Medea Complete PDF

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
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
- The Myth of Jason and Medea
- The Problem
- Chapter Layout
CHAPTER TWO: Overview of the Literature
- Aim
- The Philological Approach
- Literary Approaches
- The Traditional Literary Approach
- The Psychological Approach
- The Philosophical Approach
- The Socio-Historical Approach
- Feminist Approaches
- Conclusion
CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology
- Introduction
- The Freudian Approach
- The Jungian Approach
- Claude Levi-Strauss Structuralism
- The Feminist Approach
- The Hero as an Archetype
- Conclusion
CHAPTER FOUR: Patriarchal Society: Perpetuated or Deconstructed?
- Introduction
- Theories of Male/Female Difference
- Male and Female in Greek Thought and Society
- Euripides Reveals the Paradoxes and Anomalies of Greek Social Structure
- Marriage
- The Importance of Love to a Woman
- Jungs Theory of the Anima and Animus as an Explanation for the
Underestimation of Women
- Euripides Challenges Female Archetypes
- The Inherent Injustice in Society as an Explanation for Women Behaving Badly
- Conclusion
CHAPTER FIVE: Medea as an Outsider
- Introduction
- Theories of Culture
- Herodotus and Aristotle
- Eurpides Troiades as an Example of the Perspective of Foreign Women
- Euripides Shows the Perspective of the Foreign Woman in the Medea
- Conclusion
CHAPTER SIX: Victim or Perpetrator?
- Introduction
- Obligations of Friendship
- Marriage Obligations and Oaths
i
ii
1
1
4
7
9
9
9
9
10
12
17
19
21
23
25
25
25
26
28
30
32
33
34
34
34
35
41
41
43
44
47
48
49
51
51
51
52
55
56
60
62
62
63
66
ii
- Expressions of Medea as a Victim

- Freuds Domestic Psychodrama
- Conclusion
CHAPTER SEVEN: Justifiable Violence
- Introduction
- Examples of Revenge in Homers Bronze Age Epics
- Revenge in the Medea
- Jungs Theory of the Shadow
- Freuds Theory of the Id, Ego and Superego
- Conclusion
CHAPTER EIGHT: Hero or Villain?
- Introduction
- The Heroic Code in Homer
- The Heroic Code in Euripides Medea
- The Heroic Pattern
- The Conflict Between the Great Goddess and the Archetypal Hero
- The Paradox of Medea as Murderer and Hero
- Levi-Strauss Structuralist Method Applied to the Medea
- Conclusion
CHAPTER NINE: Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY
69
70
71
73
73
74
76
79
81
84
86
86
87
87
89
90
92
95
97
98
101
iii
ABBREVIATIONS
Referencing of the original texts is based on the abbreviations according to Liddell & Scott.
A.R.
Apollonius Rhodius
Ar.
Aristophanes
Arist.
Aristotle
E.
Euripides
Hdt.
Herodotus
Hipp.
Hippolytus
Hes.
Hesiod
Hist.
Histories
Hom.
Homer
Il.
Iliad
Med.
Medea
Mor.
Moralia
Od.
Odyssey
P.
Pythia
Pi.
Pindar
Plu.
Plutarch
Po.
Poetica
Pol.
Politica
Th.
Theogony
Thes.
Thesmophoriazusae
Thu.
Thucydides
Tro.
Troiades
ABSTRACT
Medeas powerful ability to inspire and confuse is at the core of this study. The contradiction
concerning Euripides character of Medea as a murderer and a victim will be explored in order to
understand what implications this would have held for an ancient Greek audience. Thus the
irregularities in this female character will be used to indicate the inconsistencies within the
society from which Euripides was writing.
Womens 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, Jasons 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 Medeas 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.
Medeas 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 womens behaviour and their
opinions.
ii
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
The Myth of Jason and Medea

The myth of Jason and Medea has fascinated audiences and readers for centuries. The heroic tale
of Jasons voyage with the Argonauts in quest of the Golden Fleece contains alluring facets of
adventure, magic and passion. Ancient poets such as Apollonius of Rhodes in his Argonautica
and Pindar in the Pythian 4 were inspired to give their accounts of Jason and Medea (Blondell et
al: 150). Homer even mentioned the fame and renown of the Argo in the Odyssey:

, a'

(Hom Od. 12. 69-70)
The only vessel that ever sailed and got through was the famous Argo
on her way from the house of Aeetes
[Transl. Butler]
The mythical icon of Medea would have been familiar to the ancient Greeks as a prominent
figure in the myth of Jason and the Argonauts. The most powerful and contentious version is
arguably that of Euripides in his Medea, which has stimulated increased interest and aroused
discussion. A text that is two-and-a-half thousand years old has met a generation of classical
scholars devoted to its passionate and controversial content. In order to understand why
Euripides treatment of the myth of Medea is thought to be so controversial, a basic summary of
the traditional tale of Jason and the Argonauts is given. In Robert Graves second volume of
Greek Myths (pp. 216-257), he presents a well-researched account of Medea and Jason, and this
source is used for a paraphrased version:
King Pelias seized the throne of Iolcus from his brother, the rightful heir and father of the hero,
Jason. Pelias told Jason that he would gladly hand over the throne to Jason if he first went to an
Eastern land to bring home the Golden Fleece. The city to which Jason had to venture, was
Colchis. Jason accepted the arduous task and assembled a crew of heroic figures who became
known as the Argonauts after the ship, the Argo.
After many perilous obstacles, the Argonauts reached Colchis where Jason was left to face dire
obstacles such as a fire-breathing dragon that guarded the Fleece. The tasks seemed impossible
without assistance. In order to help Jason, Aphrodite caused Medea, the sorceress daughter of
1
King Aeetes of Colchis, to fall in love with Jason. Thus having fallen deeply in love with Jason,
Medea offered to aid him if he promised to marry and honour her. Jason swore an oath to marry
and respect her .
Medea subsequently helped Jason win the fleece and escape from Colchis. In order to do this, she
had to betray her family and murder her own brother. Medea continued to assist Jason. When
they reached Iolcus, she tricked Pelias daughters to kill him, so that Jason could obtain the
throne.
Jason and Medea were banished from Iolcas. They went to Corinth and after a while, Jason
made plans to marry the daughter of the King to secure his position as a royal citizen. Medea
was furious and avenged herself by killing Jasons bride and her father, the king.
Medeas 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 Jasons
plans but she did not detract from the exploits of the Argonauts:
,
, ,
(Pi. P. IV. 249-250)
Iason, O Arkesilas, did slay
The speckled dragon glaring-eyed by guile,
and bore Medeia in his ship away,
herself abetting him the while,
the murderess of Pelias.
[Transl. Murison]
Pindar mentioned Medeas 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:
. a '
.
(Pi. P. IV. 57-58)
So ran the verses of Medeias 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
Medeas 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 Jasons
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.
Medea subsequently killed her own children to ensure that Jason had no heirs to continue his
lineage. Having accomplished her intended revenge, she left for Athens on a dragon-drawn
chariot, leaving behind the distraught and furious Jason.
Euripides representation of Medea is paradoxical. It hovers on the dichotomy of victim and
avenger, monster and mother, and villain and hero. She is a strikingly contradictory figure, a
personality so compelling that she has continued to fascinate people to this day. The reason for
Medeas 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 childrens 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
religious gathering, a group of women planned his demise. The first woman spoke about how he
portrayed women as immoral and villainous:
...
,
'

.
;
(Ar Thes. 384-389)
... its just that I can no longer bear to sit by and see us women besmirched
with mud from head to foot by this cabbage-womans son Euripides. The
things he says about us! Is there any crime he hasnt 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 womens fury against male oppression.
Euripides Medea could be seen as a feminist icon and a symbol of female suppression and
retaliation.
Certain paradoxes and inconsistencies within society could be revealed in Euripides Medea: that
a woman could not fulfil her desired role as wife and mother if she were betrayed by her husband.
Hence when a specific group of people are suppressed according to/by virtue of their sex,
difficulties may arise from this restriction. The suppression of women may even have produced
an excessive release of pent-up emotions as a result of too much containment.
The second inconsistency regarding Euripides characterisation of Medea is whether he is
sympathetic or condemning of this foreign woman. In a society where women were treated as
objects and were not entitled to freedom or independence, Medea was an alien in Greece and thus
permitted even fewer rights. Because Medea did not adhere to these conventions, disaster ensued.
Medea is thus a threat as she is no ordinary woman, but rather a foreigner and sorceress
incompatible with the image of a respectable Greek woman.
As Aristophanes indicated, Euripides intentions may have been chauvinistic in order to show the
dangers of certain types of women. Foreign women were especially dangerous as they were
5
different and therefore unpredictable. If these women were not controlled by men they would
threaten the very bonds of society. Euripides Medea would then have been an example of the
possible result of having an uncontrolled foreign woman in Greek society: a woman who did not
conform to the standard expectations of womens required passive role. Alternatively, she may
represent the plight of a powerless minority far from the security of family and homeland.
Thirdly, Medeas 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 persons 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 Medeas
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.
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 Medeaa woman who killed her children and ruined her
husbandshe could surely be considered an evil individual. Responding emotionally and without
prior knowledge of context, ones 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.

The methods used to critically evaluate the Medea in accordance with the problem statement are
described.

A description of womens position, honour and rights in society is given in terms of her expected
behaviour. The inconsistencies in Medeas behaviour are also evaluated as evidence for the
inconsistencies in society. This will demonstrate that if the laws governing womens 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.

Medeas 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.

The aim of this chapter is to establish whether Medea was portrayed as a victim or a perpetrator.
7
CHAPTER SEVEN: Justifiable Vengeance

In order to understand if Medeas 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.

A summary of the overall findings is supplied.
CHAPTER TWO: Overview of the Literature
Aim
The large amount of literature which has been dedicated to Euripides Medea emphasizes the
impact that this play has had on modern critics. The Medea has been analysed in a number of
different ways. This chapter supplies a review of the secondary literature. Different theories are
assessed according to their contribution and relevance to the current topic, that is, the function of
Euripides portrayal of Medea.
The approaches are categorised as philological, literary, philosophical, socio-historical and
feminist.
The Philological Approach

One of the earliest methods of interpretation is the Philological Approach, which entailed the
grammatical and historical explanation of words and phrases within a text. In the sense relative
to this study, the philological approach has to do with the study of literary texts (Baldick: 191f),
by explaining words, phrases and customs. An example of this type of analysis, is in Headlams
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
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

Zeitlins belief (pp.344-348) is that the male was assumed to be the main character study and
identity to be explored. Aristotle and other ancient critics never considered female characters to
be central figures and concentrated on the male subject as the main character to be analysed. This
shows that even when strong women were portrayed to reveal the subordinate position of women,
their plight was never seen as the objective. Women were rather there to highlight the male
struggle with a powerful woman, and how this would threaten his claim to power, knowledge and
dominance. Women may have held important dramatic parts, but functionally their roles were to
emphasise the hypothetical analysis of the male position and ego. Womens 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 Jasons immoral behaviour. In her own right, she cannot represent women; she is
only there to emphasise negative male characteristics.
10
Lattimore (1958: 105-109) writes that where Aeschylus created formalised characters and
grandiose speeches, and Sophocles created idealised personalities, Euripides drama moved
closer towards realism. Even though he did not deviate too far from the conventional dramatics of
tragedy by employing divine intervention and heroic incidents, his men and women were more
similar to real people. Jason in the Medea was not a heroic or noble character but rather an
arrogant and xenophobic Greek aristocrat looking to better his present unfavourable situation
through marriage. Euripides represented these mythological heroes as involved in a domestic
conflict which would have related closely to the lives of his audience.
Lattimore feels that Medea was deceitful by nature. He pictures her as manipulative and
ambitious and only feigning her expressions of motherly-love. The play is then a realistic drama
about a manipulative and powerful woman avenging the wrong done to her by her irresponsible
and negligent husband.
Lattimore also finds Medea to be an inconsistent character. He describes the end when Medea
escaped:
One thing or the other, we might say; either Medea is a wronged, revengeful
wife making a planned getaway, in which case we want a cloak and a hood
and a small boat, or she is the goddess who married a mortal, saying farewell
and departing from actuality to the end of the earth, to the Ocean, or clean out
of our human world, back where she came from and where she belongs. Then
the dragon chariot would be appropriate. When it is used as a taxi to get from
Corinth to Athens, it is preposterous.
(Lattimore 1958: 108)
He argues that Euripides Medea is the beginning of the fragmentation of tragedy, as the
characters are more similar to ordinary people but are inconsistent and less thoroughly realised.
March (pp. 35-43) describes Euripides Medea as an innovative revenge plot where Medea
deliberately kills her own children. In earlier versions of the myth there were no indications that
Medea killed her children intentionally or at all. Eumelos represented the children as having been
accidentally killed by Medea when she was trying to make them immortal, and Kreophilos had
the Corinthians kill her children.
11
March finds this new aspect to the myth of Medea to have had two compelling dramatic effects.
The first consequence was on the structure of the play as a result of the important theme of the
parent-child relationship. The drama is set in motion when Jason wants to father new legitimate
children; he thus abandons Medea and her sons for a younger Greek princess. Continuing the
theme, Creon wants to protect his daughter and so plans to exile Medea. The drama ends in
tragedy when Medea kills Creon and his daughter and then sacrifices her own children as an
ultimate revenge against Jason.
The second effect was very important as it was seen to influence the character of Medea herself.
In traditional myth, Medea has been portrayed as a savage sorceress, whereas in this play she is
represented as a very human character in a difficult situation. Her maternal and womanly role is
emphasised whereas her witchcraft is played down. Jasons 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, Medeas husband, betrays her to marry another woman. To avenge this injustice, Medea
kills her own children, thereby drawing the neglect of ones 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
Conachers (pp. 121-124) overall belief is that the driving force of the play is Medeas own
intense passion. He argues that there is honesty in Medeas open display of love and passion
which turns to hate and violence when she is treated disloyally. The tragic events follow from
Medeas character and her inner struggle to make a painful decision.
Conacher also feels that Euripides is sympathetic towards Medeas plight, and therefore probably
toward women and foreigners in general. Jason is portrayed as an arrogant and xenophobic
Greek, which highlights Medeas 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 womans whole soul is
dominated by a lust for vengeance that overpowers even maternal love ...
(Grube: 147)
The quotation expresses Grubes 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 Medeas 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 Medeas
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 Medeas complaint is minimised to mere sexual jealousy of Jason. He is portrayed
as a stereotypical contemporary male Athenian, who assumed that the sexual compulsions of all
13
women controlled their emotions and actions. In assuming this, Jason is degrading Medeas 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 partneran 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
Jasons negligence and mistreatment to being the architect of his complete destruction. Medea
embodies the masculine, heroic identity which Jason was supposed to personify.
The heroic and masculine qualities of Medea, in conjunction with her extreme passion and
violence, might have been ascribed to her barbarianism, the fact that she was a Colchian
sorceress. Medea seems to embody complete otherness. She is a foreign woman set in the
heroic past, and furthermore she is a sorceress. Her extreme behaviour may have been interpreted
in this way. Despite all of these aspects defining her as different, sympathy may have been found
for this friendless woman who was treated terribly in a foreign land. Euripides may have shown
the plight of someone so isolated in order to display the point of view of the other.
Allan (pp. 47-51) writes that Medea is an intelligent and articulate character; she is presented to
an audience and society who do not believe women to be capable of such qualities. Euripides
creates a female character who is a non-Greek sorceress in a foreign land. He utilises a character
from a distant land and from a distant time so that he can highlight the contemporary situation of
Athenian women in a manner which is not too personal, but still relevant.
14
Allan points out that recent interpretation surmises that Ancient Greek tragedy sets up situations
to highlight male dilemmas and responses to difficult circumstances. Jason is then an example of
a weak man who has left his wife unattended. It would have been a warning to other men not to
leave women unsupervised, and an example of how not to behave. Allan futher states that Jason
independently decides to leave his wife, and the main focus of the play is how Medea reacts to
her mistreatment. He explains how the play emphasises Medeas female plight and how her
struggle would not have been unfamiliar to the more modern and ordinary Greek woman.
Furthermore, the play highlights the sometimes desperate position of women in ancient Greek
society, rather than supporting the traditional role prescribed to women. It was Jason who
abandoned his marriage and broke his oath, whereas Medea is passionately devoted to her
husband.
Medea is also a foreigner and, according to Allan (p. 67f), this allows Euripides to present Medea
not only as a strange and violent barbarian, but also as a mother and wife with needs recognisable
to contemporary Greek women. By allowing these opposing characteristics to reside in one
character, Euripides challenges the Greek notions of essential difference between barbarians and
Greeks.
Jason is portrayed as an arrogant Greek man who sees his Greek-ness as superior to her
barbarianism. He not only insults her ethnicity but acts in the most deplorable way by rejecting
their marriage vows and breaking his oath to her. He proves himself to be the lowest of men,
which contradicts his speech concerning his racial superiority.
The play shows the point of view of a foreign woman in a hostile world who is at the mercy of
others and whose own husband abandons her.
According to Vellacott (1975: 82), Euripides is aware that he was in a patriarchal society
dedicated to the dominance of men. The societal situation was practically unchangeable and most
people were not concerned about embedded injustices within the community.
As a result, Euripides tries to show the eternal tension between men and women and the possible
tragic circumstances of life in general. He achieves this by creating dramatic heroines, but bases
his male characters on contemporary male Athenian citizens. Medea is a barbarian sorceress and
15
Jason a Greek. When she uses her powers and passion to help Jason, her passionate aggression is
acceptable, as she is acting as a faithful wife, but when it makes her resent his infidelity, it is seen
as savage excess (Vellacott 1975: 106).
Medea, as a foreign woman from the heroic era could do things that a contemporary woman
could not do. She is a powerful woman who defeats the husband who treated her abominably.
She is then able to be a champion of oppressed women because she is in no way ordinary, but is
rather an extraordinary woman in a male-centric era of heroes (Vellacott 1975: 106).
Schlesinger (pp. 70-73) makes an important point in that women have two sides to themselves. In
patriarchal society they have to suppress their inner strength and intelligence in order to be
thought of as good women. When Medea is betrayed, Jason destroys the good wife and mother
within Medea and all that is left is her inner strength and resolve. Being a good and loyal wife
does not work for Medea once she is abandoned. This then unleashes the bad wife inside her.
Schlesinger puts forward the concept of two parts or personalities in Euripides Medea. Her
nature is divided and conflicted between killing and saving her own children. One part of her is
controlled by her emotions which govern the loving woman who feels strong maternal love for
her children. The other side is her purpose, her rationale, which drives her to seek cold and wellthought out revenge against Jason, by killing her children.
Medea has a psychological struggle within herself. Schlesinger argues that it is in Medeas 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.
Medeas rationale or purpose is achieved and she upholds her honour and self-worth by bringing
her enemy to ruin. But in carrying out this plan, she annihilates her own spirit or the human
element in herself. The powerful semi-divine Medea then ultimately triumphs, but the woman
and mother is destroyed with her children.
16
Euripides uses an artistic and mythological medium to demonstrate the arrogance of Greek men
and the powerlessness of women. He uses a traditionally bad woman, a sorceress and slayer of
her own children, to be the avenger of neglected women.
The more traditional version of this approach is too limited to be of use for this study. However,
the psychological approach is valuable, as it partly achieves an understanding of Medeas
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 womans
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 womans essential
nature and how she should behave. Female characters in tragedy generally broke the definition of
womens 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 mans 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 ones status intact. This
shows the extent of the gamble of marriage. Women had an even worse situation, expressed by
Medea in Euripides play. The woman first had to provide a large amount of money for a dowry
and then she was placed as a possession in the house of a relatively unknown man. The man
would have made most of her decisions and she would have been largely under his control and
organisation.
17
Medea was without a guardian and was therefore in charge of making her own important
decisions. She had to make her own plans and see to their fulfilment, as she had to look after
herself. Having been abandoned by the person who was supposed to protect and support her,
Medea had to become her own protector and avenger. This led to her dilemma: her unrelenting
masculine desire for vengeance as opposed to her maternal instincts towards her children.
Smith (pp. 52-61) discusses Walter Zurchers view that the character of Medea in Euripides play
Medea, is inconsistent and lacking in individuality in three main areas. Firstly, he finds that
Medeas 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 Medeas character. And thirdly, Zurcher
states that Medeas 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 Medeas 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 Medeas revenge would not be complete
unless she killed the children herself. This is useful to Medea because it gives her the motivation
which she needs to follow through with her intentions. She uses the rationale to convince herself
to kill her children before they can be more brutally killed by enemies. The point is that she
intends on killing them anyway, and this rationalisation makes it easier for her as a mother.
To the question of Medea lacking individuality, Smith responds by saying that Medea is both a
foreigner and a woman but her anger stems from the way she has been treated by Jason. She is no
ordinary woman, as she reacts as very few women would. The fact that she is a foreigner helps to
reveal her empirical nature, as all people are shaped by their culture, class and gender. Her nurse
18
states that she becomes angry as upper class people do. These factors do not strip her of her
individuality, because she is able to think independently. She also reacts emotionally but acts
calmly and with a devised strategy. She is able to control her emotions and put into action a
distinct and personal plan.
The Socio-Historical Approach

These approaches focus on the social structure of ancient Greece. The position of men, women,
children and foreigners is important for an understanding of the underlying tensions of Euripides
Medea. The theme of women and their position within fifth century B.C.E. Greek society has
been of central focus for many academics and analysts. The Medea was written in a strict,
patriarchal era and the portrayal of Medea seems to be at odds with this socio-historical structure.
Women, especially foreign women, lacked rights, freedom and power, which would have left
them in a difficult position if they found themselves without a male protector. The figure of
Medea is in no way helpless and her anger and vengeance may have been seen as a reaction
against the prescribed roles of women within the social structure.
Cohan (pp. 135-142) emphasises the separation and seclusion of women. He says that women
were most certainly separated from men and did not work in the public sphere, but he disagrees
with some classicists who thought women to be secluded and isolated.
Aristophanes and Euripides are seen as the two ancient Greek poets who seem to have had the
most interest in women and their status. Cohan writes that much evidence from vase paintings
and extracts from ancient writings show that women were able to leave the house for a number of
different reasons. There is evidence that they were, for example, able to fetch water, go to the
market and act as midwives. The ideal of what a woman should be was then different from how
things really were. Husbands knew that their wives left the house but they didnt want to know
about it or think that they did. The difference then, was how men wanted their wives to beand
how they feared they actually were.
Euripides constructs extreme situations for maximum effect to emphasise womens lack of
freedom and independence, and male distrust and dislike of them
19
Cohans attempt to make womens 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 others 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 Medeas
inner self is divided between a masculine heroic self and a maternal, feminine self. Her honourorientated and characteristically unfeminine side wins when she proactively but brutally makes
her final decision. She follows through with her ultimate goal of vengeance and kills her own
children.
This makes Medea the most loathsome and fearsome type of woman. She destroys her husband
and kills her children. These actions are the absolute reversal of her prescribed role as a woman.
Williamson (pp. 16-20) describes how the character of Medea in Euripidess 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
Medeas 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 Jasons
infidelity and neglect. Medeas place in the house is no longer legitimate. The second deviation is
that Medea and Jason have made oaths in their marriage vows as if they are equals. Jason pledges
to her in a way that would have been more customary to the father of his bride or as an agreement
with another man. These factors indicate the unique quality of Medeas 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 womens spheres into inside and
outside in ancient Greece led to the confinement and oppression of women. The outside arena
was where men would learn new skills and accomplish themselves. Women were excluded and
became known as everything that was untrustworthy, irrational and unpredictable. Men used this
caricature as an excuse to keep women secluded and out of the public domain. Later they
21
developed the justification that women had equal, but different power which they could exert
within their own houses.
In modern times, the feminist movement sought to release western culture from this polarisation.
In patriarchal societies, women have to conform to the male ideal of how a woman should be;
they have been submissive and given up their own identities, ultimately leading to unbalanced,
male-centric states.
Des Bouvrie (p. 5) explains how the control of women was instituted in four different ways. The
first practice was through Socialisation, by defining how respectable women should act.
Another way was through Adult Functions, this was the way in which men and women were
separated socially by their different gender-specific duties. Women did not participate in the
political sphere or the polis. They were rather involved in home management. The third means
was Physical Organisation of Space. This was achieved by dividing physical space between
females and males. The dark indoors area of the house was womens space whereas the light
outdoors area of the city and countryside was the mens 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 mens 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 womens 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 womens past that is not represented as an ideal
woman defined by a patriarchal society.
22
This method of interpretation is useful, as Medea is represented as both a role model and as a
heroine in the face of male suppression. This aspect will be useful for Chapter Eight where
Medea is evaluated as an unlikely heroic figure.
Conclusion
Having evaluated various approaches to the character of Medea, the methodology used for this
study will now be discussed in the next chapter. The Philological and Literary methods have
limited use in that they supply background information about the literary, cultural and historical
context. The psychological element of the literary approaches is of more interest, as some of the
methods that I will apply are governed by a psychological position. But there will be more focus
on how the actions of Medea and Jason may reflect psychological impulses of some people in
society. The Philosophical method is useful in exploring Euripides characterisation of Medea as
someone who was innately violent and inescapably bound to her emotions. The morality of the
act of destroying her children and husband is the key to her status as a hero or a villain. This
approach will be used in order to determine if Medea was represented as a victim of her
circumstances, an example of a dangerous woman who should be suppressed, or merely a symbol
of the inescapable conflict between men and women.
The approach which is most useful in this study is the socio-historic method. I will be analysing
the Medea using the socio-historic method, largely in Chapters Four and Five where the plight of
the foreign woman is addressed. The new feminist literature is also referred to, because Medea,
as an icon of female liberation, lends weight to Euripides attempt to show the suppression of
women in a sympathetic light.
Some approaches not covered yet in the secondary literature, are applied to the analysis of
Medeas 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
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 Lvi-Strausss 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 Freuds 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 ones father would be released in the form of
slaying an attacking predator. Freud called this phenomenon displacement (Brown: 112).
24
He explains that dreams and myths are the fulfilment of wishes that have been repressed or
disguised and are therefore an outlet for forbidden desires (Morford & Lenardon: 7). To release
oneself from anxiety and to secure a night of sleep, symbolic projection of anxieties and wishes
are represented through myth (Morford & Lenardon: 7). Taboos can then be violated using
symbols and symbolic figures (Harris & Platzner: 44). Examples such as the figures of Medusa
and the sphinx represent frightening interpretations of the feminine and thus show displaced
antagonism towards ones mother.
These taboos or societal restrictions are often classed in opposition to ones 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 persons nature is described as the id by Freud. It is one part of
the psyches totality and represents a persons impulses and desire for pleasure. It could be
classified as the part of ones 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 ones 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. Medeas 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 Medeas 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 womans expected behaviour.
Freud also developed a theory of the domestic psychodrama as an extension of his theory of
myths and the human psyche. He claimed that certain aspects of myths related to family rivalry
25
and disturbance due to inequality of members in the family. Greek family life and family conflict
were thus expressed in tragic myths. This is indicated in turbulent family sagas such as that of
Clytemnestra and Agamemnon and that of Laius, Jocasta and Oedipus. These were dramatic
representations of the power struggle realised in the general conflict within families (Harris &
Platzner: 44f). The myth of Jason and Medea is then another context in which family conflict is
mediated. It expresses the common circumstance of adultery and abandonment of a wife or lover.
The Medea also serves as a dramatic representation of the hurt and anger of a woman who has
been left for a new wife.
The Jungian Approach

Similar to Freuds 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 Jungs 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 peoples lives, such as birth, death, sexual maturation and family
26
rivalry seem to be important to all people and cultures. They recur in myths in many different
ethnic groups as a result of universal significance. Jung called this concept the collective
unconscious. The realisation that archetypes are found in all ethnic groups or that some specific
motifs are shared by a given culture (Harris & Platzner: 47).
Archetypes, such as the good wife, the bad woman, the hero and foreign concubine can be
applied to the Medea, as Medea encompassed all of them. She was a good wife in that she
supported Jason in all his endeavours; when she was abandoned, Jason redefined her as a bad
woman because of her ruthless violence. She was also a foreign concubine, an archetype which
Euripides could have used to portray a dangerous type of woman. On the other hand she might
have represented a hero in that she contested her role of a suppressed and submissive wife.
Jung also devised the theory of the anima and the animus as representatives of the female and
male principles in the psyche. The anima signifies feminine wisdom and creativity and the
animus corresponds to the masculine qualities in the mind (Harris & Platzner: 48). He said that if
a psyche is to be healthy, the anima and animus must be in balance with each other. The moment
one has an imbalance between these two aspects of the psyche, it leads to distorted images.
Negative experiences or prejudices could then lead to a distortion in this balance of anima and
animus. In myth, this can be observed by representational figures of the human psyche. For
example, male negative feelings towards women, or an imbalanced anima, would be depicted
through figures such as the fearsome and horrible Medusa and the Furies. A distorted animus in
women would have resulted in women seeing men as rapists or tyrants such as Hades in his
attack on Persephone. A harmonious psyche, where a person has connected with both their anima
and animus, would be represented by figures such as Odysseus and Penelope in their marital
union (Harris & Platzner: 48).
In this sense, Jason represents a distorted anima in some men who cannot relate to women and
who refuse to accept the feminine aspect of their psyche. For Jason it proved disastrous. His lack
of ability to empathise with Medea shows the intrinsic misunderstanding between men and
women that can ultimately lead to tragedy. Conversely, Medea embraced her animus and opted
for a masculine form of honour and retribution when wronged as Jasons wife.
27
The shadow was another term devised by Jung which describes the negative side of a persons
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 Zeuss lustful characteristics and Heras jealousy and cruelty. In order to combat ones
shadow, a person must delve into ones subconscious to achieve psychological development and
maturation, which Jung called individuation. In Greek myth, the heros 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 persons psychological development towards individuation
(Harris & Platzner: 48). A mythological journey into the Underworld represents an exploration of
ones unconscious.
The shadow signifies the dark side of Medeas 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 Lvi-Strauss Structuralism

Claude Lvi-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 minds 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, Lvi-Strauss observes
that humans have a tendency to group most phenomena into polar opposites such as right and
left, light and dark and good and evil (Harris & Platzner: 49). The human mind also finds conflict
in the psyche between good and evil, order and human lawlessness and individual need and
communal obligation. Myth is thus seen as the reconciliation of opposites and the desire to
mitigate oppositional factors (Harris & Platzner: 49). An indication of this can be seen in the
28
mythological divine family of Zeus, where Dionysus gift of wine can bring happiness and
illness, and similarly, Aphrodites 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
persons psyche, where Apollo represents the rational and Dionysus represents the irrational.
Lvi-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, Lvi-Strauss distinguishes
four columns of elements that have common aspects. They are given numbers and read as a
musical score:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Overrating of blood relations

Underrating of blood relations
Killing of monsters
Names expressive of physical and moral handicaps
1. Overrating of
Blood Relations
2. Underrating of
Blood Relations
Cadmus looks for

his sister Europa
3. Killing of
Monsters
4. Names
expressive of
physical and moral
handicaps
Cadmus kills the

serpent
The Spartoi kill each
other
Oedipus kills his
father
Laius ( = left-sided)
son of Labdacus (=
lame)
Oedipus kills the
Sphinx
Oedipus marries his

mother Jocasta
Oedipus (= swellfoot)
Eteocles kills his
brother Polynices
Antigone buries her

brother, Polynices,
despite the kings
prohibition
Thus horizontally the themes of the myths would develop and vertically the relationship of the
themes could be compared and contrasted (Morford & Lenardon: 15).
29
This structure is used in Chapter Eight to describe the balance and opposition within Euripides
Medea. Specific events of the tragedy are recorded and set in opposition to each other. These are:
the destruction of old family relations with the destruction of new family relations, and
patriarchal subordination or exploitation of matriarchal systems with matriarchal subordination or
exploitation of patriarchal systems. In this way, the oppositional elements are shown to mitigate
conflict by bringing harmony to a tumultuous situation.
The Feminist Approach

The final two approaches of myth analysis which are used, are: the feminist approach of the Great
Goddess conveyed by Harris & Platzner in their fifth chapter, and the Jungian archetypal hero
described in Chapter Ten.
The feminist theory involves an older matriarchal goddess who was eventually succeeded and
suppressed by the more recent patriarchal system of sky gods and archetypal hero. Therefore
myths can be deconstructed as reflecting an emerging patriarchal society and the suppression of
traditional matriarchal organizations (Harris & Platzner: 150).
Archaeological findings have brought evidence of a powerful creator goddess worshiped all over
Europe and the Mediterranean from the Palaeolithic era to the Bronze Age. In a Jungian sense
this universal or collective figure of a powerful mother goddess has become archetypically
known as the Great Goddess. Similar figures have been found in mythology all over the world;
for example, the Ancient Greeks believed in Gaia, the Egyptians worshipped Isis, and the
Sumerians worshipped Inanna (Harris & Platzner: 146).
The Great Goddesss powers were all-encompassing in an eternal life cycle. She possessed the
triple functions of life, death and rebirth and assumed three forms of a woman, that of the
maiden, mother and old crone. In this matriarchal environment, everything in the world was
connected because the Great Goddess combined heaven, earth and the underworld (Harris &
Platzner: 147).
One of the most important symbols of the Great Goddess was the serpent as it could manoeuvre
underground and over the surface. The serpent, in common with the goddess, was thought to be
30
familiar with the mysteries of the underworld and the secrets of life and its eternal cycle (Harris
& Platzner: 147).
Over the years, the matriarchal culture in Europe and the Mediterranean changed to a patriarchal
society with male sky gods. The cyclic concept of natural progression in the matriarchy, was
substituted for a new linear concept of time, and a system of dualismgood 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 Medeas 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. Medeas patron goddess was Hecate. At one point in
the tragedy she is called a Fury by the chorus; she is also a mistress of magic and potions.
31
As a young seductress, Medea represents the frightening mysteries within women. These
passions intimidated men in their attempt to control and subdue women, but Medea was a
reminder that womens dormant fervour could at any moment emerge.
The Hero as an Archetype

The prevalent archetype in the new patriarchal system of Ancient Greece, was the Hero. There
was a change from a cyclical to a linear system, which made death final and terrible. Thus
personal achievement and transcendence became necessary (Harris & Platzner: 151). Because life
was sees as linear, in that people were born and they died, there was no linking factor to the
environment. Each persons 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 womans function within the house. Instead she is
a powerful representation of the Great Goddess who, in this instance, defeats the hero.
32
Euripides may have been expressing the female archetype as threat, as the emasculating goddess
whose allure could manipulate men. This fear of womens 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 womens 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 Medeas 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 womens lack of
intelligence and capability, or he could have been emphasising the danger of this type of women
to Greek society.
33

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 Medeas 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 Jungs 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. Jungs 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 peoples understanding of the differences between men and
women. Sex has been described as the genetic differentiation between males and females due to
different hormones and the XX chromosomes of women and the XY chromosomes of men.
Differences between the sexes are evident, but over the years socialisation has stereotyped
females and males into genders. This is part of culture. It is the belief and value systems which
34
ascribe certain socially constructed attributes to men and women, which are not biologically
specific.
In Western history, men have always been accepted as the dominant sex. They mark the standard
and the norm, whereas women have been the subordinate and the other (Thorne et al.: 17).
This dominance of men has been built into the economic, social, political and legal structures of
western civilisation over thousands of years (Thorne & Henley: 15).
Consequently, women have never held a prominent position in history and the history of
Mankind has been exactly what the term unintentionally represents. Over the years, the deeds,
careers and events of men have been recorded and women have been almost entirely excluded. In
ancient Greece this was no exception as women were subordinated by men; their voices and
opinions were silenced.
Male and Female in Greek Thought and Society

Ancient Greek women were seen as peripheral to the male-centric society as they were assumed
to be fundamentally lesser beings. This concept was used as justification to keep women within
the limits of their confined domains. The philosopher Aristotle argues in favour of this
misogynistic theory when he writes how men are essentially superior to women. He uses this for
the basis of the argument that it was reasonable for men to control the lives of women:
...

, ' .

w.
(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 Hesiods Theogony, women
35
appeared late in the world as an evil thing fashioned by Zeus to punish men. He believes that
women are wicked beings that bring toil and suffering to men (Meagher: 115).
' ,
... ,
[ ,]
, ,
, . ...
'
,
.
(Hes. Th. 585-602)
When he had made the lovely curse [Pandora], the price for the
blessing of fire ... From her comes all the race of womankind, the
deadly female race and tribe of wives who live with mortal men
and bring them harm, no help to them in dreadful poverty but ready
enough to share with them in wealth women are bad for men,
and they conspire in wrong, and Zeus the Thunderer made it so.
[Transl. Wender]
Because of societys pejorative conception of the feminine, ancient Greek women had a status no
higher than that of a slave or an animal. The household included the land, slaves, animals and
women which all belonged to the husband or father of the house. Women were regarded as
possessions, similar to the status of livestock. Meagher gives examples from ancient literature to
emphasise this point. In the Iliad, he points out that men in battle taunted their opponents by
calling each other beast or woman (Meagher: 115). For example Hektor said to Diomedes,
insulting him as a form lower than men:
'
...
'
.
(Hom. Il. 8. 163-164)
But now they will disgrace you, who are no better than a woman.
Down with you, you poor doll.
[Transl. Lattimore: 1951]
This conception of female inferiority was an echo of bestial lowliness, where in a similar
provocation, Achilles calls Hektor a dog:
36

(Hom. Il. 22. 345)
No more entreating of me, you dog, by knees or parents.

Calling a man either a woman or a beast was an offence used to taunt opponents. Women were
thus regarded as ineffectual beings of lower status than men, demonstrating a misogynistic
attitude that rendered women powerless in ancient Greek society.
As a result of negative typecasting, women were regarded as second-class citizens who held little
or no power in ancient Greek society. Pomeroy (chapters IV-VI) provides an overall explanation
of womens position in Ancient Greece in terms of marriage, education and work. She shows that
women had no control over their own lives and were seen as the possessions of their father and
later their husbands. Supporting this, Meagher (p.115) notes that a feminine mortal child
bearer and wife were common phrases used to denote women in ancient Greece. This indicates
that womens primary role was to marry so that they might bear legitimate, and preferably male,
children. They had no choice of career, and education and politics were reserved for men,
ensuring female reliance on men (Pomeroy: 71f).
Fathers, husbands and sons were generally womens only potential to gain status or recognition
(Sancisi-Weerdenburg: 27). Having little opportunity for independent power or public distinction,
marriage was of the utmost importance (Meagher: 117). Ancient Greek womans only means to
achieve financial support and societal stability was through marriage.
As women were not entitled to an independent career, marriage was their only means of survival.
Women were passed from the care of their fathers to that of their husband in a marriage generally
arranged by the families of the bride and groom. In addition, a wife was expected to support her
husband and avoid questioning his authority. She was dependent on him, as he was the protector
and provider of the family, whereas she was merely a part of the household. Evidence of this
dependence can be derived from Euripides Medea, in the opening speech, where the nurse says:
...

'
,
37
.
(E. Med. 11-15)
an exile who has won a warm welcome from her new fellow citizens
and who seeks to please her husband in all she does. This is what keeps a
marriage intact more than anything, when a husband can count on complete
support from his wife.
[Transl. Davie]
A womans role was thus as wife and mother. This indicates another striking feature of female
obscurity, as women had to uphold an image of discreet domesticity. In ancient Greece, men
were of the outside world. Their lives were of the overt, the official and the real. Women had
to remain inside and thus their world was of concealment (Goff: 2). They were prescribed a role
of the quiet, virtuous wife to which they had to comply.
The house was not a place for open discussion and opinion. The city on the other hand, which
was the public sphere of the city, presented opportunities for men to express their worth and
assert themselves in whichever field they chose. Aristotle saw the public space as the place where
men could develop their personal virtues (Murphy: 89). The domestic area of the household, was
the limited domain of women. Their realm held a position of less worth than that of the outside
world of men (Murphy: 89).
Only men would therefore have been classified as significant citizens with voices. As a result of
this thinking, very little was written by women; they were anonymous and silent; their voices
were not thought to be important and were therefore never heard (Meagher: 117). Good women
would have been discreet, quiet and unquestioning of the men in their lives.
In antiquity, Simonides of Amorgos wrote a satire on women, reemphasising the standard feeling
of misogyny. He states that most women were despicable and were redeemable by only one type
of good woman. This admirable type of woman was seen as scarce: the compliant, submissive
woman was often the only type deemed worthy of praise (Lefkowitz: 68).
This prototype of how good and chaste women should behave is confirmed by other ancient
Greek writers. Thucydides, a historian who thought himself to be objective, almost completely
omitted women from his history but wrote his opinion of them and their roles:
38
...
,
, ,
.

'
.
(Thu. Hist. 2.45. 2)
If I also must say something about a wifes virtue to those of you who
will now be widows, I will state it in brief exhortation. Your reputation
is glorious if you do not prove inferior to your own nature and if there
is the least possible talk about you among men, whether in praise or blame.
[Transl. Fantham et al.]
Similarly, Plutarch wrote later, in the first century C.E. that he disagreed with Thucydides and
rather praised women if they were virtuous. Nevertheless, by trying to emphasise his admiration
for good women, he essentially stressed a similar point to that of Thucydides in his Advice to the
Bride and Groom:
...

, .
(Plu. Mor II.139c. 3-5)
... a virtuous woman ought to be most visible in her husband's
company, and to stay in the house and hide herself when he is away.
[Transl. Babbitt]
In Plutarchs Consolatio ad Uxorem, a consolatory speech he wrote to his wife when their
daughter died, he indicates what he finds admirable in a woman:
... ,

,

,
,
.
(Plu.
Mor VII. 609a. 1-9)
But this was no surprise to me, that you, who have never decked yourself
out at the theatre or procession, but have regarded extravagance as useless
even for amusements, should have preserved in the hour of sadness the
blameless simplicity of your ways; for not only "in Bacchic riot" must the
virtuous woman remain uncorrupted; but she must hold that the tempest
and tumult of her emotion in grief requires continence no less, a continence
39
that does not resist maternal affection, as the multitude believe, but the
licentiousness of the mind.
[Transl. De Lacy & Einarson]
This shows that women were generally expected to be discreet, modest and even hidden.
Respectable women would have had to remain silent and in the shadow of men (Fantham et al:
79). If a woman was not an ideal image of chastity and modesty it was deemed unspeakable and
was then not supposed to be acknowledged in the open and official world, but was kept in the
house in secret (Goff: 2). Medea is then seen as a deviation from what was expected, emphasised
when the nurse says:

.
(E. Med. 44-45)
She is no ordinary woman; no one making an enemy of her will win
an easy victory, take it from me.
[Transl. Davie]
Reiterating the same concept of good and bad women, a character from a later fourth-century
comedy by Eubulus, states that Alcestis and Penelope were archetypical good women. Penelope
was the virtuous and intelligent wife who remained faithful to her husband, Odysseus, for twenty
years. She was modest and discreet and used her wisdom to fend off her suitors, so as to keep her
marriage vows intact (Lefkowitz: 69).
Alcestis made the decision to die for her husband, showing the ultimate virtue of a woman
placing her husbands life above her own in importance. In Euripides Andromache, Andromache
says that she raised her husbands illegitimate children as her own so that she could be a good
and virtuous wife who pleased her husband (Lefkowitz: 69). This shows that a woman was
defined by how she treated her husband and how well she accepted the role to which she had
been consigned.
These examples highlight the ancient Greek archetype of virtuous women. It is then no surprise
that Medea became known as a notorious witch once she killed her own children and destroyed
her husbands new wife and father-in-law. When she refused to accept Jasons ill-treatment and
abandonment, she made the decision to destroy her husband and would have gone against the
very definition of a virtuous woman described by Lefkowitz (p. 68).
40
In terms of Jungs archetypal myths (Harris & Platzner: 45), Medea could be classified as a bad
woman. She could be seen as the powerful sorceress and the fanatical, violent wife of a Greek
hero. A strong woman would be a threat to mens authority and thus seen as dangerous. An
example can be seen where Creon says of Medea:
', ,
' .

,
.
(E. Med. 282-286)
I fear youthere is no need of prevarication herein case you do
some irreparable harm to my daughter. Any number of things make
me afraid of this. You are a sorceress and a woman who is no
stranger to dark knowledge.
[Transl. Davie]
This type of reasoning was seen as a justification for womens powerless position. Men assumed
women to be incapable of logical and productive thought and therefore relegated them to the
protection and control of men. If they were good women, they would contentedly submit to
subjugation, and if they were bad women they needed to be controlled by men lest they became
a danger to society.
Euripides Reveals the Paradoxes and Anomalies of Greek Social Structure

Marriage
Womens lack of power over their own lives meant that a good marriage was essential in order to
have an enjoyable life. Contentment could almost be completely attributed to an agreeable
husband as their lack of freedom and legal rights meant divorce would leave them either alone, or
back in the care of their fathers.
Medea speaks of how women are lucky if they married a good husband; they could then have an
enviable life. Unfortunate women, such as herself, married bad men and were thus doomed to
lead miserable existences. This speech may have hit a nerve with some of the women in the
audience who would have known how true this statement could be:
'
'
'
41

' ' .
' ,

'
' .
'
, ,
.
'
,

, .
(E. Med. 228-243)
Of all creatures that have life and reason we women are the most
miserable of specimens! In the first place, at great expense we must
buy a husband, taking a master to play the tyrant with our bodies (this
is an injustice that crowns the other). And here lies the crucial issue
for us, whether we get a good man or a bad. For divorce brings disgrace
on a woman and in the interval she cannot refuse her husband. Once she
finds herself among customs and laws that are unfamiliar, a woman
must turn prophet to know what sort of man she will be dealing with as
husbandnot information gained at home. Now if we manage this task
successfully and share our house with a husband who finds marriage a
yoke he bears with ease, our lives are to be envied. But if not, wed be better
off dead.
[Transl. Davie]
Concerning her position as wife, Medea further emphasises the freedom men have in comparison
to the claustrophobic situation of women confined to their homes. Men could leave the house,
some even entered relationships with other women such as concubines, whereas womens entire
focus revolved around their husbands and their households:
', ,

[ ' ]
' .
'
' , ,
'
' .
(E. Med. 244-251)
When a man becomes dissatisfied with married life, he goes outdoors
and finds relief from his frustrations. But we [women] are bound to love
one partner and look no further. They say we live sheltered lives in the
42
home, free from danger, while they wield their spears in battlewhat
fools they are! I would rather face the enemy three times over than bear a
child once.
[Transl. Davie]
Medea defies the perception that womens lives are easier and more carefree, emphasising mens
freedom in relation to womens imposed confinement to the house. Euripides thus challenges the
concept that all women are content and happy with their lot. He uses Medea as a mouthpiece to
show marriage from a womans point of view.
The Importance of Love to a Woman

Furthermore, Medea speaks of the importance of love to a woman. Her world is the house and her
main role is as a wife. Therefore love is important, as it is the main pleasure a woman gains from
life. Medeas love for her husband is all-consuming and she devotes herself to Jason. Love is a
central priority in her world of concealment and secrecy.
In Euripides Hippolytus, the concentration is on Theseus young bride Phaedra. Phaedra was
driven by Aphrodite to fall in love with her own step-son, Hippolytus. Angered by Hippolytus for
insulting her, Aphrodite punished him by making his stepmother fall in love with him. This
functioned as a punishment, because when Hippolytus rejected Phaedra, she killed herself and
posthumously accused him, in a letter, of raping her. Ultimately this led to his destruction at the
hands of his own father for his supposed rape of his stepmother.
The play demonstrates the dilemma of a woman who falls in love with the wrong man. Phaedra
did not want to love a man out of wedlock, and thus saw her condition as an unspeakable disease.
So successful was her socialisation, that she would rather have died than taint her honourable
name as a virtuous woman:
' ,
' ' .
, ...
...
.
', '
, ,
( ) .

' .
43
' ,
' ' ,
...
... ' , ,
' ' ,

(E. Hipp. 392- 394, 398-407, 419-421)
When love struck me, I searched for the best way to endure the wound.
My first resolve was to let slip no word, hide what I suffered Next, I
prepared to endure this madness as I ought by mastering it with self-control.
But finally, when I could not subdue the goddess by these means, I knew
and beyond contradictionthat for me the best of all decisions was to end my
life. I would not wish my right action to rest unknown, any more than to display
my sin before the world. What I desired, and the desire itself, I knew, were both
dishonourable. I knew too, and too well, I was a womana thing hated by
everyone. I will never be known to bring dishonour on my husband or my
children.
[Transl. Vellacott]
Euripides illustrates that if women did not act according to the masculine definition of a virtuous
woman, they were regarded as depraved. If their love was forbidden by society, they had to
withhold their feelings and silence their voices, because this type of love was not endorsed and
had to be suppressed. As women, they were socialised into thinking that they were immoral
unless their lives centred on the home, where they had to maintain the unrealistic facade of
perfect, unemotional wives.
Jungs Theory of the Anima and Animus as an Explanation for the Underestimation of Women
Medeas position as a wife was seen as all-important because as a woman, her options did not
include many alternatives. She committed her life to this role which ultimately let her down
because Jason did not uphold his position as her husband. This was because his goals as a man
conflicted with the goals of Medea. Ancient Greek society was male-centric and repressed any
form of female wisdom or influence. Men did not develop the anima aspect of their psyche and
were therefore unable to relate to women in general.
In Euripides Medea, Jasons position as a man thus also fails him. In a culture where success,
individuality and status are of the utmost importance, Jason is driven to achieve a noble destiny.
His character is that of an ambitious but conventional Greek man. He has a heroic heritage, but in
essence is still trapped by the generality of his culture. He obviously feels he has to succeed as a
44
man, whereby Medea is no longer an appropriate wife to meet his expectations. His animus
dominates his personality and induces him to neglect a family that is no longer of any benefit to
him.
When Jason criticises Medeas passion, he shows his lack of sensitivity towards a woman who
has sacrificed everything for his success. He is not in touch with his anima and is unable to feel
empathy for his wife. Her driving force to help him stems from her intense love for him, therefore
Jasons insensitivity towards this love emphasises his individualistic and animus-driven focus on
his own personal success.
' ' '
' ,
' ,

.
, '
.
(E. Med. 569-576)
The fact that you women have reached the point where you think
your happiness is complete when love smiles on you but, should some
misfortune mar that love, you take all that is good and beautiful in life
and turn it into grounds for bitter hatred. There should have been some
other means for mankind to reproduce itself, without the need of a
female sex; this would rid the world of all its troubles.
[Transl. Davie]
Euripides illustrates mens lack of consideration towards women and the role women have been
prescribed. Medeas life consists of her home and her husband yet she is criticized by Jason for
upholding the very thing permissible for her to enjoy.
Euripides also shows that men were so out of touch with women that they not only lacked
understanding of women, but also underestimated them. He shows this through Jason who buys
into the generalisation of womens weakness. Lacking insight from his anima, he underestimates
Medea. He is a narrow-minded man who assumes all women to be fundamentally similar in their
makeup when he says of his new bride:
' ,
.
(E. Med. 944-945)
45
I expect Ill win her round all right, if shes a woman like all the rest!
[Transl. Davie]
It is also Jasons underestimation of Medea which is his downfall. Like most ordinary men, he
thinks women are inferior in intelligence and strength and is relieved when Medea starts acting
like a conventional woman. She says that she was wrong to accuse him of betraying her and
realises that he was acting appropriately as the head of their house. In the new submissive
impression she shows Jason, he thinks she is behaving as a woman ought, that is, passively
allowing the man to make the decisions. He says to Medea:
' ,
, ,
.
(E. Med. 911-913)
Your heart has changed for the better and now at last you have come to
see the superior way of thinking. This is how a sensible woman should
behave.
[Transl. Davie]
What Jason does not realise at the time, is that Medea is manipulating him. She pretends to have
a change of heart and says she will do Jasons bidding. In this way, Euripides challenges
conventional male thought that females are less intelligent, less able to manipulate and less
committed to their objectives.
This is supported by the Choruss challenging the popular conception that women have no skill in
creativity:

.

,
,
,
(< > )
.
(E. Med. 1081-1089)
Many times ere now I have entertained thoughts more subtle and
engaged in arguments more weighty than the female sex should pursue.
We also have a Muse, you see, who accompanies us and tutors us in
46
wisdom, not all of us but a handful you might find among many who
are not strangers to the Muse.
[Transl. Davie]
Euripides may be suggesting that men, through their lack of insight, do not understand women
and thus underestimate them. This extract also suggests that Euripides believes women to be
more intelligent and to have far greater potential than male suppression allows. In this way,
Euripides challenges the simplistic categories in which women were placed.
Euripides Challenges Female Archetypes

In essence, Euripides thus also challenges archetypal definitions of women as either bad or
good. These archetypes are unrealistic because classifications of good or bad, being too
simplistic, dont allow for circumstance to assist in the expression of character. Euripides may be
challenging the categorisation of people into types and also the conventional negative
perception of women. In the Medea, the chorus of Corinthian women protest against the bad
reputation of women:
,

, '
.
'

.
(E. Med. 410-420)
The sacred rivers flow back to their sources, the appointed order of
things is reversed. It is men whose minds are deceitful, who take the
names of their gods in vain, and women the future will honour in story
as leaders of the upright lives. Glory is ours! And the slanderous
tongues that attacked womankind shall be stilled.
[Transl. Arnott]
Through the chorus of Corinthian women, Euripides reveals that women have been suppressed by
men through their definition of bad women. To be classified as good, a woman has to fulfil
the role of passive wife who puts her husband before herself: in other words, the male definition
of female piety. A woman such as Alcestis was good because she put her husbands life before
her own; Andromache submissively tolerated her husbands infidelity. In contrast, Medea should
47
thus be classified as an archetypal bad women, but Euripides, contrary to this conventional
simplification, expresses her actions as influenced by circumstance.
From Medeas point of view, she has been ruined by a bad husband; as a foreigner who has
forsaken her old family to help her new husband, she has no alternative home where she can find
sanctuary. Thus in the case of divorce, she has no legal rights and family to return to. She gives
everything up for Jason who deserts her for a younger woman. Furthermore, he expresses no
gratitude for all she has done and displays complete insensitivity towards her plight.
Jason is self-centred and unconcerned about a mere woman and her situation. In fact, his thought
may have been similar to the average contemporary man of Euripides audience. Euripides thus
reveals the difficult position in which women were placed. They had no form of expression in a
society which admired quiet discreet womena society which deemed women bad or wicked
if they rejected their prescribed passive role.
In their oppressed state women could not speak for themselves. Euripides thus constructs a
dramatic but realistic situation of domestic upheaval and cross-gender conflict.
The Inherent Injustice in Society as an Explanation for Women Behaving Badly

The Archetype is thus challenged by Euripides; it is not necessarily women who are essentially
bad, but rather the imbalance and injustice in society which lead to womens antisocial or even
violent behaviour. With suppression comes frustration; with concealment within the perimeters of
the house, comes jaded feelings of claustrophobia; and with discriminatory and unfair treatment
come anger and possible aggression.
In the Medea this is acknowledged where the chorus of women express their resentment at their
ill treatment by men and the omission of their thoughts and opinions from history:
'
.

'
. '

.
(E. Med. 421-435)
48
The songs sung by poets of early days shall cease to harp on our
faithlessness. For Phoebus, Lord of Poetry, did not put in our minds
the lyres inspired minstrelsy; else would I have made my song ring
out against the sex of men. The rolling ages have much to tell of our
side, much, as well, of mens.
[Transl. Davie]
Medea then speaks of womens fury at being neglected in love. Although men compel women to
concentrate all of their focus on the men in their lives, Medea, shows in this speech to the chorus
that if women are thwarted by men in love, women become dangerous.

'
'

,
.
(E. Med. 263-267)
Women are timid creatures for the most part, cowards when it comes to
fighting and at the sight of steel; but wrong a woman in love and nothing
on earth has a heart more murderous.
[Transl. Davie]
Euripides therefore allows for the impression that if women are repressed and treated badly their
pent-up frustration can lead to violent behaviour. It may be his attempt at awareness of womens
perspective, given the imbalance in Greek society in favour of men. This imbalance, together
with the underestimation of women could unleash aggravated retaliation.
Conclusion
Because women could not choose their own purpose in life, they could not exercise free will and
had even less chance of personal fulfilment. One of the few experiences they could look forward
to, was love. Jasons condescending attitude towards women shows a male lack of awareness of
the position in which women were placed within patriarchal society. This lack of concern may
have been quite prevalent at the time Euripides wrote this play. There was an imbalance in
society, favouring masculine judgment, which could have led to inevitable disaster in relations
between men and women. In the myth of Jason and Medea, Jason lacks understanding of women
and denies his anima. On the other hand Medea embraces her animus and conceives the most
severe revenge for Jason. She shuts off her maternal side to achieve a victory over Jason.
49
Euripides Medea demonstrates destructive results having a strong, unconventional female in a

society of oppressed women. Jasons character is that of a conventional male in ancient Greece
who has to deal with an unorthodox wife. When this combination of conflicting objectives
transpires, there are rather dramatic consequences. Medea defies her role as a passive woman.
She expects protection and love after she has fulfilled a role of supportive wife. Instead of loyalty
to his wife, Jason chooses the individual path of an ambitious man. The Medea expresses these
incompatible expectations and reveals a suffering inherent in society born from the disparity
between male and female.

50
Introduction
A factor which complicates Medeas potential as a heroic figure is that she is foreign. She is a
woman from Colchis and thus seen as Eastern in a staunchly patriotic Greece. Euripidess
audience is Greek, making the character of Medea an outsider. This chapter addresses whether
Euripides is creating sympathy for foreign women or accentuating the dangers of Greek men
having unpredictable foreign concubines.
Some modern theories of cultural differences are specified in order to gain a general
understanding of foreign prejudice and stereotyping. How the ancient Greeks perceived the
other or non-Greeks is also assessed, using ancient sources, namely Herodotus and Aristotle, to
gain first-hand insight.
An example is taken from Euripides Troiades to demonstrate that Euripides also shows foreign
women in a sympathetic light in another of his tragedies. Extracts from Euripides Medea are
then analysed in order to determine how much Medeas status as a foreigner affected her position
in society. Finally, they are examined to understand how her otherness influenced her helpless
situation, and whether it was Euripides intention to show the potential danger of foreign women,
or rather to express the plight of this powerless minority.
Theories of Culture
In an anthropological sense, culture is a persons customs, worldview, kinship system, social
organisation and language. It is small day-to-day practices which we take for granted and see as
common sense. Individuals fit into broad, general cultures which share similar ideas,
communications and behaviours. A culture gives an individual a distinctive identity and a sense
of cohesion and membership (Scollon & Scollon: 126f).
These societal variations may differ so completely from culture to culture that their values and
general worldview may clash. This impacts individuals from different cultures when they come
into contact with each other, as their dissimilar ideologies are often in conflict. The consequence
is an awareness of distinction between two cultures. It influences how societies view themselves
and how they view other cultural groups (Scollon & Scollon: 42).
51
People assess all different behaviour through the lenses of their ideology which often gives rise to
ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is a universal tendency for any people to put its own culture and
society in a central position of priority and worth (Samovar & Porter: 13).
Edward Said, a leading sociologist, observes that Western people generally see the East in a
negative light. He calls his hypothesis Orientalism and states that the Orient is perceived as
everything that is different from the West. It is viewed as signifying the other, as that which is
not familiar or understandable (Thompson: 130). These ideals are paralleled in ancient Greece at
the time Euripides was writing. Persians and other foreigners were seen as less civilised than the
Greeks, and had distinct and alien characteristics (Thompson: 132).
The term barbaroi originally came from the Ancient Greeks and meant babbler or someone
who did not speak Greek (Sardar et al: 26). Language to the Ancient Greeks was seen as the tool
of reason. If someone could not communicate with them, it meant a lack of logic and implied that
they had no faculty of reason. If a persons intellect was poorly developed, s/he would be unable
to control passions and would then be closer to nature and further from civilisation. Barbaroi was
applied to all non-Greek speaking people and to some extent assumed a lack of true reason
(Sardar et al: 26). This view supplied the rationale for Greeks to treat foreigners differently and
inequitably.
Herodotus and Aristotle

Herodotus is interested in the concept of race and ethnicity and he devotes a large part of his
books to write about different kinds of people. Whether he personally felt superior as a Greek is
difficult to determine, but an instance in The Histories shows an example of Greek pride and
feelings of racial superiority. In chapter 9, Herodotus gives an account of Pausanias, who was
speaking to Lampon, an Aeginetan, after he suggested that Pausanias impale the Persian
Mardonius body after his victory at Plataea. Pasaunias replies that the proposal is savage and
that non-Greeks or barbarians are less civilised and sophisticated than Greeks:

,

,

... ' ,

,
,
,

52
. '

, , .
(Hdt. Hist. 9. 79. 1-9)
Pausanias, however replied: I thank you, my Aegian friend, for your goodwill
and concern for me; but, in regard to your judgement, you have failed to hit the
mark. First you exalt me and my country to the skies by your praise of my success;
and then you would bring it all to nothing by advising me to insult a dead body,
and by saying that my good name would be increased if I were to do an improper
thing fitter for barbarians than Greeksand even then we think it repulsive. No,
indeed; in this matter I hope I shall never please the Aeginetans, or anyone else
who approves such beastliness. It is enough for me to please the Spartans, by
reverence and decency in both word and deed.
[Transl. De Slincourt]
The figure of Pausanias expresses his distaste for these other cultural practices, thinking they are
savage or unsophisticated in comparison to those of the Greeks. This clearly displays an example
of ancient ethnocentrism.
Furthermore, an example in Book Three shows that Herodotus is conscious of personal beliefs
which often influence people to assume that their own behaviour is correct in any given clash of
custom. He gives the example when Cambyses entered an Egyptian temple and mocked and burnt
the images:

.
,

.
.
,
...
(Hdt. Hist. 3. 38. 1-10)
In view of all this, I have no doubt whatever that Cambyses was completely
out of his mind; it is the only possible explanation of his assault upon, and
mockery of, everything which ancient law and custom have made sacred in
Egypt. For if anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing
from amongst all the nations in the world the beliefs which he thought best,
he would inevitably, after careful consideration of their relative merits, choose
those of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own
53
native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best; and
that being so, it is unlikely that anyone but a madman would mock at such things.
There is abundant evidence that this is the universal feeling about the ancient
customs of ones country.
Herodotus thus echoes the idea that most people are raised to believe their conventions are
normal, and often think that other peoples beliefs and values are peculiar. He relates how
insensitive a person must be in order to insult customs that others hold dear. Unlike Herodotus,
some people even classify characteristics of culture as essential features inherent in different
ethnic groups. This thinking leads to beliefs that vary fundamentally between different groups of
people.
Aristotle shows that he subscribed to these beliefs by indicating that he believes some people to
be essentially superior to others. He writes in his Politics that it is natural and justifiable for some
people to rule over others:
...
, ' ,
. < >
'
, ,

.

,
.

,
, ' . ,
, ' , ,
' .
(Arist. Pol. 1260a 2-14)
Thus it becomes clear that both ruler and ruled must have a share in virtue,
but that there are differences in virtue in each case, as there are also among
those who by nature rule. An immediate indication of this is afforded by the
soul, where we find natural ruler and the natural subject, whose virtues we
regard as differentone being that of the rational element, the other of the
non-rational. It is therefore clear that the same feature will be found in the
others cases too, so that most instances of ruling and being ruled are natural.
For rule of free over slave, male over female, man over boy, are all different,
because, while parts of the soul are present in each case, the distribution is
different. Thus the deliberative faculty in the soul is not present at all in a slave;
54
in a female it is present but ineffective, in a child present but undeveloped.

[Transl. Sinclair]
In this extract, Aristotle expresses a concept of essentialism, in that he believes people are
fundamentally different, and that some are more developed than others. If one believes in these
ideas, one may think culture is a natural composition of community, and that their customs and
practises are biological aspects of their behaviour.
Such ethnocentrism may lead to a subjective evaluation of another culture and sometimes even a
feeling of superiority over the people in that culture (Samovar & Porter: 13). The Ancient Greeks
had a strong sense of pride and even superiority in their nationality, and often viewed other races
or cultures as barbarian or unsophisticated (Meagher: 142).
In Herodotus, another example demonstrates that Greeks took it for granted that they were
intellectually advanced. He gives the account of Salmoxis from Thrace who had lived in Greek
Samos for a number of years:

,

.

,

,

, , ...
(Hdt. Hist. 4. 95. 4-10)
He subsequently gained his freedom, amassed a fortune, and returned to his
native country of Thrace, where he found the people in great poverty and
ignorance. As he had gained, from living with Greeks and from his association
with one of their more influential teachers, Pythagoras, insight into Ionian
ideas and a wiser way of living than was to be found in Thrace
Racism was prevalent during the time of the Ancient Greeks. Members of Euripides audience
most probably believed in their pre-eminence over other races.
Euripides Troiades as an Example of the Perspective of Foreign Women

To show that Euripides is sympathetic to the plight of foreign women, seeing them as the victims
of male oppression, an extract has been taken from his Troiades. This tragedy shows women who
had once been happy and secure having to struggle to survive and preserve the remains of their
family. Euripides expresses the perspective of the Trojan women after the fall of Troy, where
55
they face slavery, rape and death. Near the tent of the Greek king Agamemnon, Hecabe the
former queen of Troy is a prisoner and slave, an old woman and an exile. She is mourning the
loss of all her children and asks the other widows to weep and sympathise with her:
, ,
.
'

' ' .
'

,
,
.
'
'

.
(E. Tro. 138-152)
Here near Agamemnons tent, prisoner and slave I sit, an unpitied exile, old,
my grey hair ravaged with the knife of mourning. Come, you widowed brides
of Trojan fighting-men, weeping mothers, trembling daughters, come, weep
with me while the smoke goes up from Troy! Once with cheerful Phrygian
music, solemn hymns and sacred dances, I queen Hecabe, Priams sceptre in
my hand, led your steps and voices: now the song is saddened to the seagulls
crying round her helpless young.
[Transl. Vellacott 1973]
The capacity of ordinary women to suffer under such harsh, externally inflicted circumstances is
explored in the play. Feelings such as love for ones family, hatred for ones captors, despair for
the loss of ones home and unbearable grief for the loss of loved ones, are emotions that are
intensified under such circumstances. The audience could then see the effects of war from a
womans perspective instead of in the epic tradition, where war was seen as the glorious affair of
men. In addition, these women used to be respected and valued by their husbands and
countrymen, now they are foreign slaves with no rights, privileges or reputation.
Euripides Shows the Perspective of the Foreign Woman in the Medea

When one considers that Medea was from Colchis and therefore a non-Greek, it is obvious that
her strangeness would have played a part in how she was perceived. She was from an Eastern
56
country which made her the other because Euripides Medea was set in Corinth, a Greek city.
Medea, a woman in a foreign country, therefore had no ties of family and no constitutional rights.
An example in Euripidess Medea explicitly shows Jasons racist attitude. As a Greek, he looked
down on Medea as an alien when he argued how it was she who benefited from leaving her
homeland and being brought to Greece:

, .
'

' '
'
, .
(E. Med. 534-541)
But in fact in saving me you gained more than you gave, as I shall tell.
In the first place, instead of an uncivilised country your dwelling is now
the land of Greece where you have come to know justice and the use of
law, instead of being subject to force. You special gifts became known to
all Greeks and won you renown. If you had been living at the furthest ends
of the earth, your name would be quite unknown.
[Transl. Davie]
This probably would have mirrored the view of many of the male members of Euripides
audience of a figure such as Medea. She was different in that she was a barbarian sorceress and
this would have automatically classified her as an outsider. In the play, Medea expresses how her
status as a foreigner may have undermined Jasons famous reputation:
' ,
.
(E. Med. 591-592)
This was not your motive for saying nothing; it was marriage to a
foreigner that you felt would detract from that great name of yours
as old age drew near.
[Transl. Davie]
Jason again reveals his contempt for Medea, when he hints that she is a traitor and an unreliable
character. He also describes her as a barbarian, perhaps making the link that she is different and
thus he should not have trusted her:
57
, ' ,
' '
' , ,
' .
(E. Med. 1329-1332)
Now I see it clear but what a fool I was before, when I brought you
from that house of yours in a barbarous land to a home in Greece,
a deadly passenger who had betrayed your father and the country
that reared you.
[Transl. Davie]
This may have had resonance with males in the audience who had foreign concubines. In Jungian
terms, Medea may also be viewed as an archetypal foreign woman, which classifies her in a
role of being all that is not Greek. But instead of perpetuating the image of inferior and dangerous
barbarians, Euripides points out the difficulty of being in a strange land, far from ones family.
Medeas emotions are expressed regarding the suspicion of strangers:
' ,

, .

(E. Med. 219-222)
For there is no justice in the eyes of men; a man who has done them no
harm may be hated on sight before they have formed a true assessment
of his nature. And in the case of one who has made his home in a strange
city, he must take pains not to alienate the community he has joined.
[Transl. Davie]
Medea reveals to a privileged Greek audience the unfortunate situation of foreigners in Greece.
She also indirectly contests Jasons earlier arguments that he has helped her by bringing her to
Greece.
Before Medea came to Greece she had been a well-respected princess and sorceress in Colchis.
She would never have been subjected to force and would have lived a life of privilege and
reputation. She was now living as an exile without her family and home. Furthermore, having no
friends in Corinth, she was about to be exiled again. The renown that Jason speaks of, shows his
racist views, as he cannot comprehend how people who are not Greek could be of any
importance. He says that she would have been at the other end of the world, but fails to realise
that, though it may have been far from his home, it was home to Medea.
58
When Medeas love for Jason finally subsides and she no longer sees him with a passion-induced
gaze, she can see the truth. She has given up everything for a bad cause. She hates him now and
finally realises she has given her loyalty to the wrong man. What is left is nostalgia and regret for
her old home, her old life and for those from whom she had once received love. Her misery is
presented through the nurse, who gives an account of how Medea longs for her home and regrets
leaving:
... '
', '
' .
(E. Med. 31-33)
... and mourns to herself for the loss of her dear father and the home and
country she betrayed to come away with a man who now cares nothing
for her.
[Transl. Arnott]
And later Medea grieves, when she is told by Creon that she will have to leave Corinth:
,
.
(E. Med. 328)
My country, how strongly I recall you now.

[Transl. Arnott]
Medea also speaks of the difficulty of being a powerless woman in a foreign country: there is no
one to care for her or to assist her. And although they too are women and can sympathise with
her, Medeas situation is very different from that of the Chorus of Colchian women. She is an
exiled and powerless stranger in a foreign land, whereas they still have the comfort and security
of their native country:
' '
' '
' ,
' '
, ,
', ,
' .
(E. Med. 252-558)
However, we are not in the same position, you and I. You have your
city here and the homes where your fathers have lived; you enjoy lifes
59
pleasures and the companionship of those you love. But what of me?
Abandoned, homeless, I am a cruel husbands plaything, the plunder he
brought back from a foreign land, with no mother to turn to, no brother
or kinsman to rescue me from this sea of troubles and give me shelter.
[Transl. Davie]
This paragraph not only emphasises Medeas position as an alien but it also shows sympathy for
foreigners by expressing Medeas point of view. It shows the insecurity and isolation of a person
far from home who does not have a kinship system to protect her in the case of divorce. This is
remarkable for an author of Fifth Century B.C.E. where non-Greeks held very little or no
authority (Meagher: 142).
Euripides could have emphasised Medeas difference, her barbaric nature as a foreign woman,
but instead he expresses the universal feeling of homesickness. As a Greek he has the privileged
position of showing the point of view of the foreigner to other Greeks. He allows Medea to
express her dilemma on a very personal and human level. She shows how the grass was not
greener on the other side. She betrayed her father and her kingdom and only in retrospect does
she realise the extent of what she has done. In essence, by her deeds no place is a safe haven for
herself, and she is committed to a man who abandons her when her usefulness runs out.
Conclusion
On the one hand, Euripides, especially through the character of Jason, echoes typical Greek
attitudes about foreignness: that they should appreciate living in a civilised society where the rule
of law and not force is supreme. Foreigners with special skills receive a reputation with people
who count which they would not have had at home. However, Euripides also expresses the
prejudice Greeks may have had against foreigners: that they are by nature treacherous and
deserve ill treatment. It was thus regarded as a shame for a Greek man to be married to a
foreigner.
Through the character of Medea, as well as the chorus of women, Euripides expresses the
precarious position of the foreign concubine. In the case of divorce, she is not protected by law
and does not have family members to support her or protect her rights. Being an exile means that
she has also cut all ties with her family and cannot return to her homeland. Divorce destroys her
reputation and relegates her to obscurity.
60
In this way, Euripides sensitises his audience to the plight of foreigners, especially foreign
women, by revealing the system of double standards applied to foreigners versus Greek citizens.
He also demonstrates that unequal treatment gives rise to destructive behaviour.
61
Introduction
In this chapter Euripides representation of Medea as a victim is explored to see whether
Euripides either portrays Medeas behaviour as criminal, or as the inevitable result of her
persecution. As a strong, capable woman who has committed appalling acts of murder, she may
seem an unlikely candidate for victim status.
The assertion that Medea is portrayed as a victim is based on two ancient Greek social codes of
mutual obligation. These conventions analysed in the text are the code of friendship and the
marriage code. The former entails that what Medea did for Jason before they were married, and
that which she could expect in return. The wedding code has to do with the oaths on which
marriage was based, and the mutual obligation of husband and wife. A quote is taken from
Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica which shows a Greek tradition whereby Jason makes an oath
to Medea as her husband.
Therefore the aim of this analysis is to establish whether Medea is portrayed as the victim or
perpetrator in the disintegration of these two codes of behaviour. The system of these
conventions is described. Relevant passages are then analysed to indicate accusations based on
the violation of the code of mutual friendship, and that of the marriage code and oaths.
Extracts from Euripides Medea are also used to show that Medea was portrayed in a sympathetic
light. Speeches made by the chorus of Corinthian women, Medeas nurse and Medea herself are
analysed to support this claim. That the Corinthian Greek women are represented as being
compassionate towards a foreign woman and disapproving of a Greek man, may emphasise the
plight of Medea. Furthermore, the nurse who observes the ongoing events, is an ideal witness and
judge of the whole affair.
Finally Freuds domestic psychodrama is used to convey how Medeas victim status evolved
from a domestic incident of family violence. This domestic upheaval stems from an imbalance in
society, where the male exercises the power in the relationship. When authority becomes too
restrictive and aggressive, there is a resultant eruption of resentful emotions. The tragedy
62
therefore unfolds from a common Greek occurrence of infidelity. Thus the myth may reflect
inherent problems within the family structure of society, namely an imbalance in power.
Obligations of Friendship
Codes of friendship were regarded as fundamentally important to the bonds of ancient Greek
culture. Without adherence to spoken laws and vows, the foundations of society would implode.
Because there were no courts of justice or law enforcement in the Bronze Age, the cement of
their society was build on systems of honour and respect. Friendship was upheld as a noble pact
between people. If one person helped another, the second party was expected to act beneficially
in return.
A problem often mentioned during the archaic and classical periods, was the disappointment of
disloyal and unfaithful friends (Fitzgerald: 27). The ancient Greeks held idealistic conceptions of
loyal friendship, and the betrayal of a friend was seen as deserving of harsh reprisal. A bad friend
was an inconsistent and faithless companion who neglected his/her friends in a time of crisis. The
emphasis was on never being the first to inflict injury, but if someone was intentionally harmed,
they were entitled to retaliate two-fold (Fitzgerald: 32f). Hence it was seen as important to be
supportive, especially in a time of need, and it was a persons moral obligation to avenge oneself
if one was mistreated or abused.
The ancient Greeks placed great emphasis on these codes of friendship and loyalty and people
were obliged to follow them. For example, in the Trojan War, Menelauss objection against the
Trojan prince Paris was the abuse of guest-friendship. Guest-friendship was presided over by
Zeus and the tradition was to treat guest-friends in an elaborate and hospitable manner. In return,
the respectful and courteous conduct would have been reciprocated. Specific rules of conduct
were to be followed. Paris, however, violates this pact by eloping with Menelauss wife and
stealing many of his household possessions. This incurred the wrath of the gods and all of
Greece, as Paris had insulted Menelauss prestige and honour in breaching the rules of mutual
friendship (Fitzgerald: 24f).
The Greeks believed in a system of reciprocity, which states that one should be good to friends
and harm ones enemies (Allan: 81). Jason is bound to Medea by the closest ties of friendship as
he was her former suppliant when she saved his life in Colchis. Thus, she proves her position as
63
friend, but Jason reverses the principle of helping friends and harming enemies by treating Medea
as an enemy. He abandons her in her hour of need, denying Medea the protection of a Greek man
(Allan: 85).
Medea was the best of friends to Jason: she helped him in all his endeavours, even to her own
fathers detriment. She reminds Jason that she saved his life and achieved fame for him by
helping him secure the Golden Fleece:
',
,

',
,
' .
'

,
' ', ,
' , ' .
' ' , ' ,
, ' ,

(E. Med. 476-490)
You owe your life to me, as they all know, those brave men of Greece
who boarded the Argo as your shipmates, when you were sent to master
with the yoke the bulls that breathed fire and to sow the field of death. And
there was the serpent that kept sleepless watch over the golden fleece, enfolding
it within its sinuous coilsthis creatures death I caused and so lifted up the
torch that lit your way out of peril. I betrayed my own father, my own family
to come here with you to Iolcus under Pelion, showing more eagerness than
sense. Pelias, too, I killed by the most painful of deaths, at the hands of his own
daughters, bringing destruction on his entire house. All this I have done for you
and yet you have betrayed me, you unfeeling monster; you have taken a new wife,
though we have children of our own.
[Transl. Davie]
Medeas loyalty and love for Jason was all-consuming. She completely broke the ties with her
old family to form an allegiance with her new one. She killed her own brother for the benefit of a
new family with Jason. In return he eventually abandons her for a new family, as she has done to
her old family. When this realisation dawns on her, she finally feels the remorse for killing her
64
own brother and betraying her homeland. She now understands the anguish and expresses her
agony:
' ,
' ,

; ' ' '
,
' ' .
, ,
.
(E. Med. 160-167)
O great Themis and lady Artemis, do you see what I suffer, though I
bound my accursed husband by weighty oaths? How I wish I might see
him and his bride in utter ruin, house and all, for the wrongs they dare
to inflict on me who never did them harm! O Father, O land of Colchis,
forsaken by me to my shame when I took my brothers life!
[Transl. Davie]
Medea finally sees her gravest error. She trusted in a man who did not share her adherence to the
system of honour and the sanctity of oaths. She found out that instead of being her closest of kin,
Jason was indeed her worst enemy:
, '

,
[ ' ];
' ' ,
' ,
'
, '.
(E. Med. 465-472)
Oh, devil! Devil! This is the worst abuse my tongue can find for your
lack of manliness. You come to me, my mortal enemy, hateful to heaven
and to all mankind. This is not venturesome, this is not courage, to
look friends in the face whom you have wronged, but the most detestable
of human weaknesses, yes, shamelessness!
[Transl. Arnott]
Euripides Medea is thus a tragedy which arises from the betrayal of a friend. Jason, who should
have been her one true friend, betrays her. He proves to be a false friend, leaving Medea alone
65
and friendless in a foreign country. Medeas realisation that she invested in this man of little
substance is passionately depicted :
...
, .
, ,
' .
(E. Med. 226-229)
I am finished, my friends, and any pleasure I took in life I now renounce;
its death I want. The man who was the world to meOh how I know the
truth of this!has proved to be the foulest of traitors, my own husband!
[Transl. Davie]
Marriage Obligations and Oaths

The value of oaths also needs to be considered because of the strong oaths made by Medea and
Jason, binding themselves in marriage. Thus Jasons broken oaths are an essential factor in
viewing Medea as a victim and to emphasise how unjust her treatment has been.
An oath was not a mere assurance comparable to modern Western promises, which are easily
broken; it was a sacred act before the gods. The ancient Greeks at the time in which the Medea
was set, did not have our modern standards of law enforcement and penal institutions. Order
within their society was based upon moral, political and religious systems of honour and
conscientious protocol. These were the bonds of their society, and without them anarchy could
ensue. Medea recognises the importance of oaths and displays her dismay at Jasons lack of
accountability:
, '
'
' ,
' ' .
(E. Med. 492-495)
Gone is the trust to be placed in oaths; I cannot discover if you think
that the gods you swore by then have lost there sovereignty or that new
laws these days are prescribed for men, since you know well the value
of your oaths to me.
[Transl. Davie]
66
Medea and Jason made an oath in their marriage whereby they joined right hands. This is referred
to in Euripides Medea but in Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica it is explicitly represented
when Jason says to Medea:
,
, ,
,
' .
,
.
(A. R. 3. 95-100)
Dear girl, may Olympian Zeus himself, and Hera goddess of marriage, who
shares Zeus bed, witness my oath that I shall make you my lawful wedded wife
in my home, when we return safely to the land of Hellas. With these words he
straightaway took her right hand in his ...
[Transl. Hunter]
Taking each others right hand was the oath of companions of equal status, usually reserved for
two men. Jason has therefore pledged in a way that would have been more customary to the
father of his bride or as an agreement with another man. These factors indicate the unique quality
of Medeas position (Williamson: 19f).
Jasons abandonment is thus even more reprehensible based on the principle that Medea and
Jason made strong oaths to one another in their marriage vows. Medea denounces Jason for his
irresponsibility, believing that the gods would scorn him for his neglected oaths:
,
;
(E. Med. 1391-1392)
What god, what spirit listens to you, the breaker of oaths, the deceiver
of hosts?
[Transl. Davie]
Medea has sacrificed everything for Jason based on the security of his oaths. She has placed all
her trust in his pledges, because she sees them as unbreakable bonds made before the gods:
' ,
' ,

;
(E. Med. 160-163)
67
O great Themis and lady Artemis, do you see what I suffer, though I
bound my accursed husband by weighty oaths?
[Transl. Davie]
The chorus supports Medeas view of the shamelessness of neglecting an oath:
' , ' '
, '
.
(E. Med. 439-440)
Vanished is the binding spell of oaths and reverence abides no more in

all length of Greece but has taken wing to the skies.
[Transl. Davie]
Medea subsequently speaks of her desperate situation owing to Jasons irreverent deceitfulness.
She confides to Jason her bitter disappointment at how things have turned out for her:
...
' ,
,
,
' ,
' .
,
' ,
'
;
(E. Med. 510-519)
Yes, a remarkable husband I have in you (may the gods help me!), a true
heart if ever there was one, seeing that I am to be cast into exile from this
land, without a friend to help me, I and my children, partners in isolation!
A splendid reproach this to the new bridegroom, that your children and I
who saved you should wander as beggars! O Zeus, why is it you have given
men clear ways of testing whether gold is counterfeit but, when it comes to
men, the body carries no stamp of nature for distinguishing bad from good?
[Transl. Davie]
Neglecting his oaths to Medea, makes Jason a dishonourable man who deserts his responsibility
to his own family, and accordingly also renders Medea a victim. This view is reinforced by the
external opinions of the chorus of Corinthian women and Medeas nurse.
68
Expressions of Medea as a Victim

The tragedys main emphasis, therefore, is on Medeas hopeless situation. Jason selfishly
destroys the woman to whom he owes so much. By having the nurse and not Medea introduce the
drama to the audience, the tragic situation is articulated by an intermediary; the nurse shows her
favour for Medea:
'
,
', .
'
,
,
.
' , ' ' ,

' , ...
(E. Med. 17-26)
Jason has betrayed my lady and his own children for a princess bed;
He has married the daughter of Creon, ruler of this land. And Medea,
poor lady, dishonoured in this way, cries out, What about his oaths?
His right hand that clasped mine and pledged his heart? You gods, I
call you to witness Jasons ingratitude to me! From the moment her
husbands criminal behaviour came home to her
[Transl. Davie]
Medeas plight is thus met with compassion. The nurse criticises Jason and sympathises with
Medea:
', ' ;
'
' .
(E. Med. 82-84)
You young ones, do you hear how your father treats you? Deaths
not good enough for him oh, no, I mustnt say that of my master.
But where he should be showing love hes proving a traitor and
that I can say!
[Transl. Davie]
The chorus relates Medeas misery in a similar light, allowing Euripides to show Medeas victim
status. They describe how she finds herself in an unbearable situation and how her heart is broken
by an unjust husband:

,
69
'

' ...
(E. Med. 205-208)
I heard the sound of the heartfelt lamentation, as she bewails her
piteous sorrows and cries out against her wicked husband, traitor to
her bed. She calls upon the gods to witness how unjustly she is treated
[Transl. Davie]
The choruss point of view is further articulated in a later speech when the chorus-leader realises
that her opposition to Jason is surprising since she is a Greek woman. In Greek society where
men have supreme authority, she takes the side of an outsider and stresses that Jason has not lived
up to his responsibilities:
, '
' , ,
.
(E. Med. 576-578)
Jason, you have set out your arguments skilfully and plausibly; it is my
view, however, though I might surprise you with these words, that you
have betrayed your wife and are behaving unjustly.
[Transl. Davie]
Theses examples clearly illustrate the concept that Jason acts dishonourably and that Medea is a
victim of his wrongdoing. It may even intentionally mirror common problems in ancient Greek
society, where women are left vulnerable due to their husbands neglect.
Freuds Domestic Psychodrama

The play then not only demonstrates the dilemma of a tragic heroine, but also that of a wife and
the impossible position in which all women are left when abandoned by a husband. Even though
Jason and Medea are legendary figures from a time of heroes, their situation is of domestic
turmoil. The imbalance of power in ancient Greek families demonstrates an example of Freuds
domestic psychodrama. Medeas reaction is far more extreme than most women, but the emotions
that the situation evoke could be applied to ordinary women of ancient Greece:
,

' .
70

, .
(E. Med. 111-114)
Ah, my sufferings, my wretched sufferings, they invite a worlds tears!
O cursed children of a hateful mother, I want you to die along with your
father, and all the house to go to ruin!
[Transl. Davie]
Even though Medea for most of the play, is seen as the victim of Jasons cruel abandonment, it is
not in her nature to retain this image for long. Medeas anger leads to the successful destruction
of Jason by killing his only heirs, their children. The devastation of killing her own children is so
great that the chorus-leader who has previously sympathised with Medea, now pities Jason:
, ' ,
' .
(E. Med. 1306-1307)
Jason, you are to be pitied; you have no idea of the depth of your
misfortune. These words of yours would then never have been
uttered.
[Transl. Davie]
This may be a warning of how too much suppression can lead to extremes. Women who are
secluded indoors and expected to keep their ideas and sentiments to themselves, could explode
with pent-up emotions if pushed too far. Medeas revenge is so successful that at first she is seen
as the victim to be pitied. However, after she has carried through her ghastly vengeance, the
chorus redirect their compassion towards Jason. This reminds one of Freuds domestic
psychodrama, in which the imbalance of power in the relationship ultimately has disastrous
familial results.
Conclusion
Medea is a victim according to a number of factors. Concerning the friendship code, Medea
furthers Jasons career and saves his life by helping him escape her fathers wrath. In return,
Jason destroys her, thus treating her like an enemy and breaking his obligation of friendship. In
terms of their marriage vows, Medea kept hers by producing two male heirs, whereas Jason broke
his oath to Medea and neglected his responsibility as her male guardian and protector. These
details therefore give evidence of Medeas position as a victim and Jasons accountability as a
perpetrator.
71
Furthermore, even though Medea is exceptional in that she is the granddaughter of the god Helios
and a powerful sorceress, she is still a woman who represents female abuse by men. Medeas
passionate nature and her powerful magical abilities do not counter the fact that as a woman she
was dreadfully mistreated by the one man who should have been her protector. The text shows
how the obligation of ancient Greek women to be good wives and mothers could disintegrate
when men do not keep to their responsibilities of providing enough security. Thus Medea is a
victim of male suppression and subordination. She upholds her responsibilities and gives up
everything to help her husband maintain his status and position. In return Jason abandons Medea,
making everything on which their marriage was based, collapse.
The tragedy can also be viewed as an example of Freuds domestic psychodrama and how myth
reflects actual problems of power imbalance in society and how it can influence resentment and
possible extreme behaviour. Medea is a victim of broken marriage vows and abandoned for a
younger, more influential woman. In this way Euripides reveals ill-treatment meaningful to his
contemporary female spectators. Euripides emphasises the social subordination of women,
highlighting aspects of womens lives which must have been grievances for many Athenian
women in the audience.
72
CHAPTER SEVEN: Justifiable Violence
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to explore Euripides motives regarding whether he intended Medeas
revenge to be viewed as justifiable or damnable. In the previous chapter, based on Jasons
violation of the codes of friendship and marriage, Medea is represented as a victim. Medeas
vengeance is then only in question if her actions can be viewed as senseless violence or as
punishment that exceeds the crime. On the other hand, her aggressive revenge is justifiable if it is
a punishment necessary for maintaining order and equilibrium in society.
The importance of this topic is evident because revenge is the central motivating factor in
Euripides Medea. In order to understand the implications of Medeas assumption of an avenging
persona, one must first take into consideration the context in which Euripides is writing. The
distinction between the ancient Greek concept of revenge and modern Western views is so
marked, that an overview of the system of revenge is given to show its significance to the ancient
Greek community.
Homers Iliad and Odyssey are used as primary examples to emphasise the strong ethical systems
of honour and revenge. The very cause of the lack of tolerance and encouraged reciprocity is
explored. Examples are then taken from Euripides Medea to show how traditional Bronze Age
ideals affect Medeaa Bronze Age mythological figureand influence her quest for vengeance.
Finally, the revenge plot is discussed in psychological terms, as Medeas actions may be
explained by her intensely passionate nature. This is considered in terms of Medeas previous
actions, which are referred to within the plot: namely, that she previously killed her brother and
King Pelias in fervent attempts to help Jason. Her propensity for violence may indicate her
Freudian id, in that she uses her instinctive desires to solve some of her problems. Her later
fanatical retaliation against Jason emphasises this aspect of her nature and may also act as an
ordinary womans latent Freudian wish-fulfilment to be proactive against her suppression. In
terms of Carl Jungs theories, her furious anger and aggression might be seen as her shadow, that
dark unrelenting aspect of her personality.
73
Examples of Revenge in Homers Bronze Age Epics

For the ancient Greeks, the system of revenge was connected to values of honour and selfrespect. If someone was disrespected or had dishonour brought upon them, they were entitled to
ruthless vengeance (Allan: 81). Homers Odyssey and Iliad are based on a previous age known by
the ancient Greeks as the Heroic Era. The fifth Century B.C.E. Greeks looked towards this age of
heroes with admiration and used the personalities in the epic poems as models of noble behaviour
(Fitzgerald: 30).
In fifth century B.C.E. the system of revenge and justice was still prevalent but the law courts
were utilised for this purpose, whereas mythological figures of the Heroic or Bronze Age
employed blood vengeance as an acceptable form of retribution.
The provocation for the Trojan War begins when the Greek king Menelaus is dishonoured by a
man who was bound to him by the laws of guest-friendship. When his beautiful wife, Helen, is
taken away, Menelaus appeals for justice and reprisal against Paris, who has insulted his rank and
heroic status. Just before Menelaus duels with Paris he says, concerning his plight as the
disregarded guest-friend and insulted nobleman:
'
,
,

, .
(Hom. Il. 3. 351-354)
Zeus, lord, grant me to punish the man who first did me injury, brilliant
Alexandros, and beat him down under my hands strength that any one of
the men to come may shudder to think of doing evil to a kindly host, who
has given him friendship.
Menelaus is appealing to Zeus, who is not only the king of the gods but also presides over
contracts of friendship, as he believes he is entitled to brutal compensation for the injury to his
reputation. This shows the ancient Greek faith in the legitimacy of a person seeking violent
revenge.
This attitude of aggressively harming someone who has harmed you is clearly represented in the
Iliad. Achilles is so furious that Hektor has killed his dearest friend Patroclus, that his vengeance
is unrelenting and terrible:
74
'
', '
' '
,
' '
' , .
(Hom. Il. 22. 331-336)
Hektor, surely you thought as you killed Patroklos you would be safe, and
since I was far away you thought nothing of me, o fool, for an avenger was
left, far greater than he was, behind him and away by the hollow ships. And
it was I; and I have broken your strength; on you the dogs and the vultures
shall feed and foully rip you; ...
[Transl. Lattimore:1951]
Similarly in the Odyssey, Odysseus finally returns home after twenty years to find his house
overrun with suitors for his wife. They have laid his property waste and excessively flouted the
laws of guest-friendship. Odysseus is instructed by Athene to bring about their complete
destruction as revenge for their attempt at usurpation. In Book 13 (lines 375-395), Odysseus and
Athene discuss how he must massacre every last man without exception and hold them all
accountable even though some have been more offensive than others. Athene speaks of how their
blood will be spilt to pay for the injustice they have done to Odysseus and his honour.
Therefore Odysseus is assisted by the goddess Athene, showing the belief that someone wronged
had the approval and support of the gods.
Murder as a form of revenge was then not seen as a punishment that exceeds the crime. It was
acceptable, at least in the case of men. The murder of children was even seen as an example of
retribution. This can be seen in the case of Atreus who killed, cooked and fed the children of his
brother, Thyestes, to him as revenge for sleeping with his wife, Aerope (Graves: 44f). This act
was seen as grotesque, but lawful.
These examples of revenge from the Bronze or Heroic Age show that retribution at almost any
cost was acceptable for heroes to defend their honour and maintain cosmic order.
75
Revenge in the Medea

The Medea was set in this Heroic age when there were no law courts or institutionalised justice
systems. Honour and mutual trust were part of a delicate balance that maintained societal
stability. When someone was wronged, that balance was upset. Therefore, in order to maintain
equilibrium, retribution had to be wreaked. Revenge was then projected onto the gods as a
religious duty to maintain balance of the cosmos. Without the balance and order of the systems of
loyalty and honour, society would implode.
Medeas wretched state, due to Jasons disloyalty, left her seeking the utter destruction of her
enemy:
', '
, '
',
, ' . ...
'
,
.
,
, .
(E. Med. 372-375, 381-385)
... when he might have thwarted my plans by banishing me from Corinth,
he has allowed me to stay for this day, the day on which I will make
corpses of three of my enemies, father, daughter and husbandmy
husband!There is one difficulty I must face: if I am caught entering
their house and plotting, I will be killed and give my enemies a chance
to laugh at me. The best way is the direct one, in which I am particularly
expert, using poisons to overcome them.
[Transl. Davie]
Jason has proved himself to be Medeas enemy and it would go against her pride as a strong
individual to fail to reciprocate:

md'

, . ...
,

(E. Med. 797, 807-809)
You see my friends, to suffer the mockery of my enemies is something

I will not tolerate Let no one think of me a weak and feeble woman,
or one to let things pass, but rather one of the other sort, a generous
76
friend but an enemy to be feared.

[Transl. Davie]
Medeas hatred for Jason is complete. Even though Jason argues competently on his own behalf,
she defies his excuses. He defends himself by attributing his success to Aphrodite as he feels it is
love that made Medea help him. He also declares that Medea assisted him, but gained more than
she gave because she was taken from a foreign land to Greece. He blames Medeas exile on her
own negative attitude to the royal house, his new family. Further, he argues that regarding his
new marriage, it is for Medeas benefit that he made new allegiances with the royal family. His
associations with the sovereigns are to secure the comfort and wellbeing of his whole family
(Rutherford: 62f). Medea counters his argument by saying:
'
' .
', ,
', .
(E. Med. 584-587)
Spare me your courteous looks and polished words now! For one
word will floor you. If you were a man of honour, you should have
won my consent to this new marriage instead of keeping it secret from
your own family.
[Transl. Davie]
She thwarts his excuses from all angles, proving he was not acting in her best interests. If he
were, he would have been able to tell her his plans knowing she would have no reason to
complain. She believes she has been wronged and feels he must pay.
Thus the aspect of her personality, the pride she holds as a respectable and honourable individual,
will not allow herself to be the victim of her enemys success:
M. ... ' '

' , '
' .
, ,
[ ]
.
Ia. .
M. ' ' , ' .
(E. Med. 1354-1362)
77
Medea: ... It was not for you or your princess to trample on my love and live
a life of pleasure, laughing at me, and not for Creon who made this
match of yours to cast me out of this land without regretting it. So
call me a lioness, yes, if you wish to, for I have my claws in your
heart as you deserve.
Jason: The pain is yours to feel as well; you share in this suffering.
Medea: Let me tell you one thing: my pain is cancelled now that any
mockery of yours is silenced.
[Transl. Davie]
The extent of Medeas fury due to Jasons treachery is ultimately realised in the murder of her
own children. One would think it impossible for any atrocity to be able to influence a mother to
do something so ferocious. A mothers protectiveness over her children is legendary; the
maternal instinct for most women is fierce. The decision is not an easy one for Medea, she
hesitates and withdraws at one point, not feeling that she is able to kill her children:
.
' , ', , ...
...
'
' '
', ' .
' , ;
;
; ,
, .

.

;
' .
; '
;
' ,
(E. Med. 1028-1029, 1036-1051)
Oh, this stubborn heart of mine! What misery it has cost me! It was all
for nothing, then, children, that I reared you Robbed of your company,
I shall endure a life that brings me pain and sorrow. And you, you will
look no more at your mother with those eyes I love, once you have
passed on to another form of life.
Oh no, no! Why do you fix your eyes on me, children? Why smile at
me with that last smile? Ah, the pain! What shall I do? My heart dissolves,
ladies, when I see the shining faces of my children! I could not do it!
Goodbye to those plans I made! I will take my children away from Corinth
with me. In bringing suffering on them to cause the father pain, why should
78
I bring twice as much suffering on myself? No, I shall not do it. Goodbye to
my plans. And yet what is the matter with me? Do I want to become a
laughing-stock by letting my enemies off scot-free? I must find it in me to
do this thing. To think I could have been so weak!
[Transl. Davie]
This does not indicate that Medea does not love her children, because she does, but her love for
them does not equal her current, all-consuming hated for Jason:
Xo. , ;
M. .
(E. Med. 816-817)
Chorus-Leader: But to kill your very own children will you have
the heart for that, lady?
Medea: Yes; it is by doing this that I shall hurt my husband most.
[Transl. Davie]
As a mother, Medea would not have been able to kill her children. She thus adopts the persona of
the avenger, and the greatest revenge on Jason is the murder of his heirs. She is intent on making
him pay for the sacrilegious act of breaking his vows, ignoring his debt to her and denying
responsibility for her as his dependant. She feels that killing her children is necessary for her
vengeance. Her retribution is also a restoration of order; in that as a representation of Greek
society, it acts as a warning to men to remember their duties and vows to women.
Furthermore, Euripides portrayal of Medea murdering her husbands new family and killing her
own children is a realistic portrayal of her character because of her previous acts of vicious
homicide. Euripides mentions this in the play to remind the audience of what kind of behaviour
Medea is capable.
Jungs Theory of the Shadow

Euripides provides a rationalisation for Medeas actions by reminding the audience of Medeas
propensity for violence. Her ability to perform brutal acts to achieve her objectives can be
described as the dark aspect of Medeas nature, her Jungian shadow.
Near the end of the play Jason refers to Medeas previous acts of murder. He recalls her ferocity
and relates it to her current deeds of killing her own children, emphasising Medeas nature as a
vicious woman. This draws attention to her shadow; that is her inclination to do violence:
79

.

par' ,
' .
(E. Med. 1334-1338)
When you boarded my fine ship Argo, had you not first shed your brothers
blood in the home you shared? That was how your career began. And when
I had taken you to wife and you had given me sons, you destroyed them
because I chose to leave your bed.
[Transl. Davie]
The thought that Medea was possessed or inflicted with insanity when she killed her children is
expressed by the chorus:

, '
,
' ...
... , , ' ' ' .
(E. Med. 1251-1254, 1258-1260)
O Earth, O Sun whose rays illuminate all, look down, look upon that
deadly woman before she lays bloody hands upon her children, slaying
her own flesh and blood! ... No, brightness born of Zeus, restrain her, hold
her back, drive her from the house, the wretched woman whom fiends
have turned into a murderous Fury!
[Transl. Davie]
This insanity is the Jungian shadow of her personality and at this point it completely takes
over her personality. She is consumed with malice and fury and is hungry for Jason to feel her
pain.
In order to be able to kill the children that she loves, she has to move away from her womanly
emotions. Her maternal love is suppressed, allowing her vengeance to drive her actions. She is
somehow possessed by her shadow, which allows her to carry out the ghastly act of killing her
children:
' ' ,
;
', , ,
80
', ,
' ,
', ,

',
' ' .
(E. Med. 1242-1250)
Come my heart, put on your armour! We must not hesitate to do this deed,
this terrible yet necessary deed! Come, wretched hand of mine, grip the
sword, grip it! On to the starting line! A painful race awaits you now! No
time now for cowardice or thinking of your children, how much you love
them, how you brought them into this world. No, for one day, one fleeting
day, forget your children; there will be the rest of your life for weeping. For
though you will put them to the sword, you loved them well. Oh, I am a
woman born to sorrow!
[Transl. Davie]
These examples show that Medea is an intensely passionate woman who does nothing in half
measures. Her position as a wife and mother is offset by her feverish emotions, culminating in
her dark violent urges. She seems to act out her deepest desires and most reckless needs which
come from her innate sense of self.
Freuds Theory of the Id, Ego and Superego

Medeas personal vengeance may seem to be at odds with societal restriction and control. This is
considering Freuds categorisation of aspects of the psyche into the superego, the ego and the id,
which is applied to ancient Greek concepts of revenge.
The examples of Bronze Age vengeance, referred to previously in this chapter, prove that
Homers heroes assumed their violent behaviour to be justifiable; their actions were appropriate
according to societal expectations. Therefore, in keeping with the Freudian superego, if people
think they have been wronged and they take vengeance, they believe that right is on their side.
This shows that the Freudian superego aspect of a persons psyche in ancient Greek epic
considers antagonistic vengeance as moral.
However, the examples of Bronze Age revenge already given in this chapter, have all been in the
case of men seeking vengeance. Medea is a woman and therefore her set of rules is different. The
female definition of the superego differs from the male. Societal restrictions governing a
81
womans behaviour would have entailed the acceptance of a husbands new marriage and a return
to ones father for protection. If she felt wronged, vengeance would be exacted by her male
relatives on her behalf, not by herself.
The id represents the individual persons deepest desires and personal yearnings. Medeas id is
her passionate need for love and respect. This pursuit of esteem is similar to that of the Bronze
Age heroes, especially Achilles, who is consumed by his desire for personal honour and
recognition. When these needs are unsatisfied, the desire turns to an obsession for revenge and
reciprocity.
It may be said that Medeas id is the driving force of her nature. She is the best of friends and the
worst of enemies. When she was in love with Jason she reserved nothing in order to help him, but
now that she hates him she does not restrain anything in order to hurt him:
,
,
.
(E. Med. 1078-1080)
I am well aware how terrible a crime I am about to commit, but my
passion is master of my reason, passion that causes the greatest suffering
in the world.
[Transl. Davie]
The persons ego must then compromise between the superego and id and influence the persons
actions accordingly. Achilles feels justified in his quest for vengeance. Medea also feels her
pursuit of revenge is warranted. Her ego does not compromise with a womanly superego, on the
basis that she has cut off all ties with her father and homeland and has taken her destiny, wellbeing and honour into her own hands. She has no family to fight for her honour and thus assumes
the responsibility of being her own champion:
; ,
;
; '
' .

', '
, .
(E. Med. 502-508)
82
Where am I to turn now? To my fathers house that I betrayed together

with my homeland when I came here? Or to Pelias wretched daughters?
A fine welcome to their home they would give me, the woman who
caused their fathers death! No this is how things stand: my own family
at home now have cause to hate me, while to please you, I have become
hated by the very people who should have kindness from me, not harm.
[Transl. Davie]
She has nowhere to turn, and her only options as a divorced foreign woman would be beggary or
prostitution. As a proud, strong woman whose id demands respect and honour, she will not
tolerate betrayal and opts for revenge.
The chorus validates Medeas desire for revenge by saying that she acts in an understandable
way. This may represent how many women would have felt in such a situation; that they are
powerless and their only means of protection is the men in their lives. The chorus-leader
therefore thinks Jason deserves to be ruined, as he has proved to be an enemy where he should
have been a guardian:
' ,
. ' .
(E. Med. 267-268)
I will do as you ask, Medea; it is just that you should take revenge
on your husband. Your grief at what has happened to you causes
me no surprise.
[Transl. Davie]
The chorus again emphasises that reprisal is warranted. When Medea takes revenge by killing
Jasons new bride and father-in-law, the chorus-leader sees this as deserved punishment. The last
comment the chorus-leader makes before she finds out Medeas intentions to kill her children,
maintains the image of Medeas entitlement to justice:
' '
.
(E. Med. 1231-1232)
This day it seems heaven has rained many blows justly on the head of
83
Jason.
[Transl. Davie]
Medeas revenge is seen as justifiable in the eyes of the chorus before they find out that this
vengeance includes the murder of her children. What is important is that the chorus affirms
Medeas conviction that she is entitled to punish Jason.
The chorus represents women from Greek society who provide the basis for Medeas superego
which governs the regulations for women. They embody female societal approval of Medeas
actions, allowing Euripides to present her plight as legitimate. Her superego is then in agreement
with her id and her ego exacts the vengeance she desires and to which she feels entitled. She feels
her actions were appropriate according to the laws governing society and the whole cosmos.
Her passionate impulses or her id are a part of all women. Perhaps her uncontrolled fury and
retribution represent aspects of all suppressed women. Freud views myth as representing the
latent desires of people in society (Harris & Platzner: 43f). There may have been women in
Euripides audience who were moved by Medea and her actions. Her actions could then represent
of the anger of oppressed women (Radstone: 53). In a sense, Medeas revenge on her abusive
husband could have been the secret latent desire of many women who had experienced similar
treatment.
Conclusion
Medeas violent revenge can be seen as acceptable in relation to a number of facets. First of all,
punishment is necessary for people such as Jason who have broken codes of friendship and
honour. That Medea killed her own children, is in this instance less important than that she killed
Jasons kin, thereby wreaking the most terrible revenge possible. Complete destruction of an
enemy was acceptable and encouraged during the Bronze Age in which Medeas character
functioned. Therefore the punishment did not exceed the crime: this was permissible behaviour.
The violence was therefore not senseless as the object was to maintain order in society. Jason
could not get away with disregarding sacred oaths because this would upset the balance of society
and chaos would ensue. If a woman was wronged, usually her male relatives would have
defended her, but in the case of Medea she was a foreigner who had cut off all ties with her old
family in order to be with Jason. She did not have anyone to protect her and had to take the
84
matter into her own hands. As a woman, Medea and her superego should have been influenced
by societal restrictions to act in non-physical and more demure way, but Medea adopts the male
system of vengeance because she does not have anyone else to protect her.
Finally, Euripides provides a psychological motivation for Medeas decision to exact blood
vengeance instead of meekly retreating into a life of poverty, begging, possible prostitution or
even death. This is that Medea has a propensity for violence. Her shadow is her pride and
aggression and when in a difficult situation, Medea reacts with her instinct, her id, and destroys
those who threaten her.
Medeas revenge thus functions in a number of ways. It expresses Medeas personality as an
intense woman governed by her innate desires and by her pride. She is by no means an ordinary
woman. In fact some of her characteristics could have placed her within the mould of epic heroes
who believed in the sanctity of oaths and who fought for honour. Medea does however represent
womens resentment, and possibly even their rage. Euripides thus uses a fictitious character to
articulate womens resentment in the seemingly harmless form of myth.
CHAPTER EIGHT: Hero or Villain?
Introduction
85
The purpose of this chapter is to determine whether Euripides portrays Medea as a hero or as a
villain. The characters of both Jason and Medea are evaluated regarding their possible portrayals
as heroes. Finally, the ambiguity of Medea as a symbol of the feminine principle of the Great
Goddess as well as a masculine definition of a hero, is investigated. A basic example of heroic
pattern is applied to the careers of Jason and Medea, and a definition of the heroic code is given
using an extract from Homers Iliad.
The feminist theories of the Great Goddess are used to show that Medeas independence and
power hark back to feminine figures of an earlier time. Medeas extraordinary strength and her
assessment of Jasons betrayal as unacceptable represents her as a proud person unbefitting the
expected nature of women. She represents aspects of this earlier goddess, but in contrast, she also
possesses aspects of the archetypal hero in her adoption of the male concept of retributive
revenge.
One of the most important problems of Euripides tragedy is Medeas status as a hero. It was
highly unconventional to portray a woman as a strong independent figure as well as a role model.
Archetypal heroes were physically powerful and independent masculine champions of
civilisation, such as Herakles and Theseus. Women generally acted as supporting figures in these
myths, not as actual heroes.
A significant aspect of the Medea which must be explored is that of the contradictions and
contrasts of the main characters in Euripides tragedy. That is, can Medea symbolise the
archetypal feminine goddess and also represent the archetypal masculine hero-figure? This is also
related to Jasons contradictory status as a masculine hero whose success is entirely attributed to
the assistance of the chthonic powers of the Great Goddess.
Another incongruity is Medeas accusation that Jason is disloyal, stemming from actions not
unlike her own treacherous betrayal of her father. She pleads that she has been wronged by a man
whom she has cherished, but she too has wronged a man who has been her father and protector.
Medea injures her former family by killing her bother, an offence criminal enough to incur the
punishment of the gods. Later she is injured by a new family member, her husband, which would
entitle her to divine justice. The system of vengeance, loyalty and betrayal thus comes full circle.
86
The Greeks were fascinated by these problems of balance, order and reciprocity, which were seen
as a part of the whole cosmos for both humans and gods. The contradiction of Medea as the
inflictor and receptor of punishment is explored. Lvi-Strauss structuralist approach is used to
analyse the myth as a coordination of masculine and feminine powers and the system of
retribution and balance.
The Heroic Code in Homer

Epic Greek heroes, such as Achilles and Odysseus, are male figures who have specific features of
outstanding strength and bravery. In the instance of Achilles, when his honour and status are
challenged by Agamemnon, who takes away his prize (Briseis, his concubine), he withdraws
from the Trojan war and refuses to fight:
' ',

' , '
'
.
(Hom. Il. 1. 169-171)
Now I am returning to Phthia, since it is much better to go home again with
my curved ships, and I am minded no longer to stay here dishonoured and
pile up your wealth and your luxury.
[Transl. Lattimore 1951]
Achilles withdrawal is crucial to the plot in the Iliad, as this decision leads to a large amount of
suffering on the part of the Greeks and even to the death of Achilles closest friend, Patroclus.
His motivation is the insult to his position as a hero when his authority, standing and respect are
challenged. His honour has been offended and his reaction is to punish all the Greeks for their
leaders indiscretion.
The Heroic Code in Euripides Medea

Similarly, when Medea is exploited as a friend and as a wife, before being discarded by Jason,
she sees her honour at stake. She will not allow Jason to treat her abominably and therefore
assumes the role of the wronged hero and prepares herself for revenge.
As a powerful woman, Medea never sees herself subordinate to Jason. She is a sorceress, a
princess and partner in Jasons successes. He made weighty promises and oaths to her, indicating
a form of equality. When these promises were broken, she saw her status and honour at stake, as
87
would any mythical hero. She thus adopts the role of an insulted champion and invokes the male
heroic code, which entitles her to destroy her enemy (Mastronarde: 9):
, .
[ ;
' ' .]
' '
,
', . ...
...
md' ,

.
(E. Med. 797-802, 807-810)
You see, my friends, to suffer the mockery of my enemies is something I
will not tolerate. The time I went wrong was when I left my fathers house,
persuaded by the words of a Greek, who, with the gods help, will answer
to me yet let no one think me a weak and feeble woman, or one to let
things pass, but rather one of the other sort, a generous friend but an enemy
to be feared. It is people like that who achieve true fame in life.
[Transl. Davie]
In Euripides play, Medea states of herself:
... '
' ,
' .

, ' ,
.
(E. Med. 404-409)
You must not let yourself be mocked by Jasons Sisyphean wedding,
you, a royal child, descended from the Sun. you have the skill;
moreover you were born a woman; and women are incapable of
good, but have no equal in contriving harm.
[Transl. Arnott]
Medea feels she has the approval and support of the gods in that she is entitled to retribution.
Believing that the gods favoured her above Jason demonstrates her heroic role as champion of
injustice and protector of cosmic equilibrium. Because of Jasons sinful behaviour, she believes
that the honourable action to take, as a noble and heroic figure is to destroy her enemy. She is
unashamed of her actions and blatantly calls upon the gods as her witnesses.
88
,
, ,
,
.
(E. Med. 764-767)
Zeus! Justice, child of Zeus! Light of the Sun! now my friends, I will
triumph gloriously over my enemies! My journey is begun! Now I
hope that my enemies will get their deserts!
[Transl. Davie]
The Heroic Pattern

Several theorists have devised their own schemes of how to integrate myths of heroes into a fixed
pattern. The heroic pattern therefore varies in form, depending on different observations and
philosophies. Harris and Platzner describe the heroic pattern and the nature of the hero in Chapter
Ten. Using some of these features of the hero, a pattern is devised for the purpose of this
dissertation. These aspects are regular features of ancient myths of heroes, and are the most
applicable to the myth of Jason and Medea:
1. Leaves home on a Quest
2. Cooperates with other heroes according to the honour system of the heroic code.
a. If the code is broken, the hero is entitled to revenge.
3. Individually passes death-defying tests of intelligence and courage
4. Gains assistance of a female helper-maiden figure
5. Self-imposed suffering in order to develop as an individual.
6. Deification
In light of this pattern, Jason and Medea are compared to see who makes the more likely hero.
Jason should fit this pattern more successfully as he is a male figure who left on the famous quest
for the Golden Fleece. Medea, on the other hand, is a woman, but she is extraordinary and adopts
the male systems of honour and revenge.
89
The Heroic Pattern
Jason
Medea
1. Leaves home on a Quest
Yes. Jason goes on a quest on

the Argonautica to obtain the
Golden Fleece
Yes, at first he complies and
later he fails. At first Jason
cooperates with Medea as an
equal and then he fails when
he abandons her, thus breaking
his oaths to Medea.
Yes. Medea goes on a quest

from her homeland to a
foreign country
Yes. Medea cooperates with
Jason as a fellow hero and
helps him in his quest.
No. Jason fails to wreak

revenge on Medea after she
kills his children. Instead she
escapes from him unharmed.
No. Jason does not achieve
any success individually and is
unsuccessful without Medeas
assistance.
Yes. Jason receives assistance
from Medeas magical
chthonic powers.
No. Jason only undergoes
suffering unwillingly. This is
in the form of the murder of
his children by Medea.
No. Jason does not undergo
deification and dies an ignoble
death.
Yes. Medea exacts terrible

revenge on Jason for his
broken vows and lack of
respect towards her.
Yes. Medea individually
succeeds in avenging herself
on Jason and escaping
unharmed.
Yes. Medea receives magical
assistance from Hekate.
2. Cooperates with other

heroes according to the
honour system of the heroic
code.
a. If the code is broken,

the hero is entitled to
revenge.
3. Individually passes deathdefying tests of intelligence
and courage
4. Gains assistance of a female
helper figure.
5. Self-imposed suffering in
order to develop as an
individual
6. Deification
Yes. Medeas suffering due to

the loss of her children, is selfinflicted. As a result she
attains honour.
Yes. Medea experiences a
form of symbolic deification
when she is lifted into the
heavens by a dragon-drawn
chariot.
Thus in the form of this heroic pattern, Medea is a successful hero-figure whereas Jason fails to
fulfil most heroic qualities. In addition, Medea also embodies aspects of the archetypal
matriarchal figure.
The Conflict Between the Great Goddess and the Archetypal Hero
To an extent, Medea represents the Great Goddess herself, both as a strong, godlike sorceress
who uses a chariot of dragons to make her escape from Corinth, and as a source of fecundity
when she uses her ability with fertility potions to secure a place for herself in King Aegeus
house.
90
As an associate of her patron goddess Hekate, through her magical ability with potions and
chthonic wisdom, she is further related to the earlier matriarchal goddess. When the Great
Goddesss functions were split, her fearful associations with the moon and sorcery remained in
figures such as Hekate and the Furies.
Medea is also connected to the frightful Furies, vengeance spirits representing the Great
Goddess chthonic wisdom and defenders of matriarchal values. In Euripides Medea, the chorus
at one point compares Medea to the Furies because of her dreadful intentions inspired by fervent
revenge:
, , ' ' ' .
(E. Med. 1258-1260)
No, brightness born of Zeus, restrain her, hold her back, drive her from
the house, the wretched woman whom fiends have turned into a
murderous Fury!
[Transl. Davie]
Even though Medea is linked to this feminine principle, she seems to reject this association when
she adopts the heroic code to avenge herself. By assuming the role of wronged hero she decides
to destroy her husband by killing her children. The act of murdering her offspring completely
denies the primary function of the Great Goddess as producer and sustainer of life. She uses the
male incentive of destruction, to maintain social order and justice, thus drawing her closer to the
paternal gods and heroes. It was not unheard of for important male mythological figures, such as
Herakles, Tantalus and Cronus to kill, or attempt to kill their children. This aspect therefore links
Medea more closely to archetypal masculine heroes as opposed to the feminine counterpart of the
archetypal mother figure.
Jason, on the other hand, could be seen as a stereotypical hero who goes on an archetypal quest
(Harris & Platzner: 45). He kills a dragon, a serpent symbol of the Great Goddess, and performs
other extraordinary tasks as the leader of the famous Argonauts. He ventures on a death-defying
journey in order to prove his heroic identity, and has a singular ambitious drive for an immortal
reputation. However, everything seemed to change after Jason met Medea. He needed her
chthonic wisdom in order to perform his tasks to claim the Golden Fleece. He also relied on her
91
to ensure a safe escape from Colchis and to rid him of his uncle who had supplanted his throne.
Furthermore, his dependency was not merely momentary; he relied on her far more than most
heroes relied on the help of a maiden.
Because women were seen as the possessions of men, it would have been considered acceptable
for Jason to use Medea for his own purposes before leaving her. In Greek mythology there are
many examples where men exploit women for their own advantage or pleasure. The mythological
hero Theseus uses Ariadnes help against the minotaur before he abandons her on an island so
that he can marry her younger sister Phaedra. Admetus allows his young wife Alcestis to die in
his place; Agamemnon captures the Trojan, non-Greek princess, Cassandra as a concubine for his
own selfish pleasure. But instead of merely using her abilities and abandoning her immediately,
as did Theseus with Ariadne, Jason made a binding oath to Medea, as her husband.
Later, he ignobly broke this oath and tried to maintain a dominant political position by leaving
Medea for a new and more influential wife. He attempted to fulfil the duties of a man by trying to
secure a prominent social standing. He was unsuccessful in this because Medea proved to be
stronger and cleverer than he was. Thus Jason never achieved anything without the powers of a
woman. His heroic status he owed to his first wife, and his new role as a prince in the kingdom of
Corinth was because of his second marriage.
Jason thus fails as a hero, as he lacks the incentive and power to achieve individual success.
Instead he has to use Medeas chthonic abilities to succeed in his endeavours and when he wants
to abandon her, she defeats him.
According to these factors, the characters of Jason and Medea in Euripides Medea show a
reversal of gender roles. Medea assumes the position of the masculine hero, whereas Jason
becomes the defeated accomplice whose previous successes were reliant on the help of feminine
chthonic wisdom and sorcery.
The Paradox of Medea as Murderer and Hero

The problem with Medeas characterisation as a hero, is that she exacts justice from a false
friend, Jason, but earlier in her career she murders her brother who did not warrant an assault. In
essence she is already guilty of betrayal, the same claim she makes against Jason when he
92
abandons her. Thus Medea feels regret and guilt when she realises that her loyalty has been given
to the wrong person.
The tutor comments on the progression of loyalty over time. He speaks of how Jason loves a new
princess when he used to love Medea.
,
' .
(E. Med. 76-77)
Old ties of affection give way to new; this house has no claims on that
mans heart now.
[Transl. Davie]
This may also apply to Medea indirectly as her ties of love used to be towards her father before
she chose to give her loyalty to Jason.
When she is told by Creon that she has to leave the country, her misdirected loyalty becomes
clear. She longs for her land of birth because she knows that before she betrayed her father,
Colchis would always have been a haven to her. She chose to be at the mercy of the false
protector, Jason, and betrayed her true protector, her father:
K. .
M. , .
K. .
(E. Med. 327-329)
Creon: Am I to show you more love than my own family?
Medea: O Colchis, my dear homeland! How I think of you now!
Creon: There you are right; only my children win more love from me
than my country.
[Transl. Davie]
Creon shows his love and allegiance to his family and his country, which contrasts with Medeas
betrayal of her country and family. After she hears Creon, she realises her devotion was
misplaced.
Medea expresses her regret at leaving her homeland. This decision that she made cost her all her
relatives. She can never go home again. For her betrayal, and because of Jason betrayal she is
now going to kill her children, cutting off her last bonds to any loving family:
' .
' '

93
'
'
,
' . ...
... ' '
,
', .
(E. Med. 790-796, 800-802)
But now I dismiss this business from my thoughts. It makes me groan
to think what deed I must do next. For I shall kill my own children; no
one shall take them from me. I will wreak havoc on all Jasons house and
then quit this land, to escape the charge of murdering my beloved children,
after daring to do a deed that is abominable indeed ... The time I went
wrong was when I left my fathers house, persuaded by the words of a Greek
[Transl. Davie]
The chorus remarks on Medeas fury that destroys her family. It may be that her destruction of
her children is the gods vengeance for her destruction of her previous family. She may be being
punished for what she has done to her father and her homeland, and balance of the cosmos once
again finds concord. As expressed by the chorus, the cause of both destructions is her relentless
violence and fervour caused by obsessive love:
,
< >
;
ma' ' .
(E. Med. 1265-1270)
Unhappy woman, why do you surrender to this anger that crushes your
heart, why this lust for blood? For kindred blood polluting the ground
weighs heavy upon mortals; the murderers are paid in just measure by
the sorrows that heaven wills upon their houses.
[Transl. Davie]
Medeas vengeance thus shows the settlement of cosmic harmony in two different ways. Firstly,
it restores balance within society following Jasons unjust behaviour by breaking strong oaths
and moral obligations to Medea. Secondly, familial harmony presided over by Zeus is reestablished by having the destruction of Medeas new family as retribution for her destruction of
94
her former family. The contradictions within the play are thus finally mitigated by the tragic
destruction of the house of Jason and Medea.
Lvi-Strauss Structuralist Method Applied to the Medea

Lvi-Strauss structuralist approach described by Morford & Lenardon (p. 15) is used to derive
meaning from the separate components of the myth of Jason and Medea.
The overall myth is categorised as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Destruction of old family relations

Destruction of new family relations
Patriarchal subordination or exploitation of matriarchal systems
Matriarchal subordination or exploitation of patriarchal systems
The first two categories and the second two categories are set in opposition to each other to show
the overall balance within the myth of Medea and Jason. They thus reflect how the medium of
myth is used to reflect the importance of societal harmony within society:
95
1. Destruction of
old family relations
2. Destruction of
new family relations
Medea betrays her

father to help the
outsider, Jason,
accomplish his
expedition.
Medea kills her

brother
Jason abandons his
former wife for a
new wife
Medea is deserted by
her husband (current
family member) to
become an outsider in
a foreign land.
Jasons new wife is
killed by his former
wife.
Medea kills her own
children.
3. Patriarchal
subordination/
exploitation of
matriarchal systems
Jason uses Medeas
sorcery, (an aspect of
the Great Goddess) to
help his patriarchal
heroic quest.
Jason kills the dragon
(a symbol of the
Great Goddess).
4. Matriarchal
subordination/
exploitation of
patriarchal systems
Medea adopts the

heroic credo to
become victorious
over her patriarchal
suppressor.
Medea defeats Jason

and displays her
victory by riding off
on a dragon chariot.
Thus the myth of Medea illustrates a system of reciprocity and balance. In terms of Lvi-Strauss,
the myth shows a human tendency to ultimately find equilibrium. The binary system of themes in
Euripides Medea creates a sense of cohesion, as all the elements together contribute to a feeling
of ultimate unity and closure within society.
Medea was furious that Jason betrayed herbut she had formerly betrayed her father. She even
killed her own children to achieve retribution from Jason. This ultimately punished Medea herself
as it destroyed her new family and ended any meaningful life for her as a woman. The murder of
her sons at her own hands reminds us that Medea started her new life and family by killing her
own brother, which ended her earlier family life and destroyed her father. Jason also felt the
reprisal for his self-serving actions. He abandoned his first wife only to have his second wife
killed due to this injustice. He then also lost both of his families without having an heir to his
name and was destroyed as a man.
96
The equilibrium and contradiction within the tragedy are evident. Medea is a female character
who adopts the male code of retribution to avenge herself as a wronged wife, and Jason is a male
character whose successes can be attributed to the powers of feminine sorcery. Medea is also a
woman who has betrayed her fatherand in return she is betrayed by Jason, the man she chose
above her father.
In setting these factors in opposition to each other, the play shows how a woman can be a hero
and a man can be a villain. Thus the irregularities in tragedy express the inconsistencies in life.
One cannot easily typecast a group and expect complete compliancy. Women are individuals as
are men and restraining characteristics could cause a dramatic, unpredictable reaction.
Conclusion
Medea does not fit the mould of the passive supporting role of a feminine assistant. Instead of
acting out the role of a supportive and passive woman to a hero, Medea seeks revenge against
Jason as an oath-breaker, and adopts the masculine definition of retribution. The table of the
heroic pattern clearly demonstrates that Medea embodies more characteristics of an archetypal
masculine hero than does Jason.
Jason could initially have been seen as a traditional hero, but he failed in this definition when he
was defeated by a woman and was unsuccessful in gaining glory. Their roles are then reversed:
Jasons successes can be attributed to the help of female power and Medeas ultimate success
over her enemy, Jason, is due to her assumption of the male heroic code of honour and revenge.
Jason is a dishonourable man through his breaking of powerful oaths and his neglect of a friend
and wife to whom he owed his previous accomplishments. Medea successfully defeats him, and
thus restores order and balance to society and the cosmos. Jason, then a coward who needs the
help of others to achieve his goals, whereas Medea is a hero who individually conquers an
immoral oath-breaker.
97

This dissertation examines the problem of the function of Euripides portrayal of Medea. In order
to answer this problem, the content is broken down into five thematic chapters. That is,
Euripides perpetuation or deconstruction of patriarchal society, his portrayal of Medea as a
foreigner, the question of Medea as a victim or perpetrator, the problem of whether Medeas
vengeance can be seen as justifiable or not, and finally, the conflict of Medea as a murderer and
hero.
The tragedy indicates the inconsistencies within society. Medea was originally the perfect wife
who did everything for her husband by way of supporting him in all his exploits. She also bore
him two legitimate sons and heirs to his legacy. In return, she was abandoned, which shows the
problems within patriarchal Greek society. Even though Medea fulfilled all her duties as a
woman, she is still left with nothing. Had this happened in ordinary Greek society, the woman
would be powerless. When Medea realises that her marriage and her role as a woman has not
been built on anything substantial, she understandably becomes very angry. She has fulfilled her
rolebut Jason has not fulfilled his. This shows the double standard in society. A woman is
prescribed her role and has to comply with it, but this did not necessarily hold for men.
Another motive for presenting Medea as a strong, proud and independent individual could be to
comment on the nature of women. Women were thought to be less intelligent and less capable
than men, but a figure such as Medea could be challenging that perception. She is portrayed as
more capable and possibly more intelligent than her heroic husband Jason.
The possible destructive consequences of subordinated women is shown through the excessive
violence of Medea. She represents the pent-up frustration of women. Euripides demonstrates how
people who retain their feelings and opinions for too long may eventually fly into an
uncontrollable rage. Such could have been the situation for many repressed women in fifth
century B.C.E. Greece. To an extent, Medea is a heroic symbol for ancient Greek women, even if
they did not consider her to be one. She stands against female suppression and stereotyping and
exposes the double standards in society.
98
Concerning Medeas position as a outsider, Euripides gives a voice to foreign women, one of the
most powerless groups within ancient Greece. Euripides sympathy for Medea as a foreigner is
indicated in the text. She is strong and noble and upholds oaths while longing for her home as
would any Greek in a far-off foreign land.
Further evidence for Euripides sympathies, is his depiction of Medea as a victim of Jasons
broken oaths and unfounded neglect, when she should have been treated as a friend. Although
Euripides chooses to represent Medea as the murderer of her children, he still presents her in a
sympathetic light. He communicates Medeas grief through her own lamentations and uses other
characters to indicate pity for Medea and condemnation of Jason.
She suffers Jasons abandonment and is also a victim of her own passion and pride, in that she
has killed her own brother and her two sons. The tragedy is that of a loving woman who destroys
everything she loves on account of her misplaced passion. She withdraws her affection from her
father and country and chooses to give her love and loyalty to her new husband. When that
family proves to be based on false love and security, she finally confronts the pain of being
betrayed by the one she loves. With this treachery, her passion turns to fury; ultimately
everything in her path is destroyed, including herself. To some extent, the betrayal of her father
comes home to her in the form of her husbands rejection. Once the perpetrator, now the victim.
Medeas regret and fury culminates in the destruction of her new family. Thus her nature, that of
an intensely passionate women, is the cause of the destruction of her predecessors and her
progeny alike.
Euripides Medea is the strong sorceress who does not fit into the patriarchal definition of a
good woman. She still has the residual chthonic traits of a powerful matriarchal goddess, and
when the present definition of a good woman fails her, she adopts the male heroic code to
avenge herself. She destroys her worst enemy, as was customary in the policy of helping friends
and harming enemies.
In effect, Medea is a hero in a number of different guises. She is related to the archetypal male
hero through her quest for honour and respect, and in her independent pursuit of retribution. Her
potential villain status is counterbalanced by her representation as a victim. As a hero, her
vengeance is seen as justifiable, whereas Jason is portrayed as a flawed character. She may have
99
received a bad reputation as a result of her masculine behaviour, but in essence she is a
champion of female suppression as the negative aspects of patriarchal principles reveal
themselves in the tragedy. The audience may not have admired Medea or approved of her
unfeminine behaviour, but her quest for reciprocity would have been understood.
Euripides tragedy is of a woman who does not fit into the mould of her prescribed role of
submissive wife. It is a play which shows the problems of patriarchal society. If a husband illtreats a wife who has nothing to lose, disaster could ensue. Medeas character is a heroic one
championing the plight of women. Even though the audience may not have been ready for such a
dramatic performance, the content questions the male-centric structure of Greek society.
100
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, W. (2002). Euripides: Medea. London: Duckworth.
Arnott, P.D. (Transl.). (2004). The Medea of Euripides in Harris & Platzner Classical
Mythology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Babbitt, F.C. (Transl.). (1928). PlutarchMoralia II London: William Heinemann Ltd.
Baldick, C. (2001). Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Barrett, D. (Transl.) (1964). Aristophanes: The Wasps, The Poet and the Women and The Frogs
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Belfiore, E. S. (2000). Murder Among Friends. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blondell, R., Gamel, M-K., Sorkin Rabinowitz, N. & Zweig, B. (1999). Women on the Edge.
London: Routledge.
Blundell, M.W. (1989). Helping Friends and Harming Enemies. Cambridge: Cambridge
Universtiy Press.
Brown, J.A.C. (1964). Freud and the Post-Freudians. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Butler, S. (Transl.). (1944). The Odyssey of Homer. Roslyn: Walter J. Black.
Cohan, D. Seclusion, Separation, and the Status of Women in Classical Athens in McAuslan, I
& Walcot, P. (1996). Women in Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Conacher, D.J. (1967). Euripidean Drama. London: Oxford University Press.
Davie, J. (Transl.). (1954). EuripidesAlcestis and Other Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
De Lacy, P. H. & Einarson, B. (Transl.) (1959). Plutarchs Moralia: VII London: William
Heinemann Ltd.
Des Bouvrie, S. (1992). Women in Greek TragedyAn Anthropological Approach. Oslo:
Norwegian U.P.
De Slincourt, A. (Transl.). (1954). Herodotus The Histories. London: Penguin Books.
Dorsch, T.S. (Transl.). (1965). Aristotle, Horace, Longinus Classical Literary Criticism.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Easterling, P. E. & Knox, B.M.W. (eds). (1989). The Cambridge History of Classical Literature:
Greek Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
101
Fantham, E., Foley, H., Boymel Kampen, N., Pomeroy, S., & Shapiro, H. (1994). Women in the
Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fitzgerald, J.T. (1997). Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Atalanta: Scholars Press.
Foley, H.P. (2001). Female Acts in Greek Tragedy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University
Press.
Goff, G. M. A. (1990). The Noose of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Graves, R. (1957). The Greek Myths: Volume Two. Victoria and Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books.
Grube, G.M.A. (1961). The Drama of Euripides. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Harris, S.L. & Platzner, G. (2004) Classical Mythology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Headlam, C.E.S. (ed.). (1954). EuripidesMedea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter (Transl.) (1993). Apollonius of RhodesJason and the Golden Fleece. (Translated and
Edited by R. Hunter). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitto, H.D.F. (1966). Greek Tragedy. London: Routledge.
Lattimore, R. (Transl.). (1951). The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lattimore, R. (1958). The Poetry of Greek Tragedy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University
Press.
Lefkowitz, M.R. Wives and Husbands in McAuslan, I. & Walcot, P. (1996). Women in
Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Liddel, H.G. & Scott, R. (1940). A GreekEnglish Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
March, J. (1990). Euripides the Misogynist? in Powell, A. (ed). Euripides, Women, and
Sexuality. London: Routledge.
Mastronarde, D. J. (ed) (2002). Euripides Medea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meagher, R. E. (1989). Mortal Vision. New York: St. Martins Press.
Morford, M.P.O & Lenardon, R.J. (1991). Classical Mythology (Fourth Edition). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Murison, A.F. (Transl.). (1933). The Odes Of Pindar. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Murphy, C.F. (1995). Beyond Feminism. Washington: CUA.
Murray, G. (1965). Euripides and his Age. London: Oxford University Press.
102
Page, D.L. (ed.). (1967). Medea. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Pomeroy, S. B. (1975). Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves. New York: Schocken Books.
Radstone, S. Remembering Medea: The Uses of Nostalgia in Critical Quarterly Autumn 1993.
Volume 35 issue no. 3. 54-63.
Rutherford, R (ed.) (1996) Euripides: Alcestis and Other Plays. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. (1994). An Introduction to Intercultural Communication. In
Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. Intercultural Communication. New York: Thomson Publishing.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg. (1983). Exit Atossa: Images of Women in Greek Historiography on
Persia. in Cameron, A. & Kuhrt, A. (eds). Images of Women in Antiquity. London: Routledge.
Sardar, Z., Nandy, A. & Wyn Davies, M. (1993). Barbaric Others. London: Pluto Press.
Schlesinger, E. (1968). On Euripides Medea in Segal, E. (ed). Euripides. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. New
York: Blackwell.
Sinclair, T.A. (Transl.). (1981). Aristotle The Politics. London: Penguin Books.
Smith, L. P. (1975). Studies of Characterization in Euripides: The Medeia, Elektra and Orestes.
Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Information Service.
Thompson, N. (1996). Herodotus and the Origins of the Political Community. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (1975) Language and SexDifference and Dominance. New York:
Newbury House.
Thorne, B., Kramarae, C. & Henley, N. (1975) Language, Gender and Society: Opening a
Second Decade of Research. New York: Newbury House.
Vellacott, P. (Transl.). (1953). EuripidesAlcestis, Hippolytus, Iphigenia in Taurus. Bungay:
Penguin Books.
Vellacot, P. (Transl.). (1973). EuripidesThe Bacchae and Other Plays. London: Penguin
Books.
Vellacott, P. (1975). Ironic Drama. London: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, S.F. (2002). Jung and the Jungians on Myth. New York:
Routledge.
103
Wender, D. (Transl.). (1973) Hesiod and Theognis. Bungay : Penguin Books.

Williamson, M. (1990). A Womans Place in Euripides Medea. in Powell, A. (ed). Euripides,
Women and Sexuality. London: Routledge.
Wood, J.T. (1994). Gender, Communication and Culture. in Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E.
Intercultural communication. New York: Thomson Publishing.
Zeitlin, F. I. (1996). Playing the Other. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
104

Medea Complete PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Medea Complete PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFLICTING ASPECTS OF CHARACTER IN EURIPIDES MEDEA

- Expressions of Medea as a Victim

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

The Myth of Jason and Medea

In order to be able to determine whether Euripides represents Medea as a victim or a perpetrator,

CHAPTER TWO: Review of the Literature.

CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology

CHAPTER FOUR: Patriarchal Society: Perpetuated or Deconstructed?

CHAPTER FIVE: Medea as an Outsider

CHAPTER SIX: Victim or Perpetrator?

CHAPTER SEVEN: Justifiable Vengeance

CHAPTER EIGHT: Hero or Villain

CHAPTER NINE: Conclusion

CHAPTER TWO: Overview of the Literature

The Philological Approach

The Traditional Literary Approach

The Psychological Approach

The Philosophical Approach

The Socio-Historical Approach

The Feminist Approach

CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology

The Freudian Approach

The Jungian Approach

Claude Lvi-Strauss Structuralism

Overrating of blood relations

Cadmus looks for

Cadmus kills the

Oedipus marries his

Antigone buries her

The Feminist Approach

The Hero as an Archetype

CHAPTER FOUR: Patriarchal Society: Perpetuated or Deconstructed?

Theories of Male/Female Difference

Male and Female in Greek Thought and Society

No more entreating of me, you dog, by knees or parents.

Euripides Reveals the Paradoxes and Anomalies of Greek Social Structure

The Importance of Love to a Woman

Euripides Challenges Female Archetypes

The Inherent Injustice in Society as an Explanation for Women Behaving Badly

Euripides Medea demonstrates destructive results having a strong, unconventional female in a

CHAPTER FIVE: Medea as an Outsider

Herodotus and Aristotle

in a female it is present but ineffective, in a child present but undeveloped.

Euripides Troiades as an Example of the Perspective of Foreign Women

Euripides Shows the Perspective of the Foreign Woman in the Medea

My country, how strongly I recall you now.

CHAPTER SIX: Victim or Perpetrator?

Marriage Obligations and Oaths

Vanished is the binding spell of oaths and reverence abides no more in

Expressions of Medea as a Victim

Freuds Domestic Psychodrama

CHAPTER SEVEN: Justifiable Violence

Examples of Revenge in Homers Bronze Age Epics

Revenge in the Medea

You see my friends, to suffer the mockery of my enemies is something

friend but an enemy to be feared.

Jungs Theory of the Shadow

Freuds Theory of the Id, Ego and Superego

Where am I to turn now? To my fathers house that I betrayed together

CHAPTER EIGHT: Hero or Villain?

The Heroic Code in Homer

The Heroic Code in Euripides Medea