MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf

8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf

1/109

CONFLICTING ASPECTS OF CHARACTER IN EURIPIDES’ MEDEA

by

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


2/109

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS iABSTRACT iiCHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1

- The Myth of Jason and Medea 1

- The Problem 4- Chapter Layout 7CHAPTER TWO: Overview of the Literature 9

- Aim 9- The Philological Approach 9- Literary Approaches 9

- The Traditional Literary Approach 10- The Psychological Approach 12

- The Philosophical Approach 17- The Socio-Historical Approach 19- Feminist Approaches 21- Conclusion 23

CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology 25- Introduction 25 - The Freudian Approach 25 - The Jungian Approach 26 - Claude Levi-Strauss’ Structuralism 28 - The Feminist Approach 30 - The Hero as an Archetype 32 - Conclusion 33

CHAPTER FOUR: Patriarchal Society: Perpetuated or Deconstructed? 34- Introduction 34 - Theories of Male/Female Difference 34 - Male and Female in Greek Thought and Society 35- Euripides Reveals the Paradoxes and Anomalies of Greek Social Structure 41

- Marriage 41- The Importance of Love to a Woman 43

- Jung’s Theory of the Anima and Animus as an Explanation for the 44Underestimation of Women

- Euripides Challenges Female Archetypes 47- The Inherent Injustice in Society as an Explanation for Women Behaving Badly 48

- Conclusion 49 CHAPTER FIVE: Medea as an Outsider 51

- Introduction 51 - Theories of Culture 51 - Herodotus and Aristotle 52 - Eurpides’ Troiades as an Example of the Perspective of Foreign Women 55 - Euripides Shows the Perspective of the Foreign Woman in the Medea 56- Conclusion 60

CHAPTER SIX: Victim or Perpetrator? 62- Introduction 62 - Obligations of Friendship 63- Marriage Obligations and Oaths 66

ii


3/109

- Expressions of Medea as a Victim 69- Freud’s Domestic Psychodrama 70- Conclusion 71

CHAPTER SEVEN: Justifiable Violence 73- Introduction 73 - Examples of Revenge in Homer’s Bronze Age Epics 74

- Revenge in the Medea 76 - Jung’s Theory of the ‘Shadow’ 79 - Freud’s Theory of the Id , Ego and Superego 81 - Conclusion 84

CHAPTER EIGHT: Hero or Villain? 86- Introduction 86- The Heroic Code in Homer 87- The Heroic Code in Euripides’ Medea 87- The Heroic Pattern 89- The Conflict Between the Great Goddess and the Archetypal Hero 90- The Paradox of Medea as Murderer and Hero 92- Levi-Strauss’ Structuralist Method Applied to the Medea 95- Conclusion 97

CHAPTER NINE: Conclusion 98

BIBLIOGRAPHY 101

iii


4/109

ABBREVIATIONS

Referencing of the original texts is based on the abbreviations according to Liddell & Scott.

A.R. Apollonius Rhodius

Ar. AristophanesArist. 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


5/109

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 theirregularities 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


6/109


7/109

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, shehad 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 slayThe 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


8/109

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. πτα-

ξa ν 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


9/109

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 andavenger, 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


10/109

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 besmirchedwith 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


11/109

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


12/109

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


13/109

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


14/109

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 ofdifferent 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


15/109

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 andidentity 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


16/109

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 anarrogant 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 hoodand 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 outof 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


17/109

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 intragedy 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


18/109

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


19/109

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


20/109

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 toher 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


21/109

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 womancould 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 well-

thought 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


22/109

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


23/109

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


24/109

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


25/109

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 honour-

orientated 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


26/109

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 isthat 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


27/109

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


28/109

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.

ConclusionHaving 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


29/109

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


30/109

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 Medusaand 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


31/109

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 ismediated. 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


32/109

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


33/109

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 andmaturation, 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


34/109

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. Overrating of blood relations

2. Underrating of blood relations3. Killing of monsters4. Names expressive of physical and moral handicaps

1. Overrating ofBlood Relations

2. Underrating ofBlood Relations

3. Killing ofMonsters

4. Namesexpressive ofphysical and moralhandicaps

Cadmus looks for

his sister Europa

Cadmus kills the

serpent

The Spartoi kill eachother

Oedipus kills his

father

Laius ( = left-sided )

son of Labdacus (=lame)

Oedipus kills the

Sphinx

Oedipus marries his

mother Jocasta

Oedipus (= swell-

foot )

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


35/109

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 orexploitation 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


36/109

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, wassubstituted 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


37/109

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 ArchetypeThe 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


38/109

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


39/109

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


40/109

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 -πw ν.

(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


41/109

appeared late in the world as an evil thing fashioned by Zeus

Documents

MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf