Classical Athenian Drama: Euripides' Medea and Aristophanes' Lysistrata

Classical Athenian Drama

It is an unfortunate fact that history has been almost entirely written by men. When using historical, and, indeed, non-historical sources such as literature, this lack of divergent perspectives makes it difficult to accurately analyse a society. Nowhere is this fact more clearly evident than in the study of Classical Athens.

As unfortunate as this phenomenon is, it can be argued that the homogeneity of sources does not necessarily represent a comparable homogeneity of ideas and themes. In Athenian drama, for example, the work of the three major tragedians, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, have many similarities in both matter and form. Equally however, there are differences in their work that help to indicate the full spectrum and progress of thought in democratic Athens in the fifth century BCE. Additionally, the work of Aristophanes, the comedic playwright, helps to add another layer of thought and perspective. Although his work takes a different form, its relatively contemporary nature and indisputable quality, make it equally valuable for the purpose of assessing Athenian social and cultural values.

                                                   

Although the different perspectives of the dramatists help, there is one area in which the lack of diversity in Classical Athenian literature is particularly notable and destructive: there exists no works written by a woman of this time. This, when coupled with the lack of historical or legal references, makes understanding the Classical Athenian woman a very difficult task (Shaw, 1975, pp255.); we are wholly dependent upon the views and perspectives of male writers in forming our ideas of how they lived. With this ancient equivalent of the 'male gaze' in mind, this essay will look at two examples of Classical drama, Euripides' Medea and Aristophanes' Lysistrata, and search for clues as to the cultural values of Athens in regards to woman and womanhood. It will be argued that these texts show that the role of women in Classical Athens was not a fixed one, and that traditional ideas about women were being challenged by these two playwrights.

There are three key elements to gender relations in Classical Athens. Firstly, Athens was a stratified society based on status. Secondly, there was a key social delineation between the private sphere of the household (the oikos) and the public sphere of the polis. And, finally, the respective genders had clearly defined roles within these spheres, and, more specifically, in the case of women, this meant no role in the public life of the polis (Saxonhouse, 1980, pp65, Shaw, 1989, pp256.).  In the context of this essay, this final point is critical. The degree to which women, contained within the private sphere of the household, were able to affect the public affairs of the polis is a matter of contention.

For, although it is widely accepted that women were excluded from public life, it does not necessarily follow that they were completely without influence (Cohen, 1989, pp03.). Indeed, this essay will argue that both Medea and Lysistrata help to illustrate the importance and strength of the position of the woman within the home, and that it is more than likely that women used this position in order to influence men's outward or public behaviour. It can be argued, therefore, that by affecting the actions of their husbands, women were able to influence the broader affairs of the polis.

Euripides' Medea can be viewed as a paradoxical figure. In the most part, she defies all of the characteristics of the Athenian feminine ideal; “She is a women … who simply refuses any longer to accept – at any rate Greek – female stereotypes” (Shirley, 1989, pp158.). In this way, Euripides alienates her from the (most likely) completely male audience. If this is not enough to cement Medea's 'otherness', she is also a witch with “magic drugs” (Medea, Line 718), who comes from a “barbarian land” (Medea, Line 536). As well as these attributes, Medea's actions themselves, both before and during the play, could have only added to this sense of alienation. She betrays all of the familial and political bonds that Greek culture was built upon with her heinous and meticulously planned crimes. However, this view of Medea as the abhorrent alien is not the whole picture. As Shirley has shown, she is given many characteristics that are reminiscent of the Homeric heroes, showing resolve and daring, and valuing her “honour” and sense of personal justice above all else (1989, pp161). The agon, or debate, with Jason, as shown in the excerpt (Medea, Lines 479-626), illustrates that Medea is capable of defending her honour with words; her rhetoric is clearly the stronger, a fact that Jason, with no small amount of irony, acknowledges, “Do you know how to change your prayer and thus appear the wiser?” (Medea, Lines 600-601). Taken as a whole, these can be viewed as masculine traits and behaviours, and could perhaps, in another context, be described as noble. However, the complexity of Medea's character doesn’t end there. Medea’s decision to kill her children, and her subsequent hesitation before committing the deed, further obfuscate her identity. Although she does go on to commit the infanticide, her hesitation  and impassioned speech before the crime reveal a feminine and maternal nature, veiled behind her anger. This, as Shirley has shown, is paradoxical (1989, pp165.).

In Medea, Euripides has created a deeply complex and contradictory heroine. There is not time to fully detail Medea's character and its contradictions here; however, for the purposes of this essay, it is important to ask why Euripides has created them at all? It can be argued that this was Euripides'

way of challenging the feminine ideal itself, for, in Medea, we see not simply a vexed and vengeful women destroying every social convention in her path, but also a tortured soul, who, as Esposito puts it, is engaged in a “psychological war” (2004, Intro. Pp 11.) with herself, that ends with the ultimate crime against her own oikos—an act which both defends her honour and destroys everything that is important to her as a woman.

One of the most striking implications of Medea's actions is the fact that she is using her influence in the private sphere of the household—while she still has it—to manipulate and control the public affairs of her husband Jason and one-time benefactor Creon, even if this ‘control’ amounts simply to destruction. Aristophanes' Lysistrata contains an equally compelling example of this kind of assertive behaviour by a heroine. Although, in general, the women of Lysistrata are comically licentious and capricious, the heroine herself is far more aware of the broader social implications of her actions (MacDowell, 1995). Again, like Medea, she initiates action, in her case a collective action, and, again like Medea, she utilises the private power she possesses to influence the public actions of men.

The actions of the women of Lysistrata betray a sense of pacifism on behalf of the dramatist. In having the women deny their husbands the pleasures of the private sphere until they stop killing each other in war, which is the ultimate expression of the public sphere (Saxonhouse, 1980, pp67.), Aristophanes not only shows the power that women possess, but is also subtly suggesting the need for a greater feminine influence on public affairs; “we don't need locked doors,” Lysistrata says, “but just the least bit of common sense.” (Lysistrata, Line 432-433). The “locked doors” of twenty years of war, and the failure of masculine ideals to end the war, had lead the playwright to question the value of those ideals. As Fox puts it, Aristophanes “unapologetically posits women as humanity's champion,” and is challenging his audience to ask “who indeed is best to save the city?” (2001, pp12.).

It is important not to over emphasise this point. As MacDowell points out, most of the time the women of Lysistrata are comically occupied with trivialities and, ultimately, are not suing for greater rights within the political sphere; Lysistrata is not a “feminist manifesto” (1995, pp248). However, it can be argued, particularly within the ancient Greek context, that the pacifist message alone represents a move away from traditional masculine ideals and a challenge to the conventions of the past.

In both of these examples it is clear that the authors are using the mythical and the ridiculous in order to make real, contemporary social criticisms. As Romilly has shown, this was not a new or unusual dramatic device (1985), and it helps to show the level of social awareness that the Greeks and their brilliant dramatists actually had. The two examples of Medea and Lysistrata show that the dramatists of the late fifth century Athens were beginning to challenge the traditional ideas about gender and the role of women in their society. In both instances the heroines act outside of social norms, exerting themselves explicitly within the private sphere and, in the case of Lysistrata the public one as well. Although Medea never physically leaves the confines of the private sphere, the ramifications of her actions certainly transcend it. The behaviour of these two heroines could only have served to challenge the male audience, and led them to question their own private relations and those of their society as a whole.

Reference List

Aristophanes, 1960, Lysistrata of Aristophanes: an English Version of the Comedy by Dudley Fitts, Faber and Faber Limited, London. 

Cohen, David, 1989, Seclusion, Separation, and the status of Women in Classical Athens, Greece & Rome, Vol 36., No 01, pp 03-15.

Esposito, Stephen, 2004, Introduction to Euripides: Medea, Hippolytus, Heracles, Bacchae, Focus Publishing, Newburyport Massachusetts.

Euripides, 2004, ‘Medea’ in Euripides, Four Plays: translation with notes and introduction, Focus Publishing, Newburyport Massachusetts

Fox, Mary-Jane, 2001, The Idea of Women in Peacekeeping: Lysistrata and Antigone, International Peacekeeping, Vol 08., No02., pp 09-22.

MacDowell, Douglas, 1995, Aristophanes and Athens: An Introduction to the Plays, Oxford University Press, New York.

Romilly, Jaqueline de, 1985, A Short History of Greek Literature, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Illinois.

Saxonhouse, Arlene, 1980, Men, Women, War, and Politics: Family and Polis in Aristophanes and Euripides, Political Theory, Vol 8., No 01., pp 65-81.

Shaw, Michael, The Female Intruder: Women in Fifth-Century Drama, Classical Philology, Vol. 70., No 04., pp255-266.

Shirley, A. Barlow, 1989, Stereotype and Reversal in Euripides' 'Medea', Greece & Rome, Vol 36., No 02., pp 158-171.