Euripides and Women
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
but I am quite new to Greek literature. I was recently reading Euripides'
Medea (beginning at 230) and was rather surprised at the strong statements
from the woman's POV. I was especially struck by her statements "I would
prefer standing three times with a shield (in battle) than one time in
childbirth." What an interesting statement coming from someone in a "heroic"
oriented society.
Was there any precedence to this, or was he the first?? Did it affect
noticeably subsequent writings?
Best regards,
Charles dowis
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Briesas
impression that there is quite a lot of speculation [and argument :) ] about
his view of women. One of the most interesting aspects of this is, as my greek
lit. professor pointed out, that some people defend Euripides as a feminist
(relatively speaking) while others argue that he was a misogynist. From the
little that I've read, I believe that he was fascinated by women and the things
they are capable of more than anything else without necessarily being either
feminist or misogynist.
I'm interested to hear what other people have to say about this though, and
like I mentioned, all I know for sure is that I don't know very much about it!
~Briesas
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
cdo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I realize that alot has been written on the role of women in Greek society,
> but I am quite new to Greek literature. I was recently reading Euripides'
> Medea (beginning at 230) and was rather surprised at the strong statements
> from the woman's POV. I was especially struck by her statements "I would
> prefer standing three times with a shield (in battle) than one time in
> childbirth." What an interesting statement coming from someone in a "heroic"
> oriented society.
>
> Was there any precedence to this, or was he the first?? Did it affect
> noticeably subsequent writings?
>
> Best regards,
> Charles dowis
Here is the specific the passage-->>
[225] In my case, however, this sudden blow that has struck me has destroyed
my life. I am undone, I have resigned all joy in life, and I want to die. For
the man in whom all I had was bound up, as I well know--my husband--has
proved the basest of men.
[230] Of all creatures that have breath and sensation, we women are the most
unfortunate. First at an exorbitant price we must buy a husband and master of
our bodies. [This misfortune is more painful than misfortune.] [235] And the
outcome of our life's striving hangs on this, whether we take a bad or a good
husband. For divorce is discreditable for women and it is not possible to
refuse wedlock. And when a woman comes into the new customs and practices of
her husband's house, she must somehow divine, since she has not learned it at
home, [240] how she shall best deal with her husband. If after we have spent
great efforts on these tasks our husbands live with us without resenting the
marriage-yoke, our life is enviable. Otherwise, death is preferable. A man,
whenever he is annoyed with the company of those in the house, [245] goes
elsewhere and thus rids his soul of its boredom [turning to some male friend
or age-mate]. But we must fix our gaze on one person only. ---------------
OK, life is tough for a woman. But he then "crosses the line" with the
following -->> -------------------- Men say that we live a life free from
danger at home while they fight with the spear. [250] How wrong they are! I
would rather stand three times with a shield in battle than give birth once.
====================
This strikes at the heart of the heroic ideal. A woman at home, in
childbirth, is more heroic than the warrior in battle.
It would be interesting to know the background of these lines. Somebody is
definitely trying to make a point here.
T.H. Chance
RichardAS...@att.net wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:29:58 GMT, thch...@mother.com wrote:
>
> >Women provide him with 'foil' for his
> >topic of primary consideration.
>
> Yes, sophistry (characteristically expressed by a male persona --
> Hippolytus, Pentheus, Admetus, Jason)
The above are all "rulers,"; Euripides uses the 'marginalized' women,
children, and slaves, to highlight the corruption in the dynatoi.
thc
thch...@mother.com
bri...@aol.com (Briesas) wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't know all that much about Euripides, but I've gotten the
> impression that there is quite a lot of speculation [and argument :) ] about
> his view of women. One of the most interesting aspects of this is, as my greek
> lit. professor pointed out, that some people defend Euripides as a feminist
> (relatively speaking) while others argue that he was a misogynist. From the
> little that I've read, I believe that he was fascinated by women and the things
> they are capable of more than anything else without necessarily being either
> feminist or misogynist.
Let me suggest another alternative. Women provide him with 'foil' for his
topic of primary consideration.
> I'm interested to hear what other people have to say about this though, and
> like I mentioned, all I know for sure is that I don't know very much about it!
An interesting, Socratic conclusion. It suggests that you are still capable of
learning, an unusual thing for usenet.
regards,
thc
Richard A. Schulman
>Women provide him with 'foil' for his
>topic of primary consideration.
Yes, sophistry (characteristically expressed by a male persona --
Hippolytus, Pentheus, Admetus, Jason)
- Richard
---
To email me, remove the "XYZ"
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >Women provide him with 'foil' for his
> >topic of primary consideration.
>
> Yes, sophistry (characteristically expressed by a male persona --
> Hippolytus, Pentheus, Admetus, Jason)
>
Yes, I see this now.
In Medea, Jason tells her that she brought her troubles upon herself with her
"complaints" abt his leaving her to marry the king's daughter. This was an
excellent example of sophistry -- I did you a terrible wrong, you complain
abt it, and now you are receiving a deserved severe punishment for your
complaints.
His words "this is none my affair" (that you are being exiled) is bitterly
ironic. But it does not seem that there is any "good guy" here. Medea,
while at the beginning a sympathetic figure, is certainly a "bad guy" at the
end, with the killing of her children. While Jason loses, Medea certainly is
not the winner in this situation.
Thanks for the insight here.
Best regards,
Charles dowis
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
thch...@mother.com (T.H. Chance) wrote:
> In article <36b23b25...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> RichardAS...@att.net wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:29:58 GMT, thch...@mother.com wrote:
> >
> > >Women provide him with 'foil' for his
> > >topic of primary consideration.
> >
> > Yes, sophistry (characteristically expressed by a male persona --
> > Hippolytus, Pentheus, Admetus, Jason)
>
> children, and slaves, to highlight the corruption in the dynatoi.
Jason Not now for the first time but often before I have seen what an
impossible evil to deal with is a fierce temper. Although you could have kept
this land and this house by patiently bearing with your superiors'
arrangements, [450] you will be exiled because of your foolish talk. Not
that it bothers me: go on, if you like, calling Jason the basest man alive.
But as for your words against the ruling family, count yourself lucky that
your punishment is exile. [455] For my part I have always tried to soothe the
king's angry temper, and I wanted you to stay. But you would not cease from
your folly and always kept reviling the ruling house. For that you will be
exiled.
justinsane
cdo...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <787pbb$teo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I realize that alot has been written on the role of women in Greek society,
>but I am quite new to Greek literature. I was recently reading Euripides'
>Medea (beginning at 230) and was rather surprised at the strong statements
>from the woman's POV. I was especially struck by her statements "I would
>prefer standing three times with a shield (in battle) than one time in
>childbirth." What an interesting statement coming from someone in a
"heroic"
>oriented society.
>
>Was there any precedence to this, or was he the first?? Did it affect
>noticeably subsequent writings?
>
>Best regards,
>Charles dowis
The Trojan Women by Euripides may interest you. In that play, he explores
the notion that the women of Troy are the true victims. It generated
interesting class discussion when I studied it.
T.H. Chance
<justi...@globalserve.net> wrote:
cdo...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <787pbb$teo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >I realize that alot has been written on the role of women in Greek society,
> >but I am quite new to Greek literature. I was recently reading Euripides'
> >Medea (beginning at 230) and was rather surprised at the strong statements
> >from the woman's POV. I was especially struck by her statements "I would
> >prefer standing three times with a shield (in battle) than one time in
> >childbirth." What an interesting statement coming from someone in a
> "heroic"
> >oriented society.
> >
> >Was there any precedence to this, or was he the first?? Did it affect
> >noticeably subsequent writings?
> The Trojan Women by Euripides may interest you. In that play, he explores
> the notion that the women of Troy are the true victims. It generated
> interesting class discussion when I studied it.
See especially the Helen episode, where Euripides uses her to represent
the sophistry responsible for destroying Troy (Athens) and all its people.
regards,
thc
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
"justinsane" <justi...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>
> The Trojan Women by Euripides may interest you. In that play, he explores
> the notion that the women of Troy are the true victims. It generated
> interesting class discussion when I studied it.
Perhaps Gorgias considered this play in his "Encomium of Helen"
For either by Fortune's volitions
and the god's cousels... etc
where he gave many possibile reasons for Helen's situation.
T.H. Chance
> cdo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > The Trojan Women by Euripides may interest you. In that play, he explores
> > the notion that the women of Troy are the true victims. It generated
> > interesting class discussion when I studied it.
> Perhaps Gorgias considered this play in his "Encomium of Helen"
Perhaps one should suspect, here, a hysteron proteron. The 'encomium of
Helen', which issued forth from the Gorgias Head, is but a sample of the
sophistic claptrap that was titillating our then neoterics. Euripides
sublates this topos in order to allow his audience to see the part aright.
> For either by Fortune's volitions
> and the god's cousels... etc
>
> where he gave many possibile reasons for Helen's situation.
Interestingly, Euripides has his Helen make the timeless move of the
guilty; she first attacks the prosecution.
T.H. Chance
> >>thch...@mother.com wrote:
> > RichardAS...@att.net wrote:
> cdo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>Women provide him with 'foil' for his
> > >topic of primary consideration.
> > Yes, sophistry (characteristically expressed by a male persona --
> > Hippolytus, Pentheus, Admetus, Jason)
> Yes, I see this now.
>
> In Medea, Jason tells her that she brought her troubles upon herself with her
> "complaints" abt his leaving her to marry the king's daughter. This was an
> excellent example of sophistry -- I did you a terrible wrong, you complain
> abt it, and now you are receiving a deserved severe punishment for your
> complaints.
>
> His words "this is none my affair" (that you are being exiled) is bitterly
> ironic. But it does not seem that there is any "good guy" here. Medea,
> while at the beginning a sympathetic figure, is certainly a "bad guy" at the
> end, with the killing of her children. While Jason loses, Medea certainly is
> not the winner in this situation.
Euripides uses the slaves and children, whom we encounter in the prologue,
as foil for his point of primary focus, which, in this case, is Jason and
Medea, who represent the sophistic antithesis between nomos and physis.
Richard A. Schulman
copyright by reprinting a book review that arrived by email this
morning. My justification for doing so is twofold:
1) The review is a timely corollary to the present thread, centered as
it has been on Euripides' critique of sophistry;
2) I would like to urge all regular participants in this newsgroup (as
opposed to transients seeking translation of Latin inscriptions on
cornices) to subscribe to the Bryn Mawr Classical Review (BMCR), from
which the review which follows has been lifted. The price is right --
it's free -- and it comes delivered to your doorstep by email.
Information as to how to subscribe, as well as BMCR archives, may be
found at
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/
Hopefully, this information will also be prominently added to the FAQ.
- Richard
(posted to n.g. & emailed to FAQ owner)
**** Review Begins Here ****
(from BMCR 99.1.18)
Desmond Conacher, Euripides and the Sophists. London: Duckworth, 1998.
Pp.128. L12.95. ISBN 0 7156 2816 X. Distributed in America by Focus
Publishing, PO Box 369, Newbury, Mass, 01950.
Reviewed by Simon Goldhill
King's College, Cambridge.
Word Count: 1,198
The disparate intellectuals known today as the Sophists were the most
trendy and sexy public figures in the age of publicite/ that is the
classical polis. The power and threat and excitement of what they
offered is reflected throughout the literate productions of the era.
Euripides was the most provocative contemporary writer for the
Athenian institution which had the biggest audience and most
self-aware sense of performance. It would be hard to write an account
of Euripides (or Socrates or Thucydides or...) that didn't treat his
deep involvement with the intellectual life of the community in which
he wrote. Since Nietzsche's passionate engagement with this issue, the
questions surrounding the danger and the commitments of this
problematic have produced some of the most heated and telling debates
on the politics of knowledge and the politics of theatre, both for the
classical and the modern period.
And still can. When the Gulf War started, the BBC replaced its
scheduled programme with a hurriedly prepared but wonderfully executed
semi-dramatized reading of extracts from Thucydides: his commentary on
power, the motives of war, and his brilliantly cynical account of
human nature and despair in war, provided a more telling commentary
than hours of modern media mavens. Fiona Shaw tells how, when she
acted in the extraordinary performance of Sophocles' Electra directed
by Deborah Warner in Derry in Northern Ireland, the audience refused
to leave after each performance, but insisted on staying to talk
through -- or often violently debate -- the issues of Sophocles' most
searching and upsetting treatment of the violence of revenge. ('When
was this written?', asked one child. 'Two thousand four hundred years
ago', said another, from the programme. 'It's taken a long time to get
to Derry, then'...) Nelson Mandela tells of the importance to him of
his reading of Sophocles' Antigone in prison; one could list the
famous productions of tragedy where its very status has enabled the
censor to be beaten and a new political phoenix to arise, from
Anouilh's war-time Antigone to the Bacchae in sixties Tokyo. The
interplay of sophistic thought and the artistic productions of the
classical era speak powerfully to contemporary debates about the
media, the role of education, citizenship, and the use of power.
I am not convinced, then, that the undergraduate or general reader is
best served by avoiding all the danger, thrill, and disagreement that
mark the contentious politics of expression of the sophistic period.
Not only is it missing an opportunity for Classics to assert the
continuing importance of its study in the contemporary world, but
also, and perhaps more importantly, to avoid everything which makes
this a contentious and self-implicating field (in the ancient and
modern world) is not good history. There is more than one way in which
a complicity with 'the dumbing down of education' can be enacted.
Conacher is a scholar who has worked on Greek tragedy for many years
with distinction and a distinctive voice. This most recent, very
slender volume seems to me to be somewhat misguided, however. It aims
in the briefest of scope to introduce the topic of 'Euripides and the
Sophists' to a general audience, but tries to do so without mentioning
what makes either sophistic thought (as we might as well call it), or
Euripidean tragedy, exciting, disturbing and powerful -- either for
ancient or for modern audiences. This results in an extremely anodyne,
even bland picture, with nothing to surprise the scholar or advanced
student, but nothing to convince the initiand that the field is worth
studying.
There are five chapters, with an introduction and rather perfunctory
conclusion. Each of the chapters is focused on a particular area of
sophistic argument, and on a selection of Euripidean works. The
chapters deal -- in turn -- with: the teachability of virtue (with
special reference to Hippolytus); the relativity of values (focused on
Alcestis and Helen); the power and abuses of rhetoric (especially on
Troades and Hecuba); reality and sense perception (Helen, again); and
nomos (Bacchae, and, much more briefly, Supplices and Heraclidae). In
each case, a brief version of the general issue is provided from the
fragments of particular sophists, and then the way in which this issue
is reflected in Euripides is discussed by brief readings of plays, or,
in most cases, highly selective quotations or even fragments, of
plays.
Conacher is very concerned to underline that in this approach he is
treating Euripides 'not as a philosophical or political thinker', but
as a 'creative dramatist'. This rather tired credo (recognisable from
much criticism of, say, the Kitto school, or, in starkest form from
the dismissive Page for whom Aeschylus is 'not a thinker') does not
bear much scrutiny, especially if one thinks of the socio-political
context of Athenian theatre or the sense of the word sophos or the
role of the poet in education. It becomes especially hard to
understand when we are also told that the 'creative dramatist' is to
be explored through 'some of his dramatic and original treatment of
various philosophical teachings and ideas', or, for a specific
example, when we are told that the Helen is 'a brilliant parody of
Sophistic teaching...particularly, perhaps, of the Sophists'
insistance on the primacy of individual sense perceptions as
criteria of truth, or 'reality', and on the use of names (onomata)
and, indeed, on the dependability (or otherwise) of speech (logos) in
the expression of that reality'. It is not easy to see why that rather
good summary of one important strand of the Helen doesn't qualify
Euripides as a 'philosophical thinker': the description could well be
applied to various parts of Platonic dialogue, at least.
The topics and plays are well-chosen: but the importance of each is
scarcely limned. The readings of each play are very brief, and while
they often show the benefits of Conacher's long experience in their
judgement and precision, they are usually too brief to be fully
convincing to a scholarly audience, who will appreciate too pointedly
much of what has been left out. It is good to see Alcestis,
Heraclidae, and Supplices finding a place, however, since they rarely
appear in introductory volumes, and the range of Euripidean writing is
truncated as a result. More worrying is the drastic limitations of the
general framing of the approach. Why the 'teachability of virtue' is
such a hot topic in the shifting politics of education is never
raised: the execution of Socrates is not part of this debate, for
Conacher; nor is it discussed why the focus on 'rhetoric' goes to the
heart of the institutions of the democratic polis and the citizen's
pursuit of power and status within them; nor why nomos might have a
specific political and social import in the fifth-century city. The
words 'Homer' and 'Democracy' do not appear in the book, which
testifies to the limitations of frame. Thucydides' extraordinary
dissection of how 'relativity of values' becomes a driving force in
war could have brought home the relevence of the sophistic debate and
Euripides' public exploration of it. This is, in short, 'sophists and
drama' without politics (contextualization, relevence, history,
point...). The book as a whole, for all Conacher's well-known
qualities, cannot rise above these limitations.
**** Review Ends Here ***
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
For the layman (such as myself), please tell me the meaning of nomos and
physis.
Thanks,
T.H. Chance
> >thch...@mother.com wrote:
> cdo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Euripides uses the slaves and children, whom we encounter in the prologue,
> > as foil for his point of primary focus, which, in this case, is Jason and
> > Medea, who represent the sophistic antithesis between nomos and physis.
>
> For the layman (such as myself), please tell me the meaning of nomos and
> physis.
Nomos is law, convention, reason. Physis is nature. The sophists were
arguing at the time that nomos and physis were antithetical forces, that
civilizational order could only be purchased at the cost of forcing human
nature down unfortunate, repressive paths. The current climate of opinion
had lost its faith in the belief that reason was nature's highest
expression. Plato's Gorgias is a rich source for this topic.
Medea identifies her being with passion, with nature (thymos); Jason, on
the other hand, gives expression to the hyper reason of sophistry, which
allows his will to act and then his reason to justify.
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
Oh, I understand better what is going on here.
As I read her words I am very much sticken by her passion -- her bitter
sarcasm, for example.
She sarcastically asks Jason, now that the marriage oath is no longer in
effect (vanished), whether he still believes that the gods still reign or
whether they have been overturned in favor of new laws. She clearly implies
that he no longer considers the laws at all, but is now making up his own
rules (which she sarcastically call "new laws") merely to satisfy his own
desires. In no way is he justified -- she has borne him children, saved him
from death, renounced her homeland, etc. What more could she have done.
(approx line 490)
Hmmm.... so, perhaps the physis is actually Jason -- he is the one rejecting
nomos. At least Medea is making that case.
I am assuming here that vows ==>"gods reigning" ==> nomos,
and "gods not reign" ==> new customs (of passion, convenience, etc) ==>
physis.
I have not yet translated his response.
Again, thanks very much. This makes the reading much more interesting in
this context.
Best regards,
T.H. Chance
>thaumaston de se echŮ posin kai piston hÍ talain' egŮ,
>ei pheuxomai ge gaian ekbeblÍmenÍ,
>
>Now where is the main verb for the following? Is echŮ understood ==>
>philŮn erÍmos, sun teknois monÍ monois:
There is no main verb; erEmos and monE, both feminine, are in apposition
with Medea, the subject of pheuxomai.
>kalon g' oneidos tŮi neŮsti numphiŮi,
>ptŮchous alasthai paidas hÍ t' esŮsa se.
Supply an esti here;
"fair indeed [is] the rebuke for the recent groom, [one saying that your]
beggar children and she who save you are banished.
>I also am having dificulty understanding how this comes together. The Íi and
>genitive chrusou has me stumped. Actually, the whole thing has me stumped ==>
>
>Ů Zeu, ti dÍ chrusou men hos kibdÍlos Íi
>tekmÍri' anthrŮpoisin Ůpasas saphÍ,
Take chrusou as gen. with tekmEri'. Translate: "Zeus, why did you grant to
men clear evidence of/for gold that is fake, but...."
>Finally, any comments on the style would be useful.
Medea is pissed off. You are in the middle of the agOn; so, of course, the
plot goes no where. Another Euripidean comment on the
not-so-fine-sophistic-art of antilogikE.
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
thch...@mother.com (T.H. Chance) wrote:
> >cdo...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >thaumaston de se echŮ posin kai piston hÍ talain' egŮ,
> >ei pheuxomai ge gaian ekbeblÍmenÍ,
> >
> >Now where is the main verb for the following? Is echŮ understood ==>
> >philŮn erÍmos, sun teknois monÍ monois:
>
> There is no main verb; erEmos and monE, both feminine, are in apposition
> with Medea, the subject of pheuxomai.
>
> >kalon g' oneidos tŮi neŮsti numphiŮi,
> >ptŮchous alasthai paidas hÍ t' esŮsa se.
>
> Supply an esti here;
>
> "fair indeed [is] the rebuke for the recent groom, [one saying that your]
> beggar children and she who save you are banished.
My difficulty is that there is no full stop here (period), so I assumed that
kalon oneidos was accusative. I would think this is some sort of dependent
clause -- a participle? I am having difficulty with having a nominative case
here, thus the thought that echO is the verb.
>
> >I also am having dificulty understanding how this comes together. The Íi and
> >genitive chrusou has me stumped. Actually, the whole thing has me stumped ==>
> >
> >Ů Zeu, ti dÍ chrusou men hos kibdÍlos Íi
> >tekmÍri' anthrŮpoisin Ůpasas saphÍ,
>
> Take chrusou as gen. with tekmEri'.
I se-->
I was reading (chrusou) with (ti), and that does not work.
Translate: "Zeus, why did you grant to
> men clear evidence of/for gold that is fake, but...."
"evidence (test) for gold"
Whew. Maybe I need to go back to Xenophon or the NT.
Thanks very much.
I am learning that when my translation is "impossible", then go back to my
assumptions. For example, I put ti chrusou together, which is certainly
possible, but does not make sense here.
Indeed, I would not put ti at the beginning here, but at the very end "why
is there no stamp....." We cannot really know what ti means (WHAT or WHY)
until the very end. It looks like and smells like WHAT -- certainly had me
fooled.
I guess that is why I like Euripides so much. He really stretches my
understanding of Greek translation.