TEFAN BENK, CLASSICS IA

TOM MACKENZIE

How does Euripides shape our reaction to Medeas personality and

behaviour?

In the scholarly discussions, interpretations of Medea range from acknowledgment of how the blood-thirsty portrayal of her as an empowered woman may have served to reinforce the repressive dominant attitudes against
women in fifth-century Athens to a cautious embracement of her feminist
potential,1 and of Euripides engagement with the contemporary radical intellectual currents which allowed space to question this dominant worldview.
This engagement with the debates of the day is clearly visible in his portrayal
of Medea; nevertheless he does not seem to be embracing and propagating
women-liberating opinions even cautiously. Neither, however, does he seem
to be condemning women to their present-day status. It is rather that he takes
inspiration from the debate, and by cross-dressing his heroes as heroines and
anti-heroes as only-men he allows his audience a critical distance from their
sexes, inspiring, even, a critical look at the possible gender-roles they inhabit,
without privileging any last say on the matter.
Through an appraisal of the role of internal audiences in the play, it is possible to see how Euripides initially solicits a certain modicum of sympathy and
admiration for his heroine, and through additional attention to their fears and
shock, how he foreshadows and processes the most controversial of Medeas
actionthe murder of her childrenin order that the audience starts questioning strongly her up to that point rather solid legitimacy as a just avenger
heroine. Audiences evaluation is further challenged by the introduction of
1

B. M. W. Knox. The Medea of Euripides. In: Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy. Ed. by
E. Segal. Oxford University Press, 1983, pp. 272293.

TEFAN BENK, CLASSICS IA

TOM MACKENZIE

the opposite point of view in the agon scene, and in the negative male character of Jason. In Medeas god-sanctioned adoption of the masculine heroic
values of the past as they clash with Jasons only-human world of moral relativism and material well-being, the battle of sexes and the clash between
the epic and the real-life systems of value coincide on Attic stage. In light of
her murder and Euripides crafting of the reaction of his audiences to it, it is
problematic to read Medea as a true heroine and champion of women; rather,
her Fury-like final appearance is a symptom of the present moral decline: a
monstrous spectre from the age of heroes.2
Initially, Euripides uses the chorus and the prothetic character of the nurse
to inspire sympathy and even admiration for Medea. First of all, the nurse establishes a generally positive view of her character as liked by the Corinthians
and with a past history of helping her husband up to now, (1112), preparing
the audience for any favourable assessment of her. Throughout the prologue,
she expresses her concern for her, and even admits it to the childrens tutor
(55), a concern in which the audience may easily share while Medeas wailing
is heard from behind the scenes and which, together with the nurse taking
Medeas point of view in assessing her present situation as a betrayal, (1517)
enhances their sympathy.
Furthermore, the nurse even shares her mistress heroic language, pointing to her dishonour , (33), at the present, and
introduces the perception of her mistresses greatness: 4045. Similar observation is made by the chorus at 183: .
Even though this language of greatness raises Medeas stature in view of the
audience rather flatly, and may be considered less effective, her reputation
is further enhanced more subtly when Creon admits his fear of her at 282,

Anne Burnett. Medea and the Tragedy of Revenge. In: Classical Philology 68.1 (1973),
pp. 124. issn: 0009837X, 1546072X. url: http : / / www . jstor . org / stable /
268785, for a good discussion of the plays effect as a revenge-tragedy with its sociopolitical implications see.

TEFAN BENK, CLASSICS IA

TOM MACKENZIE

and her heroic status is further invoked by an allusion to Sophocles Ajax3 ,in
which the heros wailing in the first scene can be similarly heard from behind
the scenes. However, necessary for the audience to admire her is their perception of her anger as just. This perception is, in part, built on the sympathy
amassed so far, but it is further solidified by Chorus unequivocal response to
her speech in which she expounds the plights of women: (2678)
The climax of this largely positive side of Medeas appeal, as enhanced by
the response of internal audiences, is the first stasimon which follows Medeas
revealing her plans for a violent revenge. Even though it is possible to read,
together with Mastronade, the Corinthian women as showing no response
to the revelation,4 the mention of the muses of the ancient singers (417) connects in a positive, albeit indirect way with Medeas epic language in which
her revenge was announced:
;
,
.

(4046)

While it seems plausible that with its wider perspective, the audience understands that this anticipation of female fame is doomed to frustration,5 a
section of the audience would hear the chorus join in Medeas violent heroic
aspirations. As they sing that / , (41920), it directly responds to Medeas final
statement of the first epeisodion:

, ,
.
3

(407409)

for the exploration of this idea v. Knox, The Medea of Euripides, pp. 2734.
D. J. Mastronade, ed. Euripides: Medea (Greek text with commentary). Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 239.
5
Mastronade, Euripides: Medea (Greek text with commentary), p. 239.

TEFAN BENK, CLASSICS IA

TOM MACKENZIE

That this is the only way in which the the negative, violent side of it is hinted
at is not necessarily a fault in chorus perception, but rather a rephrasing to
make this quest for feminine glory more acceptable to the audiencefor a
moment a section of the audience may have been even inspired by its poetic
power: , /
(41011) and the sincere moral simplicity of its quest for justice:
,
.

(41315).

The slight divergence from Mastronades reading of the chorus as internally out-of-sync with Medeas plotting fails to capture this possibility. If retained, it creates more complex demands on the audience which, based on
the amassed sympathy and admiration for Medea, would for a moment be
pressured to entertain at least partially the celebration of violent archaic values as a part of a visceral proto-feminist campaign. This is, for certain, an
ambiguous demand, perhaps even slightly parodic for the ancients, and perhaps too dismissive of a quest for gender-equality nowadays, but the power
of this ambiguity to generate genuine responses across a whole spectrum of
possible ones is essential for the texts force to inspire critical assessment of
the gender categories and value-systems clashing here.
However, it is undeniable that audiences apprehension of imminent problems is triggered by the responses of the internal audiences from the very start
of the play, as already the nurse proclaims: , / ,
(11718), and Medeas initial scorned grief is perceived as ominous. Also, the normal non-epic, male view of the principals predicament
is voiced already by the tutor who fully understands Jasons point of view.
(85) Audiences evaluation of Medea is further influenced towards complexity
when Jasons opposing (world)-view is fully voiced in the agon scene. Jason
appeals to reasonablness, (447, 597, 60915), and makes it a central point of
his main speech to prove that he acted out of regard for the well-being of

TEFAN BENK, CLASSICS IA

TOM MACKENZIE

her and their children: (550567). He also dismisses her appeals at reciprocity and staying true to ones oaths with simple:
/ (5345). Ironically, both when one considers his violent heroic past and Medeas developing furor, he counts among
the advantages she got from him the fact that by living in Greece, she
/ (5368).
Even though that it would have been hard even for an Athenian audience
to simply dismiss her as a barbarian here, Jasons invocation of the reasonable, civilised (and morally relaxed) way of life contrasts with Medeas heroic
pretensions both unfavourably and favourably. As much as the audience had
been roused to keep pace with Medeas righteous anger, and they may still be
receptive of her epic grandeur in her accusations of Jasons unmanliness (466)
and shamelessness (472), they are generally forced here to consider her inflated personality within the context of a civilised community where neither
the archaic codes of personal honour, nor their bloody forms of redress have
a place, the intrusion of Jasons real-world concerns dispelling somewhat the
haze of dramas usual mythical settings.
Jason also attacks Medeas air of just indignation with his emphasis on the
sexual (569572), he also recasts Medeas help during his heroic adventures
simply as loves bidding. Medea herself admits such reinterpretation of her
own present behaviour with what seems as her sexually motivated slander:
/ (6234). It is important that
even thought the chorus still perceives Jason as having wronged Medea, their
song blames, in general terms, excessive infatuation with love:
/ (62733)
It is as if the chorus is falling back in their interpretation of Medeas behaviour
on Jasons explanationirrational jealousy, and they may well have taken
some of the audience with themselves.6
6

for an assessment informed by modern psychology of an extent to which Medea is motivated by her jealousy, v. E. Sanders. Sexual Jealousy and Ers in Euripides Medea . In:
Ers in Ancient Greece. Ed. by E. Sanders, C. Thumiger, C. Carey et al. Oxford University

TEFAN BENK, CLASSICS IA

TOM MACKENZIE

All in all, Jasons assessment of Medea aims at bringing her down to earth
in the eyes of the audiencea portrayal whose triumphant defiance will cost
her her childrens lives. Interesting here is the extent to which the audience becomes a participant in the drama of the situation: if it is Medeas
self-perception of being belittled in an agon which imitates a public speechcontest which spurs her to the decision fatal for her children, the audience
may have well been aware of their active role as audience: in that it was their
watching her being belittled which intensified what at least she perceived as
a proper heroic response to Jasons . In this way the audience, after it has
been forced to review the extent to which Medeas high-sounding righteous
indignation could be reconsidered as ordinary jealousy, and the appropriateness of her violent response in a civilised society, is further incited to re-view
their position after the Aegeus scene which re-phrases Medeas rightfulness,
as Aegeus joins Medeas point of view (bar the planned revenge). Some of the
audience, for example, who have succumbed to Jasons argumentation (and
implicitly joined him in what she perceived as belittlement) may have even
felt somewhat guilty when she announces her plan to kill her children (792),
in a speech which flags up the dynamics of honour:
, , (797), just five lines later.
By the point when Medea lays her strongest claim at the heroic at
80710:

, ,

.
the audience had been led at first to sympathise with and admire Medea and
then to revise their assessment of her as inspired by the real-world civilised
values and a masculine world-view which reduces her heroic wrath to unreasonable sexual jealousy, accusations whose value is somewhat undermined by
Press, 2013, pp. 4158.

TEFAN BENK, CLASSICS IA

TOM MACKENZIE

Jasons perjurer status. Her disclosure of the full scale of her revenge plan
in her speech after the Aegeus-scene further alienates the audience, but also
serves as a reminder of their failure to appreciate just how seriously Medea
takes herself and her wrongs. If the audience is admitted its active role in the
dramatic process, this may be seen as their re-enactment of the domestic
conflict between sexes. In this way, all the crucial elements on which the
audience is to base its evaluation of Medeas character are set-up before the
final show-down. On a dramatic level, there is still the suspense working
whether Medea will be able to carry out her decision, and consequently the
only question not yet opened is that of gods approvalare they unambiguously on the heroines side, or is infanticide such a crime as to avert their
praise? While these questions can fuel audiences curiosity, they have ample
space to evaluate Medeas character.
Euripides seems to give the audience space in the latter half of the play to
question and/or refine their own interpretation of it. The progression of his
guidance seems to be but one of heroic alienation mixed with tragic pity.
The chorus disagree with Medeas decision to sacrifice her children for the
sake of revenge (81113), but Medeas resolve is sternly, inhumanely heroic:
The delightful dramatic irony of Medeas tears at the sight of her children at
900905 is accompanied by chorus empathising without any sympathy for
her planned revenge: Finally, Medeas resolutions to kill her children show
her complete embracement of her own heroic self-image:
;
;
;
.

(104952).

which is also present at her dissociated realisation of her own furor:

,
,
.

(107980).

TEFAN BENK, CLASSICS IA

TOM MACKENZIE

The dissociation of her from herself is paralleled by the Chorus displacement and dropping of any suggestion of how to evaluate her in the anapestic
interlude (10811115). The dejected lament of parenthood seems, if anything,
to induce a mood similar to that of aporia in Platonic dialoguesa moment
where the audiences evaluative response is too complex for it to be possible
to be one-sidedly simplified and which simultaneously marks the highest plateau of dramatic suspense.
At the same time, any audience is coming to the end of the play with a
general idea about how they evaluate the main character and the finale is
there to pose further perplexity. Those who buy into Medeas heroic selffashioning have to withstand in their support the very act of killing her own
children, while those more certain that Medea might be over-reacting see
her overreaction sanctioned by the gods who help her to escape in the very
end. Those who would deny Medea any heroic achievement have to put up
with the surprising display of her in machina, above ordinary humans and
Jasons level and those who would argue that her heroic character is purely
motivated by pride and not by jealousy have to process Medeas confession to
the opposite effect, talking about losing her marriage:
; (1367) as well as the image of her as Scylla the monster,
hurled at her by Jason. The final section of the play, then, produces additional
level of complexity for the audience to evaluate, i.e. the involvement of the
gods, and at the same time paints in full colour every line of characterisation
which has suggested itself throughout the drama. In this way the evaluations
of the audience are once more put to the test and challenged.
By adopting a dynamic view of Euripides influencing the responses of his
audience, it is possible to understand Medea as a play designed to produce
critical assessment of the gender-roles and value-systems which are opposed
throughout. Presenting a highly ambiguous character with mixed appeal to
the audience and changing the way in which the internal audience reacts to
her during the course of the play from initial admiration to shock and pity
mixed with apathy later, while keeping her heroic profile, produces detach-

TEFAN BENK, CLASSICS IA

TOM MACKENZIE

ment and disillusionment as well as a modicum of unsavoury heroic inspiration. To a certain extent Medeas transgression may be read as meant to
be presenting the incompatibility of her womanhood with masculine heroic
aspirations, but these are far from flawed in themselves; on the other hand,
her feminist potential is equally spoiled for the majority of the audience by
her unrelenting thirst for vengeance. The play nevertheless depicts womans
role in society as inherently unjust, and by the audience being led to consider
and re-consider numerous evaluations of Medea and her behaviour, they are
invited to look at it, as well as at other aspects of the greek world under scrutiny, with a critical eye.
Wolfson College

TEFAN BENK
sb2033@cam.ac.uk

TEFAN BENK, CLASSICS IA

TOM MACKENZIE

References
Burnett, Anne. Medea and the Tragedy of Revenge. In: Classical Philology
68.1 (1973), pp. 124. issn: 0009837X, 1546072X. url: http : / / www .
jstor.org/stable/268785.
Knox, B. M. W. The Medea of Euripides. In: Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy.
Ed. by E. Segal. Oxford University Press, 1983, pp. 272293.
Mastronade, D. J., ed. Euripides: Medea (Greek text with commentary). Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Sanders, E. Sexual Jealousy and Ers in Euripides Medea . In: Ers in Ancient
Greece. Ed. by E. Sanders, C. Thumiger, C. Carey et al. Oxford University
Press, 2013, pp. 4158.

10