No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2021
This article explores the phenomenon of the monstrous in Seneca's Medea by focusing on the emotions of its main character, in particular demonstrating that they are not merely an expression of Medea's inner psychological sphere but are intrinsically connected with her existential search for recognition in her surrounding world, a world especially marked by its social, cosmic, and mythical dimensions. The monstrous nature of Medea's emotions should be understood in the light of the wider phenomenon of the monstrous in this play, where it is a pervasive phenomenon, in the sense that it transcends the emotions of the main character and is present throughout the play as a tragic, mythically encoded enactment of the dissolution of social, religious, and cosmic boundaries. Other manifestations of the monstrous will be referred to in passing.
This article was written with the financial support of the Foundation for Science and Technology, Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education, under the projects UID/FIL/00183/2019 and UIDB/00183/2020. I should like to add a word of thanks to Douglas Cairns, Ed Sanders, and the anonymous reviewer, for their suggestions and corrections, which helped to improve this article.
1 Segal, C., ‘Boundary Violation and the Landscape of the Self in Senecan Tragedy’, in Fitch, J. G. (ed.), Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Seneca (Oxford, 2008), 136–56Google Scholar (here citing 138 and 137) (originally published in A&A 29 [1983], 172–87).
2 In addition to the article discussed below, see Staley, G. A., Seneca and the Idea of Tragedy (Oxford, 2010)Google Scholar, notably 160 n. 39, where he acknowledges his debt to Segal.
3 J. G. Fitch and S. McElduff, ‘Construction of the Self in Senecan Drama’, in Fitch (n. 1), 162 (originally published in Mnemosyne 55 [2002], 18–40).
4 Ibid., 179–80.
5 Ibid., 170, 180.
6 On the influential character of Fitch and McElduff's article, see Liebermann, W.-L., ‘Senecas Tragödien: Forschungsüberblick und Methodik’, in Billerbeck, M. and Schmidt, E. A. (eds.), Sénèque le tragique (Geneva, 2004), 36–7Google Scholar, who connects their article with Segal's book on the Senecan Phaedra; Liebermann, W.-L., ‘Medea’, in Damschen, G., Heil, A., and Waida, M. (eds.), Brill's Companion to Seneca. Philosopher and Dramatist (Leiden, 2014), 471Google Scholar, where he disapprovingly refers to the article as a typical modern interpretation of Medea.
7 For the concepts of being-in-the-world and being-at-home, see M. Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, ed. T. Rentsch (Tübingen, 2001), 52–9; M. Heidegger, Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik. Welt – Endlichkeit – Einsamkeit, ed. F. W. von Hermann (Frankfurt am Main, 2004), 5–10.
8 On the link between the existential approach to literary texts and the issue of recognition, see Barthes, R., Mythologies (Paris, 1957), 167–8Google Scholar. Bexley, E. M., ‘Recognition and the Character of Seneca's Medea’, Cambridge Classical Journal 62 (2016), 31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, deals at length with the topic of recognition in Medea.
9 F. Dupont's anthropological take on Senecan tragedy is extremely illuminating and her perspectives are crucial at decisive moments of my analysis, especially when the notion of mythical memory is at stake – see Les monstres de Sénèque. Pour une dramaturgie de la tragédie romaine (Paris, 1995). On the importance of theoretical perspectives from fields outside Classical Studies for understanding the figure of Medea and her emotions in ancient literature, see E. Sanders, ‘The Emotions of Medea: An Introduction’, G&R current issue.
10 For the centrality of the monstrous in Senecan tragedy and the etymology of the Latin monstrum, see Staley (n. 2), 96–120, 155–60.
11 On the importance of considering the chain of events in Medea for its understanding, see Walsh, L., ‘Murder, Interrupted: Seneca's Medea and the Case of the Second Child’, Helios 45 (2018), 70–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 For the transformations of the figure of Medea in ancient literature, see E. Lefèvre, ‘Die Transformation der griechischen durch die römische Tragödie am Beispiel von Senecas Medea’, in H. Flashar (ed.), Tragödie. Idee und Transformation (Stuttgart, 1997), 65–83; G. Manuwald, ‘Medea: Transformations of a Greek Figure in Latin Literature’, G&R 60 (2013), 114–35.
13 Text and translation of Medea are taken from J. G. Fitch (ed.), Seneca. Hercules, Trojan Women, Phoenician Women, Medea, Phaedra (Cambridge, MA, 2002).
14 See Arist. Rh. 2.2 for the connection between anger and revenge and 2.9 on indignation at acts of injustice.
15 See C. D. N. Costa (ed.), Seneca. Medea (Oxford, 1973), 61.
16 See ibid., 66; H. M. Hine (ed.), Seneca. Medea (Warminster, 2000), 117; Sen. Phaedra 677–9, Thyestes 789–804.
17 On the dynamics among dolor, furor, and nefas in the metamorphosis of tragic heroes into monsters, see Dupont (n. 9), 55–90. She maintains that Seneca's theatrical rhetoric of passions is a means for these tragic heroes to leave their humanity behind (105).
18 See L. Abrahamsen, ‘Roman Marriage Law and the Conflict of Seneca's Medea’, QUCC 62 (1999), 109, 110.
19 For the conflict between Medea and the Greek city of Corinth as a clash of cultures, see Abrahamsen (n. 18), 118; C. Benton, ‘Bringing the Other to Center Stage: Seneca's Medea and the Anxieties of Imperialism’, Arethusa 36 (2003), 271–84.
20 In the plural, animus can designate ‘passion’, ‘pride’, and ‘rage’: see Costa (n. 15), 88; Hine (n. 16), 136.
21 See H. Fyfe, ‘An Analysis of Seneca's Medea’, in A. J. Boyle (ed.), Seneca Tragicus. Ramus Essays on Senecan Drama (Berwick, Victoria, 1983), 86–7.
22 See Fyfe (n. 21), 87, 90; G. Lawal, ‘Seneca's Medea: The Elusive Triumph of Civilization’, in G. W. Bowersock, W. Burkert, and M. C. J. Putnam (eds.), Arktouros. Hellenic Studies Presented to Bernard M. W. Knox on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Berlin, 1979), 419–20.
23 Such a portrayal of Medea is traditional – see Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.645–55. For other physical depictions in Seneca of overwhelming emotional states, see Hercules 1043–8; Phaedra 360–86; Oedipus 921–4; Agamemnon 237–8; Thyestes 908–18; Hercules on Oeta 233–53; On Anger 1.1.3–4, 2.36.4–5, 3.4.1–3.
24 According to Hine (n. 16), 154, Medea's indecisiveness is ‘an additional element’ which is absent from the descriptions in Seneca's On Anger.
25 For the personification of furor, see Sen. Hercules 98, 1220–1; Oedipus 590; Agamemnon 1012; Verg. Aen. 1.294–6; Serv. Praef. 1.294.
26 The gods are witnesses of their marriage in Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.1128–69.
27 See Hine (n. 16), 160: ‘caput, like Greek κάρα and κεφαλή, is used in emotive expressions like this, to express hatred or affection’.
28 For this emotion in the tragic Seneca, see also 488, 900, 989; Hercules 1240; Trojan Women 91; Phoenician Women 301; Phaedra 250–62; Oedipus 19, 763, 1008, 1010; Agamemnon 113; Thyestes 27, 215. A. J. Boyle (ed.), Seneca. Medea (Oxford, 2014), 194–5, presents a useful summary definition of pudor. On shame in Seneca's prose works, see D. Wray, ‘Seneca's Shame’, in S. Bartsch and A. Schiesaro (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Seneca (Cambridge, 2015), 199–211.
29 On mythical memory in Seneca's plays, see Dupont (n. 9), 223–34.
30 In lines 607–15 it is suggested that all those who (quisquis; 607, 610) participated in the Argo expedition were or will be punished. Medea will mention later in the play that everyone will have paid the penalty (dabimus, sed omnes; 965) for the murder of her brother, which is one of the episodes in the narrative of the Argonauts. By murdering her children, Medea will complete the cycle of divine punishments for all those who are directly or indirectly linked to the Argonauts’ crimes. The Furies will be the divine agents who make possible that these crimes are completely punished through Medea's killings (958–71).
31 See Boyle (n. 28), 273.
32 See Hine (n. 16), 177: ‘The alliteration of m is striking, reinforcing the repetition of maius, “greater”, and the link between M[edea]'s name and monstrum, “horror” or “portent” (originally a religious term for an unnatural event or object that indicates the hostility of the gods).’
33 See Dupont (n. 9), 230–1.
34 In line 673 the nurse refers to the sacrilegious character of Medea's magical rituals. On Medea as a sacrilegious figure, see also lines 271, 424–5.
35 See also lines 134–6 (contrast between love and anger), 137–42 (love and anger pulling in opposite directions).
36 For similar passages, see 221–2, 382–96; Ov. Met. 4.622–3; Ov. Med. fr. 2 Ribbeck.
37 Change of colour is associated with intensely felt emotions in Seneca and other ancient authors: see Med. 85; Hercules on Oeta 251–3; On Anger 1.1.4, 3.4.1; Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.297–8; Hor. Carm. 1.13.5–6, Ov. Met. 7.78, 8.465–6.
38 In On Anger 1.17.5, Seneca characterizes anger as an unstable emotion.
39 Medea also resorts to self-address in 41, 973, 976, 988. Cf. Eur. Med. 1242; Neophron, Med. fr. 2.1.9 Diggle.
40 Cf. Sen. Thyestes 47–8, 249.
41 Cf. ibid. 1052–68, where Atreus says that the revenge he has carried out so far is not enough to appease him.
42 For related passages, see Sen. Hercules 33; Aesch. Ag. 177. Bexley (n. 8) argues that Medea's self-construction involves two coalescing and overlapping elements – the metaliterary and metatheatrical – according to which Medea constructs her self by taking into account past versions of her story, and the quasi-Stoic, which point to the idea of personal constancy. However, I think that Medea's hesitations throughout the play (140–1, 524, 895, 926–32, 937–44, 988–90) are genuine and constitute a fundamental aspect in her development as a monstrous character. Medea is aware of her mythical and literary reputation, but she doubts several times whether she is capable of fulfilling her destiny as a murderous mother (926–32, 937–44, 988–90). See also Walsh (n. 11), who presents Medea's identity construction as ‘a diachronic process’ (75).
43 Cf. Sen. Trojan Women 626, Agamemnon 239; Ov. Her. 12.61; Ov. Met. 6.619–30, 7.19–20, 8.463–77, 481–511, 12.30.
44 See Hine (n. 16), 204: ‘amor…can be both sexual love and affection for family and friends’. The latter is the case in line 938 (cf. Trojan Women 589; Thyestes 475).
45 Commenting on these passages, M. C. Nussbaum, ‘Serpents in the Soul: A Reading of Seneca's Medea’, in J. J. Clauss and S. I. Johnston (eds.), Medea. Essays on Medea in Myth, Literature, Philosophy, and Art (Princeton, NJ, 1997), 226, speaks of ‘an oscillation or fluctuation of the whole personality’. (A longer version of Nussbaum's study can be found in her Therapy of Desire. Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics [Princeton, NJ, 1994], ch. 12.) C. Trinacty, ‘Seneca's Heroides: Elegy in Seneca's Medea’, CJ 103 (2007), 76, maintains that Medea's choice of anger instead of family love signals Seneca's departure from Ovid's elegiac tone in his Heroides.
46 Cf. Sen. Phaedra 178–9, Agamemnon 142–3, Thyestes 100; Ov. Her. 12.209; Ov. Met. 5–668, 7.20–1; Ov. Ars am. 2.550.
47 Boyle (n. 28), 373, argues that ‘Medea's vengeance has enabled her to return to her pre-Argonautic past, erasing all that has happened since then, including the loss of her virginity. She has completely recovered the “dowry” of 488–9’. See also G. Guastella, ‘Virgo, Coniunx, Mater: The Wrath of Seneca's Medea’, ClAnt 20 (2001), 210, who more interestingly argues in connection with the question of the dowry that Medea's life regains a new meaning after the realization of her revenge.
48 This is a knowing reference to Eur. Med. 1321–2. See also Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.9.28; Hyg. Fab. 26, 27; Pacuvius fr. 242 Warmington; Hor. Epod. 3.14; Ov. Met. 7.218–404, 350.
49 Jason's denial of the gods has precedents in Eur. fr. 292.7 Nauck and Ov. Her. 12.119.
50 On the connection between Medea's escape from Corinth and her divine grandfather, the Sun, see C. M. Campbell, ‘Medea's Sol-ipsism: Language, Power and Identity in Seneca's Medea’, Ramus 48 (2019), 22–53.