Evil, Villainess Women
Women who strayed from the standard in ancient Greece were often depicted as monsters and villains in both art and literature. Medea and Medusa, prior to their villainization, were described as great beauties. Their actions however, strayed from the expectations society had of them, and as a result they were villainized. Medea became a villain after betraying Jason and killing their children but like Medusa, her villainization has more to do with her being a powerful woman in a patriarchal society. In comparison, Medusa becomes a literal monster after being cursed by Athena, her transformation occurs because she was raped and violated by a God. Medusa suffered because a man felt entitled to her body, and after her transformation she became hunted and classified as a monster simply for defending herself. Both of these women were powerful forces of nature and this directly violated how society thought they should behave. Therefore, because they refused to conform to the patriarchal society they existed in, they were villainized. For the sake of looking at how language depicting women has changed, I will be using two different translations, one from 1922 and one from 1998 for Ovid’s Metamorphoses. In addition, I will also be using Euripides’ Medea, one translation from 1906 and one from 2013. I will also be incorporating primary sources of art. I will be specifically using Poliocorco’s The Flight of Medea 1991.1 krater as a primary source of art for Medea. For Medusa I will also be using Polygnotos’ terracotta pelike (45.11.1) and the terracotta painted gorgoneion antefix (39.11.9), artist unknown.
Medea: Mortal or Goddess?
In Euripides’ Medea, Medea is described throughout the play very negatively, both by men and by herself. In the 1906 translation of the play, Creon described Medea as “full of lore in unknown ways of evil” (Euripides, 1906, p.17.21-22). Evil is a term used many times throughout the play to describe Medea. The lore in this case can refer to the Medea’s knowledge of potions, herbs, and magic. Here it is important to note that Medea is not simply a mortal woman; she is capable of magic and is the niece of the goddess Circe. Circe, an enchantress and minor Goddess of the Greek pantheon, is also the daughter of the God Helios, who is Medea’s grandfather. Medea’s mother is Idyia who was Queen of Colchis and daughter of Oceanus (titan son of Uranus and Gaia) and Tethys (titan daughter of Uranus and Gaia). Medea’s father was King Aeetes who was the son of Helios (god of sun) and Oceanid Perseis (nymph and brother to Circe).
Medea has quasi-divinity because she is directly descended from gods. Medea’s divinity plays a key role in Jason’s quest for the golden fleece because she uses her knowledge of herbs and magic to help him complete his missions. When Jason must plough a field with fire-breathing oxen, Medea uses an unguent (ointment or salve) to protect Jason and his men from the bulls’ fire (Ovid, 1998, 7.129). Medea also charms the serpent guarding the fleece to sleep with narcotic herbs (Ovid, 1998, 7.140). However, by the end of the play Medea’s use of herbs and magic have become “evil” as she uses them to poison Glauce and Kreon. Segal describes the way Medea is depicted at the end of the play as follows: “in the final scene Medea pursues a domestic quarrel from the magical chariot of her grandfather, Helios, while Jason places her in the realm of mythical monsters (1342f.), hateful both to the gods and ‘to all the race of humans’ (Segal, 1996, p. 28)”. In this scene Medea is flying away in the golden chariot with her children’s dead bodies and a mourning Jason on the ground. The imagery of Medea leaving behind her old life on the golden chariot shows that she truly isn’t mortal.
Medea is now in the realm of mythical monsters, as Segal describes, and is no longer a part of the mortal world. Medea’s quasi-divinity becomes important in the final scene because Medea is no longer subject to the same morals or rules as mortals. Killing a king or a princess usually came with large punishments, but this is not the case for Medea. Rabinowitz discusses the potential implications a woman would have faced for these transgressions and acknowledges that:
Medea is not ordinary. Her escape in the dragon-drawn chariot may help here. There is not even the hint of punishment in store for her except for the suffering that she has brought on herself. This escape does not have to signify divine approval of Medea; it might stand for her transformation into a god, and therefore her subjection to different codes of behavior. Gods are capable of great cruelty (see, for instance, the Bacchai or Hippolytos of Euripides). In this reading, she is no longer subject to mortal justice or mortal feelings, of either pleasure or pain, and the author would not expect her to arouse pity, only fear.
(Rabinowitz, 2008, p.153)
Mortal ancient women would have been killed for their actions or excommuned from society. However, in the final scene Medea leaves the human world behind by flying away on the golden chariot. By doing this, Medea leaves behind the women she was with Jason, a wife, and a mother. Rabinowitz proposes that one of the reasons Medea never faces any consequences is because she transformed into a god, therefore no longer making her subject to human codes of behavior. The gods operate on a completely different level where murder and infanticide are more common, and this becomes clear when Medea receives support from Helios in the form of his golden chariot.
In the final scene Medea reclaims the power Jason stole from her when he abandoned her and their children to marry Glauce, the daughter of the King of Corinth, Creon. She ultimately finds her revenge in Jason’s pain after their children’s death despite having to suffer the pain of her children’s deaths as well. Medea’s character is relentless and persistent in her search for revenge. She kills Jason’s wife, Creusa’s father, and her own children just so Jason will lose his heirs. Betine van Zyl Smit states that, “Euripides’ Medea is fascinating because of the power of her love and the power of her hatred, because she refuses to become a victim” (Van Zyl Smit, 2002, p.112-3). While Jason’s actions hurt and betrayed Medea, there is not doubt that Van Zyl Smit is right that by the end of the play she is not a victim.
In comparison, when describing Medea’s representation by Ovid, Tuana states that, “The second representation of Medea is as an evil witch who is active and does not blindly follow Jason’s wishes. More emphasis is placed upon her use of magic and no justification is offered for the deaths she causes. The second representation of Medea correlates the use of magic with evil” (Tuana, 1985, p.266). Medea’s magic is what originally allows her to support Jason in all his adventures and she essentially is the sole reason for his success. Tuana also explains the first representation of Medea which is a woman who has knowledge of herbs and powers but uses her skills to help her husband, such as in the search for the golden fleece. This Medea is absent after Jason’s betrayal and she ultimately becomes the second. When he betrays her, she ends up using her magic to gain revenge against him.
At the beginning of Euripides’ play, Medea makes a speech to the other women and they become inspired, as they all understand the consequences of a woman being abandoned by her husband in ancient times. Medea was also an outsider in Corinthian society, and she didn’t behave submissively like the Corinthian women did. Rabinowitz offers an interpretation of how Medea would have been received by an ancient audience. She states that “For the ancient Greek, the play may confirm Greek fear of barbarian excess in showing the victory of a foreign wise woman over a Greek hero” (Rabinowitz, 2008, p.153). As a foreigner, Medea entering Corinthian life and then crippling the monarchy by killing Kreon and Glauce would have been unthinkable for the contemporary audience. Because of Medea’s origins, she was viewed as having a barbaric background and people would not have thought her capable of gaining victory over a Greek hero. As Rabinowitz explains, this would have been a fear of the contemporary audience, that outsiders could come in and ruin their society. In this case, the hero was Jason her husband, but the irony is that Medea was the only reason Jason was a hero. Without her help Jason would have never become the hero people thought him to be. Her victory over him shows that she has the power to both create and destroy him; ultimately, she took back what she gave.
In some other interpretations of the story, Medea either doesn’t kill her children, or kills them with the intent to make them immortal. The version of the myth where Medea kills her children originates with Euripides. Tuana says that “To see Medea with fresh eyes, one must recognize that the Medea who murdered her children was the invention of Euripides. Although she will be remembered forever because of this act, it was the pen of Euripides that brought it into being. Prior to Euripides’ Medea, there were many legends concerning Medea and her children” (Tuana, 1985, p.268). Medea’s villainized is mostly related to her committing infanticide. While all her other actions can be sympathized with, Euripides’ alternate ending makes Medea’s character seem evil.
In addition, Ovid’s story offers no such explanation for why she decided to kill her children, making her actions appear unmotivated by revenge and thus truly evil. Tuana states that “This is Medea’s final transformation. She has become a vengeful, evil murderess. Since Ovid offers no explanation for her acts, one can only assume that they are irrational and are born of envy and revenge. Under Ovid’s pen, she who was once a symbol of the endless cycle of life and death becomes the personification of evil and destruction” (Tuana, 1985, p.263). Here, Tuana is referring to the reader as “one” and states that they can only view Medea’s actions as evil because Ovid doesn’t explain Medea’s reasoning for killing her children. Tuana states Ovid’s Medea was originally a symbol of the endless cycle of life and death because Medea both gave life such as when she rejuvenated Aeson and took life when she killed her brother. Medea’s character has balance, she both gives and takes life but at the end of Ovid’s tale, her role as changed. Medea no longer creates and heals, and only delivers death. Throughout the story Medea’s character transforms from a woman that inspires other women, to someone they fear because of her relentless pursuit of revenge. Medea becomes a symbol for evil when she kills her children to hurt Jason, and this negatively impacts the reader’s ability to feel sympathy for her character. Rabinowitz suggests that
“A modern woman might also interpret Medea as an example of the double bind that afflicts women in modern life: the only way to achieve success in the world is by eliminating the feminine and maternity. If we take seriously the fact that Medea is an imitation of a ‘real’ woman, that is, an actor is behind the female mask, we can emphasize the fact that she is not a woman at all. She is a radical ‘other’”.
Rabinowitz, 2008, p.154
Throughout both Euripides and Ovid’s versions, Medea is constantly othered. Not only is she an outsider in Corinth but she is both a woman and quasi-divine. Modern women face this reality of being othered because they are often forced to shed their femininity to be taken seriously. Especially in the business world, women are often told that they can’t be both successful and a mother, and so they are forced to choose. In Medea’s case, it’s possible that killing her children was the only way for her to start over and leave behind the life she had as Jason’s wife and become her own person. While her actions are radical, they can be viewed by a modern audience as a hyperbolized example of what women must sacrifice to gain power.
Medusa: Curse or Gift?
Medusa is a mortal gorgon, one of the three gorgon sisters. Medusa was born beautiful but was transformed by Athena into a gorgon after being raped in Athena’s scared temple by Poseidon. Her body turned monstrous as a curse for being raped in Athena’s temple. All sexual acts were forbidden in sacred temples, so Medusa was cursed, even though the situation was out of her control and she was being forced by another god. Rape was often blamed on the woman, and as such Medusa was punished for having “sex” and therefore desecrating Athena’s temple. Not only did Medusa’s body become monstrous but she gained the ability to turn every man that looked at her into stone. However, one question I plan to explore throughout the next section is whether this “curse” was a curse or if it was gift that allowed Medusa to protect herself from male attention.
Prior to her transformation by Athena, Medusa was considered beautiful; according to Ovid “Her beauty was far-famed, the jealous hope/ Of many a suitor, and all of her charms/ Her hair was the loveliest” (Ovid, 1998, 4.799-801). However, this beauty was what attracted the attention of Poseidon, who felt entitled to her body and raped her. Her physical description takes a horrid turn after her transformation when she is described as having an “ghastly head” (Ovid, 1998. 4.784). Her beautiful hair turned into “serpents horrible” (Ovid, 1922, 4.857). Silverman described her various appearances as follows: “Medusa’s long, luxurious hair was transformed into hissing vipers. Furthermore, Medusa is typically presented as gruesome. She sometimes has horns growing out of her skull. Her tongue thrusts out of her mouth. Occasionally she is depicted with a hairy or bearded chin and her skin is furrowed with deep wrinkles” (Silverman, 2016, p.116). Medusa here is described as rather monstrous and very different from the great beauty she was prior to her transformation. Not only did her physical appearance change but the transformation provided Medusa with the ability to petrify men that looked at her. Ultimately, descriptions of her monstrous form differ greatly depending on which primary source and translations of literature is being used. An earlier translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses states that Perseus, upon seeing the statues lining her home explained that they experienced “dread” (Ovid, 1922, 4.826) right before being turned to stone.
However, this exact language is absent from the later translation by Melville. The statues Perseus found in the garden were men who has been turn to stone by Medusa. However, these men cannot simply be written off as victims despite their expressions of dread. These statues are located at Medusa home, she did not seek these men out, rather they sought to kill her with provocation, just as Perseus did. Medusa simply protected herself and her sisters from invaders and men that hunted her. The language used to describe Medusa also changes, in the older version her rape is described as, “the Sovereign of the Sea attained her love” (Ovid, 1922, 4.852) which is very passive language for a rape. The later translation states that she “Was violated” (Ovid, 1998, 4.804) which is a much more accurate description of what happened. Whether or not her transformation was intended as a punishment it poses the question: ultimately, which was more of curse, her beauty or becoming a gorgon?
In addition, the physical depictions of Medusa in ancient art vary depending on the artist and period. On a terracotta pelike jar attributed to Polygnotos from 450-440 B.C. on collection at the Met, Medusa is shown sleeping while Perseus sneaks up behind her. The scene happens moments before her death but, in the painting, Medusa does not exhibit any of the monstrous qualities that either Ovid or Silverman described. Instead, her face is smooth, her hair is curled around her face, and she has wings. Overall, the girl on the vase looks peaceful, innocent and because she is sleeping, she is unaware of her impending death and can’t defend herself.
In contrast, on a terracotta painted gorgoneion antefix on collection at the Cleveland Museum of Art she is depicted monstrously. This artwork is from circa 540 B.C. and is a painted decoration that sits on the edge of a roof. While the work doesn’t clearly state that the figure is Medusa, it is clearly a gorgon. Gorgons were often used as a symbol of protection, and this gorgon is shown with large fangs coming out of her mouth. When discussing the use of gorgon faces on art and structures in “The Gorgon in Art,” Steven Wilk states that “A Gorgon face used as a talisman to ward off evil is called an apotropaic device. (The Greek word apotropaios means “to turn away”)” (Wilk, 2000, p.42). The gorgon becomes an apotropaic symbol to ward off militant spirits and the use of it on the antefix shows how it is protecting the whole building. The gorgon on the antefix has curly hair and there are snakes with fangs surrounding the gorgon in a semi circle.
Medusa’s appearance varies hugely from the first painting that shows a great beauty compared to the antefix that features a hideous monster. One implication of this shows that gorgons were supposedly made to be terrifying to ward off enemies. Thus, the gorgon is not a villain but rather a protector, as it is her face, despite being terrifying with snake hair, that decorates the building as a symbol of protection. In an ironic way, just because the face is scary doesn’t mean it’s a negative thing, but rather the terror of it is what provides protection. Alternatively, this can be applied to Medusa because her dreadful appearance protected her from (almost all) the men who tried to harm her and her sisters.
As shown in the painting, Perseus killed Medusa while she was sleeping and unable to defend herself. The only reason Perseus was successful was because Medusa was unable to petrify him while sleeping, showing that her transformation was what protected her from men. Medusa’s transformation had both pros and cons, because while it protected her from males looking at her sexually, it simultaneously led to her being classified as a monster and hunted. Her beauty was traded for monstrosity, both things out of her control and ultimately put her at risk from men. Medusa becomes a repeated victim of the patriarchy, originally when she is raped, and then when she is repeatedly villainized by men who wish to kill her. While Perseus succeeds in killing her, her villainization doesn’t stop there because he desecrates her body by attaching her head to his shield as a trophy and later gives it to Athena as an offering.
Snake Charmers
One connection I made during my research was that both Medusa’s and Medea’s myths are connected to snakes. This ultimately piqued my interest because the word snake is tied to current negative stereotypes of women. These negative stereotypes influenced the way I interpreted these myths because I was viewing Medusa’s and Medea’s connections to snakes as a symbol for them being evil. When discussing ancient nonbiblical societies, Chakraborty states that “In many cultures, a serpent is a symbol of sexuality and fertility. Sometimes it is also associated with knowledge and wisdom” (Chakraborty, 2017, p.156). Snakes as symbols of sexuality, fertility, knowledge, and wisdom are so vastly different than what modern audiences associate with the word snake today. However, this does give us an insight to how contemporary audiences saw snakes. Unlike me, they wouldn’t have thought of Medusa’s snake hair and instantly associate it with negative things. By being connected to snakes, Medea and Medusa would have therefore also been connected to wisdom, fertility, and strength.
In modern times, being described as a snake is not a good thing, and the connotations are that the individual is sneaky, venomous, deceitful, and untrustworthy. Chakraborty explains that this difference occurred with the rise of Christianity and that the “Representation of women as evil, or association of women with the Devil, in literature has its root in Genesis of the Bible” (Chakraborty, 2017, p.156). The story of Eve and the Garden of Eden has heavily influenced our society to the point where snakes have become symbols of evil. It was the serpent that lied to Eve and tempted her into eating the apple, therefore leading to the origin of sin. In my effort to understand contemporary audiences’ reactions to these characters, I’ve had to investigate the original symbolism of snakes in ancient times.
During my research on Medea, I came across her positive connection to snakes and her role of a snake-charmer. Snakes can also symbolize rebirth and Tuana describes the qualities of a serpent as, “the symbol of wisdom and of rebirth and thus as a creature sacred to the goddess” (Tuana, 1985, p.258). Here Tuana is referring to the goddesses Hecate and Demeter, who she states Medea shares her identity with. Tuana’s description does fit Medea’s character as one of her skills is snake charming. According to Ovid, Medea uses her snake-charming abilities on the snake guarding the golden fleece so that Jason can steal it (Ovid, 1998, 7.142). Additionally, Medea’s connection to snakes goes far beyond her ability to charm them. At the end of the play, she leaves Jason behind in a golden chariot pulled by serpents. For example, serpents feature in The Flight of Medea, painted Lucanian red figure krater in the style of the Policoro painter on collection in the Cleveland museum.
The vase features Medea flying away from Jason, who is standing above the dead bodies of their children. Medea is driving the golden chariot given to her by Helios, which is being pulled by giant serpents. If we apply Tuana’s explanation of the qualities of a snake, then this moment can be seen as a rebirth. Medea is leaving behind the life she had with Jason, cutting all ties, so she can begin anew. While talking about powerful ancient women connected to snakes, Chakraborty states that “Often, these fatal women were celebrated and worshipped as a symbol of power, creativity, fertility and sexual pleasure, as well as death and destruction” (Chakraborty, 2017, p.156). By being connected both to fertility and death, snakes become a symbol for rebirth. Additionally, being connected to these things were not negative for ancient women like they are for modern women. Rather these women were viewed as powerful forces of nature to be celebrated. This information allows us to better understand that Medea’s and Medusa’s connection to snakes wouldn’t have damaged their reputation but rather would have strengthened their status as strong powerful women.
If we apply this same regenerative interpretation to Medusa, it changes the way we might understand her appearance for the ancient viewer. Personally, I always thought that being connected to snakes was supposed to be negative, and so it was hard to view her having a head of snakes as anything other than a punishment. I thought this because growing up, women who were deceitful or cruel were often described as snakes. In a article on the MacWeekly, Doherty explains that.
“In the Judeo-Christian tradition, a snake is evil incarnate. In the book of Genesis, the serpent convinces Eve to eat the forbidden fruit against God’s warnings, and, as a consequence, both Adam and Eve are removed from Eden. Because of this story, snakes have become associated with duplicity. This is a direct rebuke of other religious traditions that revere goddesses associated with snake imagery, such as the ancient Egyptian goddess Wadjet — a protector of children and the goddess of childbirth.”
Doherty 2020
The duplicity Doherty mentions is exactly the stigma modern women face. Women who are thought to be dishonest, sneaky, and two-faced were labeled as snakes. This change of view is very important because the connotations surrounding snakes have changed to being negative but it’s very possible that they weren’t intended as negative in ancient Greece. They associated different things to snakes like rebirth and protection. Regardless of how the ancients viewed snakes, it doesn’t change that modern audiences will automatically associated snakes with evil. Acknowledging this difference allows us to examine Medusa’s “curse” and understand that there may be more here than a simple punishment.
Subsequently, Medusa’s snakes could symbolize her rebirth. In this case, Athena’s “curse” could be a opportunity for rebirth and for Medusa to shed her past life, move past her rape and start anew. The snakes give her the ability to protect herself from men, and allow her to live in solitude with her sisters. With this new appearance any man that looked at her would immediately be turned to stone, and thus unable to hurt her. This theory aligns with modern interpretations of the myth: that Athena’s curse wasn’t meant to punish Medusa but rather it was meant to protect her from men.
When discussing feminist interpretations of Athena cursing Medusa, Silverman states that “Although she punished thereby eliminating Medusa’s erotic gratifications, she also fortified and armed Medusa against men. It can be considered and early feminist trope in the following way: envy and punishment may not sit so comfortably for many women and when they respond destructively to another female they may need to show compensation by an undoing—in this instance providing Medusa with her own power” (Silverman, 2016, p.123). Athena’s curse had both pros and cons. By ruining Medusa’s beauty Athena also got rid of what made her a target for rape. Medusa had no control over her physical beauty and she was powerless to stop Poseidon from raping her, but the curse made it so no man would ever desire her again. This, along with her ability to turn any man that looked at her into stone, protected her from male attention. Ironically, Medusa’s transformation made her remain a target but now instead of wanting to have sex with her, men wanted to kill her to prove themselves as heroes. Ultimately though, feminist audiences often interpret Athena’s curse as a way of providing Medusa with the ability to protect herself. Undeniably, despite the negative parts, the curse did allow Medusa to protect herself as proven by her garden full of stone figures.
In Ovid’s Metamorphses, Medusa’s death occurs while she is sleeping and Perseus is able to sneak up and kill her. To accomplish this he looks at her through the reflection on his shield (Ovid, 1998, 4.785). Despite her death, Medusa does not lose her power. While her head is now detached from her body, men still turn to stone when they look at her. Silverman states that, “She has not lost her ability to terrorize and petrify. Perseus then uses her head to frighten and defeat his enemies with Medusa’s deadly gaze. Without her powerful visage he is still vulnerable and impotent against his enemies. She retains her power” (Silverman, 2016, p.121). Even in death Medusa retains her ability to turn men to stone and she is ultimately weaponized by Perseus. Wearing Medusa’s face on one’s shield become a symbol of power and it represented the fearlessness of the warrior. Plainly, in Silverman’s words, “Medusa signaled power and strength” (Silverman, 2016, p.124). Therefore, Athena wore Medusa’s head on her shield and it was used in the case of antefixes to ward off evil spirits and energies. Medusa’s face also had the ability to strike fear into men, such as it did to the men she petrified that Perseus saw in her garden.
Evil or Misunderstood?
Despite the fantastical nature of both these myths, both Medusa and Medea have become feminist icons in modern times. While they both possess god-like abilities and cannot be classified as mere mortals, they are very relatable to other women. Medusa was raped by Poseidon and then, afterwards she was turned into a monster by Athena. Despite the debated motives behind Athena’s curse, or rather gift, Medusa’s situation is very similar to what Greek woman may have faced. Virginity and chastity were highly valued in ancient culture and if women strayed from this path then they would have been rejected by society. However, rape is out of a women’s control, but these women were still looked at with scorn and disgust. They would have been viewed as “damaged goods” and unworthy to marry. Depending on different periods of ancient history, these women would have been killed, physically punished, or excommunicated from society.
When discussing how ancient audiences would have viewed Medusa, Silverman states that “Medusa can be thought of as an iconic figure for Greek women, and through fantasy gratifying identifications could briefly release women from their onerous burdens. It should not be surprising that women engaged in a harsh, oppressive daily existence can find a liberating refuge in a symbolic figure with great and fierce power and freedom” (Silverman, 2016, p.117). After being raped and transformed, Medusa become a symbol of power because she was now free from the burden of being a woman. As men could not look at her without turning into stone, she was free of their sexual attention and could live her life with her sisters without men controlling her life. This made Medusa a symbol of power for women in Greek society because she is now free from the sexual oppression of the patriarchy.
The shame ancient women faced is very similar to the stigma rape victims face in modern times. Medusa’s beauty was blamed as the cause of her rape, but Medusa didn’t control her appearance and just because she’s beautiful doesn’t mean someone else is entitled to her body. Medusa’s appearance didn’t cause her rape, it was Poseidon’s entitlement. Sadly, the Greek gods were frequent rapists and the mortals they choose to rape were often treated as objects rather than people with thoughts and feelings. Because of their divine status, gods acted as if they were entitled to have sex with whoever they want. Note I do say gods not goddesses because often the men were the more frequent rapists. This misogyny is still very present in the modern world, as women are often blamed for their own rapes because of their past sexual encounters or the way they were dressed. This is the same way Medusa was blamed for tempting Poseidon with her beauty; as if men were savage creatures who lacked control and would be consumed with lust. This lack of self control is often used to lessen the blame on rapists and move it onto the victims because as the object of lust they should have been more careful. Although, it clearly should be the other way around.
In addition, Medusa’s curse was seen, in antiquity, as the result of godly wrath and the consequences of dishonoring the Gods. However, Medusa quickly became a symbol of power and, even after her death, men remained terrified of her. When discussing the victimization of Medusa, Silverman states that, “The changed Medusa had the power of vengeance over all men who dared to look at her. No warrior prior to Perseus could deal with her effective mastery over them. The Medusa victim now victimizes. The myth might have allowed Greek women to fantasize about an altered state from passive submission to heroic supremacy over men” (Silverman, 2016, p.120). Medusa managed to reclaim her power as a woman and, because of her “punishment”, she was able to finally defend herself from men. Her transformed state could have allowed contemporary women to be inspired by her because she was able to recover from her rape and become a symbol of power. Women could find solace in the fact that she never having to submit to a man again.
Medea, in contrast, suffered because of the patriarchal system in Corinth. She was abandoned by her husband and, in ancient society, this left a woman without legal or financial protection. Most ancient women (depending on the period and area, the rights of women changed slightly) were unable to own land and weren’t considered actual citizens. As such they were not able to represent themselves in legal matters and had to depend on their husbands or male relatives to do business for them. Medea ultimately became a symbol of a woman scorned. This was relatable for Greek women who could understand the pain she was going through, as it was a realistic part of their lives. When lamenting her plight, Medea states:
I know well, the one who was everything to me
has turned out to be the worst of men, my husband.
Of all who live and can think,
we women are the most miserable species:
We must buy a husband with abundant goods
and, an evil even more hurtful than the initial purchase,
take him as master of our body. That
is the greatest challenge, whether we win a bad husband
or a decent one. Divorce ruins a woman’s reputation,
nor is it possible to refuse a husband. (Euripides, 2013, 12.228-237).
These words show the worst-case scenario of a women’s life in ancient Greece and how they were powerless against the men in their society. Societal norms forced women to marry and give their dowries and their bodies to their husbands who gained control of their lives. Segal states that:
“This vacillation between Medea as a representative of the woman’s condition in marriage and Medea as the ultimate Other (and as the embodiment of woman as the Other) – the outsider, the monster, the creature of uncontrollable and destructive passions – corresponds to the vacillation of the world of the play between a familiar domestic world and a mythic realm of nightmarish possibilities.”
Segal, 1996, p.31
Medea’s fate represented the worst-case-scenario for many Greek women and, when she took matters in her own hands to gain revenge against Jason, she acted as a symbol of power for other women. As Van Zyl Smit notes, “Her experience is portrayed as one that any woman may suffer” (Van Zyl Smit, 2002, p.104).
However, Medea’s differences cannot be forgotten, namely, that she wasn’t mortal. As a witch and daughter of a god, she had abilities and resources, such as the golden chariot, that other women did not have. Not to mention that her revenge goes far beyond what many people would deem reasonable. In contrast, though, Medea often displays masculine qualities that would have been scorned in a contemporary woman. Medea is the hero that Jason isn’t, because Jason would never have been able to complete any of his tasks without her. She is strong-willed and powerful, where women are often thought to be weak.
However, she still is a woman and that is clear by how she is abandoned by Jason and is left in the vulnerable position many other women fear that they would find themselves in. Segal states that, “Her combination of both male and female models of action contributes to the aura of demonic power with which Euripides surrounds her and adds to her disturbing effect on modern (as doubtless on ancient) audiences” (Segal, 1996, p.18). The villainization of Medea stems from the combination of her womanly aspects and her manly heroic ones. As I discussed above when talking about the double bind women face and how they often sacrifice everything maternal and feminine about themselves to gain power, Medea gives up everything in pursuit of revenge. The only way for her to punish her enemies is to embrace her masculine qualities and give up her position of being a mother.
However, the heroic traits Medea displayed were scorned in women but ironically praised in men. Therefore, Medea was made out to be the villain long before Euripides’ addition of her killing her children, purely because she was different. Medea was constantly othered and she refused to fit the Greek’s idea of what a woman should be. By not fitting in this box, and instead being a strong, powerful, and magical women, she became feared by men for the power she held.
References
Doherty, Morgan. (2020, February 6). Language in the Democratic primary: Snakes and sexism. Retrieved from https://themacweekly.com/77381/opinion/language-in-the-democratic-primary-snakes-and-sexism/
Donohue. A. A. (2012). Interpreting Women in Archaic and Classical Greek Sculpture. A Companion to Women in the Ancient World, Edited by Sharon L. James, and Sheila Dillon, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, p. 177. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acadia/detail.action?docID=837573.
Chakraborty, S. (2017). Women, serpent and devil: Female devilry in hindu and biblical myth and its cultural representation: A comparative study. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 18(2), 156-165. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.acadiau.ca:9443/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/women-serpent-devil-female-devilry-hindu-biblical/docview/1869850340/se-2?accountid=8172
Euripides. (1906). Medea. The Project Gutenberg EBook of Medea of Euripides, by Euripides. Oxford University Press. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35451/35451-h/35451-h.htm.
Euripides, and Diane J. Rayor. Euripides’ Medea : A New Translation. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Fantham, Elaine, et al. (1995). Women in Classical Athens: Heroines and Housewives. Women in the Classical World: Image and Text, Oxford University Press USA – OSO, pg. 75-133. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acadia/detail.action?docID=728687.
Melville, A. (1998). Metamorphoses (Oxford world’s classics (Oxford University Press)). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Ovid. (1922). Jason and Medea: Book 7. Metamorphoses. Brookes More. Boston. Cornhill Publishing Co. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0028%3Abook%3D7%3Acard%3D1
Policorco. (400 B.C.). M26.1B The Flight of Medea [Krater, Lucanian Red Figure]. Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, OH. https://www.theoi.com/Gallery/M26.1B.html
“Calyx-Krater – Cleveland Museum of Art – 2014-11-26” by Tim Evanson is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Polygnotos (450-440 B.C.). Terracotta Pelike (Jar) [Terracotta; red-figure]. The Met, New York, NY. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/254523
Rabinowitz, N. (2008). Greek tragedy (Blackwell introductions to the classical world). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Sautman, Francesca. (1986). Woman as birth-and-death-giver in folk tradition: A cross-cultural perspective. Women’s Studies, 12(3), 213-239.
SEGAL, C. (1996). Euripides’ “Medea”: Vengeance, Reversal and Closure. Pallas, (45), 15-44. Retrieved March 1, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43684499
Silverman, Doris K. (2016). Medusa: Sexuality, Power, Mastery, and Some Psychoanalytic Observations. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 17(2), 114-125.
TUANA, N. (1985). MEDEA: With the Eyes of the Lost Goddess. Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 68(2), 253-272. Retrieved March 1, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41178338
Wilk, S. R. (2000). Medusa : Solving the mystery of the gorgon. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.acadiau.ca:9443
Van Zyl Smit, B. (2002). MEDEA THE FEMINIST. Acta Classica, 45, 101-122. Retrieved March 1, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24595328 (540 B.C.) Terracotta Painted Gorgoneion Antefix (Roof Tile) [Terracotta, paint: mold-made]. The Met, New York, NY. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/253581
(540 B.C.) Terracotta Painted Gorgoneion Antefix (Roof Tile) [Terracotta, paint: mold-made]. The Met, New York, NY. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/253581
Women in Antiquity 
I’ve always been fascinated by both Medea and Medusa, and your research on both are illuminating and inspiring. I’m so curious about Medea mythology before the infanticide was introduced, and/or the idea she may have been trying to make her children immortal… this opens up so many doors of interpretation and in many ways, vindication of a much maligned literary victim.
LikeLike