the representation of women in Greek tragedies
Discuss the representation of women in any of the tragedies (at least two) you have read so far. For example, (and these are just suggestions): what are the common features of these ancient portrayals of women? Are women portrayed as essentially "different" from men (physically, socially, mentally)? Do women have power, and where can/does it lie? Should one draw distinctions between mortal and immortal women, or living and dead women, or noble and slave women, or married and unmarried women? What (if anything) might these representations of women tell us about the society of men that produced them?
One of the great ironies of Greek tragedy is that it saturated with female characters when actual Athenian women were consigned to the private sphere of the home. The pervasive presence of women in the public domain leads one to question how far these tragedies draw upon female stereotypes in their representation of woman. While many of the plays in one form or another illustrates the female sex as emotionally unstable, motivated by sexual desire, driven by passion and by nature deceptive, one stereotypical trait that is not apparent is the powerless of women. Their 'feminine wiles' and their ability to produce legitimate male heirs appear to provide woman in these plays some sort of strength. While undoubtedly the works of the three great playwrights -Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus- are andocentric, their depiction of the 'fairer sex' cannot be easily pigeonholed. However, Michael Zelenak is accurate in arguing that most women in Greek drama can be generally categorized into two broad groups- "the passive, suffering "female" victim" and "the active destructive "male" woman." However, one unifying element in all these women is that they are portrayed as being radically different or in opposition to the male sex. This has lead many critics to argue that the only function of female characters in Greek drama is to play a part in the formation of male identity and to reinforce patriarchy. Likewise, Greek drama reveals woman as inferior to the male sex and portrays them as creatures to be feared. These representations highlight the misogynic attitudes of the society of men that produced these plays.
Greek drama presents a host of compelling female figures that flout the cultural norms of ancient Athenian civilization. In contrast to their restricted role in society where they were relegated to the private sphere of "the oikos", many of the female characters of Greek drama emerge from the patriarchal structures that sought to define and control them. However, Froma Zeitlin argues that contemporary readers should not be deluded into believing that these women serve as anything more than a tool in the construction of male identity. She maintains that:
"Functionally women are never an end in themselves, and nothing changes for them once they lived out their drama onstage. Rather, they play the role of catalysts, agents, instruments, blockers, spoilers, destroyers, and sometimes helpers or saviors for the male characters.
Michael Zelenak supports Froma's line of reasoning and goes even further. He asserts that the representation of woman in Greek drama depicts the female gender as being inherently different to the male sex. He argues that the representation of women can be traced back to the fervent belief that existed within Greek society that "by their nature, the female was opposed to the male, just as earth was opposed to heaven, [and] fire to water."
While Froma is accurate in her contention that the central function of female characters was to play "the radical other to the male psyche", her sweeping dismissal of the representation of all women in Greek drama as "superficial" fails to take into consideration Euripides's Medea. Medea is perhaps one of the most thoroughly developed and most complex figures in all of Greek tragedy. Euripides's presents a rare character that works on many different levels. She is more than simply someone's wife or someone's mother. More significantly, Medea is more than merely a 'woman scorned'.
Yet, it is ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
While Froma is accurate in her contention that the central function of female characters was to play "the radical other to the male psyche", her sweeping dismissal of the representation of all women in Greek drama as "superficial" fails to take into consideration Euripides's Medea. Medea is perhaps one of the most thoroughly developed and most complex figures in all of Greek tragedy. Euripides's presents a rare character that works on many different levels. She is more than simply someone's wife or someone's mother. More significantly, Medea is more than merely a 'woman scorned'.
Yet, it is impossible to separate Medea's actions from the limitations placed upon her by a chauvinistic society. Medea's opening speech to the Chorus eloquently emphasizes the injustices that befell women in ancient Greece. While Athens was the birthplace of democracy, Euripides shows that this was a privilege reserved only for wealthy adult males. It is Medea's subordinate and disempowered status in this society, not only as a woman but also as foreign women that leads her to proclaim "we women are the most unfortunate." Euripides's presents a woman who was so consumed with passion for her husband that she willingly abandoned her own family and home to live in foreign land. A woman who has been a faithful and loving wife and borne Jason two sons. Yet, despite all of this, she must now stand by, humiliated and degraded, as he sets about courting a new bride and advancing his social position thorough a royal marriage. It is this identification of Medea as a suffering and wronged woman that leads the Chorus to sympathise with her as "intensely human" victim of a male dominated society.
Whilst Euripides's portrays Medea as vulnerable, he does not typecast her as yet another submissive and dim-witted woman. On the contrary, Medea defies the dominant views of femininity, as she becomes a fine illustration of a heroic woman taking control of her unenviable situation with force and determination. At the same time as she is distraught about Jason's rejection, she is still in possession of her wits and refuses be broken. Euripides's endows his female protagonist with an unrivalled intelligence, so much so that even Jason has to concede that she indeed has "a clever mind." Medea's intelligence is even more astonishing given that women were frequently stigmatised as foolish and mentally inferior to their male counterparts. The audience witnesses Medea's intellect in her verbal manipulation of Jason. In her attempt to gain extra time to execute her plan against the House of Creon she pretends to sympathize with the man who she intends to take retribution. She also holds a certain power and influence over the male characters of the play. She exerts considerable control over the infertile Aegeus who addresses her very much as an equal. Likewise, she uses her feminine wiles to manipulate Creon to her own advantage.
Although initially, Medea's manipulative qualities appear to engage in the stereotype that this was 'typical' of women, the audience cannot condemn her for using this strategy. Confronted with her predicament, Medea has nothing to depend on but what might be termed as traditional female wiles. It is this representation of Medea as an assertive woman who refuses to become yet another female victim in male dominated society that the audience relates and sympathizes with.
Euripides's, however, presents another side to Medea's character with which the audience is undeniably uncomfortable and appalled with. This representation Medea is derived form Greek mythology. This Medea was not a common mortal woman; she was a powerful witch, a monster beyond the bonds of rationality. It is this side of Medea's character that finds revenge more potent than her maternal instincts, a barbarian capable of the most horrendous of crimes. Yet, Euripides's downplays Medea's supernatural abilities until the very end when, along with her murdered children she in spirited away in a chariot sent by the Sun god. Euripides's concealment of Medea's magical abilities and her emphasis as an ordinary Athenian woman at the opening the play "manipulate[s] the audience into a false sense of both sympathy and empathy."
The American feminist writer Camille Paglia has suggested that Euripides's representation of Medea as a mythical creature beyond reason is a sinister indication that men in ancient Athens held the frightening notion that she embodied a kind of archetypical feminine power. Paglia maintains that this idea that all women inherently possessed a "chthonic force", a deep mystical power, disturbed many ancient patriarchal societies. In spite of their social and physical supremacy, men often felt susceptible to this mysterious power held by woman.
The main source of these powers was female fertility and sexuality. As women were needed "to produce legitimate male for each citizen family", a woman's body and it's almost paranormal childbearing abilities were cloaked in mystery and gave females a certain amount of leverage. Jason's comments reflect the degree of power that woman held as a result of their unique ability to continue the family linage. Jason dejectedly admits that the female sex is necessarily, as humans are unable "to beget children from some other source."
Furthermore, Euripides's "innovative infancide" would have most likely validated the kind of fear and prejudices held against woman among the male ruling class in Ancient Greece. In her final crime, Medea effectively deprives herself of the moral high ground and confirms:
Women's reputed incapacity for self-control, their vulnerability and desire, their naïve ethical misjudgments, their passionate responses to victimization, their desire for autonomy and reputation at others expense, and their social incapacities
Medea's transformation from a sympathetic victim to a witch capable of the most excessive of revenges negates any sympathy the audience might have initially held. As the play draws to an end, Medea begins to embody so many negative female stereotypes that Euripides's undercuts any attempt to interpret the play as a proto-feminist diatribe against the evils of patriarchy. It is though the writer recognizes the injustices of gender hierarchy in Ancient Greece, yet refuses to blame Medea's actions as simply a manifestation of the injustices against woman. While Medea and the chorus express empowering and assertive views on the plight of woman this does not suggest that Euripides' supports Medea's transgression from her socially appointed position as a mother and wife. Far from espousing any feminist cause
"the spectacle of tragedy emotionally empowered democratic cultural values and legitimized the political and social order. Tragedy refined and expressed not dissident views but the dominant ideology of the Athenian polis"
Thus, while Medea contradicts and challenges the socially ordained behavior of her sex, Euripides' is nevertheless promulgating and reinforcing the status quo.
Resembling Euripides' Medea, Aeschylus' trilogy the Oresteia (Agamemnon, Libation Bearers, and Eumenides) similarly employ "gender inversion and gender transgressions", as yet another woman deviates from her socially appointed role. Clytemnestra is represented as a woman who behaves as a man and as such becomes the antitheses to the Greek ideal of femininity. The gender role reversal is particularly apparent in Agamemnon as a woman, Clytemnestra, rules over the male population. Froma Zeitlin argues that the "dynamics of misogyny in the Oresteia" are evident particularly within the choruses. The chorus, who acts as the voice of the ordinary male, takes every opportunity to condemn Clytemnestra simply on the basis of her gender. Their speeches are filled with disparaging talk of the stereotypical traits of the female sex. They depict woman as naïve individuals susceptible to gossip and prone to irrational behaviour. Moreover, the misogynist undertone of Aeschylus' plays is evident in different treatment the male and female characters receive. The playwright never explicated condemns Agamemnon's actions while Clytemnestra' revenge is presented in a clearly negative light. Likewise, when Clytemnestra's son Orestes avenges his father's death by killing his mother, his guilt is never in question.
Even though both use deception to accomplish their revenge, Orestes is portrayed heroically, Clytemnestra shamefully. Orestes' matricide, like his father's slaughter of Iphigeneia, is portrayed as an unfortunate duty forced upon him by the "yoke of necessity."
The revelation of Clytemnestra's adulterous affair with Aegisthus in the concluding acts of Agamemnon permanently undercuts any sympathy the audience might have had for her. It is though Aeschylus is suggested that Clytemnestra motivation for murdering her husband was more about a desire then avenging her daughter's death. Yet, while the audience mutters about Clytemnestra's adultery, the writer is condoning the double standards within society that makes infidelity acceptable for the man but not the woman. It is for this reason that Froma Zeitlin maintains that "the Oresteia mythologizes and celebrates the ascendancy of the patriarchy and the Athenian democracy"
Moreover, Aeschylus' Agamemnon presents another woman who shares several qualities with Medea. Both women, Aeschylus' Cassandra and Euripides's Medea, are foreign royals directly associated to all things sacred. Cassandra's power of divination is strikingly akin to Medea's powers of witchcraft. Yet, these two women are almost polar opposites. Whereas Medea is vocal and proactive against her oppression, Cassandra is silent and simply accepts her fate. Aeschylus' female character does not offer any form of resistance as she is seemingly resigned not only to being Agamemnon's slave and concubine, but also to her death. Thus, Cassandra is portrayed as a helpless female victim despite possessing a supernatural gift. In Gender and Politics in Greek Tragedy, Michael Zelenak asserts that it is for this reason that "Cassandra, for all her wild barbarian trappings, is actually a proper Greek woman, and she is presented with enormous sympathy as an archetype of the true female-the passive, suffering victim."
Sophocles' Oedipus the King offers an additional female character that could arguably fit into this mold of the "passive" woman. Jocasta, the Queen of Thebes, is depicted of having a fairly submissive and accepting personality, as she is content in playing the part of the loving mother and supportive wife. She emerges simply as reactionary figure, as a woman more buffeted by events than in control of them. Sophocles portrays a one-dimensional, dull character without much substance. Whilst Jocasta and Cassandra indeed share several qualities, Aeschylus's character is far more richer and complex character. Cassandra is endowed with the unique attribute of existing outside the realm of a mere mortal but is simultaneously trapped in the very mortal body of helpless slave. Sadly though, Jocasta offers a far more realistic portrait of ancient Athenian woman.
As illustrated above, women in Greek tragedies often played the role of the fetishized victim or the powerful "masculine" avenger. The Greek playwrights also endowed their female characters with many stereotypes usually linked to their gender. The vindictive, irrational, jealous woman is portrayed alongside the submissive placid female. However, Euripides' occasionally diverts from this typecasting of women as he portrayed an independent and intelligent, and initially sympathetic, female figure. Yet, even the most complex and well-developed female character reinforces the Athenian stereotypes of women's nature. While whether the male writers were actually misogynists will never be known, several of their plays contain a subtle misogynistic undercurrent. Conspicuously, the majority of Greek tragedies reflect the fear and suspicion held among the Athenian male population about woman. Moreover, female characters assisted in the male construct of identity as they often "serve as anti- models as well as hidden models for the masculine self" and to serve to reinforce the prominence of the ruling male class. However, the representations of woman in most plays do not gratuitously take part in simple 'female bashing." The Greek dramatists, most notably Euripides', often treated woman with great insight and fairness.
