Kozian ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 ISSN 2159-3159 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The παιδαγωγός in Euripides’ Ion: An Unwitting Purifier of Athenian Identity Benny Kozian 1. Introduction WHEN EURIPIDES’ ION was performed during the Pelopon- nesian War, Athenian identity was being thoroughly challenged in various ways.1 The Ion itself contributes to this public debate.2 It is a play about identities—individual and collective, real and fictional, possible and impossible.3 Playing out various attempts 1 On the historical context see A. W. Saxonhouse, “Myths and the Origins of Cities: Reflections on the Autochthony Theme in Euripides’ Ion,” in J. P. Euben (ed.), Greek Tragedy and Political Theory (Berkeley 1986) 252–273, at 255– 257; J. C. Gibert, Euripides. Ion (Cambridge 2019) 36–46. Exact dating of the performance is contentious, with suggestions spanning the entire decade of the 410s; for an overview of the debate see G. Martin, Euripides, Ion (Berlin 2018) 24–32; Gibert 2–4. 2 On Attic tragedy and Athenian ideology in general see S. Goldhill, “Civic Ideology and the Problem of Difference: The Politics of Aeschylean Tragedy, Once Again,” JHS 120 (2000) 34–56; J. Gregory, “Euripides as Social Critic,” G&R 49 (2002) 145–162; W. Allan and A. Kelly, “Listening to Many Voices: Greek Tragedy as Popular Art,” in A. Marmodoro et al. (eds.), The Author’s Voice in Classical and Late Antiquity (Oxford 2013) 77–122. On Ion in particular, Saxonhouse, in Greek Tragedy 255; C. Dougherty, “Democratic Contradictions and the Synoptic Illusion of Euripides’ Ion,” in J. Ober et al. (eds.), Demokratia (Princeton 1997) 249–270, at 263–264; K. Zacharia, Con- verging Truths. Euripides’ Ion and the Athenian Quest for Self-definition (Leiden 2003) 145–149, 181–186; M. Barbato, The Ideology of Democratic Athens. Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past (Cambridge 2020), esp. 25–37, 80–81. 3 D. J. Conacher, Euripidean Drama: Myth, Theme and Structure (Toronto 1967) 267–268; J. Kindt, “Apollo’s Oracle in Euripides’ Ion. Ambiguous Identities 2 THE ΠΑΙΔAΓOΓΟΣ IN EURIPIDES’ ION ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 at constructing particularly Kreousa’s and Ion’s identity,4 it ulti- mately invites its audience to consider the matter anew not just for these individuals but also for the contemporary Athenian citizen body,5 which is prefigured in these royal figures.6 In this process of negotiating competing identities, the role of the παιδαγωγός has often been neglected or downplayed.7 Scholars commonly oversimplify this complex character by highlighting only one aspect of him,8 or dismiss him as a side in Fifth-Century Athens,” AncNarr 6 (2007) 1–30; J. Radding, “Paeanic Crises: Euripides’ Ion and the Failure to Perform Identity,” AJP 138 (2017) 393–434; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 33–34, on the fragmentariness of Ion’s char- acters. On the multi-layered discourse of autochthonous identity see Barbato, The Ideology 82–114. 4 F. Zeitlin, “Mysteries of Identity and Designs of the Self in Euripides’ Ion,” PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 144–197, at 145–151. For a balanced view of Ion’s religiously, socially, and politically critical and affirmative aspects see Zacharia, Converging Truths, esp. 145–149. On Ion’s difficult generic classifi- cation, Zacharia 150–162; Martin, Euripides, Ion 7–10; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 59–63. 5 Cf. Barbato, The Ideology 56, 80–81. 6 Pace Barbato, The Ideology 105–108. 7 The fairest assessments of his role: H. Brandt, Die Sklaven in den Rollen von Dienern und Vertrauten bei Euripides (Hildesheim 1973); Saxonhouse, in Greek Tragedy 255; Zeitlin, PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 144–197. 8 Unaltered revival of Erechtheus: e.g. N. Loraux, “Kreousa the Autoch- thon: A Study of Euripides’ Ion,” in F. I. Zeitlin et al. (eds.), Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in Its Social Context (Princeton 1990) 168–206, at 186– 187 (original: N. Loraux, Les enfants d’Athéna [Paris 1981] 197–253); Zacharia, Converging Truths 26–27, 142. Loyalty to Kreousa: e.g. A. P. Burnett, Ca- tastrophe Survived. Euripides’ Plays of Mixed Reversal (Oxford 1971); G. Müller, “Beschreibung von Kunstwerken im Ion des Euripides,” Hermes 103 (1975) 25–44; D. J. Mastronarde, “Iconography and Imagery in Euripides’ Ion,” CSCA 8 (1975) 163–176; B. Gauger, Gott und Mensch im Ion des Euripides. Untersuchungen zum 3. Epeisodion des Dramas (Bonn 1977); Loraux 173–174; C. Morenilla and J. V. Bañuls, “El Pedagogo de Ión,” in C. Morenilla et al. (eds.), A la sombra de los héroes. Teatro y sociedad en la antigüedad clásica (Bari 2014) 207–229, at 209; Gibert. Euripides. Ion. Xenophobic masculine aristocrat: e.g. Saxonhouse, in Greek Tragedy 256–260; Zeitlin; Morenilla and Bañuls 225– BENNY KOZIAN 3 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 character.9 This essay, by contrast, highlights (a) the integral preliminary function that his character, ‘his’ storyline, and its immediate echoes (725–1228, 1229–1319)10 have in construct- ing Kreousa’s (and Ion’s) final identity. Instead of simply playing out a possible alternative or challenge,11 his actions are a neces- sary preparation for Ion’s actual ending. In fact, his character is indispensable to the play and has far-reaching implications, with regard to political identity. In particular, I claim that (b) he figures as a character foil gradually endowed with traits, motifs, and notions that turn him into a representation of the uncivilized Other incompatible with Athenian autochthonous identity.12 Therefore, (c) his symbolic humiliation and disappearance from the plot excludes him from Athenian self-understanding, dis- sociates Kreousa (and Ion) from these associations, and thus purifies their Athenian identity.13 226. Unseriousness/absurdity: G. B. Walsh, “The Rhetoric of Birthright and Race in Euripides’ Ion,” Hermes 106 (1978) 301–315, at 303; Saxonhouse 267–268; Martin, Euripides, Ion 4, 327; K. Zacharia, “The Marriage of Tragedy and Comedy in Euripides’ Ion,” in S. Jäkel et al. (eds.), Laughter Down the centuries II (Turku 1995) 45–63; Zacharia 172–176. 9 E.g. Gibert, Euripides. Ion 31–32; Martin, Ion 6 n.6, 328; Brandt, Die Sklaven 7–8; A. P. Burnett, “Human Resistance and Divine Persuasion in Euripides’ Ion,” CP 57 (1962) 89–103, at 98–100. 10 For structural overviews see Martin, Ion 3–5; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 23– 28. Particularly on the present section, Martin 325–480; Gibert 237–317. 11 So F. Solmsen, “Euripides’ Ion im Vergleich mit anderen Tragödien,” Hermes 69 (1934) 390–419, at 390–406; D. J. Conacher, “The Paradox of Euripides’ Ion,” TAPA 90 (1959) 20–39. 12 On the notional difference of αὐτόχθων and χθόνιος/γηγενής see V. J. Rosivach, “Earthborns and Olympians: The Parodos of the Ion,” CQ 27 (1977) 284–294, at 297–301; N. Loraux, “The Origins of Mankind in Greek Myths: Born to Die,” in Y. Bonnefoy (ed.), Greek and Egyptian Mythologies (Chicago 1992) 90–95, at 90. On the ambiguousness of autochthony (in- digenousness vs. earthbornness), see Rosivach; Saxonhouse, in Greek Tragedy 268–272. 13 Cf. F. Meinel, Pollution and Crisis in Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 2015) 212– 243. Pace Barbato, The Ideology 106. 4 THE ΠΑΙΔAΓOΓΟΣ IN EURIPIDES’ ION ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 2. A malleable character: constructing the Other Unlike previous interpreters, I do not take the Pedagogue as a simple side character among Xouthos, Chorus, Messenger, Prophetess, or comparable (slave) roles in other plays who are simply ‘dramatic functions’.14 He has a distinctive character which goes beyond playing a mere auxiliary role to Kreousa,15 or the unaltered dramatic embodiment of (Kreousa’s father) Erechtheus.16 In fact, he plays one of the play’s leading roles precisely because of his servile status, temporarily limited stage appearance, and especially his anonymity.17 Instead of signalling insignificance, these features are key indicators of his relative indeterminacy and malleability, unique in Ion: whereas Ion and Kreousa are meant to develop their new individual Athenian identity, the Pedagogue moves between several ultimately impossible identities—from father-surrogate or deputy of the collective Erechtheid dynasty to the uncivilized non-Athenian Other (see §6.a–c below).18 As we shall see, he assumes not only 14 So e.g. Zacharia, in Laughter Down the Centuries II 50; Ebbott, in A Com- panion to Greek Tragedy 369. On Ion’s secondary characters, Gibert, Euripides. Ion 31–32 (though including the Pedagogue). On other Euripidean slaves cf. Brandt, Die Sklaven; F. Yoon, The Use of Anonymous Characters in Greek Tragedy. The Shaping of Heroes (Leiden 2012). Cross-comparisons carry the danger of reductivism and are beyond this essay’s scope. On Euripides’ revaluation of slave roles see Yoon, esp. 157–158; Brandt 5–23. 15 So Brandt, Die Sklaven 82–85; Saxonhouse, in Greek Tragedy 264–265. 16 So e.g. Morenilla and Bañuls, in A la sombra de los héroes 222 n.44. 17 Previous scholarship (e.g. Mastronarde, CSCA 8 [1975] 163–176; B. D. McPhee, “Apollo, Dionysus, and the Multivalent Birds of Euripides’ Ion,” CW 110 [2017] 475–489; Radding, AJP 138 [2017] 393–434) has largely focused on Ion’s iconography and hymnodal imagery as projection surfaces to nego- tiate the ambivalent autochthonous identity. I argue that the Pedagogue’s distinctive anonymity functions as such a surface (pace Yoon, The Use of Anonymous Characters 92–96). 18 On further instances of norm and otherness in Ion see Zeitlin, PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 177–182; Ebbott, in A Companion to Greek Tragedy 366–375. On the tent description, B. Goff, “Euripides’ Ion 1132–1165: The Tent,” PCPhS N.S. 34 (1988) 42–54. BENNY KOZIAN 5 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 multiple roles inappropriate to him (e.g. father, master), but is also associated with concepts and images related to the dynasty (e.g. primitive natural power, Giants). He thus becomes a con- trastive character foil that threatens, and is altogether incom- patible with, Ion’s construction of a humanely civilized and divinely ordered world. His character, and everything associated with it, is doomed to fail and disappear from the discursive horizon of Athenian identity. 3. Inappropriateness anticipated His entrance with Kreousa (725–746) foreshadows and frames the events and themes of his post-revelatory storyline (763– 1319). As an unexpected and (seemingly) unnecessary char- acter,19 he rushes into proceedings he would not naturally be part of. In a light tone that clashes with the preceding stasimon and the upcoming events,20 he converses extensively with Kreousa about seemingly irrelevant subjects which contrast with their visit’s serious political purpose: their strange intrafamilial relation21 and the Pedagogue’s decrepitude.22 19 On his sudden appearance see Martin, Ion 328; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 237. 20 This formal opposition lends ἁλίσας ὁ πάρος ἀρχαγὸς ὢν / Ἐρεχθεὺς ἄναξ (723–724) an ambivalent revelatory sense—if these verses are not too lacunose for proper understanding (Martin, Ion 77, 324–325) Pace Martin, I think that we can make some sense of them: King Erechtheus, founding father of past ages, indeed has collected his forces (ἁλίσας; albeit controversial and considered a locus desperatus by Martin, I am inclined to agree with him [77] in retaining this reading, if any). Yet, Erechtheus is instantiated only by the decrepit Pedagogue (725–727). What the Chorus doomfully forebodes, the Pedagogue cannot initially live up to; cf. Zeitlin, PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 170; Zacharia, Converging Truths 26. Once he can (1040 onwards), he (mis-)directs those forces against (human and) divine order (anticipated in ἔπαιρε σαυτὸν πρὸς θεοῦ χρηστήρια, 727; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 238). 21 Especially the Pedagogue uses an extraordinary form of address in call- ing her θύγατερ throughout (except δέσποινα 808, τέκνον 765, παῖ 1018, and despite shifts in their actualized relationship); cf. E. Dickey, Greek Forms of Address: from Herodotus to Lucian (Oxford 1996) 63–77. 22 Brandt, Die Sklaven 85. 6 THE ΠΑΙΔAΓOΓΟΣ IN EURIPIDES’ ION ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 Particularly the emphasis on his intimate links with Kreousa’s mythical ancestors23 and his old age24 situate him in a distant past, somehow displaced into the dramatic present.25 Fur- thermore, he and Kreousa even consider him(self) a father- surrogate, which is an interpersonally (and psychologically: §§4– 5.b) strange familial role.26 Given Kreousa’s dependence on the natal οἶκος, yet lack of alternatives, it might be understandable, but is inadequate nonetheless. Besides the enormous age differ- ence, it is the traditionally more distant tutor role and his in- capability to cater to her psychological needs (§5.a–b) that make this relation unsustainable. She thus also assigns him a socio- political role beyond his servile status: as a tutor, he belongs only to the domestic, not the public sphere of the dynasty.27 As a slave, he lacks the political rights of a free-born citizen, and could never serve the political or representative functions of a dynastic ruler.28 Finally, he himself (unwittingly) foreshadows the in- appropriateness that he demonstrates throughout the plot in a still more comprehensive sense: his poor eyesight (ὅταν ἐγὼ βλέπω βραχύ, 744) may correspond to a flawed perception of himself 23 παιδαγώγ᾽ Ἐρεχθέως πατρὸς 725, 733; ἀξίων γεννητόρων 735. On the mythological tradition of the Erechtheidai in general see J. H. Blok, “Gentri- fying Genealogy: On the Genesis of the Athenian Autochthony Myth,” in U. Dill et al. (eds.), Antike Mythen: Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen (Berlin 2009) 251–275, at 258–263; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 4–18; Barbato, The Ideology 82–87. On Euripides’ mythopoiesis, Martin, Ion 22–23; V. Dimoglidis, “Meta- mythology in Euripides’ Ion,” eisodos. Zeitschrift für Literatur und Theorie (2020.1) 10–27. 24 γήρως 739, πρέσβυ 725, πατρὸς / τ’οὐµοῦ ποτ᾽ ὄντος, ἡνικ᾽ ἦν ἔτ᾽ ἐν φάει 725–726. 25 On Ion’s temporal layers, Ch. Wolff, “The Design and Myth in Eu- ripides’ Ion,” HSCP 69 (1965) 169–194, at 171–172. 26 Cf. Zacharia, Converging Truths 26–27; pace Yoon, The Use of Anonymous Characters 93 n.226. 27 Cf. Brandt, Die Sklaven 12–15, 83; Yoon, The Use of Anonymous Characters 9; Burnett, Catastrophe Survived 114–115. 28 Walsh, Hermes 106 (1978) 304; Morenilla and Bañuls, in A la sombra de los héroes 227–228. BENNY KOZIAN 7 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 and his circumstances.29 As I shall argue (§6.c), in particular his self-claimed swiftness of thought (τὸ τοῦ … νοῦ ταχύ, 742) does not manifest as such, but instead as excessive eagerness (προ- θυµία), i.e. ill-considered rashness.30 Hence, the entrance scene programmatically anticipates his misplacedness in the present circumstances (1) in terms of epoch, belonging to another age; (2) interpersonally, assuming an un- fitting familial role; and (3) thereby socially and politically trans- gressing his servile status. Besides, (4) he himself foreshadows his misperceptions and ill-considered, altogether inappropriate be- haviour, instances of which I will analyse now. 4. Usurping the throne In his accusation speeches against Xouthos and Ion, most notably, he shows pretensions to being a dynastic ruler who fears secret conspiracy (δωµάτων τ᾽ Ἐρεχθέως / ἐκβαλλόµεσθα, 810– 811).31 Firstly, he acts as if he were a political decision-maker, representing the Erechtheid dynasty. After evaluating the given circumstances (816–831) and considering possible actions, he commends a preventive attack against the intruders (843–846).32 Secondly, even if he flags his behaviour as motivated by mere sympathetic loyalty to his δέσποινα (σὺν … σοι νοσῶ, 808),33 and 29 On the correspondence of (faulty) vision and (lack of) social insight in general see L. Coo, “Sight and Blindness: The Mask of Thamyris,” in M. Squire (ed.), Sight and the Ancient Senses (London 2016) 237–248. Cf. Poly- phemus in Od. 9, whose single eye parallels his narrow-mindedness. I owe these suggestions to Dr. Matthew Chaldekas. 30 Cf. Gauger, Gott und Mensch 8–9, though neglecting the discrepancy of self-perception and reality; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 239. 31 Cf. Martin, Ion 348, on the λάθρᾳ “leitmotif” (816, 819, 822; 820, 825, 826). 32 Cf. Morenilla and Bañuls, in A la sombra de los héroes 224–225. Pace Brandt, Die Sklaven 22–23, he goes beyond a mere “Beraterfunktion.” On his sophistic and impious rationalism, Wolff, HSCP 69 (1965) 183–184; Walsh, Hermes 106 (1978) 304–307. 33 On his loyalty to Kreousa as dynastic representative see Martin, Ion 327; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 237; Zacharia, Converging Truths 27. 8 THE ΠΑΙΔAΓOΓΟΣ IN EURIPIDES’ ION ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 proactively offers his help (σοὶ … συνεκπονεῖν θέλω, / καὶ συµ- φονεύειν παῖδ[α], 850–851), as might befit his status,34 his way of thinking casts him as a political ruler. He does not show much concern for Kreousa’s unfulfilled personal desire for children and the resulting individual suffering.35 Rather, he thinks from a political point of view exclusively in kinship terms, concerned with the continuation of a noble and pure royal lineage (τυραν- νίδ᾽ αὐτῷ περιβαλεῖν ἔµελλε γῆς, 829; ἐς σὸν δῶµα δεσπότην ἄγει, 838; ἐσῴικισ᾽ οἴκους, 841).36 From this perspective, Kreousa becomes a mere representative of the Erechtheid dynasty whose only task is to produce a legitimate heir or, if she fails to do so (stigmatized by her barrenness: 817, 840), to secure the lineage’s continuity otherwise (e.g. by accepting a noble-born Kuckuckskind, 839–841; or with a surrogate mother’s help, 841–842).37 In fact, after her monody, he even appears confused about her indi- vidualised female perspective (§5.b on 925–930). He lacks, it seems, an understanding of her, or in fact anybody’s, personal identity. His world consists only of sociopolitical roles, of masters 34 Cf. προδεδόµεσθα 808, ὑβριζόµεσθα 810, ἐκβαλλόµεσθα 811, σε … φιλῶν 812, and earlier τι θεσφάτοισι δεσποτῶν νοσῶ 755 (if attributed to him; W. Kraus, “Textkritische Erwägungen zu Euripides’ Ion,” WS 102 [1989] 35– 110, at 68–69; pace M. Huys, “Euripides, Ion L. 752–755 and 763–765: Kreousa’s Reaction to the False News of her ἀτεκνία,” Hermes 121 [1993] 422–432, at 425–428), διοιχόµεσθα 765 (if attributed to him; Kraus 70). Taking them at face value, most commentators (e.g. Gibert, Euripides. Ion 247) overlook the strong dynastic role that the Pedagogue actively and purpose- fully usurps through his speech acts in contrast with the actual queen’s inertia. 35 His unempathetic pragmatism also appears in 769–773 (his µήπω στενάξῃς, answered by Kreousa’s ἀλλὰ πάρεισι γόοι), followed by his callous rational questioning despite Kreousa’s increasing complaints. Pace Martin, Ion 327, he is just the opposite of an “empathetic audience.” 36 Brandt, Die Sklaven 87; Ch. Segal, “Euripides’ Ion: Generational Passage and Civic Myth,” in M. W. Padilla (ed.), Rites of Passage in Ancient Greece: Litera- ture, Religion, Society (Lewisburg 1999) 67–108, at 77–78; Zacharia, Converging Truths 78–82. 37 Pace Gauger, Gott und Mensch 26, lines 836–842 are thus anything but concerned with a deprived mother’s personal feelings. BENNY KOZIAN 9 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 and servants, rulers and ruled, natives and strangers. Likewise, he himself can at best assume the collective public identity which represents the entire Erechtheid dynastic past.38 His speeches frame him as the personification of dynastic interests who is not merely speaking for, but embodying the royal ancestors,39 know- ingly forgetful of his domestic role and servile status.40 Ironically, thus, his made-up conspiracy theory not only denigrates Xou- thos and Ion with the charge of attempted usurpation of Athens, but opts for such an attempt by himself. Unwittingly self- revealing, he imagines himself ἐπεισελθὼν δόµους / οὗ δαῖθ᾽ ὁπλίζει (851–852), just as Xouthos is a ξένος ἐπεισελθὼν πόλιν / καὶ δῶµα (813–814). Just as Xouthos intrudes in Erechtheid Athens, so the Pedagogue rushes into the (figurative represen- tation of) Ionian Athens of Ion (and Kreousa).41 In short, by arrogating to himself the unfit role of a free-born dynastic ruler, in social and political terms he behaves as a rebellious slave. 5.a. Kreousa’s emancipation How, then, does Kreousa react to such behaviour? From her monody on, she gradually becomes alienated from the Peda- 38 Remarkably, he refers to these δεσπόται usually in the plural (735–737, 852, 1043, cf. 755, 966, 968, 1000)—except in his own seizure of power (808– 812), or when referring to illegitimate masters (771 Xouthos, 838 Ion). 39 Cf. Martin, Ion 328: the Pedagogue is the one “who most consistently thinks in terms of the fate of the house”; also Conacher, TAPA 90 (1959) 37 n.49; Walsh, Hermes 106 (1978) 313; Morenilla and Bañuls, in A la sombra de los héroes 227 n.55. 40 Lines 854–856 explicitly question contemporary insurmountable status boundaries: apart from their name (τοὔνοµα), slaves, if they are ἐσθλός, are said to be by no means inferior to free-born people (τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα πάντα τῶν ἐλευθέρων / οὐδὲν κακίων δοῦλος, 855–856). Cf. Brandt, Die Sklaven 5–6, 12– 13; Walsh, Hermes 106 (1978) 304–305; Gregory, G&R 49 (2002) 154–159. 41 Cf. Walsh, Hermes 106 (1978) 313. Both the speech act and its content (the proposed attack) thus are an attempt to revive the Erechtheid past, reject- ing any progressive tendencies. This metaphorical reading lends τροφεῖα δεσπόταις / ἀποδούς (851–852) the ambivalent overtone of his pay-back of the old against the new. 10 THE ΠΑΙΔAΓOΓΟΣ IN EURIPIDES’ ION ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 gogue, which parallels her self-emancipation from the natal Erechtheid οἶκος.42 It ultimately enables her (1) to abandon him as a father-substitute by confessing her sufferings; (2) to deflate his political ambitions by taking over dynastic responsibilities herself; and eventually (3) to cope with the Erechtheid past al- together, prevailing over its undesirable notions by his expulsion and her negotiations with Ion (see n.86 below). I aim to show next that, far from being an adequate father-substitute or self- empowered ruler, the Pedagogue recedes into the role of a slave, executing his mistress’s orders, becoming her ‘partner in crime’. Eventually, though, through his disappearance, he is separated from her altogether. 5.b. Kreousa’s psychological turn … misunderstood Uncertain about her prospects of maternity and still coping with the aftermath of her rape, she initially treats the Pedagogue, the last relic of her natal family, as a surrogate father (§3). However, through his speeches, she realizes his lack of under- standing, (partly) provoking her monody. Reducing her to her dynastic function alone (legitimate childbirth: §4), he ignores her individual sufferings, and fails to provide the required support. Therefore, I read her monody as a temporary renunciation of this public role (cf. 859–863),43 an outburst (864–875) which prioritizes personal psychic relief instead (στέρνων / ἀπονησαµένη ῥᾴων ἔσοµαι, 874–875).44 Afterwards, however, the Pedagogue 42 Zacharia, Converging Truths 85–86, 97; cf. Gauger, Gott und Mensch 48–49. 43 The causal relation of his speeches to her monody has not yet been investigated. Cf. Gauger, Gott und Mensch 38–40, on the confusion of earlier scholarship about the monody’s function and its place and motivation with regard to the Pedagogue’s preceding speeches—even J. Diggle, Euripidis fabulae II (Oxford 1981) 341–342, and Martin, Ion 82, 347–359, would still delete 844–858 (Diggle) or 839–858 (Martin). More balanced accounts of both the Pedagogue’s speeches and the monody are cited in the following note. 44 S. E. Hoffer, “Violence, Culture, and the Workings of Ideology in Euripides’ Ion,” ClAnt 15 (1996) 289–318, at 303–306; H. J. Westra, “The BENNY KOZIAN 11 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 proves himself incapable of helping yet again. First, unsure how to classify her revelations, the Pedagogue is confused (926). ⟨ὦ⟩ θύγατερ, οὔτοι45 σὸν βλέπων ἐµπίµπλαµαι 925 πρόσωπον, ἔξω δ᾽ ἐγενόµην γνώµης ἐµῆς. κακῶν γὰρ ἄρτι κῦµ᾽ ὑπεξαντλῶν φρενί, πρύµνηθεν αἴρει µ᾽ ἄλλο σῶν λόγων ὕπο, οὓς ἐκβαλοῦσα τῶν παρεστώτων κακῶν µετῆλθες ἄλλων πηµάτων κακὰς ὁδούς. 930 It is not simply the information’s novelty (or incompleteness),46 but rather the new kind of psychologically subtle, personal feel- ings that forces him to resort to (incongruous)47 nautical imagery to vent his confusion. He is seized from behind (928) by another wave different from (928) the one he has just managed to over- come with his political problem-solving skill (927). Through her vehement utterance (929), for him, she deviates onto evil paths of miseries unheard of (930). Then (936–969), once he hears about a born, lost, but perhaps still living child (947), his interest shifts to the whereabouts of this potential legitimate heir (950–969).48 Hearing that she herself exposed the new-born, his questions gain an accusatory tone directed at the god and her (πῶς … ἔτλης 958, τλήµων σὺ τόλµης 961).49 After all, it is not her personal suffering, but the dynasty’s Irreducibility of Autochthony: Euripides’ Ion and Lévi-Strauss’ Interpretation of the Oedipus-Myth,” in J. Davidson et al. (eds.), Greek Drama III Essays in Honour of Kevin Lee (London 2006) 273–279, at 276; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 14– 15; cf. Solmsen, Hermes 69 (1934) 397–399; Zacharia, Converging Truths 78–82. 45 οὔτοι L : οἴκτου Nauck. Cf. G. Murray, Euripidis fabulae II (Oxford 1904); Kraus, WS 102 (1989) 74–75; pace Diggle, Euripidis fabulae II 345; Martin, Ion 381. 46 So e.g. Gauger, Gott und Mensch 41–42; Martin, Ion 379–381; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 267. 47 Martin, Ion 381. 48 Cf. Martin, Ion 387. 49 Cf. Gauger, Gott und Mensch 131; Hoffer, ClAnt 15 (1996) 302; pace Martin, Ion 388–389; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 270–271. 12 THE ΠΑΙΔAΓOΓΟΣ IN EURIPIDES’ ION ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 plight (δόµων σῶν 966, σὲ καὶ πατέρα σὸν δυστυχοῦντας 968) he laments most intensely.50 He does cry, but not so much for Kreousa as for the lost chance of an uncomplicated throne succession.51 5.c. Kreousa’s frustrated activism Kreousa, by contrast, seems to show little interest in these changeable public affairs (τὰ θνητὰ τοιαῦτ᾽· οὐδὲν ἐν ταὐτῷ µένει, 969). On my interpretation, this commonplace expresses her exasperation admittedly about her hopeless situation, but mainly about his failure to understand and support her—which he only exacerbates by the immediate, unsympathetic transition to plotting revenge (µή νυν ἔτ᾽ οἴκτων, θύγατερ, ἀντεχώµεθα, 970).52 Unsure where to turn (971) without being entirely clueless (cf. 984 onwards), she consults the Pedagogue for inspiration, thus casting him no longer as a father-surrogate, but as partner in plotting the crime.53 Realizing, however, the unfeasibility of his suggestions (970–983), she accepts to take matters into her own hands54—though already significantly biased by his violent, revenge-seeking horizon of possible actions.55 Albeit for per- nicious ends, it is the first time that she takes over dynastic 50 Cf. Martin, Ion 326, 390; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 271. 51 Brandt, Die Sklaven 89; pace Gauger, Gott und Mensch 42; Segal, in Rites of Passage 88. 52 Brandt, Die Sklaven 89; Martin, Ion 390. 53 On the division of agency, Martin, Ion 390–391; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 57, 237–238, though underestimating the Pedagogue’s part. 54 Cf. Gauger, Gott und Mensch 47–49, on Kreousa’s surprising activity, and her liberation “aus der Bevormundung des Greises” (48). 55 On the question of responsibility in general, see Yoon, The Use of Anon- ymous Characters 85–92; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 32, 272. Those who attribute major guilt and responsibility to Kreousa primarily invoke her proposal (e.g. Burnett, CP 57 [1962] 92–97; Martin, Ion 390–391), but often neglect the Pedagogue’s biasing influence through his accusation speeches and plotting suggestions, especially through his ideas of theomachy, marital or filial kin- ship murder—an influence still palpable in her allegations against using Pedagogue’s terms of usurpation and burning (1290–1305). BENNY KOZIAN 13 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 responsibility, acts as befits her royal role, and establishes her discursive authority through her own elaborate proposal (984– 1019). It is therefore, I argue, that the Pedagogue recedes into his servant role (ὑπηρέτης 986), willingly executing her com- mands (σὸν λέγειν, τολµᾶν δ᾽ ἐµόν 1020, ἡµεῖς δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τετάγµεθ᾽ ἐκπονήσοµεν 1040), which prepares his final transformation. 6.a. Preparing the uncivilized Other In her proposal—a lengthy aetiology of the double-edged Gorgonic bracelet as an Erechtheid heirloom (984–1019)— Kreousa evokes symbols of primitive violence (Gigantomachy 987–988, Gorgo 989–991, snakes 993),56 links them to the family narrative, and thus bestows them on the bracelet.57 Hence, the person who has it seems symbolically charged with them.58 Sig- nificantly, it is the Pedagogue who receives the bracelet from her (1029–1030), thus taking on these qualities.59 Hence, this sym- bolic act enables Kreousa, the current dynastic representative, to dissociate herself from notions of chthonic primitive violence which instead go over altogether to the Pedagogue, who repre- sents the Erechtheid past.60 On the one hand, this prepares for the thorough renegotiation of Athenian autochthonous identity between Kreousa and Ion during Ion’s Exodos (1250–1622; see n.86 below).61 More immediately still, on the other, it triggers the Pedagogue’s transformation into the uncivilized Other, ready for expulsion from the Athenian civic sphere.62 It parallels 56 On these recurring themes see Mastronarde, CSCA 8 (1975), esp. 167– 168; Rosivach, CQ 27 (1977) 284–294; Loraux, in Nothing to Do with Dionysos? 168–206. 57 Cf. Gibert, Euripides. Ion 22–23, on the bracelet’s autochthonous am- bivalence. 58 Rosivach, CQ 27 (1977) 291. 59 Cf. Gibert, Euripides. Ion 32, 58. 60 Cf. Burnett, Catastrophe Survived 111–112; Segal, in Rites of Passage 99–100. 61 Cf. Zeitlin, PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 153–154. 62 Along with him, the bracelet will disappear. Its tradition as an 14 THE ΠΑΙΔAΓOΓΟΣ IN EURIPIDES’ ION ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 his supposed rejuvenation before leaving the stage which, albeit oft-observed, remains unsatisfyingly explained.63 I shall now interpret it in terms of his total unfitness in any human or divine order. 6.b. The Pedagogue rejuvenated Whereas all other characters gradually mature, the Pedagogue symbolizes not just a standstill, but a temporal and moral re- gression. Kreousa and Ion, by contrast, undergo a significant progressive change individually: she emancipates herself within the dynasty and as its public representative (§5.a–c), he proceeds to adulthood and enters the royal family as a legitimate suc- cessor.64 Furthermore, these characters allow the Erechtheid monarchy to progress from the mythic past of their ancestors to a historical present that anticipates the future, from a rule of primitive chthonic forces to civilized order.65 The Pedagogue, by contrast, reverses this process, receding in time. In his entrance (§3), his old age, poor sight, and physical weakness as well as his hackneyed utterances show him displaced into the present. Eventually, however, just before the murder attempt, he seeks to return to a stage of (past) youthfulness (ὦ γεραιὲ πούς, νεανίας γενοῦ, 1041), well aware that this is chrono- logically impossible (cf. κεἰ µὴ τῷ χρόνῳ πάρεστί σοι, 1042).66 Generationally, he regresses from the aristocratic customs of the Erechtheid past (cf. ἄξι᾽ ἀξίων γεννητόρων / ἤθη φυλάσσεις, Erechtheid heirloom ends, giving way to redefined traditions involving new symbolic items—such as Kreousa’s recognition tokens (cf. 1410–1438). Analogously, it is there that the unused positive Gorgonic potential is finally actualized by Kreousa for a redefinition of autochthony. 63 Cf. Martin, Ion 404–405; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 237–238, 278–279. 64 On Ion’s development see Zacharia, Converging Truths 70–76. 65 Cf. e.g. Wolff, HSCP 69 (1965) 171–172; Burnett, Catastrophe Survived 103–105; Saxonhouse, in Greek Tragedy 254–256; N. Loraux, “Myth in the Greek City: the Athenian Politics of Myth,” in Y. Bonnefoy (ed.), Greek and Egyptian Mythologies (Chicago 1992) 40–46; Zacharia, Converging Truths 58–63; Blok, in Antike Mythen 262. 66 Cf. Zeitlin, PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 170; Segal, in Rites of Passage 88–89. BENNY KOZIAN 15 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 735–736), ultimately to a moral state of pre-civilized violent lawlessness and impiety.67 In social terms, it is manifest in his disregard for any marital and filial obligations (by suggesting the murder of Kreousa’s husband and his child: 976, 978). On a religious level, he even considers revenge on Apollo by burning his temple (πίµπρη τὰ σεµνὰ Λοξίου χρηστήρια, 974), thus first introducing the option of θεοµαχία rejected by Kreousa (973, 975).68 Moreover, he has no concerns about committing sacri- lege by murdering a former temple-slave in a sacred tent (ἱεραῖ- σιν ἐν σκηναῖσιν, 982) during a religious ritual (1032–1033, 1187–1188).69 This attitude, dismissive of any human or divine order, culminates in his final statement which disregards piety (εὐσέβεια, 1045) in case of conflict and rejects the validity of any law, if doing so benefits the agent (ὅταν δὲ πολεµίους δρᾶσαι κακῶς / θέλῃ τις, οὐδεὶς ἐµποδὼν κεῖται νόµος, 1046–1047).70 This stance is highly reminiscent of the Gigantomachic or Erechtheid past (cf. 277–282) but is certainly misplaced in Ion’s present. Hence, in stark opposition to the progressive civilizational development of the other characters, the Pedagogue regresses in time and seeks to overthrow civilized order. Coexistence among civilized beings becomes impossible, his disappearance necessary.71 67 Brandt, Die Sklaven 90–92; Gauger, Gott und Mensch 134; Segal, in Rites of Passage 89; Mastronarde, CSCA 8 (1975) 165–171; Zeitlin, PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 162. 68 Kreousa herself, unlike the Pedagogue, never (really) considers theo- machy; pace J. LaRue, “Creusa’s Monody: Ion 859–922,” TAPA 94 (1963) 126–136, at 127–128; Burnett, Catastrophe Survived 121–122; Rosivach, CQ 27 (1977) 290–291; Zacharia, in Laughter Down the Centuries II 61, and Converging Truths 98; cf. Saxonhouse, in Greek Tragedy 273; Zeitlin, PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 187 n.54; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 55–57, on θεοµαχία on the part of the Peda- gogue and Kreousa. 69 He first raises this option (982), Kreousa later only summarizes it (1032– 1033). 70 Cf. Yoon, The Use of Anonymous Characters 96. 71 Cf. Hoffer, ClAnt 15 (1996) 300–301; Yoon, The Use of Anonymous Char- acters 95–96. 16 THE ΠΑΙΔAΓOΓΟΣ IN EURIPIDES’ ION ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 Finally, I shall show how his personal rejuvenation is framed to facilitate his expulsion. 6.c. Προθυμία and πρόθυμα: expulsion and purification A programmatic reading of the Messenger’s speech (1106– 1228),72 which depicts that expulsion, can elucidate not only the Pedagogue’s rejuvenation, but in fact his overall function in the plot: his inappropriate behaviour in the libation ritual epitomizes his behaviour throughout his storyline. One key term, used by Ion, is προθυµία (1211).73 What the Pedagogue himself deemed ταχυτὴς τοῦ νοῦ (742) has ultimately emerged as nothing but ill-conceived, juvenile rashness.74 He always acts first, but nevertheless inadequately throughout. At the start, it shines through in his know-it-all commonplaces (742–746), his initiative in questioning the Chorus (752–807: 752–755, 769–773), the priority of his usurpation speeches rela- tive to Kreousa’s monody (808–858 vs. 859–922), his untimely initiation of the plotting (970–1047: 970)—significantly ad- vanced by his ill-considered proposals (970–983), misguiding Kreousa’s own plans (984–1019).75 The wish for restored youth (1041–1042)—itself a naïve hope wrapped in an absurd invocation to his own foot76—just seems to make explicit what has guided all his behaviour and is final- ized in his inept gate-crashing of the banquet. Coming by (παρελ- θών 1171) again at an inopportune time, he, without noticing,77 72 On the importance of the tent’s allusive imagery for Athenian identity see Müller, Hermes 103 (1975) 39–44; Mastronarde, CSCA 8 (1975) 163–176; Goff, PCPhS N.S. 34 (1988) 47–50; Zeitlin, PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 174–177; Zacharia, Converging Truths 32–37. 73 Different from προθυµία / ποδῶν (1109–1110), cf. Zeitlin, PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 192 n.112. 74 Gibert, Euripides. Ion 239, 278–279. 75 Brandt, Die Sklaven 86–88. 76 Cf. Gibert, Euripides. Ion 278, on parallels. 77 Pace Gibert, Euripides. Ion 300–301, I would not consider the laughter BENNY KOZIAN 17 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 only arouses the attendees’ laughter (γέλων, 1172) and im- mediately initiates his clumsy attempt at poisoning. If the tent represents Ion’s configuration of Athens,78 then the attendees’ laughter, a verdict of social impropriety,79 along with Ion’s indictment of προθυµία (1211) is symbolic: such juvenile over- eagerness embodied by the Pedagogue—fraught with notions of a dark chthonic past, prone to action before consideration, irreconcilable violence over compromise-seeking negotiation— is inappropriate in the new Athens and needs to be excluded.80 Therefore, the second key term πρόθυµα (“preparatory offer- ing,” 1173),81 introduced by the Messenger, neatly captures the Pedagogue’s function—both on a scenic level and for the entire Ion: he contributes only a πρόθυµα not just to the libation ritual, but especially to Ion’s negotiation of Athenian identity.82 It is not provoked as the Pedagogue’s deliberate tactic, but rather an unwanted side effect of his behaviour, further evidencing his inappropriateness; cf. Martin, Ion 441. 78 Cf. Goff, PCPhS N.S. 34 (1988) 47–50; Zeitlin, PCPhS N.S. 35 (1989) 165– 169. 79 Cf. Zacharia, in Laughter Down the Centuries II 55–56. 80 On this necessity, Wolff, HSCP 69 (1965) 189; cf. Burnett, Catastrophe Survived 8; Alan and Kelly, in The Author’s Voice 96–98. Cf. more broadly Richard Seaford’s idea of tragic tyrants—i.e. actual, not self-proclaimed rulers—who in a play need to fail or perish to prepare the polis for democracy: “Tragic Tyranny,” in K. Morgan (ed.), Popular Tyranny (Austin 2003) 95–116; cf. also Gibert, Euripides. Ion 36–46. The Pedagogue’s function on the intra- dynastic level is thus analogous to that of such monarchs within their political community. I owe this hint to an anonymous referee. 81 LSJ s.v. πρόθυµα is ambiguous, alternatively also the adverbialised neuter plural of πρόθυµος “eager.” To my knowledge, no commentator has yet estab- lished the connection for these two terms in the Ion. 82 Answering the helpful challenge, posed by an anonymous referee, whether I take the play on πρόθυµος as a pivotal aspect of Euripides’ argument or only an authorial jeu d’esprit (their phrase), I would think that it befits Euripides in particular to ‘kill these two birds with one stone’ and so en- capsulate key elements of the plot, but in a word-play charged with tragic 18 THE ΠΑΙΔAΓOΓΟΣ IN EURIPIDES’ ION ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 yet the entire story but only prepares for the main act still to come, being its purificatory preliminary.83 This it achieves through the Pedagogue’s final expulsion (1213 onwards), imi- tating chthonic earth-swallowing (cf. 281–283). Yet, this process contains a significant difference84 from that tradition: with Kre- ousa and Ion, the disappearance of those notions is meant to be permanent.85 The Pedagogue ultimately takes with him the undesirable chthonic notions related to the Erechtheid past. Hence, it is here that the expulsion of the Other of Athenian autochthonous identity occurs dramatically, dissociating it from Kreousa and Ion as the future representatives of a purified con- ception of autochthony.86 irony. Of course, this need not imply that its full meaning is discernible by everyone in the audience, but the verbal and phonological similarity as well as the scenic context help convey its basic meaning nonetheless. A similar case could be made for the programmatic nature of 727 (see n.20 above). For the deliberate association of θύειν and προθυµία by Euripides cf. IT 616–617. On the general idea of an inevitably consecutive order of ritual (human) sacri- fices there (albeit not relating it to the mentioned passage), see D. Sansone, “The Sacrifice-Motif in Euripides’ IT,” TAPA 105 (1975) 283–295, at 286– 289. 83 Put differently, the Pedagogue’s rejuvenation into Erechtheus must fail before Ion’s can succeed (cf. ἀνηβᾷ δ᾽ Ἐρεχθεύς, 1465; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 43). 84 On this pattern of myth continuation, Loraux, in Greek and Egyptian Mythologies 40–45; Zacharia, Converging Truths 87–98. 85 By contrast, Xouthos can be part of future Athens; cf. Zacharia, Con- verging Truths 101. Albeit eventually absent from stage and thus marginalised, his figure is not incompatible with Athenian self-understanding; pace Loraux, in Nothing to Do with Dionysos? 185–186; Gibert, Euripides. Ion 31. 86 Cf. Meinel, Pollution 237–243. However, this event requires public recog- nition and ratification on the discursive level as well, to complete the removal from Kreousa and Ion. Therefore, in their subsequent interaction, these primitively violent chthonic notions are reiterated (cf. 1261–1265). However, Ion misattributes them to Kreousa (pace Wolff, HSCP 69 [1965] 183–184), ignorant of the Pedagogue’s role in the plot. After the Pedagogue’s disappear- ance, I argue, these notions are misplaced with Kreousa (cf. M. Lloyd, BENNY KOZIAN 19 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 7. Conclusion The Pedagogue is indeed one of Ion’s pivotal figures, a con- trastive foil tasked with purifying Athenian identity as Euripides constructs it in this play. His behaviour is marked by its in- appropriateness in interpersonal, social, and religious terms. A hybristic slave, he transgresses his status by positioning himself as Kreousa’s father-surrogate, and fails to provide the personal support that Kreousa hopes for. Moreover, by usurping the role of a dynastic ruler he overestimates by far the possibilities of his sociopolitical status. A hybristic mortal, he is overconfident in mere human rationality to decode the Apolline oracle and discover a hidden plot. Besides, it is he who first introduces the notion of theomachy and shows no concerns about committing sacrilege. In speech and deed, he shows a juvenile rashness (προθυµία) and inclination to ill-considered violent action that parallels the metaphorical rejuvenation he undergoes: both personally and generationally, he seeks to revive the remote past of his youth, utterly different from Ion’s present. For the discourse of Athenian autochthonous identity, his character is, in its very indeterminacy, instrumentalised as a con- trastive foil upon which the undesirable notions of autochthony are projected, but eventually excluded altogether from Ion’s “Divine and Human Action in Euripides’ Ion,” A&A 32 [1986] 33–45, at 43– 44). The impasse thus provoked can only be solved by divine intervention (cf. Rosivach, CQ 27 [1977] 291–292). Instead of silencing Ion’s allegations (so Martin, Ion 480), the Pythia (1320–1368) and Athena (1549–1622) subtly re- assure that, along with the Pedagogue, these notions have already vanished. He suddenly disappeared from the stage, and so ought they to be excluded from the discursive sphere—without further questioning their whereabouts. After all, the set of characters and Athenian identity are better off without them. However, to prepare the positive renegotiation of Athenian autochtho- nous identity of Ion’s Exodos (cf. Kreousa’s δῶµ᾽ ἑστιοῦται, γᾶ δ᾽ ἔχει τυράννους· / ἀνηβᾷ δ᾽ Ἐρεχθεύς, 1464–1465), a πρόθυµα—which re-enacts the flipside of autochthonous identity in the Pedagogue’s actions and prob- lematizes this flipside between Ion and Kreousa, but which eventually is superseded by a prosperous autochthonous identity according to the divinely- ordained plan—was necessary. 20 THE ΠΑΙΔAΓOΓΟΣ IN EURIPIDES’ ION ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 1–20 redefinition of Ionian-Athenian identity. For the Pedagogue figures as the pre- or anti-civilized Other which embodies the primitive, destructive chthonic forces of earth associated with the Erechtheid dynasty’s past. His disappearance therefore func- tions as a preparatory purification (πρόθυµα) which leaves a ‘cleansed’ concept of autochthony for Kreousa and Ion, and thus enables them to cope with their ancestral past. Therefore, the Pedagogue is crucial for negotiating Athenian identity in Ion. He personifies what henceforth makes up the non-Athenian, and must therefore be dissociated from Athenian self-understand- ing.87 March, 2023 Queens’ College, Cambridge University of Cambridge bennyko147@gmail.com 87 This paper is a revised and extended version of an essay written during my M.Phil. at the University of Cambridge, under the supervision of Dr. Henry L. Spelman. It is most of all to him that I owe great thanks for his numerous helpful comments on language, style, and argument of previous drafts, as well as our insightful discussions. I would also like to thank Dr. Matthew Chaldekas for his comments on the paper. I first encountered Ion in a seminar by Prof. Christian Brockmann at the University of Hamburg during summer term 2021 which engendered my lasting fascination for this Euripidean play in particular.