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,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.
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 states

1 Jasper Griffin, The Social Function of Attic Tragedy, The Classical

Quarterly 48 (1998): 54.

In 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.2
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.
2 Michael X. Zelenak, Gender and Politics in Greek Tragedy (New York,
New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1998) 18.

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.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.
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.4
3 David Carr, The Cardinal Virtues and Platos Moral Psychology, The
Philosophical Quarterly 38 (1988): 186.
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





.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.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
Jason tries, in the , to dismiss Medeas
claim to by ascribing her past actions to
the influence of divine agents.7

6 Euripides, Med. 534

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.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.
Let us now look at the second proof, concerning Jasons wedding
to the princess of Corinth. The text reads



.



9
(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

8 Aristotle, Rhet. 1.9.17.

9 Euripides, Med. 547-554.

comforts, good connections, and a powerful and lasting house.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.
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

10 Deborah Boedeker, Euripides Medea and the Vanity of Logoi,

Classical Philology 86 (1991): 106.

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


.
.




.

.11
(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.
11 Euripides, Med. 565-575.

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 saying
Virtues and actions are nobler, when they
proceed from those who are naturally worthier,

for instance, from a man rather than from a

woman.12
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.13

12 Aristotle, Rhet. 1.9.22.

13 Euripides, Med. 539.

Through this understanding, we can see that Medea is a courageous

figure, but what about the virtue of justice?
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.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.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 Knox
Although 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.16
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.

16 Ayala Gabriel, Living with Medea, 350.

Bibliography
Aristotle. 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.