Virtuous Medea: Euripides Satirical Criticism on Gender in Society

By Benjamin Rogaczewski

Greek 306

May 1, 2013

There seems to be two aspects Greek tragedy, which scholiasts agree upon. First, Greek tragedy is a solely an Athenian invention. Funded through the polis, the tragedians wrote for the Athenian citizens, supplemented by the social context around them. As one scholar has put it literature, we agree, is not to be disconnected from society and history,[footnoteRef:1] and so we may well assume that theatre as well is not disconnected. The playwrights of Athens included surfeit commentary on their own times and often colored their works with historical and social criticism. Second, it is possible that this social commentary and criticism was meant to question to the Athenian values, albeit society status, foreign relations, or gender commentary. [1: Jasper Griffin, The Social Function of Attic Tragedy, The Classical Quarterly 48 (1998): 54.]

Athenian society could not be free from gender criticisms, even though it was male exclusive in almost all aspects of society. Women could not vote, were not citizens, and could not participate in the theatre, a religious function in its earliest form. Nonetheless, women found their way into the works of these tragedians, but as cross-dressing males portraying women. Even though men portrayed them, these women on stage intrigued the tragedians, as well as their Athenian audiences. It was no surprise that they were included in casts of plays such as Antigone, Iphigenia at Aulis, and Medea, since it had been common thought that women were the opposite of men. As Roger Just statesIn any society the concept of masculinity and femininity are defined by mutual opposition and women tend to be portrayed as what men, ideally, are not.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Michael X. Zelenak, Gender and Politics in Greek Tragedy (New York, New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1998) 18.]

The same could be said for the different virtues and vices. This is essentially the focus of my work. I intend to examine a specific speech from Euripides Medea, focusing on the , or proofs, portion. By examining the proofs, I will try to answer this question: Do the cardinal virtues, and the opposite vices, play a role in the construction of this speech? Answering this question, I believe, will shed light on other sections concerning the tragedians. If it can be proved that the cardinal virtues did play a role in the construction of Euripides Medea, specifically in the speech from l. 536-l. 575, then it is probable that these may shed light on contemporary Athenian values and morality, and therefore may be used as a literary locus for the social structure of Athenian society concerning gender. In order to address this question, I will set up the work in two parts. The first part will explain what are the virtues of Athenian society based on a contemporary template, Aristotles Rhetoric. In viewing what this staunch philosopher has to say about virtues and vices, we will have a better understanding of what Euripides might consider to be virtues and vices. The second part will examine the proofs in this agon speech from the Medea and discuss how one might see them as similar to the cardinal virtues and the opposite vices.A conclusion will follow, which will further analyze possible perspectives on how these proofs can aid the scholiast in understanding the sociological background of Athenian society. Did Euripides use these proofs as commentary for the Athenian society, or is Euripides something more about society in general? The conclusion will address these questions in more detail.

Part I: What is Virtue?

Virtue in itself is difficult to date, but scholars believe that among the many virtues, the four cardinal virtues have accorded a certain pivotal status in moral life, and therefore reign supreme amongst the collective of virtues.[footnoteRef:3] The cardinal virtues are prudence (), temperance (), courage (), and justice (). A Concise analysis of virtue and vice comes from Aristotles Rhetoric. This work was written after Euripides, making it problematic to say that they are contemporaries. However, Euripides and Socrates were contemporaries in Athens, so we are fortunate that Aristotle comes from a Socratic background. Let us now look at Aristotles Rhetoric. [3: David Carr, The Cardinal Virtues and Platos Moral Psychology, The Philosophical Quarterly 38 (1988): 186.]

Aristotle states Virtue, it would seem, is a faculty of providing and preserving good things, a faculty productive of many and great benefits, in fact, of all things in all cases.[footnoteRef:4] [4: Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.9.4. [Loeb Edition]]

For Aristotle, virtue only provides good things, and therefore is noble. The greatest of virtues are those that benefit others, since that is the nature of virtue: benefit. Therefore, we can say that according to Aristotle, virtue is something that gives benefit to others, and not simply benefitting for ones self. If we assume that vice is virtues opposite, we can perhaps say that vice solely benefits selfishly, whereas virtue benefits selflessly. This concept will become important later on. Aristotle goes on to describe the different virtues and their respective vices, and states that although each of these virtues are important, the two most esteemed virtues are courage and justice. This will be very important when we consider the figure of Medea and the virtues of courage and justice. We will focus more on what Aristotle says of these specific virtues as we examine the proofs from the Medea. Now let us turn to the speech itself.

Part II: Jasons Fine Speech (l. 536-575)

The Medea details the tale of the mythic hero, Jason, and his foreign wife, the cunning Medea. The play takes place in the city of Corinth and concerns a series of scenes describing the constant conflict between Jason, who intends to marry the princess of Corinth, and Medea, who is slighted by Jasons intentions. Within this conflict, Euripides includes what are called scenes, named for the contest of words between the main characters of the play; in this case, Jason and Medea. Euripides used the art of rhetoric, stylistic discourse, in constructing these scenes, and so it is not surprising that we may turn to Aristotles Rhetoric, a commentary on the art of discourse.In the present scene, Medea has conveyed further why she disapproves of Jasons intention to marry the princess of Corinth, citing his original oath of marriage to her, in exchange for Medeas aid in the capture of the golden fleece, a labor which Jason could not have completed without the help of Medeas legendary cunning. Medea also states that Jasons current actions prove him to be ungrateful, disregarding the fact that she left her home forever, cutting her familial ties permanently through betrayal and blood, and all for the benefit of her beloved husband, Jason.Jason goes on to explain how Aphrodite, the goddess of love, was his true savior in Colchis, instead of Medea. Although he does admit that Medeas aid was helpful, but then states that she only helped Jason in order to gain fame for her . It is here where we see our first proof. The text reads .[footnoteRef:5] [5: Euripides, Med. 536-541. [Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics Edition]]

(First, you now live amongst the Greeks, not in a country of barbarians. Youre familiar with justice and the law, rather than brute force. Besides, all the Greeks know that youre clever, so youve earned yourself a fine reputation. If you still lived at the edge of the world, there would not be talk about you now.)Jason describes how Medea now prospers in the civilized lands of the Greeks. It is here that she gained her reputation of cunning and cleverness. However, Jason is not merely stating the wonderful circumstance Medea has found herself in. Instead, he describes Medea as a selfish woman, seeking her own benefit in , or fame. According to Jason, she does not care for the benefit of her husband, Jason, nor does she care for the benefit of her children. Jasons statement, however, does not negate her beneficial aid. On the contrary, Jason admits in line 534, your help [to me] was not bad.[footnoteRef:6] Jason admits that Medeas aid was indeed helpful, and so up to this point, we might understand Medea to be a virtuous figure. Jason is not finished with his praise, however, and states one more important piece of information. He claims that it was not on account of Medea that he was saved from Colchis, but instead that Aphrodite saved him. As Melissa Mueller states [6: Euripides, Med. 534]

Jason tries, in the , to dismiss Medeas claim to by ascribing her past actions to the influence of divine agents.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Melissa Mueller, Language of Reciprocity in Euripides Medea, The American Journal of Philology 122 (2001): 474.]

By stating that he was saved by Aphrodite rather than Medea, Jason removes the praise he placed upon his wife and disregards her benefit to him. Aristotle states in his Rhetoric, things which are naturally good and not such as are good for the individual, since such things are inspired by selfish motives.[footnoteRef:8] If we apply Aristotles analysis of virtues to Jasons proof, we can see that Jason seeks to prove that Medea is selfish, or a woman of vice, rather than being selfless, or virtuous. [8: Aristotle, Rhet. 1.9.17.]

Let us now look at the second proof, concerning Jasons wedding to the princess of Corinth. The text reads . [footnoteRef:9] [9: Euripides, Med. 547-554.]

(As for your complaints about this marriage, I'll show you that in this I'm being wise, and moderate, and very friendly to you, and to my children. You must have patience. When I came here from the land of Iolcus,I brought with me many troubles, hard ones,things impossible for me to deal with.What greater good fortune could I have foundthan marrying the daughter of the king,mean exile?)First we see that Jason establishes himself as , or wise, and , or prudent, in his decision to marry the princess since it will, as Deborah Boedeker states, grant Jason and his family material comforts, good connections, and a powerful and lasting house.[footnoteRef:10] Jason himself says, What greater good fortune could I have foundthan marrying the daughter of the king, mean exile? Jason believes that the benefits he shall gain from this royal marriage will help not only himself, but his children as well. Jason seeks to benefit others, making him a virtuous figure. Jason was a fugitive from Iolcus now because of Medea, which no doubt is the underlying meaning for his lamentation, and so he could not ask for a better situation than to be married to the princess of Corinth, granting him something out of nothing. For Jason this is a win-win situation since it solves his fugitive issue and grants his family the possibility of a prosperous future, which, according to Jason, was taken away through Medeas actions. In Jasons self-praise we see that he, through prudence and wisdom, is virtuous. [10: Deborah Boedeker, Euripides Medea and the Vanity of Logoi, Classical Philology 86 (1991): 106.]

Then, Jason addresses Medeas reproaching of the marriage bed, claiming that she is jealous of the new bride. According to Jason, Medea thinks that he only wishes to satiate his pleasures with the princess, producing numerous children. Medea only can think of the sexual pleasures involved in this union, and, as we can gather from Jasons next statement, gives evidence that all women seem to think with sensual pleasures on their mind. Jason outright states that his union with the princess is not meant to make a surplus amount of children, since that is a foolish endeavor, and states that if Medea could think rationally and not sexually, she would see that the union is meant to benefit her children in providing them with some siblings. Jason then says . . . .[footnoteRef:11] [11: Euripides, Med. 565-575.]

(Do you need more children? In my case, there's some benefit to havenew children to help those already born. Was this a bad scheme? You'd agree with me, if you weren't so upset about the sex. But you women are so idioticyou think if everything is fine in bed,you have all you need, but if the sex is bad,then all the very best and finest things you make your enemies. What mortals needis some other way to get our children. here should be no female sex. With that, men would be rid of all their troubles.)What we can gather from this discourse, plainly, is that Jason seems to be a master of temperance, in that he can forge a bond with the princess solely based on beneficial merit rather than producing children, while Medea only can think of the sexual pleasures she will be denied from Jasons marriage to the princess, making her evidently licentious, temperances opposite vice. From these readings, it is clear that Jason would appear to be the virtuous figure, while Medea is the figure of vice. However, I would like to present a different perspective. There are multiple different ways to view these virtues and vices in the readings. First, it is possible that Euripides is stating outright that, according to Athenian society, men are virtuous, and women, being their direct opposite, must be wickedly full of vice. This does not, however, agree with Euripides other plays. For instance, in the Alcestis, Alcestis, the wife of Admetus, is willing to give up her life instead of allowing her husband to die, a noble and virtuous endeavor. In Iphigenia at Aulis, Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, sacrifices herself in exchange for the safe and swift travel of the Achaeans to Troy, a selfless beneficial action for others and not necessarily herself. Therefore, it would be strange for Euripides to comment on women as being wicked and full of vice.There is another possible view: Euripides uses satirical irony in order to comment on gender status of Athenian society. Athens was patriarchal society, with women having little rights and being similar to slaves and children, in that respect. As for the concept of virtue, women were not amongst the virtuous many. In fact, Aristotle comments on this idea in his Rhetoric sayingVirtues and actions are nobler, when they proceed from those who are naturally worthier, for instance, from a man rather than from a woman.[footnoteRef:12] [12: Aristotle, Rhet. 1.9.22.]

Although Euripides lived before the time of Aristotle, there would be no shock in thinking that Aristotles statement comes from an earlier idea, inherent within the Athenian . Euripides appears to be addressing this inherent idea through the figure of Medea. It is my view that Euripides considers Medea to be a virtuous figure through the esteemed virtues of courage and justice. We may ascertain this through Aristotles Rhetoric. As stated earlier in Part I, Aristotle considered courage and justice to be the most esteemed of virtues. Through her own actions, Medea can be considered to be a figure of courage and justice.When Medea left her homeland in Colchis she understood that she could never return. By betraying her family through the murder and dismembering of her brother, Absyrtus, Medea realizes that she has cut her familial ties to Colchis. She has no opportunity for a , or return home, making her a tragic heroine who aids Jason. Within Greek writings, family seems to be one of the strongest themes. We might consider her either to be extremely foolish, or extremely courageous, in that she severs her familial ties. Medea, however, is known to be , or cunning, and so we can rule out foolishness.[footnoteRef:13] Through this understanding, we can see that Medea is a courageous figure, but what about the virtue of justice? [13: Euripides, Med. 539.]

More so than courage, Medea is certainly a figure of justice. When Medea agreed to help Jason retrieve the golden fleece, she required that Jason take her away and marry her. They shook hands, establishing a divine oath. When Jason made his intentions know to marry the princess of Corinth, Medea reproached the idea, not for lack for sensual pleasures, but rather because of the divine oath established between Medea and Jason. As Anne Burnett states, oaths were divinely ordained and magically protected, and they stood like the primeval pillar that supports the sky.[footnoteRef:14] Medea understands the supreme importance of divine oaths, whereas Jason disregards them as inconsequential. When he decides to ignore Medeas pleas, he breaks that divine oath, and so turns Medea into a figure of vengeance. Since Jason breaks his oath of friendship and alliance with Medea, he is now her enemy. For the Greeks, to forgive your enemies brought weakness, while revenge was a plain duty, and the old adage: help your friends and hurt your enemies.[footnoteRef:15] She therefore acts justly in hurting Jason through the murder of her children. In this sense, Medea is shown to be a figure of justice, while Jason is unjust; Medea is virtuous, and now Jason is the figure of vice. [14: Judith Fletcher, Women and Oaths in Euripides, Theatre Journal 55 (2003): 30.] [15: Ayala H. Gabriel, Living with Medea and Thinking after Freud, Cultural Anthropology 7 (1992): 353.]

From this perspective, one can see that Euripides shows Medea to be a virtuous figure by attaching to her the virtues of courage and justice. In Euripides Medea, Medea is no longer viewed as the wicked witch of vice, but rather the virtuous woman of divine justice. However, does this commentary on Medea encompass all Athenian women? In a certain respect, yes. Throughout Euripides tragedy, Medea agrees often with her chorus of Corinthian women and they, in turn, agree with her. Ironically, Euripides speaks for the women of Athens through the mouthpiece of this foreign, barbarian, woman. In the words of Bernard KnoxAlthough Medea is a foreigner, Euripides allows her to speak for, and in the voice of, Greek culture, and he considers Medeas speech to the chorus of women as a reflection of Athenian social conditions.[footnoteRef:16] [16: Ayala Gabriel, Living with Medea, 350.]

As we can see from this point of view, Medea indeed reflects the gender aspects of Athenian society. Essentially, Euripides uses the satire of Jasons speech to criticize how Athenians considered women in society to be figures of vice rather than virtue. He also uses Medeas own actions and motives as evidence that Medea is in fact a figure of virtue. Through Jasons fine speech, Euripides redeems Medea and her actions.

BibliographyAristotle. The "Art" of Rhetoric. Translated by John Henry Freese. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1967.

Boedeker, Deborah. "Euripides' Medea and the Vanity of ." Classical Philology (The University of Chicago Press) 86, no. 2 (April 1991): 95-112.

Carr, David. "The Cardinal Virtues and Plato's Moral Psychology." The Philosophical Quarterly (Wiley) 38, no. 151 (April 1988): 186-200.

Euripides. Medea. Translated by Donald J. Mastronarde. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, 2002.

. Medea. Translated by Ian Johnston. Arlington, Virginia: Richer Resources Publications.

Fletcher, Judith. "Women and Oaths in Euripides." Theatre Journal (The Johns Hopkins University Press) 55, no. 1 (March 2003): 29-44.

Gabriel, Ayala H. "Living with Medea and Thinking after Freud: Greek Drama, Gender, and Concealments." Cultural Anthropology (Wiley) 7, no. 3 (August 1992): 346-373.

Griffin, Jasper. "The Social Function of Attic Tragedy." The Classical Quarterly (Cambridge University Press) 48, no. 1 (1998): 39-61.

McClure, Laura. ""The Worst Husband": Discourses of Praise and Blame in Euripides' Medea." Classical Philology (The University of Chicago Press) 94, no. 4 (October 1999): 373-394.

Mueller, Melissa. "The Language of Reciprocity in Euripides' Medea." The American Journal of Philology (The Johns Hopkins University Press) 122, no. 4 (2001): 471-504.