The ‘barbaric’ world in Euripides

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written as an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2007, during a period when the author’s academic skills were still developing. Although the quality of this article does not match that of later examples of the same author’s work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information for students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.

The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author’s best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that readers consult the web for additional information on any unfamiliar words or specialised vocabulary.

The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, as required for an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work into English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.

Introduction

This article discusses the Greek perceptions of the ‘barbarians’ during Classical antiquity, as these are presented in two tragedies by Euripides: Medea (Μήδεια) and Iphigenia in Tauris (Ἰφιγένεια ἐν Ταύροις). The article is divided into four sections. The first section provides a broader picture of the Greek world during the time of Euripides and focuses on the historical events that are likely to have shaped the poet’s understanding of the ‘barbaric’ world. The second section discusses the barbaric ethos presented in Medea and its contrast with the Greek ethos of that time. The section examines Euripides’ ironic approach and the questions he raises in Athenian spectators' minds in the 5th century BC. The third section discusses the ‘barbaric’ elements in Iphigenia in Tauris and how they contrast with the ‘barbaric’ notions presented in Medea. The final section concludes on the perceptions of the ‘barbaric’ world in the two tragedies by Euripides and presents their similarities and differences.

The Greek world during the time of Euripides

According to the Parian Chronicle, the birth of Euripides should be dated to 485/4 BC; despite some arguments against this date, it is nowadays widely accepted as correct (Lesky 1981, 507). In that sense, Euripides does not belong to the generation of Athenian tragic poets, who were directly influenced by the events of the two Persian Wars. Unlike Aeschylus and Sophocles, Euripides grew up during Athens’ most prosperous period, during which he also witnessed the course of the Peloponnesian War and the Athenian defeat. Despite constant critique of the system and the indirect expression of his political views in his works, Euripides stands apart from official politics and public affairs; instead, he approaches the theatrical stage as a philosopher rather than an active citizen (Xifara 2001, 84-5).

The Peloponnesian War, as Euripides understands it, not only leads to Athens’ decay and final defeat but also produces a broader moral crisis across the Greek world. As this will be explained in more detail below, Euripides assumes an ironic stand, which does not question the ‘barbarity’ of the foreigners, but casts doubts on the moral views and attitudes of the Greeks. In his works, Euripides incorporates ideas of the Sophistic Movement, which flourished in Athens during the 5th century BC, alongside those of the Rhetoric Movement (Xifara 2001, 85). In relation to the existence of ‘barbarians’, early Sophists expressed radical views, which stood against the popular beliefs of their time. For example, Antiphon of Rhamnus (Ἀντιφῶν ὁ Ῥαμνούσιος) (480-411 BC) was the first Athenian orator to suggest that the Greeks and the ‘barbarians’ are “by nature equal” (Balla and Tsouna 2000, 85).

Flacelière (2003, 58) argues that the majority of the ‘barbarians’ who lived in Athens during the 5th century BC were enslaved war prisoners. In Athenian culture during the above period, the term ‘barbarian’ was synonymous with slavery. With this in mind, some of the greatest philosophers of Classical antiquity, such as Plato and Aristotle, strongly opposed the popular Spartan practice of enslaving other Greeks, particularly the Messenians (Flacelière 2003, 64). Based on these observations, the differences between the Greeks and the ‘barbarians’ during the 5th century BC were relatively subjective.

The most popular Athenian critique of the ‘barbarians’ targeted specific peoples or tribal groups who, although Greek-speaking, followed practices considered ‘barbaric’. Demosthenes, for example, used to address the Macedonians as ‘barbarians’, as they never developed the concept of democracy. In Attic theatre, Euripides’ approach to the ‘barbarians’ is likely to have produced several doubts and questions among his fellow Athenians. For example, a major reflection in Euripides’ work is the lack of distinction between Greeks and ‘barbarians’, as, to some extent, specific ‘Greek’ behaviours could have been perceived as equally ‘barbaric’. This approach is likely to relate to Euripides’ sympathy towards the Macedonian rulers of his era. Euripides was self-exiled at the court of King Archelaus of Macedon in 408 BC, where he spent two years before he finally passed away (Lesky 1981, 511).

The ‘barbaric’ world in Medea

The tragedy Medea (Μήδεια) was first presented by Euripides in 431 BC. The story continues the myth of the Argonaut Expedition and takes place after Jason’s (Ἰάσων) return to Greece. Jason is married to Medea, a witch from the city of Colchis. They both arrive in Corinth together with their two children. Creon (Κρέων), who is the king of Corinth, convinces Jason to divorce his legal wife and marry his daughter Creusa (Κρέουσα). Furthermore, Creon plans to exile Medea and her children from his city, and although Jason agrees with this plan, he wishes to convince Medea to hand the children over to him. As soon as Medea learns of the plan, she becomes desperate and feels abandoned by her husband. It becomes clear to her that she will be separated from her children, and she will have to wander alone in an unknown country until she finds a place to settle and start a new life. In order to avenge Jason for his betrayal, she employs her witchcraft skills and murders Creon and his daughter Creusa. At the end of the play, she commits her most atrocious crime, the murder of her own children, which is presented as a ‘barbaric’ decision, matching her ‘barbarian’ descent (Lesky 1981, 516-9).

Despite the atrocity of her crimes, and instead of provoking repulsion, the ‘barbarian’ witch Medea manages to win the audience’s empathy. Medea’s acts are extreme and ‘barbaric’; however, they can be justified due to her husband’s cowardly behaviour. It is no coincidence that the chorus, which consists of Corinthian women, is backing Medea up throughout the entire play. Together with the audience’s empathy, Medea manages to win the support of the Athenian king Aegeus (Αἰγεύς). According to Lesky (1981, 518-9), Aegeus is introduced in the plot to decongest Medea’s difficult situation; he offers her an escape from Corinth, which gives her another excuse to execute her atrocious murders.

Apart from this technical contribution to the plot, it is highly likely that Aegeus is used by Euripides as a symbol of Athenian receptivity and tolerance to foreigners, both Greeks and ‘barbarians’. In ancient Athens, the words receptivity and tolerance were understood differently from how they are used in modern state policies, which are based on constitutions and laws. Still, the Athenian society of Euripides’ time was accustomed to ‘barbarians’ living in Athens and tolerated their behaviours, which were likely different from those of the Athenians. This “right to barbarity”, as one might conventionally describe it today, was a common discussion topic among the Sophists of the 5th century BC.

The sophisticated rhetoric introduced by Euripides in Medea is used in a dual sense. Although it argues in favour of righteous concepts as explained above, it is also manipulated and used to distort the truth. During the 5th century BC, this type of negative rhetoric was constantly criticised by Plato and, most likely, by Socrates. During the play’s first dialogue, Jason argues in favour of his decisions and actions to Medea by manipulating some rational points in a similar manner, as the Sophists would have done. His arguments alter the truth and aim to deceive Medea. He presents himself as the family’s saviour, who agrees to divorce his wife and marry another woman out of pure ‘love’ for the former. Medea (and the audience) already knows the truth and becomes angry with his cowardly, rude and calculating behaviour. She reminds him that she was the one who helped him during the Argonaut Expedition; she betrayed her own father for his sake; she killed the dragon who guarded the Golden Fleece; she saved his ship’s crew; and she killed Pelias (Πελίας) on their return to Greece; however, Jason is ignoring her contributions. Instead of being thankful to her, he has already cheated on her, betrayed his marital vows, caused her pain and sorrow, and finally plotted her exile from Corinth (Euripides, Medea, 446-626).

During this dialogue, the audience realises that Jason, a Greek hero, has no honour and has abandoned his moral stature; by contrast, Medea, a ‘barbarian’ wife, has every right to be angry at his behaviour. Medea finds Jason’s behaviour “unmanly” (Euripides, Medea, 466) and calls him “the worst of all men” (Euripides, Medea, 488). Such characterisations would have sounded embarrassing to the Athenian audience at the time of the Peloponnesian War, particularly because the Greeks regarded bravery as the ultimate virtue of men. By contrast, the ultimate disgrace was cowardice in battle, for which they used the term “shield-dropper” (ριψάσπις) to describe someone who fled the battlefield.

Bearing in mind that the play was presented a little before the beginning of the Athenian-Spartan conflict of 431 BC, it was probably too much for Euripides to present Jason, a Greek hero, as a coward and a shield-dropper. Of course, Euripides’ true aim was not to accuse Jason of his personal lack of moral virtue, but to suggest the moral decay of all Greeks during his time. To do this, Euripides uses Medea to talk about the cancellation of people’s vows to the gods and the abolition of laws in favour of personal profit (Euripides, Medea, 446-626). Such actions probably characterised Athenian politics in 431 BC, the year when the ‘Thirty Years’ Peace Treaty’ with Sparta was broken (Page 1990, 19).

Jason’s arguments for his defence against Medea’s accusations match the diplomacy and bidirectional language of the Sophists. He denies that his wife helped him during his expedition to Colchis and suggests that the only help he received came from the goddess Aphrodite. He lectures Medea that she should be more grateful to him, as he was the one who brought her to Greece, the land of justice, which does not exist in Medea’s ‘barbaric’ homeland (Euripides, Medea, 523-79). At this point, Euripides underscores the irony of Greek justice: Jason is literally practising the ‘law of the strongest’ against Medea, without regard for true justice. The supposed superiority of the Greeks over the ‘barbarians’ is again mocked by Euripides when Jason explains to Medea that the Greeks honoured her wisdom: had she stayed in her homeland, she would have remained unknown (Euripides, Medea, 523-79). Of course, nothing in Jason’s behaviour honours his wife. Personified by Jason, who does not accept responsibility for his decisions and uses rhetorical tricks to divert Medea from the truth and suggest that his actions are, by contrast, noble. Medea realises the expediency in Jason’s words and attacks back by speaking about the hypocrisy of the Greek society, which is a topic that Euripides directs to his audience: “to me, a dishonest man who talks nicely is worthy of the greatest punishment” (Euripides, Medea, 580-1). The audience knows that Jason acts in his own self-interest, which reflects the moral crisis in Athenian society at the time of the play. Despite her ‘barbaric’ descent, Medea is more direct and honest compared to Jason. At the end, she realises the real problem and sees that the social status of a Greek noble does not allow him “to grow old without recognition next to a barbarian woman” (Euripides, Medea, 591-2). Jason’s audacity and immoral behaviour reach their peak when he attempts to buy his ‘barbarian’ wife’s silence with money. By contrast to Jason, Medea prefers to maintain he dignity and does not allow her consciousness to be bought off; therefore, she rejects “the gifts of a disgraceful man” (Euripides, Medea, 618).

The final monologue by Medea in verses 1019-1085 follows a climax characterised by psychological fluctuations. Medea’s maternal instincts collide with her ‘barbaric’ urge for revenge. At the end, the latter prevails, and Medea murders her own children. Medea’s horrific actions would not have been tolerated by the Greek audience despite its initial sympathy for the play’s main character. Jason’s punishment is disproportionate in relation to his bad deeds (Page 1990, 27). Medea’s vindication is due to divine intervention: at the end of the play, she is carried away from the stage on Helios’ chariot. With this escape, Medea completes her human destiny and paradoxically achieves deification through her committed crimes (Xifara 2001, 89). Through the establishment of her dead children’s cult and her escape after divine intervention, Medea abandons the world of fake human justice and enters the world of myth, which is not subject to human law (Lesky 1981, 520). What Euripides achieves is an innovation: he proves that in Greek myth, even a ‘barbarian’ woman can reach sanctification.

In conclusion, Euripides uses Medea to mock the so-called civilised Greek society of his time, particularly in light of the new hostilities of the Peloponnesian War about to unfold. To achieve this, he introduces his audience to a barbarian woman who represents the moral values of the Greek past, which are gradually decaying during the poet’s time. Along with Medea's moral values, Euripides uses his protagonist to project the common stereotypes of his era regarding the ‘barbarians’. This is why Medea is presented as possessed by excessive passions, to be overly expressive in mourning and grieving, to be unable to comply with the laws and the commands of the most powerful men, and, of course, not to be able to forgive her husband’s lies and deception against her. In a religious context, Medea represents stereotypical barbarian habits. She knows how to practise witchcraft, and she worships the Sun (Helios), features that comply with contemporary Anatolian religions. Finally, she is characterised by typically ‘barbarian’ cruelty against human life, which is powerful enough to abrogate her maternal instincts and lead her to the murder of her own children (Page 1990, 30-1).

The barbaric world in Iphigenia in Tauris

Iphigenia in Tauris was first performed sometime between 414 BC and 411 BC (Xifara 2001, 96), a period that coincides with the Sicilian Campaign and Athens’ defeat in the second phase of the Peloponnesian War. The story is about Orestes (Ὀρέστης), the son of Agamemnon (Ἀγαμέμνων), and his cousin Pylades (Πυλάδης), the son of Strophius (Στρόφιος), who arrive at the barbarian city of Tauris. They have been assigned a mission by the goddess Athena: to steal the sacred statue of the goddess Artemis from the local temple and return it to Athens. Iphigenia, the youngest sister of Orestes, who was abducted by the goddess Artemis shortly before her sacrifice in Aulis, is now in Tauris. She is a priestess at the temple of Artemis, where locals perform human sacrifices in her name, and Iphigenia’s job is to prepare the foreign captives for them. During their attempt to reach the temple, Orestes and Pylades are captured by local shepherds and brought to the temple to be executed. Orestes recognises his sister, reveals his true identity, and Iphigenia agrees to help the two Greeks steal the sacred statue and escape together back to Greece (Lesky 1981, 543-5).

The main concept of ‘barbarity’ in Iphigenia in Tauris is human sacrifice. The people of Tauris execute foreign visitors in order to gratify the goddess Artemis. Although the cult of Artemis is shared by Greeks and ‘barbarians’, the concept of piety differs between the two cultures. In the play, piety based on human sacrifice according to the customs of Tauris cannot be tolerated by Iphigenia, who wishes to serve the goddess according to the customs of her own homeland. When the two youths, Orestes and Pylades, appear before Iphigenia for the first time, she stresses to them that human sacrifice is at odds with Greek custom (Lesky 1989, 230-1). Via Iphigenia, Euripides challenges traditional views of the cult of Artemis: the goddess forbids access to her temple to those contaminated by spilling human blood; however, she allows human sacrifices by her followers within the same temple. Furthermore, Iphigenia's arguments against human sacrifice align with the Sophists' ideas, as explained in the previous section. They demonstrate a ‘relaxed’ approach to Greek divine cults and a repulsion towards ‘extreme’ religious practices. Euripides is also likely to note a similarity between the ‘barbarian’ customs and the practices of the Spartans during his time. In the play, the people of Tauris execute foreigners because they feel threatened or insulted by their customs. In Classical Sparta, foreigners who were regarded as a threat to public interest were expelled from the city in a violent manner (Flacelière 2003, 59). This specific practice was most likely seen as ‘barbaric’ by the Athenians, who had a reputation for being more welcoming to their visitors.

The plot of Iphigenia in Tauris takes place in a foreign and ‘barbaric’ land. Euripides shows the reception of the Greeks in the ‘barbaric’ cosmos and their reaction to the ‘barbarian’ mentality. In her attempt to help the two Greeks, Iphigenia employs her cunning skills to deceive King Thoas (Θόας), who is presented as a pious and naive ‘barbarian’. Iphigenia convinces Thoas that the two prisoners are contaminated, as they are guilty of matricide. She explains to him that both prisoners and the goddess’s statue must be carried to the beach to be bathed and purified with seawater. Of course, this is just an excuse to lead the two Greeks closer to their ship so they can all escape from Tauris together with the sacred statue (Leski 1981, 544). Thoas does not suspect the plot, and, being pious, he truly believes that Iphigenia is acting on behalf of Artemis. Although Thoas is a ‘barbarian’, he is characterised by advanced moral instincts; he is shocked when he hears about Orestes’ matricide and cannot believe the atrocity of such deeds. Thoas says that such a crime would not have been committed by the worst of the ‘barbarians’ (Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris, 1174); yet it has been committed by one of the Greeks.

During her conversation with Thoas in verses 1152-1233, Iphigenia speaks with confidence and admiration about the Greeks' wisdom and piety in religious matters; however, the audience realises that this wisdom is merely another expression of deception to achieve Iphigenia's hidden goals. Euripides presents Greek wisdom as a concept full of irony and lies, in line with the Sophists' view. The structure of Iphigenia’s arguments to Thoas resembles the arguments presented by Jason to Medea, which were discussed in the previous section.

Another common feature shared between Iphigenia in Tauris and Medea is the subjectivity of murder in the ‘barbaric’ cosmos. Euripides poses a series of questions evident in both plays that challenge the perception of murder in Greek and ‘barbarian’ cultures. What is more barbaric? The murder of Medea’s children by her own mother? Or is it Orestes’ matricide? Is it Iphigenia’s sacrifice in Aulis by her own father on Artemis’s request? Or is it the human sacrifices of the Taurians in the name of the same goddess? Such comparisons are likely to demonstrate that Euripides follows the principles of the Sophistic movement, questioning whether religion could serve as a criterion for differentiating Greeks from ‘barbarians’.

Conclusions

The comparison of the two plays shows the different positions of the two female protagonists in relation to the Greek world. Medea is a ‘barbarian’ who fails to adjust in the Greek reality of her time, while Iphigenia is a Greek who fails to adjust to the customs of the barbarians. Euripides shows that the ideas and moral beliefs of the two cultures differ; however, he doubts that the ‘barbarian’ moral cosmos is inferior to the Greek one.

Although Medea is a ‘barbarian’, she sees the relationship with her husband and her children as a bond of blood. By contrast, Medea sees the same relationship as an issue of legal compromise. Medea is overwhelmed by her own exaggeration; her personality is torrential, and she shows no respect for laws or authority. According to the Greek popular beliefs of Euripides’ era, such elements characterised the behaviour of the barbarians. On the other hand, Jason, a Greek who is supposed to respect Greek customs and laws, is portrayed as a cunning, lying coward who is afraid to admit the truth.

Both Medea and the people of Tauris are characterised by cold-blooded and murderous instincts. Medea murders her own children to satisfy her passion for revenge against Jason, while the people of Tauris conduct human sacrifices to express their piety to a Greek goddess. Although this is true, Euripides poses an interesting question: is this ‘barbaric’ behaviour different from what the Greeks do? According to the myths, Orestes avenges the death of his father by murdering his own mother. Agamemnon consciously sacrifices his own daughter to Artemis, not because of his piety, but in order to satisfy his military ambitions (Georgousopoulos 1990, 106-7).

In both plays, Euripides creates an interaction between ‘barbaric’ and Greek cultural features, allowing the audience to spot similarities and differences between the two and question what is deemed uncivilised and civilised. Through this comparison, Euripides wishes to comment on the decline of moral values during his own era, which corresponds to the lack of division between what is perceived as Greek and what is perceived as ‘barbarian’. Secondly, the poet wishes to stress the Greeks' common origins and culture, which characterise their way of life despite any moral decline. Euripides sees Greek culture and the Greek way of life as unifying features of all Greek city-states; therefore, he disagrees with Greeks fighting Greeks during the Peloponnesian War. Even Aeschylus, the predecessor of Euripides, focuses on the idealisation of the Greek way of life, at a time when the Greeks had defeated the ‘barbarians’ in order to protect it. Thirdly, Euripides introduces a philosophical innovation borrowed from the Sophists: the Greeks and the ‘barbarians’ are examined as two distinct cultural groups, yet equal in their behaviours and moral values. In this approach, the ‘barbarians’ are portrayed as following customs different from those of the Greeks, but they are not seen as inferior to the Greeks.

To conclude, both plays present a balanced view of the Greek and the ‘barbarian’ cosmos, without any intention to stress the superiority or inferiority of either system of thought. The winner of the comparison between the two is the female protagonist, whether this is Medea or Iphigenia. The ‘barbaric’ and Greek elements contrast to highlight the dynamic nature of the female protagonists, who win the audience’s understanding and sympathy.

Bibliography

Balla, Ch. And Tsouna, B., 2000, ‘The Sophists and the Minor Socratics’, in Virvidakis, K., Ierodiakonou, K., Cristianidis, Y. (eds) Greek Philosophy and Science: from Antiquity until the 20th century, Volume A, Greek Philosophy from Antiquity until the 20th Century, Patra: Greek Open University, 81-120.
Flacelière, R., 2003, The Public and Private Life of the Ancient Greeks (original title: La vie quotidienne en Grèce au siècle de Péricles), translated by G.D. Vandoros, 13th edition, Athens: Papadimas.
Georgousopoulos, K., 1990, Keys and Codes of Theatre, Volume I, Ancient Drama, Athens: Estia.
Konstantopoulou, D. (ed.), 2001, Ancient Greek Theatre. Abstract Anthology of Drama and Poetic Art, Patra: Greek Open University.
Lesky, A., 1981, A History of Ancient Greek Literature (original title: Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur), fifth edition, translated by A.G. Tsombanaki, Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros. SA.
Lesky, A., 1987, The Tragic Poetry of the Ancient Greeks (original title: Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen), translated by N.Ch. Chourmouziadis, Athens: Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis.
Page, P.L., 1990, Medea, translated by G. Giatromanolakis, Athens: Kardamitsas
Xifara, P., 2001, ‘The life and poetic work of Euripides’, in Konstantopoulou, D. (ed.) Ancient Greek Theatre. The Drama from Aeschylus to Menander, Patra: Greek Open University, 83-110.

Ancient sources

Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris, translated by K.Ch. Myris and published in Konstantopoulou (2001)
Euripides, Medea, translated by G. Cheimonas and published in Konstantopoulou (2001)