Date post: | 01-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | syamin-azhar |
View: | 267 times |
Download: | 1 times |
of 109
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
6/109
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
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
8/9/2019 MEDEA COMPLETE.pdf
41/109
appeared late in the world as an evil thing fashioned by Zeus