Halleran, 'Euripides, Women, and Sexuality'
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-v2n01-halleran-euripides

2.1.15, Anton Powell, ed.  *Euripides, Women, and Sexuality.* 
London and New York:Routledge, 1990.  Pp. x, 200. $39.95 (hb). ISBN
0-415-01025-x
  Rev. by M. Halleran
     
     Collections of essays proliferate, perhaps on no subject more
than Greektragedy.  The collection under review derives from the
annual seminar of theLondon Classical Society held in 1987, and all
but one of the essays(Williamson's) appear in print for the first
time.  Since so much(relatively) of Euripides survives, not all
plays are well represented here,and, unsurprisingly, Medea,
Hippolytus, and Bacchae receive a good deal ofattention.  But so do
Troades, Heraclidae, the fragmentary Chrysippus, andmany other of
the fragmentary plays.  Three of the seven essays are devotedto
aspects of single plays, while the remaining four deal with several
ormany plays.  While Anton Powell is to be commended for bringing
these paperstogether, it is regrettable that he (or one of the
contributors) did notwrite an introductory essay describing how the
essays collectively contributeto the discussion of the topics.  

   In her essay ``Sexual Imagery and Innuendo in Troades,''
Elizabeth Craikargues that there is an extended use of sexual
images and double entendres inthe play.  Although tragic diction,
it is generally recognized, includessexual images (e.g., OT. 420
ff., Ant. 569), sexual puns or obscenities arenot usually seen in
it; therefore this essay raises questions about what weexpect from
tragic language.  Craik's specific suggestions, however, areoften
not very persuasive.  Two examples:  in the exchange between Hecuba
andthe chorus, **kineitai kwphrhs cheir** (160) is said to have
sexual overtonesbecause of the associations found elsewhere of
``oars'' and of the verb**kinew** (6); and with the geographical
description by the chorus at 1096ff.Euripides ``indicates the
genital area with some precision'' (11).  Craik isaware of the
difficulty of proving her suggestions and she addresses some ofthe
general problems and issues at the outset (2), but her case would
bestronger if more support could be drawn from tragedy itself
(``Look for Latinetymologies on the Tiber'').  The topic of sexual
imagery in tragedy ispotentially very interesting; perhaps Craik or
someone else will take on sucha broader study, to which the present
essay might serve as a stimulus.

   In ``A Woman's Place in Euripides' Medea,'' Margaret Williamson
buildson a number of contemporary strategies for viewing Greek
drama and society(especially the importance of the contrast between
interior and exteriorspaces) and several important studies of
Medea's ``heroism'' to offer ahelpful look at Medea's use of
language.  In particular she argues that herlanguage has much in
common with that of men, and that it, like her actions,is
transgressive.  Near her conclusion, Williamson writes, ``[Medea]
now [asshe enters the skene to murder her children] shares with
Creon and Jason avocabulary which has been discredited as a means
of understanding therelationship central to the oikos, and her
heroic language is equallyinappropriate to it.  It is inevitable,
therefore, that the consequence ofher entry into the house should
be wordless violence--the murder of thechildren who are the most
stable measure of its central relationship'' (26). She ends her
essay by commenting on the limits of language within the
play,including in her discussion the choral self-reflections in the
firststasimon.     Was Euripides a misogynist?  ``No,'' answers
Jennifer March in heressay, ``Euripides the Misogynist?''  March
eschews the more common modes ofinvestigating this question and
looks at it from the perspective ofEuripides' innovative use of
traditional mythological material, hopingthereby to illuminate his
particular treatment of women.  She focuses onMedea, Hippolytus,
and Bacchae, three plays which show ``women who do wickeddeeds''
and attempts to demonstrate that even in these plays
Euripidescreates sympathetic portraits of the women depicted.  Much
of March'sdiscussion is taken up with the slippery issue of the
dramatist'sinnovations. This is an important issue and March has
some worthycontributions to make to it (although on Euripides'
supposed priority toNeophron, see now A. Michelini, ``Neophron and
Euripides' Medea 1056-80,''TAPA 119 [1989]115-35), but I think that
she sheds only a little, albeit new,light on the question posed
about Euripides' alleged misogyny.

   Christopher Gill's latest contribution to his exploration of
dramaticcharacter is ``The Articulation of the Self in Euripides'
Hippolytus.''  Thisessay has two themes:  ``One is the way in
which, in this as in other Greektragedies, certain speeches can be
read as being reflexive, as expressing oreven defining the ``self''
of the speaker... The other is the way in whichthese
self-expressive speeches contribute to a larger pattern
ofarticulation, through which the play's central argument or
dialectic isconstructed'' (76).  Gill examines the uses of
sophrosyne and its relativesto describe how the fabric of the drama
and its characters''self-presentation is woven by the connections
between and among this andother central terms and phrase patterns. 
He views the ambiguitiessurrounding the word sophrosyne as part of
a larger pattern of ambiguities,dislocations and miscommunications. 
And he adds many details to thediscussion of how ``the three
figures become so closely interlocked that whatis said or done
represents the result of their interaction (and of
themisunderstanding and miscommunication in that interaction)
rather than beinga direct expression of the free choice and ethical
stance of any one figure''(88).  He concludes with a comparison
between the play and Plato's Charmides. This is an exceptionally
rich essay; suffice it to say that it should berequired reading for
anyone interested in the play or in dramaticcharacterization in
tragedy.

   The longest piece in the collection is William Poole's
``MaleHomosexuality in Euripides'' (42 pp.). Two-thirds of the
essay is devoted toa survey of Euripides' descriptions of male
beauty, especially effeminatebeauty, and his treatment of male
friendships where there is no overtindication of a homosexual
element; the rest of the piece is taken up with adiscussion of the
fragmentary Chrysippus, in which a homosexual relationshipplayed a
basic role.  It is useful to have the material collected, even
ifnot all of Poole's suggested cases of homosexual overtones are
convincing. (He himself is aware that often the evidence is thin
and speculation plays arole.)  The treatment of the Chrysippus,
which could just as easily havestood alone (the preliminary survey
does not really touch upon or aid it),contributes to the discussion
of this play.  In many places, however, in bothparts of the essay,
fuller references are called for.  To cite but oneexample, he
favors (and lays, in my view, too much importance on) an
earlydating, but makes no mention of M. Cropp and G. Flick,
``Resolutions andChronology in Euripides:  the Fragmentary
Tragedies,'' BICS suppl. 43 (London1985), who question assigning
any date to a play of which we have so little. Finally, many will
doubt the psychologizing about the playwright; see, e.g.,the
statements on 136 and on 149, ``I cannot help wondering whether
[Laius'internal struggle in the Chrysippus, Euripides' portrayal of
male beauty andstories found in the Life and implied in the Frogs]
might not reflect astrong but reluctant attraction towards
homosexual attachments on the part ofthe man who wrote the
Chrysippus.''

   Anyone familiar with Richard Seaford's recent work will be
unsurprisedto find that his contribution deals with aspects of
marriage--``TheStructural Problems of Marriage in Euripides.'' 
Seaford surveys theEuripidean corpus (with frequent references to
the other tragedians, Homer,and others), considering the
paradoxical issue of the implicit threat to theoikos created by
marriage, since it joins together (typically) members fromtwo
different households, with potentially conflicting claims.  He
treats thecases in several groupings:  1) ``cases in which marriage
or sexual unionrepresents a danger to the girl's family of
origin''; 2) ``cases in which thewife puts her husband above her
family of origin''; 3) ``cases in which thewife puts her family of
origin above her family by marriage''; and 4) and 5)those cases
where the ``problems arise from either the man's relationshipwith
another woman or the woman's relationship with another man''.  Much
ofthe material, as with Poole's essay, is from the fragments,
although Ion andAndromache, e.g., also receive appropriate
attention.  This is a stimulatingessay, especially in the questions
it raises, and begins to answer, on theconnections between these
topics and the social changes brought about by theevolving
city-state.

   The collection concludes with John Wilkins' ``The State and
theIndividual:  Euripides' Plays of Voluntary Sacrifice.''  Wilkins
brieflyexamines the plays of Euripides, all produced during the
Peloponnesian War,which depict a voluntary sacrifice for political
purposes--Heraclidae, Hecuba,  Erechtheus, Phoenissae, and IA
(Phrixus B does not survivesufficiently well for discussion and the
sacrifice in Alc. is for purelyfamilial reasons).  The essay's
comparisons of common elements anddifferences in the plays'
handling of this motif are helpful, as are thelinks suggested
between the dramatic presentations and other texts andrituals.  In
the last third of the essay, devoted to the Heraclidae as
theearliest of these plays, Wilkins argues for the influence of
Athenian mythand ritual and suggests that the actions of the
daughter of Heracles wasbased on the city's kourotrophic goddesses. 
He also argues against an ironicinterpretation of the sacrifice in
the play and wonders about the noworthodox ironic interpretations
of some of the other plays, especially IA. Unfortunately, the essay
is rather short for the many topics it touches on,and the several
interesting issues raised apropos of a general assessment
ofEuripides' frequent choice of this motif (184) are not fully
addressed. 

Michael R. Halleran
University of Washington