, whose primary interest is for Athenians. Moreover, Oedipus is a figure whose appalling crimes had perhaps previously made any help or resolution of his sufferings unthinkable. The daring of Sophocles in suggesting that he could be welcomed into the city is akin to the daring of Athens in the face of danger that is emphasized in the Athenian encomia. The mythological expansionism which claims for Athens a share in non-Athenian myths, and even resolution of their problems by a virtuous representative of the city is, perhaps, akin to Athenian territorial expansionism and its justification in terms of the justice and Tollµ,a of Athens (cf. Thuc. 2. 41. 4).

Abstract What is the relevance or importance of Greek mythology in the vast world of the Roman empire? Moderns are understandably drawn to the way Roman poets and artists make use of particular myths: the vogue (for example) for the myth of the Golden Age in Catullus, Vergil, and Horace; the political exploitation of the gigantomachy myth for the victories of the princeps; more generally, the use of myth as source of imagery and exemplarity; or myth as allegory (whether physical, spiritual, or moral) in the essayists and philosophers; the development of certain mythical figures through different ages and literatures (the Ulysses theme, the Heracles theme, and so on); the sometimes puzzling myths chosen to decorate Roman sarcophagi. I myself have long been fascinated by the extraordinary vogue for the childhood rather than manhood of Achilles in the literature and (above all) art of the empire. No less intriguing in a different way is the negative attraction the old myths held for early Christians, who insisted on taking them literally, so that they could attack pagans for having unworthy gods (adulterers, parricides, crybabies). Obviously this can be seen as a sort of perverse tribute to their continuing power.

The Overall Issue of this Chapter is the articulation of local identities within the broader context of the Greek and Roman world. The development of mythologies, that is, a shared sense of the past, is one of the key ways that this was achieved in the ancient world. Other people and places have done things differently. For example, in the Middle Ages struggles over the possession of the relics of saints was part of the jostling for ecclesiastical and political prominence. This chapter will focus on the High Empire, though it will look back to the Classical and Hellenistic periods. It aims to show the importance of joining up studies of Classical Greek religion with those of later periods. It aims also to illustrate the virtues of being aware of material of different types: not only texts, but also coins, sculpture, and buildings. One theme is that the sculpture and the coins be seen as ‘memory theatres’ in which communities represented to themselves and others images of their past and hence their identities. First, some remarks on the definition of ‘mythology’. Here, the word simply refers to stories about the gods and heroes. The term ‘histories’ would have been equally good, because there was and is a perfectly good case for seeing these stories as actual events, taking place in specific places and at specific times. Upholders of that view naturally believed in the possibility of a continuous narrative, from stories about the gods and heroes down to the present. Such a position was of course debatable and debated, from the fifth century onwards. So Diodorus, writing his Universal History, noted that earlier historians had excluded mythology on the grounds that it contained self-contradictions and confusions (so on evidential, not ontological grounds). He himself, however, proposed to include the deeds of gods and heroes, such as Dionysus and Heracles, who were benefactors of the human race. Such inclusiveness, however, remained controversial: Dionysius of Halicarnassus commended Thucydides’ exclusion of the mythical from his narrative, while noting that local historians did not live up to Thucydidean standards.

Abstract The complex process of interaction with the conquered peoples produced more than information. It had a direct impact on Alexander’s view of his kingship and personal divinity. It can, I think, be shown that his staff conveniently reinterpreted local legends and integrated them into Greek mythology. Conversely the native peoples supplied information which they thought would attract the interest and approval of their conquerors. The result was a growing conviction in Alexander’s mind that he was following in the footsteps of Heracles and (still more) Dionysus. This conviction was nurtured by the circumstances of campaigning. What can hardly be over stressed is the cultural isolation of Alexander and his staff, particularly in the period of the Sogdian and Indian campaigns. It was not merely that he was further from the Mediterranean than any western army had ever penetrated, not merely that he was surrounded by culturally alien peoples with whom he could communicate only through interpreters—in some instances relays of interpreters. For long periods he was isolated from his own headquarters and the coterie of Greek intellectuals which had followed him to Central Asia. For weeks or even months his companions were his troops and immediate staff, and the range of perspectives available to him was limited. It would hardly be surprising if his thinking lacked balance and took directions which appear bizarre to modern minds.