CONFLICTING ASPECTS OF CHARACTER IN EURIPIDES’ MEDEAby ANNA CATHERINE MILES MINI-DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF GREEK in GREEK in the FACULTY OF HUMANITIES at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG SUPERVISOR: PROFESSOR JLP WOLMARANS MAY 2007 i CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ABSTRACT CHAPTER ONE: Introduction - The Myth of Jason and Medea - The Problem - Chapter Layout CHAPTER TWO: Overview of the Literature - Aim - The Philological Approach - Literary Approaches - The Traditional Literary Approach - The Psychological Approach - The Philosophical Approach - The Socio-Historical Approach - Feminist Approaches - Conclusion CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology - Introduction - The Freudian Approach - The Jungian Approach - Claude Levi-Strauss’ Structuralism - The Feminist Approach - The Hero as an Archetype - Conclusion CHAPTER FOUR: Patriarchal Society: Perpetuated or Deconstructed? - Introduction - Theories of Male/Female Difference - Male and Female in Greek Thought and Society - Euripides Reveals the Paradoxes and Anomalies of Greek Social Structure - Marriage - The Importance of Love to a Woman - Jung’s Theory of the Anima and Animus as an Explanation for the Underestimation of Women - Euripides Challenges Female Archetypes - The Inherent Injustice in Society as an Explanation for Women Behaving Badly - Conclusion CHAPTER FIVE: Medea as an Outsider - Introduction - Theories of Culture - Herodotus and Aristotle - Eurpides’ Troiades as an Example of the Perspective of Foreign Women - Euripides Shows the Perspective of the Foreign Woman in the Medea - Conclusion CHAPTER SIX: Victim or Perpetrator? - Introduction - Obligations of Friendship - Marriage Obligations and Oaths i ii 1 1 4 7 9 9 9 9 10 12 17 19 21 23 25 25 25 26 28 30 32 33 34 34 34 35 41 41 43 44 47 48 49 51 51 51 52 55 56 60 62 62 63 66 ii - Expressions of Medea as a Victim - Freud’s Domestic Psychodrama - Conclusion CHAPTER SEVEN: Justifiable Violence - Introduction - Examples of Revenge in Homer’s Bronze Age Epics - Revenge in the Medea - Jung’s Theory of the ‘Shadow’ - Freud’s Theory of the Id, Ego and Superego - Conclusion CHAPTER EIGHT: Hero or Villain? - Introduction - The Heroic Code in Homer - The Heroic Code in Euripides’ Medea - The Heroic Pattern - The Conflict Between the Great Goddess and the Archetypal Hero - The Paradox of Medea as Murderer and Hero - Levi-Strauss’ Structuralist Method Applied to the Medea - Conclusion CHAPTER NINE: Conclusion BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 70 71 73 73 74 76 79 81 84 86 86 87 87 89 90 92 95 97 98 101 iii ABBREVIATIONS Referencing of the original texts is based on the abbreviations according to Liddell & Scott. A.R. Apollonius Rhodius Ar. Aristophanes Arist. Aristotle E. Euripides Hdt. Herodotus Hipp. Hippolytus Hes. Hesiod Hist. Histories Hom. Homer Il. Iliad Med. Medea Mor. Moralia Od. Odyssey P. Pythia Pi. Pindar Plu. Plutarch Po. Poetica Pol. Politica Th. Theogony Thes. Thesmophoriazusae Thu. Thucydides Tro. Troiades i ABSTRACT Medea’s powerful ability to inspire and confuse is at the core of this study. The contradiction concerning Euripides’ character of Medea as a murderer and a victim will be explored in order to understand what implications this would have held for an ancient Greek audience. Thus the irregularities in this female character will be used to indicate the inconsistencies within the society from which Euripides was writing. Women’s lack of freedom in ancient Greece, their confinement to the house and their lack of opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns produced an imbalance in society. This masculine community led to extremes in behaviour. Male heroes overemphasised traits which stressed their physical prowess and masculine bravery. As a hero, Jason’s all-consuming ambition was to succeed in endeavours such as the quest for the Golden Fleece, and to reclaim his title of king. He took advantage of Medea’s gifts until she was no longer of any use to him and then left her for a younger, more beneficial princess to accomplish his subsequent task of gaining a kingdom. Medea’s excessive behaviour was a protest against her position as supportive wife when she found that Jason had neglected his obligation as a protective husband. Euripides’ tragedy was a rebellion against a cultural definition of men and women which did not work. Men were pressured into being the sole providers and authorities over a whole household, whereas women were relegated to the status of possessions. The situation generally suited men, but women were not given a choice of career and had their marriage prearranged by their fathers. More importantly they were not provided with an opportunity to voice their displeasure and were in the hands of fate, whether they attained a kind or a cruel husband. This study argues that by challenging the definition of heroes and victims, Euripides questioned the preconceived perceptions of the nature of women and foreigners. He was also commenting on social restriction and the possible consequences of restraining women’s behaviour and their opinions. ii CHAPTER ONE: Introduction The Myth of Jason and Medea The myth of Jason and Medea has fascinated audiences and readers for centuries. The heroic tale of Jason’s voyage with the Argonauts in quest of the Golden Fleece contains alluring facets of adventure, magic and passion. Ancient poets such as Apollonius of Rhodes in his Argonautica and Pindar in the Pythian 4 were inspired to give their accounts of Jason and Medea (Blondell et al: 150). Homer even mentioned the fame and renown of the Argo in the Odyssey: ο η δ κε ν γε παρ πλω ποντοπ ρος νη ς Αργ π σι μ λουσα, πaρ' Α ταο πλ ουσα· (Hom Od. 12. 69-70) The only vessel that ever sailed and got through was the famous Argo on her way from the house of Aeetes … [Transl. Butler] The mythical icon of Medea would have been familiar to the ancient Greeks as a prominent figure in the myth of Jason and the Argonauts. The most powerful and contentious version is arguably that of Euripides in his Medea, which has stimulated increased interest and aroused discussion. A text that is two-and-a-half thousand years old has met a generation of classical scholars devoted to its passionate and controversial content. In order to understand why Euripides’ treatment of the myth of Medea is thought to be so controversial, a basic summary of the traditional tale of Jason and the Argonauts is given. In Robert Graves’ second volume of Greek Myths (pp. 216-257), he presents a well-researched account of Medea and Jason, and this source is used for a paraphrased version: King Pelias seized the throne of Iolcus from his brother, the rightful heir and father of the hero, Jason. Pelias told Jason that he would gladly hand over the throne to Jason if he first went to an Eastern land to bring home the Golden Fleece. The city to which Jason had to venture, was Colchis. Jason accepted the arduous task and assembled a crew of heroic figures who became known as the Argonauts after the ship, the Argo. After many perilous obstacles, the Argonauts reached Colchis where Jason was left to face dire obstacles such as a fire-breathing dragon that guarded the Fleece. The tasks seemed impossible without assistance. In order to help Jason, Aphrodite caused Medea, the sorceress daughter of 1 King Aeetes of Colchis, to fall in love with Jason. Thus having fallen deeply in love with Jason, Medea offered to aid him if he promised to marry and honour her. Jason swore an oath to marry and respect her . Medea subsequently helped Jason win the fleece and escape from Colchis. In order to do this, she had to betray her family and murder her own brother. Medea continued to assist Jason. When they reached Iolcus, she tricked Pelias’ daughters to kill him, so that Jason could obtain the throne. Jason and Medea were banished from Iolcas. They went to Corinth and after a while, Jason made plans to marry the daughter of the King to secure his position as a royal citizen. Medea was furious and avenged herself by killing Jason’s bride and her father, the king. Medea’s children were then either killed by the Corinthians or made immortal by Hera. (Prior to Euripides’ account, there is no evidence of Medea being depicted as the murderer of her children). Medea fled from Corinth and went to Athens as a wife or concubine to king Aegeus. Later she was banished, possibly for attempting to kill his son Theseus, and wandered from city to city until she was made immortal. Because of the basic content of the material, the myth could function in a number of different ways. An author could highlight the voyage of Jason and the Argonauts, or the heroic endeavours to obtain the Golden Fleece. Pindar, who wrote before Euripides’ time, chose to relate the epic by focusing on Jason and his adventures. Medea was mentioned as murderess and an aid to Jason’s plans but she did not detract from the exploits of the Argonauts: κτε νε μ ν γλαυκ πα τ χναις ποικιλ νωτον φιν, Αρκεσ λα, κλ ψεν τε Μ δειαν σ ν α τ , τ ν Πελ αο φον ν· (Pi. P. IV. 249-250) Iason, O Arkesilas, did slay The speckled dragon glaring-eyed by guile, and bore Medeia in his ship away, herself abetting him the while, the murderess of Pelias. [Transl. Murison] 2 Pindar mentioned Medea’s abilities as beneficial to Jason, and earlier he had described the wisdom of her words, but there were no moral commentaries, and her authority in the poem was minimal: α Μηδε ας π ων στ χες. πταξaν δ' κ νητοι σιωπ ροες ντ θεοι πυκιν ν μ τιν κλ οντες. (Pi. P. IV. 57-58) So ran the verses of Medeia’s speech; and as they listened to her sayings wise, the godlike heroes, all and each, stood motionless and silent in surprise. [Transl. Murison] There was no mention of child-murder and his poem was largely a relation of a heroic endeavour and did not focus on Medea as a protagonist or an antagonist. In contrast, Euripides chose to set his play only after Jason and Medea had fled to Corinth. He also focused on the character of Medea as an abandoned woman by exploring the period of the myth when Jason had deserted his family. Using only a part of the myth, Euripides allowed Medea’s plight to be shown. Euripides treats the myth as follows: The play is set when Medea and Jason had already been exiled from Iolcus. They went to Corinth where Jason left Medea in order to marry the princess of Corinth. Medea was tormented with grief and was feeling angry and vengeful. The chorus, made up of Corinthian women, felt sympathetic towards Medea. Medea then heard the devastating news that Creon, the king, was exiling her from Corinth. She therefore had to hatch her plot quickly and begged to be allowed to stay the remainder of the day. By chance she met a friend, Aegeus, the king of Athens. After securing a place of safety for herself in Athens she planned her strategy. She asked Jason if their children could remain with him and offered gifts to be taken to his new wife. The gifts were taken by the children to Jason’s bride. They consisted of poisoned garments. When the princess wore them, they killed her and her father when he held his daughter in his arms, trying to save her. 3 Medea subsequently killed her own children to ensure that Jason had no heirs to continue his lineage. Having accomplished her intended revenge, she left for Athens on a dragon-drawn chariot, leaving behind the distraught and furious Jason. Euripides’ representation of Medea is paradoxical. It hovers on the dichotomy of victim and avenger, monster and mother, and villain and hero. She is a strikingly contradictory figure, a personality so compelling that she has continued to fascinate people to this day. The reason for Medea’s allure is her overwhelming determination and power. She was violently passionate and lived her life with an intensity that shocks most people when confronted with this story. Euripides characterises Medea as a strong, capable and proud woman who broke all the rules of approved female compliancy and submission. She is trapped in a society where women were expected to be dependent, and less intelligent than men (Harris & Platzner: 737). Furthermore, Euripides created a fiend by his own devices; he chose to represent her as her children’s murderer. The puzzle of Euripides’ play is the ambiguity of Medea as a monster and murderer but also as a victim and avenger. As a symbol, she could serve as a representation of the continuous misunderstanding between the sexes, a warning against foreign women, or as a victim of patriarchal society. The Problem The aim of this study is to determine for what function Euripides created the character of Medea. She is portrayed as a strong, powerful and ruthless woman in a time when women were expected to be submissive and concealed. In her ambiguity, Medea is an enigma. Euripides portrays her as a female who adopts the male heroic code of retribution; she is also a victim of marital abuse who perpetrates the murder of her own children. Furthermore, Medea is a foreigner who captures the sympathy of the chorus of Corinthian women in a xenophobic Greece. The problem thus lies in the interpretation of a figure who flouts the standards of ancient Greek society. The first question is whether Euripides was supporting or challenging the position of women in ancient Greek society. Some have interpreted Euripides as a male chauvinist. For example, Aristophanes, a fifth century B.C.E. comic playwright, wrote a play the Thesmophoriazusae in which Euripides was represented as a misogynist. His character was so hated by women, that at a 4 religious gathering, a group of women planned his demise. The first woman spoke about how he portrayed women as immoral and villainous: ... λλ γ ρ βαρ ως φ ρω τ λαινα πολ ν δη χρ νον, προπηλακιζομ νας ρ σ' μ ς π Ε ριπ δου το τ ς λαχανοπωλητρ ας κα πολλ κα παντοι κουο σας κακ . Τ γ ρ ο τος μ ς ο κ πισμ τ ν κακ ν; (Ar Thes. 384-389) ... it’s just that I can no longer bear to sit by and see us women besmirched with mud from head to foot by this cabbage-woman’s son Euripides. The things he says about us! Is there any crime he hasn’t tried to smear us with? [Transl. Barrett] This gives the impression that Euripides is misogynistic and possibly intends developing and perpetuating male domination. On the other hand, for some modern Western writers such as Radstone and Vellacott (1975), Medea represents women’s fury against male oppression. Euripides’ Medea could be seen as a feminist icon and a symbol of female suppression and retaliation. Certain paradoxes and inconsistencies within society could be revealed in Euripides’ Medea: that a woman could not fulfil her desired role as wife and mother if she were betrayed by her husband. Hence when a specific group of people are suppressed according to/by virtue of their sex, difficulties may arise from this restriction. The suppression of women may even have produced an excessive release of pent-up emotions as a result of too much containment. The second inconsistency regarding Euripides’ characterisation of Medea is whether he is sympathetic or condemning of this foreign woman. In a society where women were treated as objects and were not entitled to freedom or independence, Medea was an alien in Greece and thus permitted even fewer rights. Because Medea did not adhere to these conventions, disaster ensued. Medea is thus a threat as she is no ordinary woman, but rather a foreigner and sorceress incompatible with the image of a respectable Greek woman. As Aristophanes indicated, Euripides’ intentions may have been chauvinistic in order to show the dangers of certain types of women. Foreign women were especially dangerous as they were 5 different and therefore unpredictable. If these women were not controlled by men they would threaten the very bonds of society. Euripides’ Medea would then have been an example of the possible result of having an uncontrolled foreign woman in Greek society: a woman who did not conform to the standard expectations of women’s required passive role. Alternatively, she may represent the plight of a powerless minority far from the security of family and homeland. Thirdly, Medea’s status as a victim or a perpetrator is in question. She was abused by her husband but commits the grotesque act of killing her children. The question arises of to what extent a person’s actions can be exonerated due to circumstances of abuse and neglect. Medea adopts the creed of completely destroying her enemy, but by doing this, she becomes the murderer of her innocent children. Her position as a victim is thus challenged by her monstrous actions. The theme of revenge is the fourth problem considered in this study. By portraying Medea as adopting the code of retributive revenge, Euripides’ intentions are again ambiguous. If Medea’s revenge could be seen as justifiable, it supports her role as a heroine championing the plight of women; if her vengeance is damnable it shows Medea to be a monster and an example of the danger of women when they are given too much freedom. Finally, the fifth inconsistency regarding Euripides’ Medea, is her role as either a hero-figure or a villain. It is difficult to make a case for someone as a champion when she has committed the grotesque act of killing her own children. Furthermore she was female in a mythological time dominated by male heroes. Thus it may seem strange that Euripides, a man, could define Medea as a reliable hero-figure representing a voice in a society of silenced women. The general position of women will be examined and a brief overview of the popular opinion of the character of Medea considered. If Euripides’ portrayal of Medea was at odds with the accepted view of women and foreigners in ancient Greek society, then the tragedy, Medea, could provide sympathy for the plight of women and thus define Medea as a hero. Alternatively, Euripides characterisation of Medea could also show the dangers of a strong woman acting independently, and thus portray Medea a villain. 6 In order to be able to determine whether Euripides represents Medea as a victim or a perpetrator, a hero or a villain or an expression of the intrinsic tragedy of the relationship between men and women, the text itself has to be analysed to gain evidence for these questions. When confronted with the concept of a figure such as Medea—a woman who killed her children and ruined her husband—she could surely be considered an evil individual. Responding emotionally and without prior knowledge of context, one’s normal reaction would be of dread and disapproval. Chapter Layout In order to understand the function of Euripides’ portrayal of Medea, this dissertation is structured as follows: CHAPTER TWO: Review of the Literature. The aim of this chapter is to review how Euripides’ character of Medea has been critically approached in the secondary literature. CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology The methods used to critically evaluate the Medea in accordance with the problem statement are described. CHAPTER FOUR: Patriarchal Society: Perpetuated or Deconstructed? A description of women’s position, honour and rights in society is given in terms of her expected behaviour. The inconsistencies in Medea’s behaviour are also evaluated as evidence for the inconsistencies in society. This will demonstrate that if the laws governing women’s position produced someone as extreme as Medea, then the laws themselves were flawed in their stringency, or, on the other hand, it could indicate that the laws should have been reinforced. CHAPTER FIVE: Medea as an Outsider Medea’s foreign status is explored in order to determine what impact this would have had on her status within ancient Greek society. It also aims to establish if Euripides’ Medea was a sympathetic depiction of foreign women or a perpetuation of the suppression of foreign women. CHAPTER SIX: Victim or Perpetrator? The aim of this chapter is to establish whether Medea was portrayed as a victim or a perpetrator. 7 CHAPTER SEVEN: Justifiable Vengeance In order to understand if Medea’s revenge was justifiable, one must examine if there is evidence that she was portrayed as inherently evil, or if there is more evidence to show that her vengeance was a desperate reaction to imposed structural abuse. CHAPTER EIGHT: Hero or Villain Ultimately, the Medea is analysed in order to deduce whether Medea is portrayed as a hero or a villain, the protagonist or antagonist. CHAPTER NINE: Conclusion A summary of the overall findings is supplied. 8 CHAPTER TWO: Overview of the Literature Aim The large amount of literature which has been dedicated to Euripides’ Medea emphasizes the impact that this play has had on modern critics. The Medea has been analysed in a number of different ways. This chapter supplies a review of the secondary literature. Different theories are assessed according to their contribution and relevance to the current topic, that is, the function of Euripides’ portrayal of Medea. The approaches are categorised as philological, literary, philosophical, socio-historical and feminist. The Philological Approach One of the earliest methods of interpretation is the Philological Approach, which entailed the grammatical and historical explanation of words and phrases within a text. In the sense relative to this study, the philological approach has to do with the study of literary texts (Baldick: 191f), by explaining words, phrases and customs. An example of this type of analysis, is in Headlam’s translation of Euripides’ Medea whereby he supplies cultural and grammatical explanations of terms. They are helpful in supplying background information to the play and in explaining some of the Ancient Greek usage of certain phrases. This approach is a commentary on a text and is useful in attempting to understand the language and context more thoroughly, but is too fragmented in its systematic evaluation of the content. The Philological method is therefore of limited use for the purpose of this interpretation of the Medea, as it lacks a literary angle. It also lacks insight into the socio-historical situation of women and the psychological effects of the cultural ideology in which the Medea is set. Literary Approaches These approaches often focus on the structural elements of the play. There are two main ways to analyse a text according to literary methodology. The first one is the more traditional approach, where the critic reviews the structure of the play in accordance with ancient definitions of tragedy. The second one generally focuses on the emotional progression of the characters as the 9 basis for the tragic events. The structure would then have evolved from the psychological development or analysis of personality types within the play. The Traditional Literary Approach Zeitlin’s belief (pp.344-348) is that the male was assumed to be the main character study and identity to be explored. Aristotle and other ancient critics never considered female characters to be central figures and concentrated on the male subject as the main character to be analysed. This shows that even when strong women were portrayed to reveal the subordinate position of women, their plight was never seen as the objective. Women were rather there to highlight the male struggle with a powerful woman, and how this would threaten his claim to power, knowledge and dominance. Women may have held important dramatic parts, but functionally their roles were to emphasise the hypothetical analysis of the male position and ego. Women’s position might have been highlighted on the stage and the female character might have defeated the male, but after the play, they would not see any benefit; their roles would not change. Medea is a female character similar to that of a male. She rivals any man with her immense power, intelligence and strength and states that bearing a child corresponds to standing three times on the battlefield. In Euripides’ play, Medea defeats her husband, thereby defending her right to self-esteem and honour as an individual. She is figuratively demanding equality. The final scene, where Medea escapes on a dragon-drawn chariot into the sky, indicates that such a woman of power and strength cannot stay in this society and she has to be lifted into the heavens as a type of goddess. She is a woman who held her husband to his oath as her husband, and she does not accept his desertion. The play may be showing that a woman who defends her honour by exacting justice and who may attempt to change a social structure, has no place in that society. Medea was only meant for god-like or heroic status as she was not a ‘real’ woman or an example of a ‘real woman’. Her ‘function’ in the play was thus as the punisher of a man who had broken his oath. She was the agent of tragic retribution and essentially an example illustrating the consequence of Jason’s immoral behaviour. In her own right, she cannot represent women; she is only there to emphasise negative male characteristics. 10 Lattimore (1958: 105-109) writes that where Aeschylus created formalised characters and grandiose speeches, and Sophocles created idealised personalities, Euripides’ drama moved closer towards realism. Even though he did not deviate too far from the conventional dramatics of tragedy by employing divine intervention and heroic incidents, his men and women were more similar to real people. Jason in the Medea was not a heroic or noble character but rather an arrogant and xenophobic Greek aristocrat looking to better his present unfavourable situation through marriage. Euripides represented these mythological heroes as involved in a domestic conflict which would have related closely to the lives of his audience. Lattimore feels that Medea was deceitful by nature. He pictures her as manipulative and ambitious and only feigning her expressions of motherly-love. The play is then a realistic drama about a manipulative and powerful woman avenging the wrong done to her by her irresponsible and negligent husband. Lattimore also finds Medea to be an inconsistent character. He describes the end when Medea escaped: One thing or the other, we might say; either Medea is a wronged, revengeful wife making a planned getaway, in which case we want a cloak and a hood and a small boat, or she is the goddess who married a mortal, … saying farewell and departing from actuality to the end of the earth, to the Ocean, or clean out of our human world, back where she came from and where she belongs. Then the dragon chariot would be appropriate. When it is used as a taxi to get from Corinth to Athens, it is preposterous. (Lattimore 1958: 108) He argues that Euripides’ Medea is the beginning of the fragmentation of tragedy, as the characters are more similar to ordinary people but are inconsistent and less thoroughly realised. March (pp. 35-43) describes Euripides’ Medea as an innovative revenge plot where Medea deliberately kills her own children. In earlier versions of the myth there were no indications that Medea killed her children intentionally or at all. Eumelos represented the children as having been accidentally killed by Medea when she was trying to make them immortal, and Kreophilos had the Corinthians kill her children. 11 March finds this new aspect to the myth of Medea to have had two compelling dramatic effects. The first consequence was on the structure of the play as a result of the important theme of the parent-child relationship. The drama is set in motion when Jason wants to father new legitimate children; he thus abandons Medea and her sons for a younger Greek princess. Continuing the theme, Creon wants to protect his daughter and so plans to exile Medea. The drama ends in tragedy when Medea kills Creon and his daughter and then sacrifices her own children as an ultimate revenge against Jason. The second effect was very important as it was seen to influence the character of Medea herself. In traditional myth, Medea has been portrayed as a savage sorceress, whereas in this play she is represented as a very human character in a difficult situation. Her maternal and womanly role is emphasised whereas her witchcraft is played down. Jason’s heroic character is also transformed into an ordinary, middle-aged Greek man desiring respectability and status. Euripides then shows the anguish and psychological turmoil of the mind of a woman who has chosen to kill her own children. Without condemnation, Euripides demonstrates the realistic point of view of a powerful and passionate woman whose painful decision destroys her enemy and ultimately leads to her own destruction. The Psychological Approach Belfiore (p. 131f) writes of the importance of passion and vengeance in attempting to understand the character of Medea. The central dilemma of Euripides’ Medea is the murder of children by a mother. The mythological character of Medea displays a passionate determination and drive which leads her to commit violent acts against blood kin. In the Medea, the betrayal of kin is the foundation for the action of the play. Medea was known to have betrayed her father and country by killing her brother to help Jason escape. The thematic violation of kinship thus begins even before the opening scenes of the play. It continues when Jason, Medea’s husband, betrays her to marry another woman. To avenge this injustice, Medea kills her own children, thereby drawing the neglect of one’s kin to its climax. The tragedy then becomes that of powerful, aristocratic people who do not uphold their pledges and duties to those closest to themselves and therefore ultimately bring about their own ruin. 12 Conacher’s (pp. 121-124) overall belief is that the driving force of the play is Medea’s own intense passion. He argues that there is honesty in Medea’s open display of love and passion which turns to hate and violence when she is treated disloyally. The tragic events follow from Medea’s character and her inner struggle to make a painful decision. Conacher also feels that Euripides is sympathetic towards Medea’s plight, and therefore probably toward women and foreigners in general. Jason is portrayed as an arrogant and xenophobic Greek, which highlights Medea’s desperate and lonely position as a hated foreign woman. Grube (p. 147f) similarly sees the vengeful character of Medea as developing from necessity. It is: of love turning to hatred when betrayed, until the woman’s whole soul is dominated by a lust for vengeance that overpowers even maternal love ... (Grube: 147) The quotation expresses Grube’s view that when this woman was spurned, her fury dominated her emotional and mental rationale. Her husband, Jason, is an opportunist who does not mind exploiting this powerful Asian woman when she is of use to him. But when her usefulness wears off, his true nature as a typical, racist Greek is revealed. Medea is a strange Eastern princess who betrayed her family for Jason. Now she is an unwanted alien in a foreign land. The play therefore expresses the development of the struggle within herself, her emotional turmoil and the build-up of a dire situation. The play ultimately concludes with Medea’s victory over Jason, and her own destruction when she kills her children. The central driving force of Euripides’ Medea, according to Mastronarde (p. 8-31) is Medea’s abandonment by her husband, Jason. She can be compared to the character of Clytemnestra in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon who also saw herself as a wronged wife. They both were intelligent, cunning and manipulative women who destroyed their husbands by feigning weakness and innocence. The plot of Euripides’ Medea is then the betrayal and vengeance of a strong and deceptive woman. The nature of Medea’s complaint is minimised to mere sexual jealousy of Jason. He is portrayed as a stereotypical contemporary male Athenian, who assumed that the sexual compulsions of all 13 women controlled their emotions and actions. In assuming this, Jason is degrading Medea’s high status as his wife who bore him two sons. In Ancient Greece, producing sons for a husband was seen as fulfilling the fundamental familial role, and the wife was therefore entitled to respect and security. Euripides’ Medea is a tragedy of the betrayal of a partner—an ally who destroys her husband when he turns out to be her enemy. Jason proves to be a self-serving opportunist who not only abandoned and insulted Medea, but also underestimated her pride, her fury and her ability. Mastronarde also states that Medea is the most loyal of friends. She is honest in her love for Jason, but she is deceptive and conniving in her hatred and revenge. She pretends to be innocent and weak in the company of Jason and Creon so that she has more time and better opportunities to launch her revenge plot. In a sense, Medea acts the victim so that she might become the avenger. She and Jason thus experience a complete reversal. Medea changes from being the victim of Jason’s negligence and mistreatment to being the architect of his complete destruction. Medea embodies the masculine, heroic identity which Jason was supposed to personify. The heroic and masculine qualities of Medea, in conjunction with her extreme passion and violence, might have been ascribed to her ‘barbarianism’, the fact that she was a Colchian sorceress. Medea seems to embody complete ‘otherness’. She is a foreign woman set in the heroic past, and furthermore she is a sorceress. Her extreme behaviour may have been interpreted in this way. Despite all of these aspects defining her as different, sympathy may have been found for this friendless woman who was treated terribly in a foreign land. Euripides may have shown the plight of someone so isolated in order to display the point of view of ‘the other’. Allan (pp. 47-51) writes that Medea is an intelligent and articulate character; she is presented to an audience and society who do not believe women to be capable of such qualities. Euripides creates a female character who is a non-Greek sorceress in a foreign land. He utilises a character from a distant land and from a distant time so that he can highlight the contemporary situation of Athenian women in a manner which is not too personal, but still relevant. 14 Allan points out that recent interpretation surmises that Ancient Greek tragedy sets up situations to highlight male dilemmas and responses to difficult circumstances. Jason is then an example of a weak man who has left his wife unattended. It would have been a warning to other men not to leave women unsupervised, and an example of how not to behave. Allan futher states that Jason independently decides to leave his wife, and the main focus of the play is how Medea reacts to her mistreatment. He explains how the play emphasises Medea’s female plight and how her struggle would not have been unfamiliar to the more modern and ordinary Greek woman. Furthermore, the play highlights the sometimes desperate position of women in ancient Greek society, rather than supporting the traditional role prescribed to women. It was Jason who abandoned his marriage and broke his oath, whereas Medea is passionately devoted to her husband. Medea is also a foreigner and, according to Allan (p. 67f), this allows Euripides to present Medea not only as a strange and violent barbarian, but also as a mother and wife with needs recognisable to contemporary Greek women. By allowing these opposing characteristics to reside in one character, Euripides challenges the Greek notions of essential difference between barbarians and Greeks. Jason is portrayed as an arrogant Greek man who sees his Greek-ness as superior to her barbarianism. He not only insults her ethnicity but acts in the most deplorable way by rejecting their marriage vows and breaking his oath to her. He proves himself to be the lowest of men, which contradicts his speech concerning his racial superiority. The play shows the point of view of a foreign woman in a hostile world who is at the mercy of others and whose own husband abandons her. According to Vellacott (1975: 82), Euripides is aware that he was in a patriarchal society dedicated to the dominance of men. The societal situation was practically unchangeable and most people were not concerned about embedded injustices within the community. As a result, Euripides tries to show the eternal tension between men and women and the possible tragic circumstances of life in general. He achieves this by creating dramatic heroines, but bases his male characters on contemporary male Athenian citizens. Medea is a barbarian sorceress and 15 Jason a Greek. When she uses her powers and passion to help Jason, her passionate aggression is acceptable, as she is acting as a faithful wife, but when it makes her resent his infidelity, it is seen as savage excess (Vellacott 1975: 106). Medea, as a foreign woman from the heroic era could do things that a contemporary woman could not do. She is a powerful woman who defeats the husband who treated her abominably. She is then able to be a champion of oppressed women because she is in no way ordinary, but is rather an extraordinary woman in a male-centric era of heroes (Vellacott 1975: 106). Schlesinger (pp. 70-73) makes an important point in that women have two sides to themselves. In patriarchal society they have to suppress their inner strength and intelligence in order to be thought of as ‘good women’. When Medea is betrayed, Jason destroys the good wife and mother within Medea and all that is left is her inner strength and resolve. Being a good and loyal wife does not work for Medea once she is abandoned. This then unleashes the ‘bad wife’ inside her. Schlesinger puts forward the concept of two parts or personalities in Euripides’ Medea. Her nature is divided and conflicted between killing and saving her own children. One part of her is controlled by her emotions which govern the loving woman who feels strong maternal love for her children. The other side is her purpose, her rationale, which drives her to seek cold and wellthought out revenge against Jason, by killing her children. Medea has a psychological struggle within herself. Schlesinger argues that it is in Medea’s very nature to follow through with her ghastly and soul-destroying plan. She is determined not to be made a fool. Jason uses her for his own purposes and then abandons her, and Medea would not merely endure such insulting maltreatment but would avenge herself and her dignity. Medea’s rationale or purpose is achieved and she upholds her honour and self-worth by bringing her enemy to ruin. But in carrying out this plan, she annihilates her own spirit or the human element in herself. The powerful semi-divine Medea then ultimately triumphs, but the woman and mother is destroyed with her children. 16 Euripides uses an artistic and mythological medium to demonstrate the arrogance of Greek men and the powerlessness of women. He uses a traditionally ‘bad’ woman, a sorceress and slayer of her own children, to be the avenger of neglected women. The more traditional version of this approach is too limited to be of use for this study. However, the psychological approach is valuable, as it partly achieves an understanding of Medea’s psychological state, and how the play might draw comparison with other women in a similar situation. The Philosophical Approach For the purpose of this topic, a philosophical approach would entail the critique of a tragedy by trying to discuss certain fundamental problems. There is the issue of morality which asks whether it is ever acceptable for a woman to kill her own children. There is also the question of essentialism, whether a play is unrealistic if it presents an unrealistic representation of a woman’s nature. Foley (pp. 243-245) mentions the universal problem of classification. Aristotle, together with other ancient critics and some modern writers, makes an assumption about woman’s essential nature and how she should behave. Female characters in tragedy generally broke the definition of women’s empirical characteristics and limited intelligence. The ancient Greek tragedies place women in extraordinary situations, away from their ordinary domestic roles. They show the moral dilemmas and momentous decisions that might draw out unforeseen areas of a woman's psyche. Foley explains this by describing the importance of a successful marriage to a fifth-century B.C.E. man. A man’s social concept of himself in terms of wealth, friendship and family was delicately balanced and could easily be upset. A virtuous, compatible wife and obedient, healthy children were of the utmost importance to keep social alliances and one’s status intact. This shows the extent of the gamble of marriage. Women had an even worse situation, expressed by Medea in Euripides’ play. The woman first had to provide a large amount of money for a dowry and then she was placed as a possession in the house of a relatively unknown man. The man would have made most of her decisions and she would have been largely under his control and organisation. 17 Medea was without a guardian and was therefore in charge of making her own important decisions. She had to make her own plans and see to their fulfilment, as she had to look after herself. Having been abandoned by the person who was supposed to protect and support her, Medea had to become her own protector and avenger. This led to her dilemma: her unrelenting ‘masculine’ desire for vengeance as opposed to her maternal instincts towards her children. Smith (pp. 52-61) discusses Walter Zurcher’s view that the character of Medea in Euripides’ play Medea, is inconsistent and lacking in individuality in three main areas. Firstly, he finds that Medea’s desire for revenge conflicted with her maternal love for her children and that this demonstrates the inconsistency of her identity. Secondly, he also feels that the additional motive of needing to kill her children discredits the unity of Medea’s character. And thirdly, Zurcher states that Medea’s individuality is in question as she shares certain qualities with specific types or groups of people, i.e. she is a woman as well as a foreigner. Smith aims to refute these claims by showing that it is Medea’s very nature as a powerful, determined and passionate woman not to allow someone to abuse and disregard her. She is the type of person who can draw forth a part of herself to do terrifying things to attain a desired goal. The fact that she has conflicting needs is a rational and human characteristic. Her role as a mother is interfering with her role as avenger. There is also the important matter of the necessity to kill her children herself, because the Corinthians would kill them in a far more terrible way. To this, Smith argues that the children would have indeed been harmed by the Corinthians, but Medea’s revenge would not be complete unless she killed the children herself. This is useful to Medea because it gives her the motivation which she needs to follow through with her intentions. She uses the rationale to convince herself to kill her children before they can be more brutally killed by enemies. The point is that she intends on killing them anyway, and this rationalisation makes it easier for her as a mother. To the question of Medea lacking individuality, Smith responds by saying that Medea is both a foreigner and a woman but her anger stems from the way she has been treated by Jason. She is no ordinary woman, as she reacts as very few women would. The fact that she is a foreigner helps to reveal her empirical nature, as all people are shaped by their culture, class and gender. Her nurse 18 states that she becomes angry as ‘upper class’ people do. These factors do not strip her of her individuality, because she is able to think independently. She also reacts emotionally but acts calmly and with a devised strategy. She is able to control her emotions and put into action a distinct and personal plan. The Socio-Historical Approach These approaches focus on the social structure of ancient Greece. The position of men, women, children and foreigners is important for an understanding of the underlying tensions of Euripides’ Medea. The theme of women and their position within fifth century B.C.E. Greek society has been of central focus for many academics and analysts. The Medea was written in a strict, patriarchal era and the portrayal of Medea seems to be at odds with this socio-historical structure. Women, especially foreign women, lacked rights, freedom and power, which would have left them in a difficult position if they found themselves without a male protector. The figure of Medea is in no way helpless and her anger and vengeance may have been seen as a reaction against the prescribed roles of women within the social structure. Cohan (pp. 135-142) emphasises the separation and seclusion of women. He says that women were most certainly separated from men and did not work in the public sphere, but he disagrees with some classicists who thought women to be secluded and isolated. Aristophanes and Euripides are seen as the two ancient Greek poets who seem to have had the most interest in women and their status. Cohan writes that much evidence from vase paintings and extracts from ancient writings show that women were able to leave the house for a number of different reasons. There is evidence that they were, for example, able to fetch water, go to the market and act as midwives. The ideal of what a woman should be was then different from how things really were. Husbands knew that their wives left the house but they didn’t want to know about it or think that they did. The difference then, was how men wanted their wives to be—and how they feared they actually were. Euripides constructs extreme situations for maximum effect to emphasise women’s lack of freedom and independence, and male distrust and dislike of them 19 Cohan’s attempt to make women’s position seem less restricted only emphasises that women led separate lives from men. The fact that their husbands suspected that they left the house demonstrates that they did not participate in each other’s lives. Women fetching water, going to the market and acting as midwives were still procedures having to do with the domain of the house and its organisation. Euripides would have been expressing genuine problems, as social organisation and ideology are just as effective means of suppression as physical restraint. Women had no real voice or choice within their lives. Murray (p. 39f) focuses on the theme of a foreign woman married to a Greek man. Jason abandons her, which was not strange in ancient times, as barbarian women were often used and then discarded by Greek men. Euripides, however, shows the point of view of the betrayed foreign woman. He shows his characters to be closer to ordinary people in contrast to Sophocles’ and Aeschylus’ grand and heroic characters. Their reactions to their plights are very human and real. Foley (p. 244f), discusses the views of Anne Burnett and Albrecht Dihle which hold that Medea’s inner self is divided between a masculine heroic self and a maternal, feminine self. Her honourorientated and characteristically ‘unfeminine’ side wins when she proactively but brutally makes her final decision. She follows through with her ultimate goal of vengeance and kills her own children. This makes Medea the most loathsome and fearsome type of woman. She destroys her husband and kills her children. These actions are the absolute reversal of her prescribed role as a woman. Williamson (pp. 16-20) describes how the character of Medea in Euripides’s play is inverted in accordance with her expected position as a woman. Her place is inside her house, where her role entails being discreet and loyal to her husband, and her functions are to bear children and to raise them. Medea bears her husband two sons and has been loyal and extremely supportive of Jason. In return for her devotion she is betrayed by her husband. 20 Medea’s status as a woman makes her domain that of the inside space. Her family is her responsibility and duty and she is expected to be confined, to a certain degree, to her home. Williamson points out that this conventional situation is fractured and inconsistent in two main ways in the play. First of all, the stability of the household has been destroyed by Jason’s infidelity and neglect. Medea’s place in the house is no longer legitimate. The second deviation is that Medea and Jason have made oaths in their marriage vows as if they are equals. Jason pledges to her in a way that would have been more customary to the father of his bride or as an agreement with another man. These factors indicate the unique quality of Medea’s situation. When she finds herself betrayed and discarded, Medea takes matters into her own hands and moves into the public domain. She acts in the manner of someone wronged and adopts the male heroic credo to avenge herself and to destroy her enemy. Medea independently makes her plans. She makes an agreement with Aegeus, the king of Athens, in the manner of men, whereby she exchanges what Aegeus wants for what she needs. The pact is then reciprocal and equal. Medea secures her own refuge so that she can go about making plans for revenge against her enemies. This revenge entails the absolute ruin of her home and her family, which is fundamentally against the general role of women. Medea is no ordinary woman of her time. She is extreme in her strength, power and independence. The societal rules of women do not give her security or a position of substance, so she rejects the conventional role in order to achieve retribution. The Feminist Approach Some theorists have come to see Medea as a feminist icon, a strong woman who defies her role as a passive victim of male ill-treatment. This approach solely looks at the female viewpoint; the social position of women, their psychological experience and how women react to the suppression, and the double-standards of patriarchal society. Murphy (pp. 89-91) describes how the separation of men and women’s spheres into inside and outside in ancient Greece led to the confinement and oppression of women. The outside arena was where men would learn new skills and accomplish themselves. Women were excluded and became known as everything that was untrustworthy, irrational and unpredictable. Men used this caricature as an excuse to keep women secluded and out of the public domain. Later they 21 developed the justification that women had equal, but different power which they could exert within their own houses. In modern times, the feminist movement sought to release western culture from this polarisation. In patriarchal societies, women have to conform to the male ideal of how a woman should be; they have been submissive and given up their own identities, ultimately leading to unbalanced, ‘male-centric’ states. Des Bouvrie (p. 5) explains how the control of women was instituted in four different ways. The first practice was through Socialisation, by defining how ‘respectable women’ should act. Another way was through Adult Functions, this was the way in which men and women were separated socially by their different gender-specific duties. Women did not participate in the political sphere or the polis. They were rather involved in home management. The third means was Physical Organisation of Space. This was achieved by dividing physical space between females and males. The dark indoors area of the house was women’s space whereas the light outdoors area of the city and countryside was the men’s space. Lastly, there was the covert approach of Psychological Distinguishing. This was how women were not allowed to participate in intellectual and moral decisions. These were seen as men’s roles because women were seen as unable to participate and were thus seen as unintelligent and deficient. For Radstone (p. 57f), the myth of Medea can be applied to recent feminist feelings of nostalgia. Women feel a void because they have been neglected from most history in the past. Most representations of female characters in the past have shown a patriarchal image of women. Medea was a powerful figure and in recent productions of the play, she foregrounds women’s anger. The play represents a woman who has been exploited by a man, but would not passively accept her subordination. Radstone (p. 62) argues that Medea signifies the difficulty of representing a mother in anything but male terms. Medea is then a way of thinking about women outside such terms. She embodies the fury of women and is a character from women’s past that is not represented as an ‘ideal woman’ defined by a patriarchal society. 22 This method of interpretation is useful, as Medea is represented as both a role model and as a heroine in the face of male suppression. This aspect will be useful for Chapter Eight where Medea is evaluated as an unlikely heroic figure. Conclusion Having evaluated various approaches to the character of Medea, the methodology used for this study will now be discussed in the next chapter. The Philological and Literary methods have limited use in that they supply background information about the literary, cultural and historical context. The psychological element of the literary approaches is of more interest, as some of the methods that I will apply are governed by a psychological position. But there will be more focus on how the actions of Medea and Jason may reflect psychological impulses of some people in society. The Philosophical method is useful in exploring Euripides’ characterisation of Medea as someone who was innately violent and inescapably bound to her emotions. The morality of the act of destroying her children and husband is the key to her status as a hero or a villain. This approach will be used in order to determine if Medea was represented as a victim of her circumstances, an example of a dangerous woman who should be suppressed, or merely a symbol of the inescapable conflict between men and women. The approach which is most useful in this study is the socio-historic method. I will be analysing the Medea using the socio-historic method, largely in Chapters Four and Five where the plight of the foreign woman is addressed. The new feminist literature is also referred to, because Medea, as an icon of female liberation, lends weight to Euripides’ attempt to show the suppression of women in a sympathetic light. Some approaches not covered yet in the secondary literature, are applied to the analysis of Medea’s character in order to understand how she is portrayed as a woman, an outsider, a victim, a hero, and an avenger. These methods are discussed in the following chapter. 23 CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology Introduction In order to investigate the function of Euripides’ characterisation of Medea, a methodology has been developed. The aim of the method is to construe the context of a foreign woman in patriarchal society, and to determine whether Euripides was supporting or challenging the structure of society. To establish the function of Euripides’ portrayal of Medea, the following questions need to be answered: a) Does Euripides perpetuate or oppose the values of patriarchal society? b) Is Medea condemned as an outsider or portrayed in a sympathetic light? c) Is she seen as a victim or a perpetrator? d) Does Euripides represent her violence as justifiable or criminal behaviour? e) Is she a hero or a villain? The research methodology developed to answer these questions is as follows: 1. Significant passages of Euripides’ Medea are identified according to the above five questions. 2. These passages are then analysed using the Freudian theory of myth and the subconscious, Jungian archetypal myths, Claude Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism and a feminist approach described in the next section. The hero as an archetype is strictly part of the Jungian approach. However, it is treated separately after the feminist approach because of significant contrasts between feminism and heroism, demonstrated in the next section. The Freudian Approach The first interpretative approach is Sigmund Freud’s relation of dreams and myths to the subconscious. He found that myths resemble dreams in that they are a combination of everyday life and fantastic actions which transcend the limits of nature. They also both supply important clues to the human psyche (Harris & Platzner: 43). Because there are a number of restrictions in society which conflict with our natural desires, dreams and myths act as wish fulfilments or expressions of our most profound anxieties (Harris & Platzner: 43f.). Myths would then display literal and latent meanings, as they would disguise anti-social longings as seemingly harmless images. For example, hostile feelings towards one’s father would be released in the form of slaying an attacking predator. Freud called this phenomenon ‘displacement’ (Brown: 112). 24 He explains that dreams and myths are the fulfilment of wishes that have been repressed or disguised and are therefore an outlet for forbidden desires (Morford & Lenardon: 7). To release oneself from anxiety and to secure a night of sleep, symbolic projection of anxieties and wishes are represented through myth (Morford & Lenardon: 7). Taboos can then be violated using symbols and symbolic figures (Harris & Platzner: 44). Examples such as the figures of Medusa and the sphinx represent frightening interpretations of the feminine and thus show displaced antagonism towards one’s mother. These taboos or societal restrictions are often classed in opposition to one’s ego or inner self. Freud devised the concept of the id, the ego and the superego in order to explain how a person mitigates independent desires with social restraints. When children are born, they are teeming masses of instinctual urges. They have no control over their consciousness and are driven by their impulses. This yearning part of a person’s nature is described as the id by Freud. It is one part of the psyche’s totality and represents a person’s impulses and desire for pleasure. It could be classified as the part of one’s self which desires instantaneous gratification (Brown: 28). Because children must eventually confront reality and the world around them, the ego is developed as another part of the psyche (Brown: 28). The ego is the concept of one’s self in everyday rationality and is the aspect which must mitigate the id and the superego. The superego, which is developed even later than the ego, represents the ideals of society within our psyche. It is the part of ourselves which our parents and our culture have urged to be good, moral and to strive towards nobility and sociability (Brown: 29). In the case of Medea, the superego can be defined as the moral and societal strictures which constrained women in general. Foreign wives, slaves and concubines would have been even more bound to their restricted and powerless identities. Medea’s ego would have been how she negotiated between her required behaviour as a wife and mother and her own individual desires. Finally the id would represent Medea’s personal yearning for a secure family life, the love of her husband and her own respect and status. Her ego would have manipulated and reasoned with her superego in order to justify her actions of murder and revenge. Therefore her desire for respect and vengeance overwhelmed any moral definitions of a woman’s expected behaviour. Freud also developed a theory of the domestic psychodrama as an extension of his theory of myths and the human psyche. He claimed that certain aspects of myths related to family rivalry 25 and disturbance due to inequality of members in the family. Greek family life and family conflict were thus expressed in tragic myths. This is indicated in turbulent family sagas such as that of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon and that of Laius, Jocasta and Oedipus. These were dramatic representations of the power struggle realised in the general conflict within families (Harris & Platzner: 44f). The myth of Jason and Medea is then another context in which family conflict is mediated. It expresses the common circumstance of adultery and abandonment of a wife or lover. The Medea also serves as a dramatic representation of the hurt and anger of a woman who has been left for a new wife. The Jungian Approach Similar to Freud’s association of dreams and myths in explaining aspects of the human psyche, Carl Jung also sees the connection of dreams and myths in their recurring patterns. After examining thousands of myths throughout the world, he found that there are figures and events that keep emerging. Principal archetypes, such as a Mother and Child occur in many different myths and religions. In ancient Greek mythology, we have the figure of Demeter searching for her daughter Persephone; in Christian religion there is the Madonna and Child and the Ancient Egyptians had the maternal figure of Isis and her son Horus (Harris & Platzner: 45). Even in some modern South African adverts for margarines and washing powder we have the figure of the good and caring mother. The images show a mother buttering sandwiches, baking cakes or washing clothes for her family. The emphasis is always on the caring or ‘good’ mother who successfully looks after her family. These types of symbols function to express an ideal model of maternity and womanhood. The means to understand Jung’s approach to mythology is through image (Walker: 3). Images that are embedded within our psyche emerge in the form of myths (Walker: 5). Because many of these images and events recur in different myths around the world, Jung stated that they show that people have numerous important life expectations in common. Jung found whole categories of human types in Ancient Greek myth, which he called ‘archetypes’, including figures such as Zeus, the authorative father and implementer of justice and Prometheus, the heroic rebel against unjust authority (Harris & Platzner: 45). He emphasised that it was not only significant figures that kept appearing, but also major archetypal life events. Certain rites of passage in people’s lives, such as birth, death, sexual maturation and family 26 rivalry seem to be important to all people and cultures. They recur in myths in many different ethnic groups as a result of universal significance. Jung called this concept the ‘collective unconscious’. The realisation that archetypes are found in all ethnic groups or that some specific motifs are shared by a given culture (Harris & Platzner: 47). Archetypes, such as the good wife, the bad woman, the hero and foreign concubine can be applied to the Medea, as Medea encompassed all of them. She was a good wife in that she supported Jason in all his endeavours; when she was abandoned, Jason redefined her as a bad woman because of her ruthless violence. She was also a foreign concubine, an archetype which Euripides could have used to portray a dangerous type of woman. On the other hand she might have represented a hero in that she contested her role of a suppressed and submissive wife. Jung also devised the theory of the anima and the animus as representatives of the female and male principles in the psyche. The anima signifies feminine wisdom and creativity and the animus corresponds to the masculine qualities in the mind (Harris & Platzner: 48). He said that if a psyche is to be healthy, the anima and animus must be in balance with each other. The moment one has an imbalance between these two aspects of the psyche, it leads to distorted images. Negative experiences or prejudices could then lead to a distortion in this balance of anima and animus. In myth, this can be observed by representational figures of the human psyche. For example, male negative feelings towards women, or an imbalanced anima, would be depicted through figures such as the fearsome and horrible Medusa and the Furies. A distorted animus in women would have resulted in women seeing men as rapists or tyrants such as Hades in his attack on Persephone. A harmonious psyche, where a person has connected with both their anima and animus, would be represented by figures such as Odysseus and Penelope in their marital union (Harris & Platzner: 48). In this sense, Jason represents a distorted anima in some men who cannot relate to women and who refuse to accept the feminine aspect of their psyche. For Jason it proved disastrous. His lack of ability to empathise with Medea shows the intrinsic misunderstanding between men and women that can ultimately lead to tragedy. Conversely, Medea embraced her animus and opted for a masculine form of honour and retribution when wronged as Jason’s wife. 27 The ‘shadow’ was another term devised by Jung which describes the negative side of a person’s psyche. Negative aspects in the unconscious, such as fear, hatred and envy would be symbolised by the cruelty and imperfections of mythological individuals (Harris & Platzner: 48). Examples are Zeus’s lustful characteristics and Hera’s jealousy and cruelty. In order to combat one’s shadow, a person must delve into one’s subconscious to achieve psychological development and maturation, which Jung called ‘individuation’. In Greek myth, the hero’s rites of passage represent an archetypical journey, where they would encounter frightening forces, venture into unknown regions, and battle unknown fiends before they could return and be rewarded with marriage and riches. This represents a person’s psychological development towards individuation (Harris & Platzner: 48). A mythological journey into the Underworld represents an exploration of one’s unconscious. The shadow signifies the ‘dark side’ of Medea’s personality, namely her excessive pride and aggression. It is her shadow which took control of her consciousness when she made the decision to murder her children. These features of mythological characters are representations of aspects of many ordinary people in society. When a person is moved by a tragedy or an account of a myth, it might be that they recognise certain traits that lurk at the back of their own minds. Claude Lévi-Strauss’ Structuralism Claude Lévi-Strauss also sees myth as representational of the psyche, but in addition, he considered it to be an expression of society (Morford & Lenardon: 13). He perceived that elements in myths are organised in such a way as to show the dualism in nature, society and people themselves. Myth can then be seen as a reflection of the mind’s binary organisation. The way the body and the mind are constructed is in the uniting of pairs. For example we have two eyes, two legs and two hemispheres of the brain. The world is therefore seen as a reflection of our physical and cerebral structure (Harris & Platzner: 49). Because people use the duality within themselves to classify the world, Lévi-Strauss observes that humans have a tendency to group most phenomena into polar opposites such as right and left, light and dark and good and evil (Harris & Platzner: 49). The human mind also finds conflict in the psyche between good and evil, order and human lawlessness and individual need and communal obligation. Myth is thus seen as the reconciliation of opposites and the desire to mitigate oppositional factors (Harris & Platzner: 49). An indication of this can be seen in the 28 mythological divine family of Zeus, where Dionysus’ gift of wine can bring happiness and illness, and similarly, Aphrodite’s powers of love can bring agony and ecstasy. Figures also represent the opposites of the psyche. Apollo and Dionysus reflect the two sides of every person’s psyche, where Apollo represents the rational and Dionysus represents the irrational. Lévi-Strauss finds the structure of myths to be of particular importance. He claims that structural elements of a myth have to be broken down into component parts in order to derive the overall meaning (Morford & Lenardon: 14). The relationship of all the component parts are seen to allow a greater understanding of the myth as a whole. In the Theban myths, Lévi-Strauss distinguishes four columns of elements that have common aspects. They are given numbers and read as a musical score: 1. 2. 3. 4. Overrating of blood relations Underrating of blood relations Killing of monsters Names expressive of physical and moral handicaps 1. Overrating of Blood Relations 2. Underrating of Blood Relations Cadmus looks for his sister Europa 3. Killing of Monsters 4. Names expressive of physical and moral handicaps Cadmus kills the serpent The Spartoi kill each other Oedipus kills his father Laius ( = left-sided) son of Labdacus (= lame) Oedipus kills the Sphinx Oedipus marries his mother Jocasta Oedipus (= swellfoot) Eteocles kills his brother Polynices Antigone buries her brother, Polynices, despite the king’s prohibition Thus horizontally the themes of the myths would develop and vertically the relationship of the themes could be compared and contrasted (Morford & Lenardon: 15). 29 This structure is used in Chapter Eight to describe the balance and opposition within Euripides’ Medea. Specific events of the tragedy are recorded and set in opposition to each other. These are: the destruction of old family relations with the destruction of new family relations, and patriarchal subordination or exploitation of matriarchal systems with matriarchal subordination or exploitation of patriarchal systems. In this way, the oppositional elements are shown to mitigate conflict by bringing harmony to a tumultuous situation. The Feminist Approach The final two approaches of myth analysis which are used, are: the feminist approach of the Great Goddess conveyed by Harris & Platzner in their fifth chapter, and the Jungian archetypal hero described in Chapter Ten. The feminist theory involves an older matriarchal goddess who was eventually succeeded and suppressed by the more recent patriarchal system of sky gods and archetypal hero. Therefore myths can be deconstructed as reflecting an emerging patriarchal society and the suppression of traditional matriarchal organizations (Harris & Platzner: 150). Archaeological findings have brought evidence of a powerful creator goddess worshiped all over Europe and the Mediterranean from the Palaeolithic era to the Bronze Age. In a Jungian sense this universal or collective figure of a powerful mother goddess has become archetypically known as the Great Goddess. Similar figures have been found in mythology all over the world; for example, the Ancient Greeks believed in Gaia, the Egyptians worshipped Isis, and the Sumerians worshipped Inanna (Harris & Platzner: 146). The Great Goddess’s powers were all-encompassing in an eternal life cycle. She possessed the triple functions of life, death and rebirth and assumed three forms of a woman, that of the maiden, mother and old crone. In this matriarchal environment, everything in the world was connected because the Great Goddess combined heaven, earth and the underworld (Harris & Platzner: 147). One of the most important symbols of the Great Goddess was the serpent as it could manoeuvre underground and over the surface. The serpent, in common with the goddess, was thought to be 30 familiar with the mysteries of the underworld and the secrets of life and its eternal cycle (Harris & Platzner: 147). Over the years, the matriarchal culture in Europe and the Mediterranean changed to a patriarchal society with male sky gods. The cyclic concept of natural progression in the matriarchy, was substituted for a new linear concept of time, and a system of dualism—good and evil, light and dark. The belligerent male sky gods carried straight, phallic symbols such as spears, swords and thunderbolts (Harris & Platzner: 150). In this new society, the Great Goddess was seen as a powerful entity in her ability to create and sustain life, and also in her death-wielding, or chthonic abilities (Harris & Platzner: 145). She was therefore perceived as a threat to sky-god worship since evidence from mythology indicates a creator goddess who does not retain her power. Her functions were divided amongst many lesser goddesses and her symbols were redefined in a negative manner. Her serpents became dragons threatening to society. In Euripides’ Medea, at the end of the play when Medea had completed her acts of vengeance on Jason, she flew away from Corinth in a dragon-drawn chariot. This indicated her connection to the Great Goddess as she was associated with her symbol of the serpent. Euripides may have been indicating Medea’s nature and actions as threatening to society. He could also have been reminding the audience of the strength and power of the Great Goddess; this could imply neglected intelligence and capability of women in general. The chthonic aspects of the Great Goddess were retained in figures such as Hecate and the Furies, with their connection to the underworld and sorcery. Furthermore, this chthonic or underground function became a symbol of evil and dread. Hecate, once a commanding and powerful goddess honoured by Zeus, was stripped of her positive aspects. Her underworld connection became prevalent and she was connected with fearful images such as night, witchcraft and sorcery. She became a witch, a dangerous seductress in youth and a hag in old age (Harris & Platzner: 154). Again the connection to Medea is evident. Medea’s patron goddess was Hecate. At one point in the tragedy she is called a Fury by the chorus; she is also a mistress of magic and potions. 31 As a young seductress, Medea represents the frightening mysteries within women. These passions intimidated men in their attempt to control and subdue women, but Medea was a reminder that women’s dormant fervour could at any moment emerge. The Hero as an Archetype The prevalent archetype in the new patriarchal system of Ancient Greece, was the Hero. There was a change from a cyclical to a linear system, which made death final and terrible. Thus personal achievement and transcendence became necessary (Harris & Platzner: 151). Because life was sees as linear, in that people were born and they died, there was no linking factor to the environment. Each person’s lifeline was separate and final. The concept of the hero is closely related to the theory of the Great Goddess. The rise in popularity of this archetype in myth reflected the social shift from the matriarchy to the patriarchy. These new icons emphasised the system of individualism where they had to singularly ‘escape’ mortality through achievement and reputation (Harris & Platzner: 301). Heroes were models for young Greek men to emulate. They were archetypes which served as examples of individual ambition and an incentive to suppress women. The hero was a masculine figure who generally distanced himself from society in order to pursue his singular ambitious drive. His uniqueness isolated him from his community, and especially from women, because in order for him to achieve his individual glory he had to avoid women or use them to his own advantage. He therefore became the suppressor of women as they could prevent his glory by tempting him with domestic contentment and sexual indulgence. This distraction was destructive to the heroic task and threatened to keep him from his god-like aspirations. Jason adopts this persona and acts in a manner expected of him as a hero. He uses Medea for his individual ambitions and then leaves her for a woman who offers more benefits. That he no longer feels love or attachment to Medea shows that he would not allow one woman to subvert him from achieving a glorious destiny. Euripides’ Medea could be showing a clash of archetypes. Jason, who has expectations as a male hero, comes into conflict when confronted with a woman who does not adhere to the male definition of a woman’s function within the house. Instead she is a powerful representation of the Great Goddess who, in this instance, defeats the hero. 32 Euripides may have been expressing the female archetype as threat, as the emasculating goddess whose allure could manipulate men. This fear of women’s power is reflected in figures such as Medusa, who could turn men to stone with a glance (Harris & Platzner: 151), and now in Medea who defeats a hero. Medea may conversely represent the possible surfacing of women’s anger. She is a Great Goddess figure who assumes the role of a traditional masculine hero. She successfully adopts the heroic code and defeats her enemy, thus showing the possibility of women as strong, capable beings. Conclusion Having summarised the methods that are used in the interpretations, the passages are now examined. The inconsistencies in Medea’s character are explored in order to gain understanding of the inconsistencies in society. As a woman and a foreigner she could represent a victim of patriarchal suppression or serve as warning of a dangerous type of person. In viewing her as a murderer and avenger, Euripides could be challenging the stereotypical ideals of women’s lack of intelligence and capability, or he could have been emphasising the danger of this type of women to Greek society. 33 CHAPTER FOUR: Patriarchal Society: Perpetuated or Deconstructed? Introduction This chapter offers an overview of the societal situation of women in ancient Greece. Certain modern researchers referred to, give a description of the division of the genders, and examples are also taken from the ancient thinkers: Homer, Hesiod, Aristotle, Thucydides and Plutarch. My purpose here is to examine the notion that women were suppressed and seen as inferior to men. The Medea is then analysed in order to deduce whether Euripides is supporting or deconstructing patriarchal society. A number of the theories described in Chapter Three are applied to the text to emphasise Euripides’ exploration of social factors influencing the action of the Medea. An extract from Euripides’ Hippolytus is used as an example to convey the dilemma of an ancient Greek woman who falls in love with the wrong man. This is linked to Medea’s predicament of loving and supporting a man who does not return her loyalty and passion and thus may show Euripides’ purpose of presenting the plight of women. Carl Jung’s theory of archetypes is also related to the material in order to deduce whether Medea may have had a negative persona, in a society where women could be classified as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. If she is seen as a ‘bad’ woman, perhaps Euripides is either confirming this stereotype or trying to vindicate a figure by understanding the possible motivation of a strong, independent and abused woman. Jung’s theory of the animus and anima is also applied to Jason, showing his distorted understanding of women and his inability to empathise with Medea. Theories of Male/Female Difference Wood (p. 155) explains that maintenance of inequality of the genders over the ages has been based on the idea that women are physically and mentally inferior to men. Only in the twentieth century has this ideology been successfully challenged. The distinction between sex and gender has had an enlightening effect on people’s understanding of the differences between men and women. Sex has been described as the genetic differentiation between males and females due to different hormones and the XX chromosomes of women and the XY chromosomes of men. Differences between the sexes are evident, but over the years socialisation has stereotyped females and males into genders. This is part of culture. It is the belief and value systems which 34 ascribe certain socially constructed attributes to men and women, which are not biologically specific. In Western history, men have always been accepted as the dominant sex. They mark the standard and the ‘norm’, whereas women have been the subordinate and the ‘other’ (Thorne et al.: 17). This dominance of men has been built into the economic, social, political and legal structures of western civilisation over thousands of years (Thorne & Henley: 15). Consequently, women have never held a prominent position in history and the history of ‘Mankind’ has been exactly what the term unintentionally represents. Over the years, the deeds, careers and events of men have been recorded and women have been almost entirely excluded. In ancient Greece this was no exception as women were subordinated by men; their voices and opinions were silenced. Male and Female in Greek Thought and Society Ancient Greek women were seen as peripheral to the male-centric society as they were assumed to be fundamentally lesser beings. This concept was used as justification to keep women within the limits of their confined domains. The philosopher Aristotle argues in favour of this misogynistic theory when he writes how men are essentially superior to women. He uses this for the basis of the argument that it was reasonable for men to control the lives of women: ... τι δ τ ρρεν πρ ς τ θ λυ φ σει τ μ ν κρε ττον τ δ χε ρον, κα τ μ ν ρχον τ δ' ρχ μενον. τ ν α τ ν δ τρ πον ναγκα ον ε ναι κα π π ντων νθρ πwν. (Arist. Pol. 1254b. 13-16) Again, as between male and female the former is by nature superior and ruler, the latter inferior and subject. And this must hold good of mankind in general. [Transl. Sinclair] Compounding the assumption that females were somewhat lesser beings than males, women also received the negative classification of sinfulness. Similar to the Christian belief of Eve; the first woman on earth as the cause of all our suffering, the belief that women are somehow responsible for all hardship, was also embedded in ancient Greek society. In Hesiod’s Theogony, women 35 appeared late in the world as an evil thing fashioned by Zeus to punish men. He believes that women are wicked beings that bring toil and suffering to men (Meagher: 115). α τ ρ πε δ τε ξε καλ ν κακ ν ντ' γαθο ο, ... κ τ ς γ ρ γ νος στ γυναικ ν θηλυτερ ων, [τ ς γ ρ λο ι ν στι γ νος κα φ λα γυναικ ν,] π μα μ γα θνητο σι, σ ν νδρ σι ναιετ ουσαι, ο λομ νης Πεν ης ο σ μφοροι, λλ Κ ροιο. ... ς δ' α τως νδρεσσι κακ ν θνητο σι γυνα κας Ζε ς ψιβρεμ της θ κε, ξυν ονας ργων ργαλ ων. (Hes. Th. 585-602) When he had made the lovely curse [Pandora], the price for the blessing of fire ... From her comes all the race of womankind, the deadly female race and tribe of wives who live with mortal men and bring them harm, no help to them in dreadful poverty but ready enough to share with them in wealth … women are bad for men, and they conspire in wrong, and Zeus the Thunderer made it so. [Transl. Wender] Because of society’s pejorative conception of the feminine, ancient Greek women had a status no higher than that of a slave or an animal. The household included the land, slaves, animals and women which all belonged to the husband or father of the house. Women were regarded as possessions, similar to the status of livestock. Meagher gives examples from ancient literature to emphasise this point. In the Iliad, he points out that men in battle taunted their opponents by calling each other ‘beast’ or ‘woman’ (Meagher: 115). For example Hektor said to Diomedes, insulting him as a form lower than men: ν ν δ σ' τιμ σουσι· γυναικ ς ρρε κακ γλ νη ... ρ' ντ τ τυξο. (Hom. Il. 8. 163-164) But now they will disgrace you, who are no better than a woman. Down with you, you poor doll. [Transl. Lattimore: 1951] This conception of female inferiority was an echo of bestial lowliness, where in a similar provocation, Achilles calls Hektor a dog: 36 μ με κ ον γο νων γουν ζεο μ δ τοκ ων· (Hom. Il. 22. 345) No more entreating of me, you dog, by knees or parents. [Transl. Lattimore: 1951] Calling a man either a woman or a beast was an offence used to taunt opponents. Women were thus regarded as ineffectual beings of lower status than men, demonstrating a misogynistic attitude that rendered women powerless in ancient Greek society. As a result of negative typecasting, women were regarded as second-class citizens who held little or no power in ancient Greek society. Pomeroy (chapters IV-VI) provides an overall explanation of women’s position in Ancient Greece in terms of marriage, education and work. She shows that women had no control over their own lives and were seen as the possessions of their father and later their husbands. Supporting this, Meagher (p.115) notes that ‘a feminine mortal’ ‘child bearer’ and ‘wife’ were common phrases used to denote women in ancient Greece. This indicates that women’s primary role was to marry so that they might bear legitimate, and preferably male, children. They had no choice of career, and education and politics were reserved for men, ensuring female reliance on men (Pomeroy: 71f). Fathers, husbands and sons were generally women’s only potential to gain status or recognition (Sancisi-Weerdenburg: 27). Having little opportunity for independent power or public distinction, marriage was of the utmost importance (Meagher: 117). Ancient Greek woman’s only means to achieve financial support and societal stability was through marriage. As women were not entitled to an independent career, marriage was their only means of survival. Women were passed from the care of their fathers to that of their husband in a marriage generally arranged by the families of the bride and groom. In addition, a wife was expected to support her husband and avoid questioning his authority. She was dependent on him, as he was the protector and provider of the family, whereas she was merely a part of the household. Evidence of this dependence can be derived from Euripides’ Medea, in the opening speech, where the nurse says: ... νδ νουσα μ ν φυγ ι πολιτ ν ν φ κετο χθ να α τ ι τε π ντα ξυμφ ρουσ' Ι σονι· περ μεγ στη γ γνεται σωτηρ α, 37 ταν γυν πρ ς νδρα μ διχοστατ ι. (E. Med. 11-15) … an exile who has won a warm welcome from her new fellow citizens and who seeks to please her husband in all she does. This is what keeps a marriage intact more than anything, when a husband can count on complete support from his wife. [Transl. Davie] A woman’s role was thus as wife and mother. This indicates another striking feature of female obscurity, as women had to uphold an image of discreet domesticity. In ancient Greece, men were of the ‘outside’ world. Their lives were of the overt, the official and the ‘real’. Women had to remain ‘inside’ and thus their world was of concealment (Goff: 2). They were prescribed a role of the quiet, virtuous wife to which they had to comply. The house was not a place for open discussion and opinion. The city on the other hand, which was the public sphere of the city, presented opportunities for men to express their worth and assert themselves in whichever field they chose. Aristotle saw the public space as the place where men could develop their personal virtues (Murphy: 89). The domestic area of the household, was the limited domain of women. Their realm held a position of less worth than that of the ‘outside’ world of men (Murphy: 89). Only men would therefore have been classified as significant citizens with ‘voices’. As a result of this thinking, very little was written by women; they were anonymous and silent; their voices were not thought to be important and were therefore never heard (Meagher: 117). ‘Good’ women would have been discreet, quiet and unquestioning of the men in their lives. In antiquity, Simonides of Amorgos wrote a satire on women, reemphasising the standard feeling of misogyny. He states that most women were despicable and were redeemable by only one type of ‘good woman’. This admirable type of woman was seen as scarce: the compliant, submissive woman was often the only ‘type’ deemed worthy of praise (Lefkowitz: 68). This prototype of how ‘good’ and chaste women should behave is confirmed by other ancient Greek writers. Thucydides, a historian who thought himself to be objective, almost completely omitted women from his ‘history’ but wrote his opinion of them and their roles: 38 ... ε δ με δε κα γυναικε ας τι ρετ ς, σαι ν ν ν χηρε σονται, μνησθ ναι, βραχε παραιν σει παν σημαν . τ ς τε γ ρ παρχο σης φ σεως μ χε ροσι γεν σθαι μ ν μεγ λη δ ξα κα ς ν π' λ χιστον ρετ ς π ρι ψ γου ν το ς ρσεσι κλ ος . (Thu. Hist. 2.45. 2) If I also must say something about a wife’s virtue to those of you who will now be widows, I will state it in brief exhortation. Your reputation is glorious if you do not prove inferior to your own nature and if there is the least possible talk about you among men, whether in praise or blame. [Transl. Fantham et al.] Similarly, Plutarch wrote later, in the first century C.E. that he disagreed with Thucydides and rather praised women if they were ‘virtuous’. Nevertheless, by trying to emphasise his admiration for good women, he essentially stressed a similar point to that of Thucydides in his Advice to the Bride and Groom: ... τ ν δ σ φρονα γυνα κα δε το ναντ ον ρ σθαι μ λιστα μετ το νδρ ς ο σαν, ο κουρε ν δ κα κρ πτεσθαι μ παρ ντος. (Plu. Mor II.139c. 3-5) ... a virtuous woman ought to be most visible in her husband's company, and to stay in the house and hide herself when he is away. [Transl. Babbitt] In Plutarch’s Consolatio ad Uxorem, a consolatory speech he wrote to his wife when their daughter died, he indicates what he finds admirable in a woman: ... γ δ το το μ ν ο κ θα μαζον, ε μηδ ποτε καλλωπισαμ νη περ θ ατρον πομπ ν λλ κα πρ ς δον ς χρηστον γησαμ νη τ ν πολυτ λειαν ν το ς σκυθρωπο ς διεφ λαξας τ φελ ς κα λιτ ν· ο γ ρ ‘ ν βακχε μασι δε μ νον τ ν σ φρονα μ νειν δι φθορον, λλ μηδ ν ττον ο εσθαι τ ν ν π νθεσι σ λον κα τ κ νημα το π θους γκρατε ας δε σθαι διαμαχομ νης ο πρ ς τ φιλ στοργον, ς ο πολλο νομ ζουσιν, λλ πρ ς τ κ λαστον τ ς ψυχ ς. (Plu. Mor VII. 609a. 1-9) But this was no surprise to me, that you, who have never decked yourself out at the theatre or procession, but have regarded extravagance as useless even for amusements, should have preserved in the hour of sadness the blameless simplicity of your ways; for not only "in Bacchic riot" must the virtuous woman remain uncorrupted; but she must hold that the tempest and tumult of her emotion in grief requires continence no less, a continence 39 that does not resist maternal affection, as the multitude believe, but the licentiousness of the mind. [Transl. De Lacy & Einarson] This shows that women were generally expected to be discreet, modest and even hidden. Respectable women would have had to remain silent and in the shadow of men (Fantham et al: 79). If a woman was not an ideal image of chastity and modesty it was deemed ‘unspeakable’ and was then not supposed to be acknowledged in the open and official world, but was kept in the house in secret (Goff: 2). Medea is then seen as a deviation from what was expected, emphasised when the nurse says: δειν γ ρ· ο τοι αιδ ως γε συμβαλ ν χθραν τις α τ ι καλλ νικον ισεται. (E. Med. 44-45) She is no ordinary woman; no one making an enemy of her will win an easy victory, take it from me. [Transl. Davie] Reiterating the same concept of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ women, a character from a later fourth-century comedy by Eubulus, states that Alcestis and Penelope were archetypical ‘good’ women. Penelope was the virtuous and intelligent wife who remained faithful to her husband, Odysseus, for twenty years. She was modest and discreet and used her wisdom to fend off her suitors, so as to keep her marriage vows intact (Lefkowitz: 69). Alcestis made the decision to die for her husband, showing the ultimate virtue of a woman placing her husband’s life above her own in importance. In Euripides’ Andromache, Andromache says that she raised her husband’s illegitimate children as her own so that she could be a good and virtuous wife who pleased her husband (Lefkowitz: 69). This shows that a woman was defined by how she treated her husband and how well she accepted the role to which she had been consigned. These examples highlight the ancient Greek archetype of virtuous women. It is then no surprise that Medea became known as a notorious witch once she killed her own children and destroyed her husband’s new wife and father-in-law. When she refused to accept Jason’s ill-treatment and abandonment, she made the decision to destroy her husband and would have gone against the very definition of a virtuous woman described by Lefkowitz (p. 68). 40 In terms of Jung’s archetypal myths (Harris & Platzner: 45), Medea could be classified as a ‘bad’ woman. She could be seen as the powerful sorceress and the fanatical, violent wife of a Greek hero. A strong woman would be a threat to men’s authority and thus seen as dangerous. An example can be seen where Creon says of Medea: δ δοικ σ', ο δ ν δε παραμπ σχειν λ γους, μ μο τι δρ σηις πα δ' ν κεστον κακ ν. συμβ λλεται δ πολλ το δε δε γματα· σοφ π φυκας κα κακ ν πολλ ν δρις, λυπ ι δ λ κτρων νδρ ς στερημ νη. (E. Med. 282-286) I fear you—there is no need of prevarication here—in case you do some irreparable harm to my daughter. Any number of things make me afraid of this. You are a sorceress and a woman who is no stranger to dark knowledge. [Transl. Davie] This type of reasoning was seen as a justification for women’s powerless position. Men assumed women to be incapable of logical and productive thought and therefore relegated them to the protection and control of men. If they were ‘good’ women, they would contentedly submit to subjugation, and if they were ‘bad’ women they needed to be controlled by men lest they became a danger to society. Euripides Reveals the Paradoxes and Anomalies of Greek Social Structure Marriage Women’s lack of power over their own lives meant that a good marriage was essential in order to have an enjoyable life. Contentment could almost be completely attributed to an agreeable husband as their lack of freedom and legal rights meant divorce would leave them either alone, or back in the care of their fathers. Medea speaks of how women are lucky if they married a good husband; they could then have an ‘enviable life’. Unfortunate women, such as herself, married bad men and were thus doomed to lead miserable existences. This speech may have hit a nerve with some of the women in the audience who would have known how true this statement could be: π ντων δ' σ' στ' μψυχα κα γν μην χει 41 γυνα κ ς σμεν θλι τατον φυτ ν· ς πρ τα μ ν δε χρημ των περβολ ι π σιν πρ ασθαι δεσπ την τε σ ματος λαβε ν· κακο γ ρ το τ' τ' λγιον κακ ν. κ ν τ ιδ' γ ν μ γιστος, κακ ν λαβε ν χρηστ ν· ο γ ρ ε κλεε ς παλλαγα γυναιξ ν ο δ' ο ν τ' ν νασθαι π σιν. ς καιν δ' θη κα ν μους φιγμ νην δε μ ντιν ε ναι, μ μαθο σαν ο κοθεν, ο ωι μ λιστα χρ σεται ξυνευν τηι. κ ν μ ν τ δ' μ ν κπονουμ ναισιν ε π σις ξυνοικ ι μ β αι φ ρων ζυγ ν, ζηλωτ ς α ν· ε δ μ , θανε ν χρε ν. (E. Med. 228-243) Of all creatures that have life and reason we women are the most miserable of specimens! In the first place, at great expense we must buy a husband, taking a master to play the tyrant with our bodies (this is an injustice that crowns the other). And here lies the crucial issue for us, whether we get a good man or a bad. For divorce brings disgrace on a woman and in the interval she cannot refuse her husband. Once she finds herself among customs and laws that are unfamiliar, a woman must turn prophet to know what sort of man she will be dealing with as husband—not information gained at home. Now if we manage this task successfully and share our house with a husband who finds marriage a yoke he bears with ease, our lives are to be envied. But if not, we’d be better off dead. [Transl. Davie] Concerning her position as wife, Medea further emphasises the freedom men have in comparison to the claustrophobic situation of women confined to their homes. Men could leave the house, some even entered relationships with other women such as concubines, whereas women’s entire focus revolved around their husbands and their households: ν ρ δ', ταν το ς νδον χθηται ξυν ν, ξω μολ ν παυσε καρδ αν σης [ πρ ς φ λον τιν' πρ ς λικα τραπε ς]· μ ν δ' ν γκη πρ ς μ αν ψυχ ν βλ πειν. λ γουσι δ' μ ς ς κ νδυνον β ον ζ μεν κατ' ο κους, ο δ μ ρνανται δορ , κακ ς φρονο ντες· ς τρ ς ν παρ' σπ δα στ ναι θ λοιμ' ν μ λλον τεκε ν παξ. (E. Med. 244-251) When a man becomes dissatisfied with married life, he goes outdoors and finds relief from his frustrations. But we [women] are bound to love one partner and look no further. They say we live sheltered lives in the 42 home, free from danger, while they wield their spears in battle—what fools they are! I would rather face the enemy three times over than bear a child once. [Transl. Davie] Medea defies the perception that women’s lives are easier and more carefree, emphasising men’s freedom in relation to women’s imposed confinement to the house. Euripides thus challenges the concept that all women are content and happy with their lot. He uses Medea as a mouthpiece to show marriage from a woman’s point of view. The Importance of Love to a Woman Furthermore, Medea speaks of the importance of love to a woman. Her world is the house and her main role is as a wife. Therefore love is important, as it is the main pleasure a woman gains from life. Medea’s love for her husband is all-consuming and she devotes herself to Jason. Love is a central priority in her world of concealment and secrecy. In Euripides’ Hippolytus, the concentration is on Theseus’ young bride Phaedra. Phaedra was driven by Aphrodite to fall in love with her own step-son, Hippolytus. Angered by Hippolytus for insulting her, Aphrodite punished him by making his stepmother fall in love with him. This functioned as a punishment, because when Hippolytus rejected Phaedra, she killed herself and posthumously accused him, in a letter, of raping her. Ultimately this led to his destruction at the hands of his own father for his supposed rape of his stepmother. The play demonstrates the dilemma of a woman who falls in love with the wrong man. Phaedra did not want to love a man out of wedlock, and thus saw her condition as an unspeakable disease. So successful was her socialisation, that she would rather have died than taint her honourable name as a virtuous woman: πε μ' ρως τρωσεν, σκ πουν πως κ λλιστ' ν γκαιμ' α τ ν. ρξ μην μ ν ο ν κ το δε, σιγ ν τ νδε κα κρ πτειν ν σον·... ... τ δε τερον δ τ ν νοιαν ε φ ρειν τ ι σωφρονε ν νικ σα προυνοησ μην. τρ τον δ', πειδ τοισ δ' ο κ ξ νυτον Κ πριν κρατ σαι, κατθανε ν δοξ μοι, κρ τιστον (ο δε ς ντερε ) βουλευμ των. μο γ ρ ε η μ τε λανθ νειν καλ μ τ' α σχρ δρ σηι μ ρτυρας πολλο ς χειν. 43 τ δ' ργον ιδη τ ν ν σον τε δυσκλε , γυν τε πρ ς το σδ' ο σ' γ γνωσκον καλ ς, μ σημα π σιν· ς λοιτο παγκ κως ... ... μ ς γ ρ α τ το τ' ποκτε νει, φ λαι, ς μ ποτ' νδρα τ ν μ ν α σχ νασ' λ , μ πα δας ο ς τικτον· (E. Hipp. 392- 394, 398-407, 419-421) When love struck me, I searched for the best way to endure the wound. My first resolve was to let slip no word, hide what I suffered … Next, I prepared to endure this madness as I ought by mastering it with self-control. But finally, when I could not subdue the goddess by these means, I knew— and beyond contradiction—that for me the best of all decisions was to end my life. I would not wish my right action to rest unknown, any more than to display my sin before the world. What I desired, and the desire itself, I knew, were both dishonourable. I knew too, and too well, I was a woman—a thing hated by everyone. … I will never be known to bring dishonour on my husband or my children. [Transl. Vellacott] Euripides illustrates that if women did not act according to the masculine definition of a virtuous woman, they were regarded as depraved. If their love was forbidden by society, they had to withhold their feelings and silence their voices, because this type of love was not endorsed and had to be suppressed. As women, they were socialised into thinking that they were immoral unless their lives centred on the home, where they had to maintain the unrealistic facade of perfect, unemotional wives. Jung’s Theory of the Anima and Animus as an Explanation for the Underestimation of Women Medea’s position as a wife was seen as all-important because as a woman, her options did not include many alternatives. She committed her life to this role which ultimately let her down because Jason did not uphold his position as her husband. This was because his goals as a man conflicted with the goals of Medea. Ancient Greek society was male-centric and repressed any form of female wisdom or influence. Men did not develop the anima aspect of their psyche and were therefore unable to relate to women in general. In Euripides’ Medea, Jason’s position as a man thus also fails him. In a culture where success, individuality and status are of the utmost importance, Jason is driven to achieve a noble destiny. His character is that of an ambitious but conventional Greek man. He has a heroic heritage, but in essence is still trapped by the generality of his culture. He obviously feels he has to succeed as a 44 man, whereby Medea is no longer an appropriate wife to meet his expectations. His animus dominates his personality and induces him to neglect a family that is no longer of any benefit to him. When Jason criticises Medea’s passion, he shows his lack of sensitivity towards a woman who has sacrificed everything for his success. He is not in touch with his anima and is unable to feel empathy for his wife. Her driving force to help him stems from her intense love for him, therefore Jason’s insensitivity towards this love emphasises his individualistic and animus-driven focus on his own personal success. λλ' ς τοσο τον κεθ' στ' ρθουμ νης ε ν ς γυνα κες π ντ' χειν νομ ζετε, ν δ' α γ νηται ξυμφορ τις ς λ χος, τ λ ιστα κα κ λλιστα πολεμι τατα τ θεσθε. χρ ν γ ρ λλοθ ν ποθεν βροτο ς πα δας τεκνο σθαι, θ λυ δ' ο κ ε ναι γ νος· χο τως ν ο κ ν ο δ ν νθρ ποις κακ ν. (E. Med. 569-576) The fact that you women have reached the point where you think your happiness is complete when love smiles on you but, should some misfortune mar that love, you take all that is good and beautiful in life and turn it into grounds for bitter hatred. There should have been some other means for mankind to reproduce itself, without the need of a female sex; this would rid the world of all its troubles. [Transl. Davie] Euripides illustrates men’s lack of consideration towards women and the role women have been prescribed. Medea’s life consists of her home and her husband yet she is criticized by Jason for upholding the very thing permissible for her to enjoy. Euripides also shows that men were so out of touch with women that they not only lacked understanding of women, but also underestimated them. He shows this through Jason who buys into the generalisation of women’s weakness. Lacking insight from his anima, he underestimates Medea. He is a narrow-minded man who assumes all women to be fundamentally similar in their makeup when he says of his new bride: μ λιστα· κα πε σειν γε δοξ ζω σφ' γ , ε περ γυναικ ν στι τ ν λλων μ α. (E. Med. 944-945) 45 I expect I’ll win her round all right, if she’s a woman like all the rest! [Transl. Davie] It is also Jason’s underestimation of Medea which is his downfall. Like most ordinary men, he thinks women are inferior in intelligence and strength and is relieved when Medea starts acting like a ‘conventional’ woman. She says that she was wrong to accuse him of betraying her and realises that he was acting appropriately as the head of their house. In the new submissive impression she shows Jason, he thinks she is behaving as a woman ought, that is, passively allowing the man to make the decisions. He says to Medea: λλ' ς τ λ ιον σ ν μεθ στηκεν κ αρ, γνως δ τ ν νικ σαν, λλ τ ι χρ νωι, βουλ ν· γυναικ ς ργα τα τα σ φρονος. (E. Med. 911-913) Your heart has changed for the better and now at last you have come to see the superior way of thinking. This is how a sensible woman should behave. [Transl. Davie] What Jason does not realise at the time, is that Medea is manipulating him. She pretends to have a change of heart and says she will do Jason’s bidding. In this way, Euripides challenges conventional male thought that females are less intelligent, less able to manipulate and less committed to their objectives. This is supported by the Chorus’s challenging the popular conception that women have no skill in creativity: πολλ κις δη δι λεπτοτ ρων μ θων μολον κα πρ ς μ λλας λθον με ζους χρ γενε ν θ λυν ρευν ν. λλ γ ρ στιν μο σα κα μ ν, προσομιλε σοφ ας νεκεν, π σαισι μ ν ο , πα ρον δ γ νος (<μ αν> ν πολλα ς ε ροις ν σως) ο κ π μουσον τ γυναικ ν. (E. Med. 1081-1089) Many times ere now I have entertained thoughts more subtle and engaged in arguments more weighty than the female sex should pursue. We also have a Muse, you see, who accompanies us and tutors us in 46 wisdom, not all of us but a handful you might find among many who are not strangers to the Muse. [Transl. Davie] Euripides may be suggesting that men, through their lack of insight, do not understand women and thus underestimate them. This extract also suggests that Euripides believes women to be more intelligent and to have far greater potential than male suppression allows. In this way, Euripides challenges the simplistic categories in which women were placed. Euripides Challenges Female Archetypes In essence, Euripides thus also challenges archetypal definitions of women as either ‘bad’ or ‘good’. These archetypes are unrealistic because classifications of ‘good’ or ‘bad’, being too simplistic, don’t allow for circumstance to assist in the expression of character. Euripides may be challenging the categorisation of people into ‘types’ and also the conventional negative perception of women. In the Medea, the chorus of Corinthian women protest against the bad reputation of women: νω ποταμ ν ερ ν χωρο σι παγα , κα δ κα κα π ντα π λιν στρ φεται· νδρ σι μ ν δ λιαι βουλα , θε ν δ' ο κ τι π στις ραρεν. τ ν δ' μ ν ε κλειαν χειν βιοτ ν στρ ψουσι φ μαι· ρχεται τιμ γυναικε ωι γ νει· ο κ τι δυσκ λαδος φ μα γυνα κας ξει. (E. Med. 410-420) The sacred rivers flow back to their sources, the appointed order of things is reversed. It is men whose minds are deceitful, who take the names of their gods in vain, and women the future will honour in story as leaders of the upright lives. Glory is ours! And the slanderous tongues that attacked womankind shall be stilled. [Transl. Arnott] Through the chorus of Corinthian women, Euripides reveals that women have been suppressed by men through their definition of ‘bad’ women. To be classified as ‘good’, a woman has to fulfil the role of passive wife who puts her husband before herself: in other words, the male definition of female piety. A woman such as Alcestis was ‘good’ because she put her husband’s life before her own; Andromache submissively tolerated her husband’s infidelity. In contrast, Medea should 47 thus be classified as an archetypal ‘bad’ women, but Euripides, contrary to this conventional simplification, expresses her actions as influenced by circumstance. From Medea’s point of view, she has been ruined by a bad husband; as a foreigner who has forsaken her old family to help her new husband, she has no alternative home where she can find sanctuary. Thus in the case of divorce, she has no legal rights and family to return to. She gives everything up for Jason who deserts her for a younger woman. Furthermore, he expresses no gratitude for all she has done and displays complete insensitivity towards her plight. Jason is self-centred and unconcerned about a mere woman and her situation. In fact, his thought may have been similar to the average contemporary man of Euripides’ audience. Euripides thus reveals the difficult position in which women were placed. They had no form of expression in a society which admired quiet discreet women—a society which deemed women ‘bad’ or ‘wicked’ if they rejected their prescribed passive role. In their oppressed state women could not speak for themselves. Euripides thus constructs a dramatic but realistic situation of domestic upheaval and cross-gender conflict. The Inherent Injustice in Society as an Explanation for Women Behaving Badly The Archetype is thus challenged by Euripides; it is not necessarily women who are essentially ‘bad’, but rather the imbalance and injustice in society which lead to women’s antisocial or even violent behaviour. With suppression comes frustration; with concealment within the perimeters of the house, comes jaded feelings of claustrophobia; and with discriminatory and unfair treatment come anger and possible aggression. In the Medea this is acknowledged where the chorus of women express their resentment at their ill treatment by men and the omission of their thoughts and opinions from history: μο σαι δ παλαιγεν ων λ ξουσ' οιδ ν τ ν μ ν μνε σαι πιστοσ ναν. ο γ ρ ν μετ ραι γν μαι λ ρας πασε θ σπιν οιδ ν Φο βος γ τωρ μελ ων· πε ντ χησ' ν μνον ρσ νων γ νναι. μακρ ς δ' α ν χει πολλ μ ν μετ ραν νδρ ν τε μο ραν ε πε ν. (E. Med. 421-435) 48 The songs sung by poets of early days shall cease to harp on our faithlessness. For Phoebus, Lord of Poetry, did not put in our minds the lyre’s inspired minstrelsy; else would I have made my song ring out against the sex of men. The rolling ages have much to tell of our side, much, as well, of men’s. [Transl. Davie] Medea then speaks of women’s fury at being neglected in love. Although men compel women to concentrate all of their focus on the men in their lives, Medea, shows in this speech to the chorus that if women are thwarted by men in love, women become dangerous. γυν γ ρ τ κακ τ' ς ταν δ' ς ε ο κ στιν λλα μ ν φ βου πλ α λκ ν κα σ δηρον ε σορ ν· ν ν δικημ νη κυρ ι, λλη φρ ν μιαιφονωτ ρα. (E. Med. 263-267) Women are timid creatures for the most part, cowards when it comes to fighting and at the sight of steel; but wrong a woman in love and nothing on earth has a heart more murderous. [Transl. Davie] Euripides therefore allows for the impression that if women are repressed and treated badly their pent-up frustration can lead to violent behaviour. It may be his attempt at awareness of women’s perspective, given the imbalance in Greek society in favour of men. This imbalance, together with the underestimation of women could unleash aggravated retaliation. Conclusion Because women could not choose their own purpose in life, they could not exercise free will and had even less chance of personal fulfilment. One of the few experiences they could look forward to, was love. Jason’s condescending attitude towards women shows a male lack of awareness of the position in which women were placed within patriarchal society. This lack of concern may have been quite prevalent at the time Euripides wrote this play. There was an imbalance in society, favouring masculine judgment, which could have led to inevitable disaster in relations between men and women. In the myth of Jason and Medea, Jason lacks understanding of women and denies his anima. On the other hand Medea embraces her animus and conceives the most severe revenge for Jason. She shuts off her maternal side to achieve a victory over Jason. 49 Euripides’ Medea demonstrates destructive results having a strong, unconventional female in a society of oppressed women. Jason’s character is that of a conventional male in ancient Greece who has to deal with an unorthodox wife. When this combination of conflicting objectives transpires, there are rather dramatic consequences. Medea defies her role as a passive woman. She expects protection and love after she has fulfilled a role of supportive wife. Instead of loyalty to his wife, Jason chooses the individual path of an ambitious man. The Medea expresses these incompatible expectations and reveals a suffering inherent in society born from the disparity between male and female. CHAPTER FIVE: Medea as an Outsider 50 Introduction A factor which complicates Medea’s potential as a heroic figure is that she is foreign. She is a woman from Colchis and thus seen as Eastern in a staunchly patriotic Greece. Euripides’s audience is Greek, making the character of Medea an outsider. This chapter addresses whether Euripides is creating sympathy for foreign women or accentuating the dangers of Greek men having unpredictable foreign concubines. Some modern theories of cultural differences are specified in order to gain a general understanding of foreign prejudice and stereotyping. How the ancient Greeks perceived the ‘other’ or non-Greeks is also assessed, using ancient sources, namely Herodotus and Aristotle, to gain first-hand insight. An example is taken from Euripides’ Troiades to demonstrate that Euripides also shows foreign women in a sympathetic light in another of his tragedies. Extracts from Euripides’ Medea are then analysed in order to determine how much Medea’s status as a foreigner affected her position in society. Finally, they are examined to understand how her ‘otherness’ influenced her helpless situation, and whether it was Euripides’ intention to show the potential danger of foreign women, or rather to express the plight of this powerless minority. Theories of Culture In an anthropological sense, culture is a person’s customs, worldview, kinship system, social organisation and language. It is small day-to-day practices which we take for granted and see as ‘common sense’. Individuals fit into broad, general cultures which share similar ideas, communications and behaviours. A culture gives an individual a distinctive identity and a sense of cohesion and membership (Scollon & Scollon: 126f). These societal variations may differ so completely from culture to culture that their values and general worldview may clash. This impacts individuals from different cultures when they come into contact with each other, as their dissimilar ideologies are often in conflict. The consequence is an awareness of distinction between two cultures. It influences how societies view themselves and how they view other cultural groups (Scollon & Scollon: 42). 51 People assess all different behaviour through the lenses of their ideology which often gives rise to ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is a “universal tendency for any people to put its own culture and society in a central position of priority and worth” (Samovar & Porter: 13). Edward Said, a leading sociologist, observes that Western people generally see the East in a negative light. He calls his hypothesis Orientalism and states that the Orient is perceived as everything that is different from the West. It is viewed as signifying the ‘other’, as that which is not familiar or understandable (Thompson: 130). These ideals are paralleled in ancient Greece at the time Euripides was writing. Persians and other foreigners were seen as less civilised than the Greeks, and had distinct and alien characteristics (Thompson: 132). The term barbaroi originally came from the Ancient Greeks and meant ‘babbler’ or someone who did not speak Greek (Sardar et al: 26). Language to the Ancient Greeks was seen as the tool of reason. If someone could not communicate with them, it meant a lack of logic and implied that they had no faculty of reason. If a person’s intellect was poorly developed, s/he would be unable to control passions and would then be closer to nature and further from civilisation. Barbaroi was applied to all non-Greek speaking people and to some extent assumed a lack of true reason (Sardar et al: 26). This view supplied the rationale for Greeks to treat foreigners differently and inequitably. Herodotus and Aristotle Herodotus is interested in the concept of race and ethnicity and he devotes a large part of his books to write about different kinds of people. Whether he personally felt superior as a Greek is difficult to determine, but an instance in The Histories shows an example of Greek pride and feelings of racial superiority. In chapter 9, Herodotus gives an account of Pausanias, who was speaking to Lampon, an Aeginetan, after he suggested that Pausanias impale the Persian Mardonius’ body after his victory at Plataea. Pasaunias replies that the proposal is savage and that ‘non-Greeks’ or barbarians are less civilised and sophisticated than Greeks: με βετο το σδε· « Ω ξε προορ ν γαμα σεο, γν ξ ρας γ ρ με ψο κα μηδ ν κατ βαλες παραιν τα τα ποι ω, φ ς μειν λον βαρβ ροισι ποι ειν ... δ' ντανε Α γιν τα, τ μ ν ε νο ειν τε κα μης μ ντοι μ ρτηκας χρηστ ς· τ ν π τρην κα τ ργον, ς τ ων νεκρ λυμα νεσθαι, κα ν ν με κο σεσθαι· τ πρ πει μ λπερ Ελλησι, κα κε νοισι δ 52 πιφθον ομεν. Εγ δ' ν το του ε νεκα μ τε Α γιν τ σι δοιμι μ τε το σι τα τ ρ σκεται, ποχρ τ μοι Σπαρτι τ σι ρεσκ μενον σια μ ν ποι ειν, σια δ κα λ γειν. (Hdt. Hist. 9. 79. 1-9) Pausanias, however replied: ‘I thank you, my Aegian friend, for your goodwill and concern for me; but, in regard to your judgement, you have failed to hit the mark. First you exalt me and my country to the skies by your praise of my success; and then you would bring it all to nothing by advising me to insult a dead body, and by saying that my good name would be increased if I were to do an improper thing fitter for barbarians than Greeks—and even then we think it repulsive. No, indeed; in this matter I hope I shall never please the Aeginetans, or anyone else who approves such beastliness. It is enough for me to please the Spartans, by reverence and decency in both word and deed.’ [Transl. De Sélincourt] The figure of Pausanias expresses his distaste for these other cultural practices, thinking they are savage or unsophisticated in comparison to those of the Greeks. This clearly displays an example of ancient ethnocentrism. Furthermore, an example in Book Three shows that Herodotus is conscious of personal beliefs which often influence people to assume that their own behaviour is correct in any given clash of custom. He gives the example when Cambyses entered an Egyptian temple and mocked and burnt the images: Πανταχ ν μοι δ λ στι τι μ νη μεγ λως Καμβ σης· ο γ ρ ν ρο σ τε κα νομα οισι πεχε ρησε καταγελ ν. Ε γ ρ τις προθε η π σι νθρ ποισι κλ ξασθαι κελε ων ν μους το ς καλλ στους κ τ ν π ντων ν μων, διασκεψ μενοι ν λο ατο καστοι το ς ωυτ ν· ο τω νομ ζουσι πολλ ν τι καλλ στους το ς ωυτ ν ν μους καστοι ε ναι. Ο κ ν ο κ ς στι λλον γε μαιν μενον νδρα γ λωτα τ τοια τα τ θεσθαι. Ως δ ο τω νενομ κασι τ περ το ς ν μους ο π ντες νθρωποι, πολλο σ τε κα λλοισι τεκμηρ οισι π ρεστι σταθμ σασθαι ... (Hdt. Hist. 3. 38. 1-10) In view of all this, I have no doubt whatever that Cambyses was completely out of his mind; it is the only possible explanation of his assault upon, and mockery of, everything which ancient law and custom have made sacred in Egypt. For if anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing from amongst all the nations in the world the beliefs which he thought best, he would inevitably, after careful consideration of their relative merits, choose those of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own 53 native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best; and that being so, it is unlikely that anyone but a madman would mock at such things. There is abundant evidence that this is the universal feeling about the ancient customs of one’s country. [Transl. De Sélincourt] Herodotus thus echoes the idea that most people are raised to believe their conventions are normal, and often think that other people’s beliefs and values are peculiar. He relates how insensitive a person must be in order to insult customs that others hold dear. Unlike Herodotus, some people even classify characteristics of culture as essential features inherent in different ethnic groups. This thinking leads to beliefs that vary fundamentally between different groups of people. Aristotle shows that he subscribed to these beliefs by indicating that he believes some people to be essentially superior to others. He writes in his Politics that it is natural and justifiable for some people to rule over others: ... φανερ ν το νυν τι ν γκη μ ν μετ χειν μφοτ ρους ρετ ς, τα της δ' ε ναι διαφορ ς, σπερ κα τ ν φ σει ρχ ντων. κα το το ε θ ς φ γηται <τ > περ τ ν ψυχ ν· ν τα τ γ ρ στι φ σει τ μ ν ρχον τ δ' ρχ μενον, ν τ ραν φαμ ν ε ναι ρετ ν, ο ον το λ γον χοντος κα το λ γου. δ λον το νυν τι τ ν α τ ν τρ πον χει κα π τ ν λλων, στε φ σει τ πλε ω ρχοντα κα ρχ μενα. λλον γ ρ τρ πον τ λε θερον το δο λου ρχει κα τ ρρεν το θ λεος κα ν ρ παιδ ς, κα π σιν νυπ ρχει μ ν τ μ ρια τ ς ψυχ ς, λλ' νυπ ρχει διαφερ ντως. μ ν γ ρ δο λος λως ο κ χει τ βουλευτικ ν, τ δ θ λυ χει μ ν, λλ' κυρον, δ πα ς χει μ ν, λλ' τελ ς. (Arist. Pol. 1260a 2-14) Thus it becomes clear that both ruler and ruled must have a share in virtue, but that there are differences in virtue in each case, as there are also among those who by nature rule. An immediate indication of this is afforded by the soul, where we find natural ruler and the natural subject, whose virtues we regard as different—one being that of the rational element, the other of the non-rational. It is therefore clear that the same feature will be found in the others cases too, so that most instances of ruling and being ruled are natural. For rule of free over slave, male over female, man over boy, are all different, because, while parts of the soul are present in each case, the distribution is different. Thus the deliberative faculty in the soul is not present at all in a slave; 54 in a female it is present but ineffective, in a child present but undeveloped. [Transl. Sinclair] In this extract, Aristotle expresses a concept of essentialism, in that he believes people are fundamentally different, and that some are more developed than others. If one believes in these ideas, one may think culture is a natural composition of community, and that their customs and practises are biological aspects of their behaviour. Such ethnocentrism may lead to a subjective evaluation of another culture and sometimes even a feeling of superiority over the people in that culture (Samovar & Porter: 13). The Ancient Greeks had a strong sense of pride and even superiority in their nationality, and often viewed other races or cultures as ‘barbarian’ or unsophisticated (Meagher: 142). In Herodotus, another example demonstrates that Greeks took it for granted that they were intellectually advanced. He gives the account of Salmoxis from Thrace who had lived in Greek Samos for a number of years: νθε τεν δ α τ ν γεν μενον λε θερον χρ ματα κτ σασθαι συχν , κτησ μενον δ πελθε ν ς τ ν ωυτο . Ατε δ κακοβ ων τε ντων τ ν Θρη κων κα παφρονεστ ρων, τ ν Σ λμοξιν το τον πιστ μενον δ αιτ ν τε Ι δα κα θεα βαθ τερα κατ Θρ ικας, ο α Ελλησ τε μιλ σαντα κα Ελλ νων ο τ σθενεστ τ σοφιστ Πυθαγ ρ , κατασκευ σασθαι νδρε να, ... (Hdt. Hist. 4. 95. 4-10) He subsequently gained his freedom, amassed a fortune, and returned to his native country of Thrace, where he found the people in great poverty and ignorance. As he had gained, from living with Greeks and from his association with one of their more influential teachers, Pythagoras, insight into Ionian ideas and a wiser way of living than was to be found in Thrace… [Transl. De Sélincourt] Racism was prevalent during the time of the Ancient Greeks. Members of Euripides’ audience most probably believed in their pre-eminence over other races. Euripides’ Troiades as an Example of the Perspective of Foreign Women To show that Euripides is sympathetic to the plight of foreign women, seeing them as the victims of male oppression, an extract has been taken from his Troiades. This tragedy shows women who had once been happy and secure having to struggle to survive and preserve the remains of their family. Euripides expresses the perspective of the Trojan women after the fall of Troy, where 55 they face slavery, rape and death. Near the tent of the Greek king Agamemnon, Hecabe the former queen of Troy is a prisoner and slave, an old woman and an exile. She is mourning the loss of all her children and asks the other widows to weep and sympathise with her: μοι, θ κους ο ους θ σσω, σκηνα ς φ δρους Αγαμεμνον αις. δο λα δ' γομαι γρα ς ξ ο κων πενθ ρη κρ τ' κπορθηθε σ' ο κτρ ς. λλ' τ ν χαλκεγχ ων Τρ ων λοχοι μ λεαι κα κ ραι δ σνυμφαι, τ φεται Ιλιον, α ζωμεν. μ τηρ δ' σε πτανο ς κλαγγ ν ρνισιν πως ξ ρξω 'γ μολπ ν ο τ ν α τ ν ο αν ποτ δ σκ πτρωι Πρι μου διερειδομ νου ποδ ς ρχεχ ρου πλαγα ς Φρυγ ους ε κ μποις ξ ρχον θεο ς. (E. Tro. 138-152) Here near Agamemnon’s tent, prisoner and slave I sit, an unpitied exile, old, my grey hair ravaged with the knife of mourning. Come, you widowed brides of Trojan fighting-men, weeping mothers, trembling daughters, come, weep with me while the smoke goes up from Troy! Once with cheerful Phrygian music, solemn hymns and sacred dances, I queen Hecabe, Priam’s sceptre in my hand, led your steps and voices: now the song is saddened to the seagull’s crying round her helpless young. [Transl. Vellacott 1973] The capacity of ordinary women to suffer under such harsh, externally inflicted circumstances is explored in the play. Feelings such as love for one’s family, hatred for one’s captors, despair for the loss of one’s home and unbearable grief for the loss of loved ones, are emotions that are intensified under such circumstances. The audience could then see the effects of war from a woman’s perspective instead of in the epic tradition, where war was seen as the glorious affair of men. In addition, these women used to be respected and valued by their husbands and countrymen, now they are foreign slaves with no rights, privileges or reputation. Euripides Shows the Perspective of the Foreign Woman in the Medea When one considers that Medea was from Colchis and therefore a non-Greek, it is obvious that her strangeness would have played a part in how she was perceived. She was from an Eastern 56 country which made her the ‘other’ because Euripides’ Medea was set in Corinth, a Greek city. Medea, a woman in a foreign country, therefore had no ties of family and no constitutional rights. An example in Euripides’s Medea explicitly shows Jason’s racist attitude. As a Greek, he looked down on Medea as an alien when he argued how it was she who benefited from leaving her homeland and being brought to Greece: με ζω γε μ ντοι τ ς μ ς σωτηρ ας ε ληφας δ δωκας, ς γ φρ σω. πρ τον μ ν Ελλ δ' ντ βαρβ ρου χθον ς γα αν κατοικε ς κα δ κην π στασαι ν μοις τε χρ σθαι μ πρ ς σχ ος χ ριν· π ντες δ σ' ισθοντ' ο σαν Ελληνες σοφ ν κα δ ξαν σχες· ε δ γ ς π' σχ τοις ροισιν ικεις, ο κ ν ν λ γος σ θεν. (E. Med. 534-541) But in fact in saving me you gained more than you gave, as I shall tell. In the first place, instead of an uncivilised country your dwelling is now the land of Greece where you have come to know justice and the use of law, instead of being subject to force. You special gifts became known to all Greeks and won you renown. If you had been living at the furthest ends of the earth, your name would be quite unknown. [Transl. Davie] This probably would have mirrored the view of many of the male members of Euripides’ audience of a figure such as Medea. She was different in that she was a barbarian sorceress and this would have automatically classified her as an outsider. In the play, Medea expresses how her status as a foreigner may have undermined Jason’s famous reputation: ο το τ σ' ε χεν, λλ β ρβαρον λ χος πρ ς γ ρας ο κ ε δοξον ξ βαιν σοι. (E. Med. 591-592) This was not your motive for saying nothing; it was marriage to a foreigner that you felt would detract from that great name of yours as old age drew near. [Transl. Davie] Jason again reveals his contempt for Medea, when he hints that she is a traitor and an unreliable character. He also describes her as a barbarian, perhaps making the link that she is different and thus he should not have trusted her: 57 γ δ ν ν φρον , τ τ' ο φρον ν, τ' κ δ μων σε βαρβ ρου τ' π χθον ς Ελλην' ς ο κον γ μην, κακ ν μ γα, πατρ ς τε κα γ ς προδ τιν σ' θρ ψατο. (E. Med. 1329-1332) Now I see it clear but what a fool I was before, when I brought you from that house of yours in a barbarous land to a home in Greece, a deadly passenger who had betrayed your father and the country that reared you. [Transl. Davie] This may have had resonance with males in the audience who had foreign concubines. In Jungian terms, Medea may also be viewed as an archetypal ‘foreign woman’, which classifies her in a role of being all that is not Greek. But instead of perpetuating the image of inferior and dangerous barbarians, Euripides points out the difficulty of being in a strange land, far from one’s family. Medea’s emotions are expressed regarding the suspicion of strangers: δ κη γ ρ ο κ νεστ' ν φθαλμο ς βροτ ν, στις πρ ν νδρ ς σπλ γχνον κμαθε ν σαφ ς στυγε δεδορκ ς, ο δ ν δικημ νος. χρ δ ξ νον μ ν κ ρτα προσχωρε ν π λει· (E. Med. 219-222) For there is no justice in the eyes of men; a man who has done them no harm may be hated on sight before they have formed a true assessment of his nature. And in the case of one who has made his home in a strange city, he must take pains not to alienate the community he has joined. [Transl. Davie] Medea reveals to a privileged Greek audience the unfortunate situation of foreigners in Greece. She also indirectly contests Jason’s earlier arguments that he has helped her by bringing her to Greece. Before Medea came to Greece she had been a well-respected princess and sorceress in Colchis. She would never have been subjected to force and would have lived a life of privilege and reputation. She was now living as an exile without her family and home. Furthermore, having no friends in Corinth, she was about to be exiled again. The renown that Jason speaks of, shows his racist views, as he cannot comprehend how people who are not Greek could be of any importance. He says that she would have been at the other end of the world, but fails to realise that, though it may have been far from his home, it was home to Medea. 58 When Medea’s love for Jason finally subsides and she no longer sees him with a passion-induced gaze, she can see the truth. She has given up everything for a bad cause. She hates him now and finally realises she has given her loyalty to the wrong man. What is left is nostalgia and regret for her old home, her old life and for those from whom she had once received love. Her misery is presented through the nurse, who gives an account of how Medea longs for her home and regrets leaving: ... α τ πρ ς α τ ν πατ ρ' ποιμ ξηι φ λον κα γα αν ο κους θ', ο ς προδο σ' φ κετο μετ' νδρ ς ς σφε ν ν τιμ σας χει. (E. Med. 31-33) ... and mourns to herself for the loss of her dear father and the home and country she betrayed to come away with a man who now cares nothing for her. [Transl. Arnott] And later Medea grieves, when she is told by Creon that she will have to leave Corinth: πατρ ς, ς σου κ ρτα ν ν μνε αν χω. (E. Med. 328) My country, how strongly I recall you now. [Transl. Arnott] Medea also speaks of the difficulty of being a powerless woman in a foreign country: there is no one to care for her or to assist her. And although they too are women and can sympathise with her, Medea’s situation is very different from that of the Chorus of Colchian women. She is an exiled and powerless stranger in a foreign land, whereas they still have the comfort and security of their native country: λλ' ο γ ρ α τ ς πρ ς σ κ μ' κει λ γος· σο μ ν π λις θ' δ' στ κα πατρ ς δ μοι β ου τ' νησις κα φ λων συνουσ α, γ δ' ρημος πολις ο σ' βρ ζομαι πρ ς νδρ ς, κ γ ς βαρβ ρου λεληισμ νη, ο μητ ρ', ο κ δελφ ν, ο χ συγγεν μεθορμ σασθαι τ σδ' χουσα συμφορ ς. (E. Med. 252-558) However, we are not in the same position, you and I. You have your city here and the homes where your fathers have lived; you enjoy life’s 59 pleasures and the companionship of those you love. But what of me? Abandoned, homeless, I am a cruel husband’s plaything, the plunder he brought back from a foreign land, with no mother to turn to, no brother or kinsman to rescue me from this sea of troubles and give me shelter. [Transl. Davie] This paragraph not only emphasises Medea’s position as an alien but it also shows sympathy for foreigners by expressing Medea’s point of view. It shows the insecurity and isolation of a person far from home who does not have a kinship system to protect her in the case of divorce. This is remarkable for an author of Fifth Century B.C.E. where non-Greeks held very little or no authority (Meagher: 142). Euripides could have emphasised Medea’s difference, her barbaric nature as a foreign woman, but instead he expresses the universal feeling of ‘homesickness’. As a Greek he has the privileged position of showing the point of view of the foreigner to other Greeks. He allows Medea to express her dilemma on a very personal and human level. She shows how the grass was not greener on the other side. She betrayed her father and her kingdom and only in retrospect does she realise the extent of what she has done. In essence, by her deeds no place is a safe haven for herself, and she is committed to a man who abandons her when her usefulness runs out. Conclusion On the one hand, Euripides, especially through the character of Jason, echoes typical Greek attitudes about foreignness: that they should appreciate living in a civilised society where the rule of law and not force is supreme. Foreigners with special skills receive a reputation with people ‘who count’ which they would not have had at home. However, Euripides also expresses the prejudice Greeks may have had against foreigners: that they are by nature treacherous and deserve ill treatment. It was thus regarded as a shame for a Greek man to be married to a foreigner. Through the character of Medea, as well as the chorus of women, Euripides expresses the precarious position of the foreign concubine. In the case of divorce, she is not protected by law and does not have family members to support her or protect her rights. Being an exile means that she has also cut all ties with her family and cannot return to her homeland. Divorce destroys her reputation and relegates her to obscurity. 60 In this way, Euripides sensitises his audience to the plight of foreigners, especially foreign women, by revealing the system of double standards applied to foreigners versus Greek citizens. He also demonstrates that unequal treatment gives rise to destructive behaviour. 61 CHAPTER SIX: Victim or Perpetrator? Introduction In this chapter Euripides’ representation of Medea as a victim is explored to see whether Euripides either portrays Medea’s behaviour as criminal, or as the inevitable result of her persecution. As a strong, capable woman who has committed appalling acts of murder, she may seem an unlikely candidate for victim status. The assertion that Medea is portrayed as a victim is based on two ancient Greek social codes of mutual obligation. These conventions analysed in the text are the code of friendship and the marriage code. The former entails that what Medea did for Jason before they were married, and that which she could expect in return. The wedding code has to do with the oaths on which marriage was based, and the mutual obligation of husband and wife. A quote is taken from Apollonius of Rhodes’ Argonautica which shows a Greek tradition whereby Jason makes an oath to Medea as her husband. Therefore the aim of this analysis is to establish whether Medea is portrayed as the victim or perpetrator in the disintegration of these two codes of behaviour. The system of these conventions is described. Relevant passages are then analysed to indicate accusations based on the violation of the code of mutual friendship, and that of the marriage code and oaths. Extracts from Euripides’ Medea are also used to show that Medea was portrayed in a sympathetic light. Speeches made by the chorus of Corinthian women, Medea’s nurse and Medea herself are analysed to support this claim. That the Corinthian Greek women are represented as being compassionate towards a foreign woman and disapproving of a Greek man, may emphasise the plight of Medea. Furthermore, the nurse who observes the ongoing events, is an ideal witness and judge of the whole affair. Finally Freud’s domestic psychodrama is used to convey how Medea’s victim status evolved from a domestic incident of family violence. This domestic upheaval stems from an imbalance in society, where the male exercises the power in the relationship. When authority becomes too restrictive and aggressive, there is a resultant eruption of resentful emotions. The tragedy 62 therefore unfolds from a common Greek occurrence of infidelity. Thus the myth may reflect inherent problems within the family structure of society, namely an imbalance in power. Obligations of Friendship Codes of friendship were regarded as fundamentally important to the bonds of ancient Greek culture. Without adherence to spoken laws and vows, the foundations of society would implode. Because there were no courts of justice or law enforcement in the Bronze Age, the ‘cement’ of their society was build on systems of honour and respect. Friendship was upheld as a noble pact between people. If one person helped another, the second party was expected to act beneficially in return. A problem often mentioned during the archaic and classical periods, was the disappointment of disloyal and unfaithful friends (Fitzgerald: 27). The ancient Greeks held idealistic conceptions of loyal friendship, and the betrayal of a friend was seen as deserving of harsh reprisal. A bad friend was an inconsistent and faithless companion who neglected his/her friends in a time of crisis. The emphasis was on never being the first to inflict injury, but if someone was intentionally harmed, they were entitled to retaliate two-fold (Fitzgerald: 32f). Hence it was seen as important to be supportive, especially in a time of need, and it was a person’s moral obligation to avenge oneself if one was mistreated or abused. The ancient Greeks placed great emphasis on these codes of friendship and loyalty and people were obliged to follow them. For example, in the Trojan War, Menelaus’s objection against the Trojan prince Paris was the abuse of guest-friendship. Guest-friendship was presided over by Zeus and the tradition was to treat guest-friends in an elaborate and hospitable manner. In return, the respectful and courteous conduct would have been reciprocated. Specific rules of conduct were to be followed. Paris, however, violates this pact by eloping with Menelaus’s wife and stealing many of his household possessions. This incurred the wrath of the gods and all of Greece, as Paris had insulted Menelaus’s prestige and honour in breaching the rules of mutual friendship (Fitzgerald: 24f). The Greeks believed in a system of reciprocity, which states that one should be good to friends and harm one’s enemies (Allan: 81). Jason is bound to Medea by the closest ties of friendship as he was her former suppliant when she saved his life in Colchis. Thus, she proves her position as 63 friend, but Jason reverses the principle of helping friends and harming enemies by treating Medea as an enemy. He abandons her in her hour of need, denying Medea the protection of a Greek man (Allan: 85). Medea was the best of friends to Jason: she helped him in all his endeavours, even to her own father’s detriment. She reminds Jason that she saved his life and achieved fame for him by helping him secure the Golden Fleece: σωσ σ', ς σασιν Ελλ νων σοι τα τ ν συνεισ βησαν Αργ ιον σκ φος, πεμφθ ντα τα ρων πυρπν ων πιστ την ζε γλαισι κα σπερο ντα θαν σιμον γ ην· δρ κοντ θ', ς π γχρυσον μπ χων δ ρος σπε ραις σωιζε πολυπλ κοις υπνος ν, κτε νασ' ν σχον σοι φ ος σωτ ριον. α τ δ πατ ρα κα δ μους προδο σ' μο ς τ ν Πηλι τιν ε ς Ιωλκ ν κ μην σ ν σο , πρ θυμος μ λλον σοφωτ ρα· Πελ αν τ' π κτειν', σπερ λγιστον θανε ν, πα δων π' α το , π ντα τ' ξε λον δ μον. κα τα θ' φ' μ ν, κ κιστ' νδρ ν, παθ ν προ δωκας μ ς, καιν δ' κτ σω λ χη, πα δων γεγ των· (E. Med. 476-490) You owe your life to me, as they all know, those brave men of Greece who boarded the Argo as your shipmates, when you were sent to master with the yoke the bulls that breathed fire and to sow the field of death. And there was the serpent that kept sleepless watch over the golden fleece, enfolding it within its sinuous coils—this creature’s death I caused and so lifted up the torch that lit your way out of peril. I betrayed my own father, my own family to come here with you to Iolcus under Pelion, showing more eagerness than sense. Pelias, too, I killed by the most painful of deaths, at the hands of his own daughters, bringing destruction on his entire house. All this I have done for you and yet you have betrayed me, you unfeeling monster; you have taken a new wife, though we have children of our own. [Transl. Davie] Medea’s loyalty and love for Jason was all-consuming. She completely broke the ties with her old family to form an allegiance with her new one. She killed her own brother for the benefit of a new family with Jason. In return he eventually abandons her for a new family, as she has done to her old family. When this realisation dawns on her, she finally feels the remorse for killing her 64 own brother and betraying her homeland. She now understands the anguish and expresses her agony: μεγ λα Θ μι κα π τνι' Αρτεμι, λε σσεθ' π σχω, μεγ λοις ρκοις νδησαμ να τ ν κατ ρατον π σιν; ν ποτ' γ ν μφαν τ' σ δοιμ' α το ς μελ θροις διακναιομ νους, ο ' μ πρ σθεν τολμ σ' δικε ν. π τερ, π λις, ν πεν σθην α σχρ ς τ ν μ ν κτε νασα κ σιν. (E. Med. 160-167) O great Themis and lady Artemis, do you see what I suffer, though I bound my accursed husband by weighty oaths? How I wish I might see him and his bride in utter ruin, house and all, for the wrongs they dare to inflict on me who never did them harm! O Father, O land of Colchis, forsaken by me to my shame when I took my brothers life! [Transl. Davie] Medea finally sees her gravest error. She trusted in a man who did not share her adherence to the system of honour and the sanctity of oaths. She found out that instead of being her closest of kin, Jason was indeed her worst enemy: παγκ κιστε, το το γ ρ σ' ε πε ν χω γλ σσηι μ γιστον ε ς νανδρ αν κακ ν· λθες πρ ς μ ς, λθες χθιστος γεγ ς [θεο ς τε κ μο παντ τ' νθρ πων γ νει]; ο τοι θρ σος τ δ' στ ν ο δ' ε τολμ α, φ λους κακ ς δρ σαντ' ναντ ον βλ πειν, λλ' μεγ στη τ ν ν νθρ ποις ν σων πασ ν, να δει'. (E. Med. 465-472) Oh, devil! Devil! This is the worst abuse my tongue can find for your lack of manliness. You come to me, my mortal enemy, hateful to heaven and to all mankind. This is not venturesome, this is not courage, to look friends in the face whom you have wronged, but the most detestable of human weaknesses, yes, shamelessness! [Transl. Arnott] Euripides’ Medea is thus a tragedy which arises from the betrayal of a friend. Jason, who should have been her one true friend, betrays her. He proves to be a false friend, leaving Medea alone 65 and friendless in a foreign country. Medea’s realisation that she invested in this man of little substance is passionately depicted : ... ο χομαι δ κα β ου χ ριν μεθε σα κατθανε ν χρ ιζω, φ λαι. ν ι γ ρ ν μοι π ντα, γιγν σκω καλ ς, κ κιστος νδρ ν κβ βηχ' ο μ ς π σις. (E. Med. 226-229) I am finished, my friends, and any pleasure I took in life I now renounce; it’s death I want. The man who was the world to me—Oh how I know the truth of this!—has proved to be the foulest of traitors, my own husband! [Transl. Davie] Marriage Obligations and Oaths The value of oaths also needs to be considered because of the strong oaths made by Medea and Jason, binding themselves in marriage. Thus Jason’s broken oaths are an essential factor in viewing Medea as a victim and to emphasise how unjust her treatment has been. An oath was not a mere assurance comparable to modern Western promises, which are easily broken; it was a sacred act before the gods. The ancient Greeks at the time in which the Medea was set, did not have our modern standards of law enforcement and penal institutions. Order within their society was based upon moral, political and religious systems of honour and conscientious protocol. These were the bonds of their society, and without them anarchy could ensue. Medea recognises the importance of oaths and displays her dismay at Jason’s lack of accountability: ρκων δ φρο δη π στις, ο δ' χω μαθε ν ε θεο ς νομ ζεις το ς τ τ' ο κ ρχειν τι καιν κε σθαι θ σμι' νθρ ποις τ ν ν, πε σ νοισθ γ' ε ς μ' ο κ ε ορκος ν. (E. Med. 492-495) Gone is the trust to be placed in oaths; I cannot discover if you think that the gods you swore by then have lost there sovereignty or that new laws these days are prescribed for men, since you know well the value of your oaths to me. [Transl. Davie] 66 Medea and Jason made an oath in their marriage whereby they joined right hands. This is referred to in Euripides’ Medea but in Apollonius of Rhodes’ Argonautica it is explicitly represented when Jason says to Medea: “Δαιμον η, Ζε ς α τ ς Ολ μπιος ρκιος στω Ηρη τε Ζυγ η, Δι ς ε ν τις, μ ν μο σιν κουριδ ην σε δ μοισιν νιστ σεσθαι κοιτιν, ε τ' ν ς Ελλ δα γα αν κ μεθα νοστ σαντες.” Ως η δα, κα χε ρα παρασχεδ ν ραρε χειρ δεξιτερ ν. (A. R. 3. 95-100) ‘Dear girl, may Olympian Zeus himself, and Hera goddess of marriage, who shares Zeus’ bed, witness my oath that I shall make you my lawful wedded wife in my home, when we return safely to the land of Hellas.’ With these words he straightaway took her right hand in his ... [Transl. Hunter] Taking each other’s right hand was the oath of companions of equal status, usually reserved for two men. Jason has therefore pledged in a way that would have been more customary to the father of his bride or as an agreement with another man. These factors indicate the unique quality of Medea’s position (Williamson: 19f). Jason’s abandonment is thus even more reprehensible based on the principle that Medea and Jason made strong oaths to one another in their marriage vows. Medea denounces Jason for his irresponsibility, believing that the gods would scorn him for his neglected oaths: τ ς δ κλ ει σο θε ς δα μων, το ψευδ ρκου κα ξειναπ του; (E. Med. 1391-1392) What god, what spirit listens to you, the breaker of oaths, the deceiver of hosts? [Transl. Davie] Medea has sacrificed everything for Jason based on the security of his oaths. She has placed all her trust in his pledges, because she sees them as unbreakable bonds made before the gods: μεγ λα Θ μι κα π τνι' Αρτεμι, λε σσεθ' π σχω, μεγ λοις ρκοις νδησαμ να τ ν κατ ρατον π σιν; (E. Med. 160-163) 67 O great Themis and lady Artemis, do you see what I suffer, though I bound my accursed husband by weighty oaths? [Transl. Davie] The chorus supports Medea’s view of the shamelessness of neglecting an oath: β βακε δ' ρκων χ ρις, ο δ' τ' α δ ς Ελλ δι τ ι μεγ λαι μ νει, α θερ α δ' ν πτα. (E. Med. 439-440) Vanished is the binding spell of oaths and reverence abides no more in all length of Greece but has taken wing to the skies. [Transl. Davie] Medea subsequently speaks of her desperate situation owing to Jason’s irreverent deceitfulness. She confides to Jason her bitter disappointment at how things have turned out for her: ... θαυμαστ ν δ σε χω π σιν κα πιστ ν τ λαιν' γ , ε φε ξομα γε γα αν κβεβλημ νη, φ λων ρημος, σ ν τ κνοις μ νη μ νοις· καλ ν γ' νειδος τ ι νεωστ νυμφ ωι, πτωχο ς λ σθαι πα δας τ' σωσ σε. Ζε , τ δ χρυσο μ ν ς κ βδηλος ι τεκμ ρι' νθρ ποισιν πασας σαφ , νδρ ν δ' τωι χρ τ ν κακ ν διειδ ναι ο δε ς χαρακτ ρ μπ φυκε σ ματι; (E. Med. 510-519) Yes, a remarkable husband I have in you (may the gods help me!), a true heart if ever there was one, seeing that I am to be cast into exile from this land, without a friend to help me, I and my children, partners in isolation! A splendid reproach this to the new bridegroom, that your children and I who saved you should wander as beggars! O Zeus, why is it you have given men clear ways of testing whether gold is counterfeit but, when it comes to men, the body carries no stamp of nature for distinguishing bad from good? [Transl. Davie] Neglecting his oaths to Medea, makes Jason a dishonourable man who deserts his responsibility to his own family, and accordingly also renders Medea a victim. This view is reinforced by the external opinions of the chorus of Corinthian women and Medea’s nurse. 68 Expressions of Medea as a Victim The tragedy’s main emphasis, therefore, is on Medea’s hopeless situation. Jason selfishly destroys the woman to whom he owes so much. By having the nurse and not Medea introduce the drama to the audience, the tragic situation is articulated by an intermediary; the nurse shows her favour for Medea: προδο ς γ ρ α το τ κνα δεσπ τιν τ' μ ν γ μοις Ι σων βασιλικο ς ε ν ζεται, γ μας Κρ οντος πα δ', ς α συμν ι χθον ς. Μ δεια δ' δ στηνος τιμασμ νη βο ι μ ν ρκους, νακαλε δ δεξι ς π στιν μεγ στην, κα θεο ς μαρτ ρεται ο ας μοιβ ς ξ Ι σονος κυρε . κε ται δ' σιτος, σ μ' φε σ' λγηδ σιν, τ ν π ντα συντ κουσα δακρ οις χρ νον πε πρ ς νδρ ς ισθετ' δικημ νη, ... (E. Med. 17-26) Jason has betrayed my lady and his own children for a princess’ bed; He has married the daughter of Creon, ruler of this land. And Medea, poor lady, dishonoured in this way, cries out, ‘What about his oaths? His right hand that clasped mine and pledged his heart? You gods, I call you to witness Jason’s ingratitude to me!’ From the moment her husband’s criminal behaviour came home to her … [Transl. Davie] Medea’s plight is thus met with compassion. The nurse criticises Jason and sympathises with Medea: τ κν', κο εθ' ο ος ε ς μ ς πατ ρ; λοιτο μ ν μ · δεσπ της γ ρ στ' μ ς· τ ρ κακ ς γ' ν ς φ λους λ σκεται. (E. Med. 82-84) You young ones, do you hear how your father treats you? Death’s not good enough for him— oh, no, I mustn’t say that of my master. But where he should be showing love he’s proving a traitor and that I can say! [Transl. Davie] The chorus relates Medea’s misery in a similar light, allowing Euripides to show Medea’s victim status. They describe how she finds herself in an unbearable situation and how her heart is broken by an unjust husband: χ ν ιον πολ στονον γ ων, 69 λιγυρ δ' χεα μογερ βο ι τ ν ν λ χει προδ ταν κακ νυμφον· θεοκλυτε δ' δικα παθο σα ... (E. Med. 205-208) I heard the sound of the heartfelt lamentation, as she bewails her piteous sorrows and cries out against her wicked husband, traitor to her bed. She calls upon the gods to witness how unjustly she is treated … [Transl. Davie] The chorus’s point of view is further articulated in a later speech when the chorus-leader realises that her opposition to Jason is surprising since she is a Greek woman. In Greek society where men have supreme authority, she takes the side of an outsider and stresses that Jason has not lived up to his responsibilities: Ι σον, ε μ ν το σδ' κ σμησας λ γους· μως δ' μοιγε, κε παρ γν μην ρ , δοκε προδο ς σ ν λοχον ο δ καια δρ ν. (E. Med. 576-578) Jason, you have set out your arguments skilfully and plausibly; it is my view, however, though I might surprise you with these words, that you have betrayed your wife and are behaving unjustly. [Transl. Davie] Theses examples clearly illustrate the concept that Jason acts dishonourably and that Medea is a victim of his wrongdoing. It may even intentionally mirror common problems in ancient Greek society, where women are left vulnerable due to their husbands’ neglect. Freud’s Domestic Psychodrama The play then not only demonstrates the dilemma of a tragic heroine, but also that of a wife and the impossible position in which all women are left when abandoned by a husband. Even though Jason and Medea are legendary figures from a time of heroes, their situation is of domestic turmoil. The imbalance of power in ancient Greek families demonstrates an example of Freud’s domestic psychodrama. Medea’s reaction is far more extreme than most women, but the emotions that the situation evoke could be applied to ordinary women of ancient Greece: α α , παθον τλ μων παθον μεγ λων ξι' δυρμ ν. κατ ρατοι 70 πα δες λοισθε στυγερ ς ματρ ς σ ν πατρ , κα π ς δ μος ρροι. (E. Med. 111-114) Ah, my sufferings, my wretched sufferings, they invite a world’s tears! O cursed children of a hateful mother, I want you to die along with your father, and all the house to go to ruin! [Transl. Davie] Even though Medea for most of the play, is seen as the victim of Jason’s cruel abandonment, it is not in her nature to retain this image for long. Medea’s anger leads to the successful destruction of Jason by killing his only heirs, their children. The devastation of killing her own children is so great that the chorus-leader who has previously sympathised with Medea, now pities Jason: τλ μον, ο κ ο σθ' ο κακ ν λ λυθας, Ι σον· ο γ ρ το σδ' ν φθ γξω λ γους. (E. Med. 1306-1307) Jason, you are to be pitied; you have no idea of the depth of your misfortune. These words of yours would then never have been uttered. [Transl. Davie] This may be a warning of how too much suppression can lead to extremes. Women who are secluded indoors and expected to keep their ideas and sentiments to themselves, could explode with pent-up emotions if pushed too far. Medea’s revenge is so successful that at first she is seen as the victim to be pitied. However, after she has carried through her ghastly vengeance, the chorus redirect their compassion towards Jason. This reminds one of Freud’s domestic psychodrama, in which the imbalance of power in the relationship ultimately has disastrous familial results. Conclusion Medea is a victim according to a number of factors. Concerning the friendship code, Medea furthers Jason’s career and saves his life by helping him escape her father’s wrath. In return, Jason destroys her, thus treating her like an enemy and breaking his obligation of friendship. In terms of their marriage vows, Medea kept hers by producing two male heirs, whereas Jason broke his oath to Medea and neglected his responsibility as her male guardian and protector. These details therefore give evidence of Medea’s position as a victim and Jason’s accountability as a perpetrator. 71 Furthermore, even though Medea is exceptional in that she is the granddaughter of the god Helios and a powerful sorceress, she is still a woman who represents female abuse by men. Medea’s passionate nature and her powerful magical abilities do not counter the fact that as a woman she was dreadfully mistreated by the one man who should have been her protector. The text shows how the obligation of ancient Greek women to be good wives and mothers could disintegrate when men do not keep to their responsibilities of providing enough security. Thus Medea is a victim of male suppression and subordination. She upholds her responsibilities and gives up everything to help her husband maintain his status and position. In return Jason abandons Medea, making everything on which their marriage was based, collapse. The tragedy can also be viewed as an example of Freud’s domestic psychodrama and how myth reflects actual problems of power imbalance in society and how it can influence resentment and possible extreme behaviour. Medea is a victim of broken marriage vows and abandoned for a younger, more influential woman. In this way Euripides reveals ill-treatment meaningful to his contemporary female spectators. Euripides emphasises the social subordination of women, highlighting aspects of women’s lives which must have been grievances for many Athenian women in the audience. 72 CHAPTER SEVEN: Justifiable Violence Introduction The aim of this chapter is to explore Euripides’ motives regarding whether he intended Medea’s revenge to be viewed as justifiable or damnable. In the previous chapter, based on Jason’s violation of the codes of friendship and marriage, Medea is represented as a victim. Medea’s vengeance is then only in question if her actions can be viewed as senseless violence or as punishment that exceeds the crime. On the other hand, her aggressive revenge is justifiable if it is a punishment necessary for maintaining order and equilibrium in society. The importance of this topic is evident because revenge is the central motivating factor in Euripides’ Medea. In order to understand the implications of Medea’s assumption of an avenging persona, one must first take into consideration the context in which Euripides is writing. The distinction between the ancient Greek concept of revenge and modern Western views is so marked, that an overview of the system of revenge is given to show its significance to the ancient Greek community. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are used as primary examples to emphasise the strong ethical systems of honour and revenge. The very cause of the lack of tolerance and encouraged reciprocity is explored. Examples are then taken from Euripides’ Medea to show how traditional Bronze Age ideals affect Medea—a Bronze Age mythological figure—and influence her quest for vengeance. Finally, the revenge plot is discussed in psychological terms, as Medea’s actions may be explained by her intensely passionate nature. This is considered in terms of Medea’s previous actions, which are referred to within the plot: namely, that she previously killed her brother and King Pelias in fervent attempts to help Jason. Her propensity for violence may indicate her Freudian id, in that she uses her instinctive desires to solve some of her problems. Her later fanatical retaliation against Jason emphasises this aspect of her nature and may also act as an ordinary woman’s latent Freudian wish-fulfilment to be proactive against her suppression. In terms of Carl Jung’s theories, her furious anger and aggression might be seen as her shadow, that dark unrelenting aspect of her personality. 73 Examples of Revenge in Homer’s Bronze Age Epics For the ancient Greeks, the system of revenge was connected to values of honour and selfrespect. If someone was disrespected or had dishonour brought upon them, they were entitled to ruthless vengeance (Allan: 81). Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad are based on a previous age known by the ancient Greeks as the Heroic Era. The fifth Century B.C.E. Greeks looked towards this age of heroes with admiration and used the personalities in the epic poems as models of noble behaviour (Fitzgerald: 30). In fifth century B.C.E. the system of revenge and justice was still prevalent but the law courts were utilised for this purpose, whereas mythological figures of the Heroic or Bronze Age employed blood vengeance as an acceptable form of retribution. The provocation for the Trojan War begins when the Greek king Menelaus is dishonoured by a man who was bound to him by the laws of guest-friendship. When his beautiful wife, Helen, is taken away, Menelaus appeals for justice and reprisal against Paris, who has insulted his rank and heroic status. Just before Menelaus duels with Paris he says, concerning his plight as the disregarded guest-friend and insulted nobleman: Ζε να δ ς τ σασθαι με πρ τερος κ κ' οργε δ ον Αλ ξανδρον, κα μ ς π χερσ δ μασσον, φρα τις ρρ γ σι κα ψιγ νων νθρ πων ξεινοδ κον κακ ξαι, κεν φιλ τητα παρ σχ . (Hom. Il. 3. 351-354) Zeus, lord, grant me to punish the man who first did me injury, brilliant Alexandros, and beat him down under my hands’ strength that any one of the men to come may shudder to think of doing evil to a kindly host, who has given him friendship. [Transl. Lattimore: 1951] Menelaus is appealing to Zeus, who is not only the king of the gods but also presides over contracts of friendship, as he believes he is entitled to brutal compensation for the injury to his reputation. This shows the ancient Greek faith in the legitimacy of a person seeking violent revenge. This attitude of aggressively harming someone who has harmed you is clearly represented in the Iliad. Achilles is so furious that Hektor has killed his dearest friend Patroclus, that his vengeance is unrelenting and terrible: 74 Εκτορ τ ρ που φης Πατροκλ ' ξεναρ ζων σ ς σσεσθ', μ δ' ο δ ν π ζεο ν σφιν ντα ν πιε· το ο δ' νευθεν οσσητ ρ μ γ' με νων νηυσ ν πι γλαφυρ σιν γ μετ πισθε λελε μμην, ς τοι γο νατ' λυσα· σ μ ν κ νες δ' ο ωνο λκ σουσ' ϊκ ς, τ ν δ κτεριο σιν Αχαιο . (Hom. Il. 22. 331-336) Hektor, surely you thought as you killed Patroklos you would be safe, and since I was far away you thought nothing of me, o fool, for an avenger was left, far greater than he was, behind him and away by the hollow ships. And it was I; and I have broken your strength; on you the dogs and the vultures shall feed and foully rip you; ... [Transl. Lattimore:1951] Similarly in the Odyssey, Odysseus finally returns home after twenty years to find his house overrun with suitors for his wife. They have laid his property waste and excessively flouted the laws of guest-friendship. Odysseus is instructed by Athene to bring about their complete destruction as revenge for their attempt at usurpation. In Book 13 (lines 375-395), Odysseus and Athene discuss how he must massacre every last man without exception and hold them all accountable even though some have been more offensive than others. Athene speaks of how their blood will be spilt to pay for the injustice they have done to Odysseus and his honour. Therefore Odysseus is assisted by the goddess Athene, showing the belief that someone wronged had the approval and support of the gods. Murder as a form of revenge was then not seen as a punishment that exceeds the crime. It was acceptable, at least in the case of men. The murder of children was even seen as an example of retribution. This can be seen in the case of Atreus who killed, cooked and fed the children of his brother, Thyestes, to him as revenge for sleeping with his wife, Aerope (Graves: 44f). This act was seen as grotesque, but lawful. These examples of revenge from the Bronze or Heroic Age show that retribution at almost any cost was acceptable for heroes to defend their honour and maintain cosmic order. 75 Revenge in the Medea The Medea was set in this Heroic age when there were no law courts or institutionalised justice systems. Honour and mutual trust were part of a delicate balance that maintained societal stability. When someone was wronged, that balance was upset. Therefore, in order to maintain equilibrium, retribution had to be wreaked. Revenge was then projected onto the gods as a religious duty to maintain balance of the cosmos. Without the balance and order of the systems of loyalty and honour, society would implode. Medea’s wretched state, due to Jason’s disloyalty, left her seeking the utter destruction of her enemy: στ', ξ ν α τ ι τ μ' λε ν βουλε ματα γ ς κβαλ ντι, τ νδ' φ κεν μ ραν με να μ', ν ι τρε ς τ ν μ ν χθρ ν νεκρο ς θ σω, πατ ρα τε κα κ ρην π σιν τ' μ ν. ... λλ' ν τ μοι πρ σαντες· ε ληφθ σομαι δ μους περβα νουσα κα τεχνωμ νη, θανο σα θ σω το ς μο ς χθρο ς γ λων. κρ τιστα τ ν ε θε αν, ι πεφ καμεν σοφο μ λιστα, φαρμ κοις α το ς λε ν. (E. Med. 372-375, 381-385) ... when he might have thwarted my plans by banishing me from Corinth, he has allowed me to stay for this day, the day on which I will make corpses of three of my enemies, father, daughter and husband—my husband!…There is one difficulty I must face: if I am caught entering their house and plotting, I will be killed and give my enemies a chance to laugh at me. The best way is the direct one, in which I am particularly expert, using poisons to overcome them. [Transl. Davie] Jason has proved himself to be Medea’s enemy and it would go against her pride as a strong individual to fail to reciprocate: ο γ ρ γελ σθαι τλητ ν ξ χθρ μηδε ς με φα λην κ σθεν νομιζ mηd' συχα αν λλ θατ ρου τρ βαρε αν χθρο ς κα φ λοισιν ε ν, φ λαι. ... τω που, μεν · (E. Med. 797, 807-809) You see my friends, to suffer the mockery of my enemies is something I will not tolerate … Let no one think of me a weak and feeble woman, or one to let things pass, but rather one of the other sort, a generous 76 friend but an enemy to be feared. [Transl. Davie] Medea’s hatred for Jason is complete. Even though Jason argues competently on his own behalf, she defies his excuses. He defends himself by attributing his success to Aphrodite as he feels it is love that made Medea help him. He also declares that Medea assisted him, but gained more than she gave because she was taken from a foreign land to Greece. He blames Medea’s exile on her own negative attitude to the royal house, his new family. Further, he argues that regarding his new marriage, it is for Medea’s benefit that he made new allegiances with the royal family. His associations with the sovereigns are to secure the comfort and wellbeing of his whole family (Rutherford: 62f). Medea counters his argument by saying: μ νυν ε ς μ' ε σχ μων γ νηι λ γειν τε δειν ς· ν γ ρ κτενε σ' πος. χρ ν σ', ε περ σθα μ κακ ς, πε σαντ με γαμε ν γ μον τ νδ', λλ μ σιγ ι φ λων. (E. Med. 584-587) Spare me your courteous looks and polished words now! For one word will floor you. If you were a man of honour, you should have won my consent to this new marriage instead of keeping it secret from your own family. [Transl. Davie] She thwarts his excuses from all angles, proving he was not acting in her best interests. If he were, he would have been able to tell her his plans knowing she would have no reason to complain. She believes she has been wronged and feels he must pay. Thus the aspect of her personality, the pride she holds as a respectable and honourable individual, will not allow herself to be the victim of her enemy’s success: Mη. ... σ δ' ο κ μελλες τ μ' τιμ σας λ χη τερπν ν δι ξειν β οτον γγελ ν μο ο δ' τ ραννος, ο δ' σοι προσθε ς γ μους Κρ ων νατε τ σδ μ' κβαλε ν χθον ς. πρ ς τα τα κα λ αιναν, ε βο ληι, κ λει [κα Σκ λλαν Τυρσην ν ικησεν π δον]· τ ς σ ς γ ρ ς χρ ν καρδ ας νθηψ μην. Ia. κα τ γε λυπ ι κα κακ ν κοινων ς ε . Mη. σ φ' σθι· λ ει δ' λγος, ν σ μ 'γγελ ις. (E. Med. 1354-1362) 77 Medea: ... It was not for you or your princess to trample on my love and live a life of pleasure, laughing at me, and not for Creon who made this match of yours to cast me out of this land without regretting it. So call me a lioness, yes, if you wish to, for I have my claws in your heart as you deserve. Jason: The pain is yours to feel as well; you share in this suffering. Medea: Let me tell you one thing: my pain is cancelled now that any mockery of yours is silenced. [Transl. Davie] The extent of Medea’s fury due to Jason’s treachery is ultimately realised in the murder of her own children. One would think it impossible for any atrocity to be able to influence a mother to do something so ferocious. A mother’s protectiveness over her children is legendary; the maternal instinct for most women is fierce. The decision is not an easy one for Medea, she hesitates and withdraws at one point, not feeling that she is able to kill her children: δυστ λαινα τ ς μ ς α θαδ ας. λλως ρ' μ ς, τ κν', ξεθρεψ μην, ... ... σφ ιν γ ρ στερημ νη λυπρ ν δι ξω β οτον λγειν ν τ' μο · με ς δ μητ ρ' ο κ τ' μμασιν φ λοις ψεσθ', ς λλο σχ μ' ποστ ντες β ου. φε φε · τ προσδ ρκεσθ μ' μμασιν, τ κνα; τ προσγελ τε τ ν παν στατον γ λων; α α · τ δρ σω; καρδ α γ ρ ο χεται, γυνα κες, μμα φαιδρ ν ς ε δον τ κνων. ο κ ν δυνα μην· χαιρ τω βουλε ματα τ πρ σθεν· ξω πα δας κ γα ας μο ς. τ δε με πατ ρα τ νδε το ς το των κακο ς λυπο σαν α τ ν δ ς τ σα κτ σθαι κακ ; ο δ τ' γωγε· χαιρ τω βουλε ματα. κα τοι τ π σχω; βο λομαι γ λωτ' φλε ν χθρο ς μεθε σα το ς μο ς ζημ ους; τολμητ ον τ δ'· λλ τ ς μ ς κ κης, (E. Med. 1028-1029, 1036-1051) Oh, this stubborn heart of mine! What misery it has cost me! It was all for nothing, then, children, that I reared you … Robbed of your company, I shall endure a life that brings me pain and sorrow. And you, you will look no more at your mother with those eyes I love, once you have passed on to another form of life. Oh no, no! Why do you fix your eyes on me, children? Why smile at me with that last smile? Ah, the pain! What shall I do? My heart dissolves, ladies, when I see the shining faces of my children! I could not do it! Goodbye to those plans I made! I will take my children away from Corinth with me. In bringing suffering on them to cause the father pain, why should 78 I bring twice as much suffering on myself? No, I shall not do it. Goodbye to my plans. And yet what is the matter with me? Do I want to become a laughing-stock by letting my enemies off scot-free? I must find it in me to do this thing. To think I could have been so weak! [Transl. Davie] This does not indicate that Medea does not love her children, because she does, but her love for them does not equal her current, all-consuming hated for Jason: Xo. λλ κτανε ν σ ν σπ ρμα τολμ σεις, γ ναι; Mη. ο τω γ ρ ν μ λιστα δηχθε η π σις. (E. Med. 816-817) Chorus-Leader: But to kill your very own children – will you have the heart for that, lady? Medea: Yes; it is by doing this that I shall hurt my husband most. [Transl. Davie] As a mother, Medea would not have been able to kill her children. She thus adopts the persona of the avenger, and the greatest revenge on Jason is the murder of his heirs. She is intent on making him pay for the sacrilegious act of breaking his vows, ignoring his debt to her and denying responsibility for her as his dependant. She feels that killing her children is necessary for her vengeance. Her retribution is also a restoration of order; in that as a representation of Greek society, it acts as a warning to men to remember their duties and vows to women. Furthermore, Euripides’ portrayal of Medea murdering her husband’s new family and killing her own children is a realistic portrayal of her character because of her previous acts of vicious homicide. Euripides mentions this in the play to remind the audience of what kind of behaviour Medea is capable. Jung’s Theory of the ‘Shadow’ Euripides provides a rationalisation for Medea’s actions by reminding the audience of Medea’s propensity for violence. Her ability to perform brutal acts to achieve her objectives can be described as the ‘dark’ aspect of Medea’s nature, her Jungian ‘shadow’. Near the end of the play Jason refers to Medea’s previous acts of murder. He recalls her ferocity and relates it to her current deeds of killing her own children, emphasising Medea’s nature as a vicious woman. This draws attention to her ‘shadow’; that is her inclination to do violence: 79 κτανο σα γ ρ δ σ ν κ σιν παρ στιον τ καλλ πρωιρον ε σ βης Αργο ς σκ φος. ρξω μ ν κ τοι νδε· νυμφευθε σα δ par' νδρ τ ιδε κα τεκο σ μοι τ κνα, ε ν ς κατι κα λ χους σφ' π λεσας. (E. Med. 1334-1338) When you boarded my fine ship Argo, had you not first shed your brother’s blood in the home you shared? That was how your career began. And when I had taken you to wife and you had given me sons, you destroyed them because I chose to leave your bed. [Transl. Davie] The thought that Medea was possessed or inflicted with insanity when she killed her children is expressed by the chorus: Γ τε κα παμφα ς κτ ς Αλ ου, κατ δετ' δετε τ ν λομ ναν γυνα κα, πρ ν φοιν αν τ κνοις προσβαλε ν χ ρ' ... ... λλ νιν, φ ος διογεν ς, κ τειργε κατ παυσον ξελ' ο κων τ λαιναν φον αν τ' Εριν ν π' λαστ ρων. (E. Med. 1251-1254, 1258-1260) O Earth, O Sun whose rays illuminate all, look down, look upon that deadly woman before she lays bloody hands upon her children, slaying her own flesh and blood! ... No, brightness born of Zeus, restrain her, hold her back, drive her from the house, the wretched woman whom fiends have turned into a murderous Fury! [Transl. Davie] This ‘insanity’ is the Jungian ‘shadow’ of her personality and at this point it completely takes over her personality. She is consumed with malice and fury and is hungry for Jason to feel her pain. In order to be able to kill the children that she loves, she has to move away from her womanly emotions. Her maternal love is suppressed, allowing her vengeance to drive her actions. She is somehow possessed by her shadow, which allows her to carry out the ghastly act of killing her children: λλ' ε ' πλ ζου, καρδ α· τ μ λλομεν τ δειν κ ναγκα α μ πρ σσειν κακ ; γ', τ λαινα χε ρ μ , λαβ ξ φος, 80 λ β', ρπε πρ ς βαλβ δα λυπηρ ν β ου, κα μ κακισθ ις μηδ' ναμνησθ ις τ κνων, ς φ λταθ', ς τικτες, λλ τ νδε γε λαθο βραχε αν μ ραν πα δων σ θεν κ πειτα θρ νει· κα γ ρ ε κτενε ς σφ', μως φ λοι γ' φυσαν· δυστυχ ς δ' γ γυν . (E. Med. 1242-1250) Come my heart, put on your armour! We must not hesitate to do this deed, this terrible yet necessary deed! Come, wretched hand of mine, grip the sword, grip it! On to the starting line! A painful race awaits you now! No time now for cowardice or thinking of your children, how much you love them, how you brought them into this world. No, for one day, one fleeting day, forget your children; there will be the rest of your life for weeping. For though you will put them to the sword, you loved them well. Oh, I am a woman born to sorrow! [Transl. Davie] These examples show that Medea is an intensely passionate woman who does nothing in half measures. Her position as a wife and mother is offset by her feverish emotions, culminating in her dark violent urges. She seems to act out her deepest desires and most reckless needs which come from her innate sense of self. Freud’s Theory of the Id, Ego and Superego Medea’s personal vengeance may seem to be at odds with societal restriction and control. This is considering Freud’s categorisation of aspects of the psyche into the superego, the ego and the id, which is applied to ancient Greek concepts of revenge. The examples of Bronze Age vengeance, referred to previously in this chapter, prove that Homer’s heroes assumed their violent behaviour to be justifiable; their actions were appropriate according to societal expectations. Therefore, in keeping with the Freudian superego, if people think they have been wronged and they take vengeance, they believe that right is on their side. This shows that the Freudian superego aspect of a person’s psyche in ancient Greek epic considers antagonistic vengeance as moral. However, the examples of Bronze Age revenge already given in this chapter, have all been in the case of men seeking vengeance. Medea is a woman and therefore her set of rules is different. The female definition of the superego differs from the male. Societal restrictions governing a 81 woman’s behaviour would have entailed the acceptance of a husband’s new marriage and a return to one’s father for protection. If she felt wronged, vengeance would be exacted by her male relatives on her behalf, not by herself. The id represents the individual person’s deepest desires and personal yearnings. Medea’s id is her passionate need for love and respect. This pursuit of esteem is similar to that of the Bronze Age heroes, especially Achilles, who is consumed by his desire for personal honour and recognition. When these needs are unsatisfied, the desire turns to an obsession for revenge and reciprocity. It may be said that Medea’s id is the driving force of her nature. She is the best of friends and the worst of enemies. When she was in love with Jason she reserved nothing in order to help him, but now that she hates him she does not restrain anything in order to hurt him: κα μανθ νω μ ν ο α δρ ν μ λλω κακ , θυμ ς δ κρε σσων τ ν μ ν βουλευμ των, σπερ μεγ στων α τιος κακ ν βροτο ς. (E. Med. 1078-1080) I am well aware how terrible a crime I am about to commit, but my passion is master of my reason, passion that causes the greatest suffering in the world. [Transl. Davie] The person’s ego must then compromise between the superego and id and influence the person’s actions accordingly. Achilles feels justified in his quest for vengeance. Medea also feels her pursuit of revenge is warranted. Her ego does not compromise with a womanly superego, on the basis that she has cut off all ties with her father and homeland and has taken her destiny, wellbeing and honour into her own hands. She has no family to fight for her honour and thus assumes the responsibility of being her own champion: ν ν πο τρ πωμαι; π τερα πρ ς πατρ ς δ μους, ο ς σο προδο σα κα π τραν φικ μην; πρ ς ταλα νας Πελι δας; καλ ς γ' ν ο ν δ ξαιντ μ' ο κοις ν πατ ρα κατ κτανον. χει γ ρ ο τω· το ς μ ν ο κοθεν φ λοις χθρ καθ στηχ', ο ς δ μ' ο κ χρ ν κακ ς δρ ν, σο χ ριν φ ρουσα πολεμ ους χω. (E. Med. 502-508) 82 Where am I to turn now? To my father’s house that I betrayed together with my homeland when I came here? Or to Pelias’ wretched daughters? A fine welcome to their home they would give me, the woman who caused their father’s death! No this is how things stand: my own family at home now have cause to hate me, while to please you, I have become hated by the very people who should have kindness from me, not harm. [Transl. Davie] She has nowhere to turn, and her only options as a divorced foreign woman would be beggary or prostitution. As a proud, strong woman whose id demands respect and honour, she will not tolerate betrayal and opts for revenge. The chorus validates Medea’s desire for revenge by saying that she acts in an understandable way. This may represent how many women would have felt in such a situation; that they are powerless and their only means of protection is the men in their lives. The chorus-leader therefore thinks Jason deserves to be ruined, as he has proved to be an enemy where he should have been a guardian: δρ σω τ δ'· νδ κως γ ρ κτε σηι π σιν, Μ δεια. πενθε ν δ' ο σε θαυμ ζω τ χας. (E. Med. 267-268) I will do as you ask, Medea; it is just that you should take revenge on your husband. Your grief at what has happened to you causes me no surprise. [Transl. Davie] The chorus again emphasises that reprisal is warranted. When Medea takes revenge by killing Jason’s new bride and father-in-law, the chorus-leader sees this as deserved punishment. The last comment the chorus-leader makes before she finds out Medea’s intentions to kill her children, maintains the image of Medea’s entitlement to justice: οιχ' δα μων πολλ τ ιδ' ν μ ραι κακ ξυν πτειν νδ κως Ι σονι. (E. Med. 1231-1232) This day it seems heaven has rained many blows justly on the head of 83 Jason. [Transl. Davie] Medea’s revenge is seen as justifiable in the eyes of the chorus before they find out that this vengeance includes the murder of her children. What is important is that the chorus affirms Medea’s conviction that she is entitled to punish Jason. The chorus represents women from Greek society who provide the basis for Medea’s superego which governs the regulations for women. They embody female societal approval of Medea’s actions, allowing Euripides to present her plight as legitimate. Her superego is then in agreement with her id and her ego exacts the vengeance she desires and to which she feels entitled. She feels her actions were appropriate according to the laws governing society and the whole cosmos. Her passionate impulses or her id are a part of all women. Perhaps her uncontrolled fury and retribution represent aspects of all suppressed women. Freud views myth as representing the latent desires of people in society (Harris & Platzner: 43f). There may have been women in Euripides’ audience who were moved by Medea and her actions. Her actions could then represent of the anger of oppressed women (Radstone: 53). In a sense, Medea’s revenge on her abusive husband could have been the secret latent desire of many women who had experienced similar treatment. Conclusion Medea’s violent revenge can be seen as acceptable in relation to a number of facets. First of all, punishment is necessary for people such as Jason who have broken codes of friendship and honour. That Medea killed her own children, is in this instance less important than that she killed Jason’s kin, thereby wreaking the most terrible revenge possible. Complete destruction of an enemy was acceptable and encouraged during the Bronze Age in which Medea’s character functioned. Therefore the punishment did not exceed the crime: this was permissible behaviour. The violence was therefore not senseless as the object was to maintain order in society. Jason could not get away with disregarding sacred oaths because this would upset the balance of society and chaos would ensue. If a woman was wronged, usually her male relatives would have defended her, but in the case of Medea she was a foreigner who had cut off all ties with her old family in order to be with Jason. She did not have anyone to protect her and had to take the 84 matter into her own hands. As a woman, Medea and her superego should have been influenced by societal restrictions to act in non-physical and more demure way, but Medea adopts the male system of vengeance because she does not have anyone else to protect her. Finally, Euripides provides a psychological motivation for Medea’s decision to exact blood vengeance instead of meekly retreating into a life of poverty, begging, possible prostitution or even death. This is that Medea has a propensity for violence. Her ‘shadow’ is her pride and aggression and when in a difficult situation, Medea reacts with her instinct, her id, and destroys those who threaten her. Medea’s revenge thus functions in a number of ways. It expresses Medea’s personality as an intense woman governed by her innate desires and by her pride. She is by no means an ordinary woman. In fact some of her characteristics could have placed her within the mould of epic heroes who believed in the sanctity of oaths and who fought for honour. Medea does however represent women’s resentment, and possibly even their rage. Euripides thus uses a fictitious character to articulate women’s resentment in the seemingly harmless form of myth. CHAPTER EIGHT: Hero or Villain? Introduction 85 The purpose of this chapter is to determine whether Euripides portrays Medea as a hero or as a villain. The characters of both Jason and Medea are evaluated regarding their possible portrayals as heroes. Finally, the ambiguity of Medea as a symbol of the feminine principle of the Great Goddess as well as a masculine definition of a hero, is investigated. A basic example of heroic pattern is applied to the careers of Jason and Medea, and a definition of the heroic code is given using an extract from Homer’s Iliad. The feminist theories of the Great Goddess are used to show that Medea’s independence and power hark back to feminine figures of an earlier time. Medea’s extraordinary strength and her assessment of Jason’s betrayal as unacceptable represents her as a proud person unbefitting the expected nature of women. She represents aspects of this earlier goddess, but in contrast, she also possesses aspects of the archetypal hero in her adoption of the male concept of retributive revenge. One of the most important problems of Euripides’ tragedy is Medea’s status as a hero. It was highly unconventional to portray a woman as a strong independent figure as well as a role model. Archetypal heroes were physically powerful and independent masculine champions of civilisation, such as Herakles and Theseus. Women generally acted as supporting figures in these myths, not as actual heroes. A significant aspect of the Medea which must be explored is that of the contradictions and contrasts of the main characters in Euripides’ tragedy. That is, can Medea symbolise the archetypal feminine goddess and also represent the archetypal masculine hero-figure? This is also related to Jason’s contradictory status as a masculine hero whose success is entirely attributed to the assistance of the chthonic powers of the Great Goddess. Another incongruity is Medea’s accusation that Jason is disloyal, stemming from actions not unlike her own treacherous betrayal of her father. She pleads that she has been wronged by a man whom she has cherished, but she too has wronged a man who has been her father and protector. Medea injures her former family by killing her bother, an offence criminal enough to incur the punishment of the gods. Later she is injured by a new family member, her husband, which would entitle her to divine justice. The system of vengeance, loyalty and betrayal thus comes full circle. 86 The Greeks were fascinated by these problems of balance, order and reciprocity, which were seen as a part of the whole cosmos for both humans and gods. The contradiction of Medea as the inflictor and receptor of punishment is explored. Lévi-Strauss’ structuralist approach is used to analyse the myth as a coordination of masculine and feminine powers and the system of retribution and balance. The Heroic Code in Homer Epic Greek heroes, such as Achilles and Odysseus, are male figures who have specific features of outstanding strength and bravery. In the instance of Achilles, when his honour and status are challenged by Agamemnon, who takes away his prize (Briseis, his concubine), he withdraws from the Trojan war and refuses to fight: ν ν δ' ε μι Φθ ην δ', πε πολ φ ρτερ ν στιν ο καδ' μεν σ ν νηυσ κορων σιν, ο δ σ' ω νθ δ' τιμος ν φενος κα πλο τον φ ξειν. (Hom. Il. 1. 169-171) Now I am returning to Phthia, since it is much better to go home again with my curved ships, and I am minded no longer to stay here dishonoured and pile up your wealth and your luxury. [Transl. Lattimore 1951] Achilles’ withdrawal is crucial to the plot in the Iliad, as this decision leads to a large amount of suffering on the part of the Greeks and even to the death of Achilles’ closest friend, Patroclus. His motivation is the insult to his position as a hero when his authority, standing and respect are challenged. His honour has been offended and his reaction is to punish all the Greeks for their leader’s indiscretion. The Heroic Code in Euripides’ Medea Similarly, when Medea is exploited as a friend and as a wife, before being discarded by Jason, she sees her honour at stake. She will not allow Jason to treat her abominably and therefore assumes the role of the wronged hero and prepares herself for revenge. As a powerful woman, Medea never sees herself subordinate to Jason. She is a sorceress, a princess and partner in Jason’s successes. He made weighty promises and oaths to her, indicating a form of equality. When these promises were broken, she saw her status and honour at stake, as 87 would any mythical hero. She thus adopts the role of an insulted champion and invokes the male heroic code, which entitles her to destroy her enemy (Mastronarde: 9): ο γ ρ γελ σθαι τλητ ν ξ χθρ ν, φ λαι. [ τω· τ μοι ζ ν κ ρδος; ο τε μοι πατρ ς ο τ' ο κος στιν ο τ' ποστροφ κακ ν.] μ ρτανον τ θ' ν κ' ξελ μπανον δ μους πατρ ιους, νδρ ς Ελληνος λ γοις πεισθε σ', ς μ ν σ ν θε ι τε σει δ κην. ... ... μηδε ς με φα λην κ σθεν νομιζ τω mηd' συχα αν λλ θατ ρου τρ που, βαρε αν χθρο ς κα φ λοισιν ε μεν · τ ν γ ρ τοιο των ε κλε στατος β ος. (E. Med. 797-802, 807-810) You see, my friends, to suffer the mockery of my enemies is something I will not tolerate. The time I went wrong was when I left my father’s house, persuaded by the words of a Greek, who, with the gods’ help, will answer to me yet … let no one think me a weak and feeble woman, or one to let things pass, but rather one of the other sort, a generous friend but an enemy to be feared. It is people like that who achieve true fame in life. [Transl. Davie] In Euripides’ play, Medea states of herself: ... ο γ λωτα δε σ' φλε ν το ς Σισυφε οις το σδ' Ι σονος γ μοις, γεγ σαν σθλο πατρ ς Ηλ ου τ' πο. π στασαι δ · πρ ς δ κα πεφ καμεν γυνα κες, ς μ ν σθλ' μηχαν ταται, κακ ν δ π ντων τ κτονες σοφ ταται. (E. Med. 404-409) You must not let yourself be mocked by Jason’s Sisyphean wedding, you, a royal child, descended from the Sun. you have the skill; moreover you were born a woman; and women are incapable of good, but have no equal in contriving harm. [Transl. Arnott] Medea feels she has the approval and support of the gods in that she is entitled to retribution. Believing that the gods favoured her above Jason demonstrates her heroic role as champion of injustice and protector of cosmic equilibrium. Because of Jason’s sinful behaviour, she believes that the honourable action to take, as a noble and heroic figure is to destroy her enemy. She is unashamed of her actions and blatantly calls upon the gods as her witnesses. 88 Ζε Δ κη τε Ζην ς Ηλ ν ν καλλ νικοι τ ν μ ν γενησ μεσθα κ ς δ ν βεβ ν ν λπ ς χθρο ς το ς ου τε φ ς, χθρ ν, φ λαι, καμεν, μο ς τε σειν δ κην. (E. Med. 764-767) Zeus! Justice, child of Zeus! Light of the Sun! now my friends, I will triumph gloriously over my enemies! My journey is begun! Now I hope that my enemies will get their deserts! [Transl. Davie] The Heroic Pattern Several theorists have devised their own schemes of how to integrate myths of heroes into a fixed pattern. The heroic pattern therefore varies in form, depending on different observations and philosophies. Harris and Platzner describe the heroic pattern and the nature of the hero in Chapter Ten. Using some of these features of the hero, a pattern is devised for the purpose of this dissertation. These aspects are regular features of ancient myths of heroes, and are the most applicable to the myth of Jason and Medea: 1. Leaves home on a Quest 2. Cooperates with other heroes according to the honour system of the heroic code. a. If the code is broken, the hero is entitled to revenge. 3. Individually passes death-defying tests of intelligence and courage 4. Gains assistance of a female helper-maiden figure 5. Self-imposed suffering in order to develop as an individual. 6. Deification In light of this pattern, Jason and Medea are compared to see who makes the more likely hero. Jason should fit this pattern more successfully as he is a male figure who left on the famous quest for the Golden Fleece. Medea, on the other hand, is a woman, but she is extraordinary and adopts the male systems of honour and revenge. 89 The Heroic Pattern Jason Medea 1. Leaves home on a Quest Yes. Jason goes on a quest on the Argonautica to obtain the Golden Fleece Yes, at first he complies and later he fails. At first Jason cooperates with Medea as an equal and then he fails when he abandons her, thus breaking his oaths to Medea. Yes. Medea goes on a quest from her homeland to a foreign country Yes. Medea cooperates with Jason as a fellow hero and helps him in his quest. No. Jason fails to wreak revenge on Medea after she kills his children. Instead she escapes from him unharmed. No. Jason does not achieve any success individually and is unsuccessful without Medea’s assistance. Yes. Jason receives assistance from Medea’s magical chthonic powers. No. Jason only undergoes suffering unwillingly. This is in the form of the murder of his children by Medea. No. Jason does not undergo deification and dies an ignoble death. Yes. Medea exacts terrible revenge on Jason for his broken vows and lack of respect towards her. Yes. Medea individually succeeds in avenging herself on Jason and escaping unharmed. Yes. Medea receives magical assistance from Hekate. 2. Cooperates with other heroes according to the honour system of the heroic code. a. If the code is broken, the hero is entitled to revenge. 3. Individually passes deathdefying tests of intelligence and courage 4. Gains assistance of a female helper figure. 5. Self-imposed suffering in order to develop as an individual 6. Deification Yes. Medea’s suffering due to the loss of her children, is selfinflicted. As a result she attains honour. Yes. Medea experiences a form of symbolic deification when she is lifted into the heavens by a dragon-drawn chariot. Thus in the form of this heroic pattern, Medea is a successful hero-figure whereas Jason fails to fulfil most heroic qualities. In addition, Medea also embodies aspects of the archetypal matriarchal figure. The Conflict Between the Great Goddess and the Archetypal Hero To an extent, Medea represents the Great Goddess herself, both as a strong, godlike sorceress who uses a chariot of dragons to make her escape from Corinth, and as a source of fecundity when she uses her ability with fertility potions to secure a place for herself in King Aegeus’ house. 90 As an associate of her patron goddess Hekate, through her magical ability with potions and chthonic wisdom, she is further related to the earlier matriarchal goddess. When the Great Goddess’s functions were split, her fearful associations with the moon and sorcery remained in figures such as Hekate and the Furies. Medea is also connected to the frightful Furies, vengeance spirits representing the Great Goddess’ chthonic wisdom and defenders of matriarchal values. In Euripides’ Medea, the chorus at one point compares Medea to the Furies because of her dreadful intentions inspired by fervent revenge: λλ νιν, φ ος διογεν ς, κ τειργε κατ παυσον ξελ' ο κων τ λαιναν φον αν τ' Εριν ν π' λαστ ρων. (E. Med. 1258-1260) No, brightness born of Zeus, restrain her, hold her back, drive her from the house, the wretched woman whom fiends have turned into a murderous Fury! [Transl. Davie] Even though Medea is linked to this feminine principle, she seems to reject this association when she adopts the heroic code to avenge herself. By assuming the role of wronged hero she decides to destroy her husband by killing her children. The act of murdering her offspring completely denies the primary function of the Great Goddess as producer and sustainer of life. She uses the male incentive of destruction, to maintain social order and justice, thus drawing her closer to the paternal gods and heroes. It was not unheard of for important male mythological figures, such as Herakles, Tantalus and Cronus to kill, or attempt to kill their children. This aspect therefore links Medea more closely to archetypal masculine heroes as opposed to the feminine counterpart of the archetypal mother figure. Jason, on the other hand, could be seen as a stereotypical hero who goes on an archetypal quest (Harris & Platzner: 45). He kills a dragon, a serpent symbol of the Great Goddess, and performs other extraordinary tasks as the leader of the famous Argonauts. He ventures on a death-defying journey in order to prove his heroic identity, and has a singular ambitious drive for an immortal reputation. However, everything seemed to change after Jason met Medea. He needed her chthonic wisdom in order to perform his tasks to claim the Golden Fleece. He also relied on her 91 to ensure a safe escape from Colchis and to rid him of his uncle who had supplanted his throne. Furthermore, his dependency was not merely momentary; he relied on her far more than most heroes relied on the help of a maiden. Because women were seen as the possessions of men, it would have been considered acceptable for Jason to use Medea for his own purposes before leaving her. In Greek mythology there are many examples where men exploit women for their own advantage or pleasure. The mythological hero Theseus uses Ariadne’s help against the minotaur before he abandons her on an island so that he can marry her younger sister Phaedra. Admetus allows his young wife Alcestis to die in his place; Agamemnon captures the Trojan, non-Greek princess, Cassandra as a concubine for his own selfish pleasure. But instead of merely using her abilities and abandoning her immediately, as did Theseus with Ariadne, Jason made a binding oath to Medea, as her husband. Later, he ignobly broke this oath and tried to maintain a dominant political position by leaving Medea for a new and more influential wife. He attempted to fulfil the duties of a man by trying to secure a prominent social standing. He was unsuccessful in this because Medea proved to be stronger and cleverer than he was. Thus Jason never achieved anything without the powers of a woman. His heroic status he owed to his first wife, and his new role as a prince in the kingdom of Corinth was because of his second marriage. Jason thus fails as a hero, as he lacks the incentive and power to achieve individual success. Instead he has to use Medea’s chthonic abilities to succeed in his endeavours and when he wants to abandon her, she defeats him. According to these factors, the characters of Jason and Medea in Euripides’ Medea show a reversal of gender roles. Medea assumes the position of the masculine hero, whereas Jason becomes the defeated accomplice whose previous successes were reliant on the help of feminine chthonic wisdom and sorcery. The Paradox of Medea as Murderer and Hero The problem with Medea’s characterisation as a hero, is that she exacts justice from a false friend, Jason, but earlier in her career she murders her brother who did not warrant an assault. In essence she is already guilty of betrayal, the same claim she makes against Jason when he 92 abandons her. Thus Medea feels regret and guilt when she realises that her loyalty has been given to the wrong person. The tutor comments on the progression of loyalty over time. He speaks of how Jason loves a new princess when he used to love Medea. παλαι κο κ καιν ν λε πεται κηδευμ των, στ' κε νος το σδε δ μασιν φ λος. (E. Med. 76-77) Old ties of affection give way to new; this house has no claims on that man’s heart now. [Transl. Davie] This may also apply to Medea indirectly as her ties of love used to be towards her father before she chose to give her loyalty to Jason. When she is told by Creon that she has to leave the country, her misdirected loyalty becomes clear. She longs for her land of birth because she knows that before she betrayed her father, Colchis would always have been a haven to her. She chose to be at the mercy of the false protector, Jason, and betrayed her true protector, her father: Kρ. φιλ γ ρ ο σ μ λλον δ μους μο ς. Mη. πατρ ς, ς σου κ ρτα ν ν μνε αν χω. Kρ. πλ ν γ ρ τ κνων μοιγε φ λτατον πολ . (E. Med. 327-329) Creon: Am I to show you more love than my own family? Medea: O Colchis, my dear homeland! How I think of you now! Creon: There you are right; only my children win more love from me than my country. [Transl. Davie] Creon shows his love and allegiance to his family and his country, which contrasts with Medea’s betrayal of her country and family. After she hears Creon, she realises her devotion was misplaced. Medea expresses her regret at leaving her homeland. This decision that she made cost her all her relatives. She can never go home again. For her betrayal, and because of Jason’ betrayal she is now going to kill her children, cutting off her last bonds to any loving family: ντα θα μ ντοι τ νδ' παλλ σσω λ γον. ιμωξα δ' ο ον ργον στ' ργαστ ον το ντε θεν μ ν· τ κνα γ ρ κατακτεν 93 τ μ'· ο τις στιν στις ξαιρ σεται· δ μον τε π ντα συγχ ασ' Ι σονος ξειμι γα ας, φιλτ των πα δων φ νον φε γουσα κα τλ σ' ργον νοσι τατον. ... ... μ ρτανον τ θ' ν κ' ξελ μπανον δ μους πατρ ιους, νδρ ς Ελληνος λ γοις πεισθε σ', ς μ ν σ ν θε ι τε σει δ κην. (E. Med. 790-796, 800-802) But now I dismiss this business from my thoughts. It makes me groan to think what deed I must do next. For I shall kill my own children; no one shall take them from me. I will wreak havoc on all Jason’s house and then quit this land, to escape the charge of murdering my beloved children, after daring to do a deed that is abominable indeed ... The time I went wrong was when I left my father’s house, persuaded by the words of a Greek … [Transl. Davie] The chorus remarks on Medea’s fury that destroys her family. It may be that her destruction of her children is the gods’ vengeance for her destruction of her previous family. She may be being punished for what she has done to her father and her homeland, and balance of the cosmos once again finds concord. As expressed by the chorus, the cause of both destructions is her relentless violence and fervour caused by obsessive love: δειλα α, τ σοι φρενοβαρ ς χ λος προσπ τνει κα ζαμεν ς <φ νου> φ νος με βεται; χαλεπ γ ρ βροτο ς μογεν μι σmaτ' π γα αν α τοφ νταις ξυνωιδ θε θεν π τνοντ' π δ μοις χη. (E. Med. 1265-1270) Unhappy woman, why do you surrender to this anger that crushes your heart, why this lust for blood? For kindred blood polluting the ground weighs heavy upon mortals; the murderers are paid in just measure by the sorrows that heaven wills upon their houses. [Transl. Davie] Medea’s vengeance thus shows the settlement of cosmic harmony in two different ways. Firstly, it restores balance within society following Jason’s unjust behaviour by breaking strong oaths and moral obligations to Medea. Secondly, familial harmony presided over by Zeus is reestablished by having the destruction of Medea’s new family as retribution for her destruction of 94 her former family. The contradictions within the play are thus finally mitigated by the tragic destruction of the house of Jason and Medea. Lévi-Strauss’ Structuralist Method Applied to the Medea Lévi-Strauss’ structuralist approach described by Morford & Lenardon (p. 15) is used to derive meaning from the separate components of the myth of Jason and Medea. The overall myth is categorised as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Destruction of old family relations Destruction of new family relations Patriarchal subordination or exploitation of matriarchal systems Matriarchal subordination or exploitation of patriarchal systems The first two categories and the second two categories are set in opposition to each other to show the overall balance within the myth of Medea and Jason. They thus reflect how the medium of myth is used to reflect the importance of societal harmony within society: 95 1. Destruction of old family relations 2. Destruction of new family relations Medea betrays her father to help the outsider, Jason, accomplish his expedition. Medea kills her brother Jason abandons his former wife for a new wife Medea is deserted by her husband (current family member) to become an outsider in a foreign land. Jason’s new wife is killed by his former wife. Medea kills her own children. 3. Patriarchal subordination/ exploitation of matriarchal systems Jason uses Medea’s sorcery, (an aspect of the Great Goddess) to help his patriarchal heroic quest. Jason kills the dragon (a symbol of the Great Goddess). 4. Matriarchal subordination/ exploitation of patriarchal systems Medea adopts the heroic credo to become victorious over her patriarchal suppressor. Medea defeats Jason and displays her victory by riding off on a dragon chariot. Thus the myth of Medea illustrates a system of reciprocity and balance. In terms of Lévi-Strauss, the myth shows a human tendency to ultimately find equilibrium. The binary system of themes in Euripides’ Medea creates a sense of cohesion, as all the elements together contribute to a feeling of ultimate unity and closure within society. Medea was furious that Jason betrayed her—but she had formerly betrayed her father. She even killed her own children to achieve retribution from Jason. This ultimately punished Medea herself as it destroyed her new family and ended any meaningful life for her as a woman. The murder of her sons at her own hands reminds us that Medea started her new life and family by killing her own brother, which ended her earlier family life and destroyed her father. Jason also felt the reprisal for his self-serving actions. He abandoned his first wife only to have his second wife killed due to this injustice. He then also lost both of his families without having an heir to his name and was destroyed as a man. 96 The equilibrium and contradiction within the tragedy are evident. Medea is a female character who adopts the male code of retribution to avenge herself as a wronged wife, and Jason is a male character whose successes can be attributed to the powers of feminine sorcery. Medea is also a woman who has betrayed her father—and in return she is betrayed by Jason, the man she chose above her father. In setting these factors in opposition to each other, the play shows how a woman can be a hero and a man can be a villain. Thus the irregularities in tragedy express the inconsistencies in life. One cannot easily typecast a group and expect complete compliancy. Women are individuals as are men and restraining characteristics could cause a dramatic, unpredictable reaction. Conclusion Medea does not fit the mould of the passive supporting role of a feminine assistant. Instead of acting out the role of a supportive and passive woman to a hero, Medea seeks revenge against Jason as an oath-breaker, and adopts the masculine definition of retribution. The table of the heroic pattern clearly demonstrates that Medea embodies more characteristics of an archetypal masculine hero than does Jason. Jason could initially have been seen as a traditional hero, but he failed in this definition when he was defeated by a woman and was unsuccessful in gaining glory. Their roles are then reversed: Jason’s successes can be attributed to the help of female power and Medea’s ultimate success over her enemy, Jason, is due to her assumption of the male heroic code of honour and revenge. Jason is a dishonourable man through his breaking of powerful oaths and his neglect of a friend and wife to whom he owed his previous accomplishments. Medea successfully defeats him, and thus restores order and balance to society and the cosmos. Jason, then a coward who needs the help of others to achieve his goals, whereas Medea is a hero who individually conquers an immoral oath-breaker. 97 CHAPTER NINE: Conclusion This dissertation examines the problem of the function of Euripides’ portrayal of Medea. In order to answer this problem, the content is broken down into five thematic chapters. That is, Euripides’ perpetuation or deconstruction of patriarchal society, his portrayal of Medea as a foreigner, the question of Medea as a victim or perpetrator, the problem of whether Medea’s vengeance can be seen as justifiable or not, and finally, the conflict of Medea as a murderer and hero. The tragedy indicates the inconsistencies within society. Medea was originally the perfect wife who did everything for her husband by way of supporting him in all his exploits. She also bore him two legitimate sons and heirs to his legacy. In return, she was abandoned, which shows the problems within patriarchal Greek society. Even though Medea fulfilled all her duties as a woman, she is still left with nothing. Had this happened in ordinary Greek society, the woman would be powerless. When Medea realises that her marriage and her role as a woman has not been built on anything substantial, she understandably becomes very angry. She has fulfilled her role—but Jason has not fulfilled his. This shows the double standard in society. A woman is prescribed her role and has to comply with it, but this did not necessarily hold for men. Another motive for presenting Medea as a strong, proud and independent individual could be to comment on the nature of women. Women were thought to be less intelligent and less capable than men, but a figure such as Medea could be challenging that perception. She is portrayed as more capable and possibly more intelligent than her ‘heroic’ husband Jason. The possible destructive consequences of subordinated women is shown through the excessive violence of Medea. She represents the pent-up frustration of women. Euripides demonstrates how people who retain their feelings and opinions for too long may eventually fly into an uncontrollable rage. Such could have been the situation for many repressed women in fifth century B.C.E. Greece. To an extent, Medea is a heroic symbol for ancient Greek women, even if they did not consider her to be one. She stands against female suppression and stereotyping and exposes the double standards in society. 98 Concerning Medea’s position as a outsider, Euripides gives a voice to foreign women, one of the most powerless groups within ancient Greece. Euripides’ sympathy for Medea as a foreigner is indicated in the text. She is strong and noble and upholds oaths while longing for her home as would any Greek in a far-off foreign land. Further evidence for Euripides’ sympathies, is his depiction of Medea as a victim of Jason’s broken oaths and unfounded neglect, when she should have been treated as a friend. Although Euripides chooses to represent Medea as the murderer of her children, he still presents her in a sympathetic light. He communicates Medea’s grief through her own lamentations and uses other characters to indicate pity for Medea and condemnation of Jason. She suffers Jason’s abandonment and is also a victim of her own passion and pride, in that she has killed her own brother and her two sons. The tragedy is that of a loving woman who destroys everything she loves on account of her misplaced passion. She withdraws her affection from her father and country and chooses to give her love and loyalty to her new husband. When that family proves to be based on false love and security, she finally confronts the pain of being betrayed by the one she loves. With this treachery, her passion turns to fury; ultimately everything in her path is destroyed, including herself. To some extent, the betrayal of her father comes home to her in the form of her husband’s rejection. Once the perpetrator, now the victim. Medea’s regret and fury culminates in the destruction of her new family. Thus her nature, that of an intensely passionate women, is the cause of the destruction of her predecessors and her progeny alike. Euripides’ Medea is the strong sorceress who does not fit into the patriarchal definition of a ‘good’ woman. She still has the residual chthonic traits of a powerful matriarchal goddess, and when the present definition of a ‘good’ woman fails her, she adopts the male heroic code to avenge herself. She destroys her worst enemy, as was customary in the policy of helping friends and harming enemies. In effect, Medea is a hero in a number of different guises. She is related to the archetypal male hero through her quest for honour and respect, and in her independent pursuit of retribution. Her potential villain status is counterbalanced by her representation as a victim. As a hero, her vengeance is seen as justifiable, whereas Jason is portrayed as a flawed character. She may have 99 received a bad reputation as a result of her ‘masculine’ behaviour, but in essence she is a champion of female suppression as the negative aspects of patriarchal principles reveal themselves in the tragedy. The audience may not have admired Medea or approved of her unfeminine behaviour, but her quest for reciprocity would have been understood. Euripides’ tragedy is of a woman who does not fit into the mould of her prescribed role of submissive wife. It is a play which shows the problems of patriarchal society. If a husband illtreats a wife who has nothing to lose, disaster could ensue. Medea’s character is a heroic one championing the plight of women. Even though the audience may not have been ready for such a dramatic performance, the content questions the male-centric structure of Greek society. 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allan, W. (2002). Euripides: Medea. London: Duckworth. Arnott, P.D. (Transl.). (2004). “The Medea of Euripides” in Harris & Platzner Classical Mythology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Babbitt, F.C. (Transl.). (1928). Plutarch—Moralia II London: William Heinemann Ltd. Baldick, C. (2001). Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barrett, D. (Transl.) (1964). Aristophanes: The Wasps, The Poet and the Women and The Frogs Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Belfiore, E. S. (2000). Murder Among Friends. New York: Oxford University Press. Blondell, R., Gamel, M-K., Sorkin Rabinowitz, N. & Zweig, B. (1999). Women on the Edge. London: Routledge. Blundell, M.W. (1989). Helping Friends and Harming Enemies. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press. Brown, J.A.C. (1964). Freud and the Post-Freudians. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Butler, S. (Transl.). (1944). The Odyssey of Homer. Roslyn: Walter J. Black. Cohan, D. “Seclusion, Separation, and the Status of Women in Classical Athens” in McAuslan, I & Walcot, P. (1996). Women in Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press. Conacher, D.J. (1967). Euripidean Drama. London: Oxford University Press. Davie, J. (Transl.). (1954). Euripides—Alcestis and Other Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Lacy, P. H. & Einarson, B. (Transl.) (1959). Plutarch’s Moralia: VII London: William Heinemann Ltd. Des Bouvrie, S. (1992). Women in Greek Tragedy—An Anthropological Approach. Oslo: Norwegian U.P. De Sélincourt, A. (Transl.). (1954). Herodotus – The Histories. London: Penguin Books. Dorsch, T.S. (Transl.). (1965). Aristotle, Horace, Longinus – Classical Literary Criticism. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Easterling, P. E. & Knox, B.M.W. (eds). (1989). The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Greek Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 101 Fantham, E., Foley, H., Boymel Kampen, N., Pomeroy, S., & Shapiro, H. (1994). Women in the Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fitzgerald, J.T. (1997). Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Atalanta: Scholar’s Press. Foley, H.P. (2001). Female Acts in Greek Tragedy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Goff, G. M. A. (1990). The Noose of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Graves, R. (1957). The Greek Myths: Volume Two. Victoria and Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Grube, G.M.A. (1961). The Drama of Euripides. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Harris, S.L. & Platzner, G. (2004) Classical Mythology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Headlam, C.E.S. (ed.). (1954). Euripides—Medea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunter (Transl.) (1993). Apollonius of Rhodes—Jason and the Golden Fleece. (Translated and Edited by R. Hunter). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Kitto, H.D.F. (1966). Greek Tragedy. London: Routledge. Lattimore, R. (Transl.). (1951). The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lattimore, R. (1958). The Poetry of Greek Tragedy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Lefkowitz, M.R. “Wives and Husbands” in McAuslan, I. & Walcot, P. (1996). Women in Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press. Liddel, H.G. & Scott, R. (1940). A Greek—English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. March, J. (1990). “Euripides the Misogynist?” in Powell, A. (ed). Euripides, Women, and Sexuality. London: Routledge. Mastronarde, D. J. (ed) (2002). Euripides Medea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meagher, R. E. (1989). Mortal Vision. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Morford, M.P.O & Lenardon, R.J. (1991). Classical Mythology (Fourth Edition). New York: Oxford University Press. Murison, A.F. (Transl.). (1933). The Odes Of Pindar. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Murphy, C.F. (1995). Beyond Feminism. Washington: CUA. Murray, G. (1965). Euripides and his Age. London: Oxford University Press. 102 Page, D.L. (ed.). (1967). Medea. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pomeroy, S. B. (1975). Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves. New York: Schocken Books. Radstone, S. “Remembering Medea: The Uses of Nostalgia” in Critical Quarterly Autumn 1993. Volume 35 issue no. 3. 54-63. Rutherford, R (ed.) (1996) Euripides: Alcestis and Other Plays. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. (1994). “An Introduction to Intercultural Communication.” In Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. Intercultural Communication. New York: Thomson Publishing. Sancisi-Weerdenburg. (1983). “Exit Atossa: Images of Women in Greek Historiography on Persia.” in Cameron, A. & Kuhrt, A. (eds). Images of Women in Antiquity. London: Routledge. Sardar, Z., Nandy, A. & Wyn Davies, M. (1993). Barbaric Others. London: Pluto Press. Schlesinger, E. (1968). “On Euripides’ Medea” in Segal, E. (ed). Euripides. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. New York: Blackwell. Sinclair, T.A. (Transl.). (1981). Aristotle – The Politics. London: Penguin Books. Smith, L. P. (1975). Studies of Characterization in Euripides: The Medeia, Elektra and Orestes. Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Information Service. Thompson, N. (1996). Herodotus and the Origins of the Political Community. New Haven: Yale University Press. Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (1975) Language and Sex—Difference and Dominance. New York: Newbury House. Thorne, B., Kramarae, C. & Henley, N. (1975) Language, Gender and Society: Opening a Second Decade of Research. New York: Newbury House. Vellacott, P. (Transl.). (1953). Euripides—Alcestis, Hippolytus, Iphigenia in Taurus. Bungay: Penguin Books. Vellacot, P. (Transl.). (1973). Euripides—The Bacchae and Other Plays. London: Penguin Books. Vellacott, P. (1975). Ironic Drama. London: Cambridge University Press. Walker, S.F. (2002). Jung and the Jungians on Myth. New York: Routledge. 103 Wender, D. (Transl.). (1973) Hesiod and Theognis. Bungay : Penguin Books. Williamson, M. (1990). “A Woman’s Place in Euripides’ Medea.” in Powell, A. (ed). Euripides, Women and Sexuality. London: Routledge. Wood, J.T. (1994). “Gender, Communication and Culture.” in Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. Intercultural communication. New York: Thomson Publishing. Zeitlin, F. I. (1996). Playing the Other. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 104