Journal Phasis - Greek and Roman Studies

Merabishvili, Innes

Phasis 10 (II), 2007 
 
 
Innes Merabishvili (Tbilisi) 
THE RECEPTION OF THE ARGONAUTS BY LORD BYRON 
At the age of twenty one Lord Byron started his travels to the east visiting 
Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Malta and Greece. He never reached Georgia though 
he had planned that is reflected in his poetic lines of English Bards and 
Scotch Reviewers:  
               Yet once again, adieu! Ere this the sail 
That wafts me hence is shivering in the gale; 
And Afric’s coast and Calpe’s adverse height, 
And Stamboul’s minarets must greet my sight; 
Thence shall I stray through beauty’s native clime 
Where Kaff is clad in rocks, and crown’d with snows sublime. 
Comments which appear in many publications confirm that under 
"beauty’s native clime" Byron meant Georgia.  
When Byron approached the Bosphorus from the Black Sea he dared to 
climb the Cyanean Symplegades that were supposed to be the fabled ones the 
Argonauts passed on their way to seek the Golden Fleece. It was the nurse’s 
dole in the Medea that encouraged him. He wrote about it in a letter to his 
friend saying: "Had not this sublime passage been in my head, I should never 
have dreamed of ascending the rocks." When standing on the very summit of 
those blue rocks he composed a rollicking six-line parody of the nurse’s dole:  
O How I wish that an embargo 
Had kept in port the good ship Argo! 
Who, still unlaunch’d from Grecian docks, 
Had never pass’d the Azure rocks; 
But now I fear her trip will be a 
Damn’d business for my Miss Medea. 
The Reception of the Argonauts by Lord Byron 
 
209 
When the ram with a golden fleece vaulted into the air, it had a boy and a 
girl on its back, the two children of Athamas, the king in Thessaly. Taking his 
course to the east, the ram crossed the strait between Europe and Asia. The 
girl named Helle fell from his back into the sea which from her was called 
Hellespont. The mythological Hellespont or the present Dardanelles is 
especially famous for its myth of brave Leander crossing the strait for his 
beloved Hero.  
The ram with a golden fleece continued his career and brought the boy 
and the fleece to the kingdom of Colchis, Medea’s homeland. 
According to Apollonius of Rhodes when the ship Argo sailed towards 
Colchis, the ominous wing-beats of a huge eagle were heard by the Argonauts 
with Jason. Fluttering her enormous wings that bird of prey flew to the 
Caucasus mount where Prometheus was chained to rip open his flesh and tear 
his liver.  
The present paper that focuses mainly on Medea, Prometheus, Leander 
and Hellespont argues that the reception of the Argonauts by Byron is special. 
In literature the East stirred the souls of Romantic poets and writers. 
Byron produced "Childe Harold" as the result of his journey to the East – 
Spain, Portugal, Malta, Turkey and Greece. On Greece he said the following: 
"If I am a poet I owe it to Greece."  
 Of course, the Argonauts and the connected characters were a rich source 
of stylistic allusions for poets and artists of different ages. But in case of 
Byron all seems to be distinguished.  
Byron’s poetry is a unique example of a text that extremely abounds with 
quotations and allusions as stylistic means when biblical, mythological, 
literary or historical images are called forth as vessels into which new 
contents are poured, offering a kind of interplay between the meanings. 
The whole world appears to be reflected in Byron’s consciousness as a 
result of his voracious reading and highly developed imagination.  
According to Thomas Moore since the age of five Byron was an avid and 
omnivorous reader, perusing everything that came his way.
1 
 
In case of Byron the function of allusions as stylistic means appears to be 
absolutely unique. Lord Byron not only alludes to mythological, biblical, 
literary or historical characters, but is mystically guided by them in real life. 
To be more precise Byron is in constant touch with them challenging them 
and competing with them, thus reincarnating their lives and images. With 
                                                 
1
   Th. Moore, Letters and Journals of the Lord Byron: With Notices of His Life, 2 vols., London, 
John Murray, 1830-31. 
Innes Merabishvili 
 
210 
Byron allusions are beyond the limits of stylistic means and become the real 
ways of his life.  
Byron crossed the Hellespont in emulation of Leandre.  
Leander was a youth of Abydos, a town of the Asian side of the strait 
which separates Asia and Europe. On the opposite shore in the town of Sestos 
lived the maiden Hero, a priestess of Venus. Leander loved her, and used to 
swim the strait nightly to enjoy the company of his mistress, guided by a 
torch which she reared upon the tower, for the purpose. But one night a 
tempest arose and the sea was rough; his strength failed, and he was drowned. 
The waves bore his body to the European shore, where Hero became aware of 
his death, and in her despair cast herself down from the tower into the sea and 
perished. 
The story of Leader’s swimming the Hellespont was looked upon as 
fabulous, and the feat considered impossible, especially due to the icy 
currents, till Lord Byron proved its possibility by performing it himself.  
Byron alludes to this story in "The Bride of Abydos" and in the poem 
"Written after Swimming from Sestos to Abydos". The Poem is written after 
crossing the Dardanelles – the mythological Hellespont, famous in real life 
for its icy currents thus bringing to life Leander’s experience as an example of 
courage and devotion. The poem confirms not only his feat but the poet’s 
talent to humour it:  
Written after Swimming from Sestos to Abydos  
If, in the month of dark December, 
Leander, who was nightly wont 
(What maid will not the tale remember?) 
To cross thy stream, broad Hellespont! 
If, when the wintry tempest roared, 
He sped to Hero, nothing loth, 
And thus of old thy current poured, 
Fair Venus! how I pity both! 
For my, degenerate modern wretch, 
Though in the genial month of May, 
My dripping limbs I faintly stretch, 
And think I've done a feat to-day. 
But since he crossed the rapid tide, 
According to the doubtful story,  
To woo, – and – Lord knows what beside, 
And swam for Love, as I for Glory; 
The Reception of the Argonauts by Lord Byron 
 
211 
'Twere hard to say who fared the best: 
Sad mortals! thus the Gods still plague you! 
He lost his labour, I my jest: 
For he was drowned, and I've the ague. 
Byron anew linked Europe and Asia not only through his poetry that is so 
rich with Eastern motifs but established a symbolic bridge through his feat.  
Since Byron’s time the feat has been achieved by others including our 
contemporary swimmers – Nick McCann from Nottingham, Byron’s home 
place and Henri Kuprashvili from Tbilisi; yet it remains a test of strength and 
skill in the art of swimming.  
Byron’s early poetic lines include the translation of the nurse’s dole from 
Euripides’ Medea. Comparison with the original Greek shows that a 
considerable liberty has been taken with the original. 
In Euripides, a chorus of Corinthian women contemplate, sympathetically, 
the plight of Medea, a cast-off, foreign wife with two small children and 
nowhere to go. Love, they reflect, can take either of two forms: a madness of 
desire and strife, or a temperate attraction leading women peacefully to the 
marriage bed. The first is Medea’s situation; the Chorus itself prays fervently 
to be granted the second. Two kinds of love figure in Byron’s translation as 
well, but neither involves the marriage bed.  
"Whose heart may mingle pure with mine / With me to live, with me to 
die", – are Byron’s words from the translation, though this scenario is alien to 
Euripides.  
Byron develops and creates his own image of Medea to follow the lines 
"With me to live, with me to die". Byron is haunted by this image in most of 
his female characters to start from early pieces including his final 
unaccomplished masterpiece "Don Juan". But at the same time Byron is 
aspiring to Colchian Medea and is in search for her in real life. He fell in love 
with a simple Venetian woman, Margarita Cogni in so far as she reminded 
him of Medea, whom he brought to Palazzo Mochenigo to live with him. The 
letter of Moore dated 19 September 1818 is one of several describing 
Margarita Cogni:  
"I am sure if I put a poniard into the hand of this one, she would plunge it 
where I told her, – and into me, if I offended her. I like this kind of animal, 
and am sure that I should have preferred Medea to any woman that ever 
breathed. You may, perhaps, wonder that I don’t in that case take to my wife. 
But she is a poor mawkish, moral Clytemnestra (and no Medea) who likes to 
be vindictive according to law... (BLJ VI. 68 and XI 197)."  
But in another letter Byron speaks on Lady Byron as of "mathematical 
Medea". If Colchian Medea was a sorceress Miss Anabella Millbank, his 
Innes Merabishvili 
 
212 
future wife, attracted him not only due to her talent of poetry, but due to her 
deep knowledge of mathematics as well. Byron never deserted her like Jason. 
It was Lady Byron who appeared to be involved into a slander and scandal 
against the poet, divorced him and became his most dangerous and revengeful 
enemy. But it’s worse saying, that on the day of the divorce she locked herself 
in her room rolling across the floor in the agony from pain of separation as if 
having in mind Byronic words on Medea: "With you to live with you to die." 
Separation was not less painful for Byron himself:   
         Every feeling hath been shaken; 
         Pride, which not a world could bow, 
         Bows to thee – by thee forsaken, 
         Even my soul forsakes me now:  
Fiery love and demonic revenge distinguished his beloved ladies 
including famous and notorious Lady Caroline Lamb, the wife of the future 
Prime Minister of Britain. 
"Your heart – my poor Caro... what a little volcano! That pours lava 
through your veins" – wrote Byron indulgently in 1812. This volcanic lady 
from a highly aristocratic family proved to be as vindictive and revengeful as 
Lady Byron or Jason’s Colchian spouse, far more dangerous than a baker’s 
wife, Margarita Cogni though he had enough of her tantrums in Palazzo 
Mochenigo in Venice.  
Lord Byron’s "Manfred" caused a lot of discussion as to whether it was 
borrowed from Marlowe, Goethe or Aeschylus. Byron remarked that he had 
never read Goethe’s "Faust", as he knew no German, and he also denied 
Marlowe as his progenitor. However of "Prometheus Bound" by Aeschylus 
he wrote the following:  
"Of the "Prometheus" of Aeschylus I was passionately fond as a boy, (it 
was one of the Greek plays we read thrice a year at Harrow;) indeed that and 
the "Medea" were the only ones, which ever much pleased me. The 
Prometheus if not exactly in my plan, has always been so much in my head, 
that I can easily conceive its influence over all or anything that I have 
written."  
Napoleon who succeeded in toppling legitimist monarchs, who managed 
to liberate the oppressed, had become an idol for a liberally-minded 
progressive young lord.  
Byron’s attachment to Napoleon appears to be complicated. Byron 
equates Napoleon to Prometheus and at the same time is aspiring to the 
contemporary hero. Byron considers Napoleon to be a liberator.  
The critical attitude to his beloved figure permits Byron to distinguish a 
hero who fought against despotic regimes from that of an emperor striving to 
The Reception of the Argonauts by Lord Byron 
 
213 
dominate the continent. "I deny nothing but doubt everything" – are Lord 
Byron’s words. 
 Disappointed in Napoleon, Byron aims to produce deeds far more 
important and significant than composing poetry. 
At the age of 26 the author of "Childe Harold" announced an apparently 
quite serious resolution to withdraw from poetry. "No one should be a rhymer 
who could be anything better…"   
In April, 1814 a Gazette Extraordinary announced the abdication of 
Fontainnebleau.  
Next morning the poet violated his vows by composing "Ode to Napoleon 
Bounaparte" – the strictest condemnation of Napoleon ever done in poetry. 
I 
‘Tis done – but yesterday a King! 
And arm’d with Kings to strive – 
And now thou art a nameless thing: 
So abject – yet alive! 
"Ode to Napoleon" offers a whole gallery of great men of the world from 
ancient times to George Washington, the Cincinnatus of the west, as 
compared to Napoleon. Prometheus is among them in stanza XVI: 
XVI 
Or, like the thief of fire from heaven, 
Wilt thou withstand the shock? 
And share with him, the unforgiven, 
His vulture and his rock! 
Foredoom’d by God – by man accurst, 
And that last act, though not thy worst, 
The very Fiend’s arch mock; 
He in his fall preserved his pride, 
And, if a mortal, had as proudly died! 
Byron very much hoped that Napoleon would reincarnate Prometheus but, 
alas, in vain. 
Disappointed in Napoleon, at least subconsciously, Byron aims to 
reincarnate the mythological liberator. And it took him exactly ten years from 
composing the "Ode" on the 10
th
 April, 1814, to fulfil the mission of the li-
berator of Greece and die as proudly as Prometheus did. 
Byron died on 19
th
 April, 1824. His death at Missolonghi in Greece 
shocked the world and unified Hellas.  
Innes Merabishvili 
 
214 
Many European Philhellenists supported the liberation of Greece from 
Turkey but they shed blood in their literary lines only. Byron was an 
exception to dedicate himself to Greece.  
As it appears Napoleon is a long-lasting attachment for Byron. In our 
opinion this attachment proves to be artistic and is aimed to perform 
Napoleon on the very stage of life. 
Performing Napoleon Byron was perfecting him through his acts.  
Granting the Emperor’s hegemony in the realm of deeds Byron refused to 
defer in the realm of words. "As Napoleon had conquered by battles, so 
Byron would conquer by poetry."
2
  
"Triumphs won by words outlast triumphs won by deeds",
3
 but we are 
happy to add that the Byronic victory was never gained by words only.  
Byron won the victory mainly by his devotion and self-sacrifice. It was 
the unique case when power of words and power of deeds coincided and 
converged. Byron never spared his life, he showed the world his readiness to 
die and died for Greece – the point that was missing in the Napoleonic 
legend. Byron became the symbol of disinterested patriotism and with the 
final winning of Independence, his name became even brighter in Greece.  
Before closing I would like to add that the Argonauts, Medea, 
Prometheus, Hero and Leander are the focal points that help us trace the 
cultural links not only between Byron and Greece but between Byron and 
Georgia as well.  
  
 
 
 
                                                 
2
  J. Clubbe, Napoleon’s Last Campaign and the Origins of Don Juan, The Byron Journal, Lon-
don, 1997, 21. 
3
  Ibid. 


English

The Reception of the Argonauts by Lord Byron

Singer, Itamar

Who were the Kaška?

Gigauri, Tsisana

Phasis 10 (I), 2007 
 
 
Tsisana Gigauri (Tbilisi) 
PERSONAL MOTIVES 
IN THE ARGONAUTICA BY VALERIUS FLACCUS 
The Argonautica by Valerius Flaccus presents the literary images of Medea 
and Jason in an altogether new way, quite differently from the Greek 
tradition1, so that it could provoke readers’ interest. Although this epic work, 
as well as its author, was highly appreciated as early as by Quintilian2, it 
failed to secure a worthy place in world literature. Valerius Flaccus belongs to 
the group of less-studied authors. There are not many critics who take interest 
in his works. However, I believe that this should be attributed to the high, and 
by no means poor, quality of his works. The Roman author is distinguished 
by rare erudition, which is attested by every line of the Argonautica. 
According to I. Peters, the scholar who studies the life and literary heritage of 
Flaccus, the Argonautica is the invaluable treasure (thesaurus locuple-
tissimus).3 And in fact, it includes quite a lot of important information related 
to literature, mythology, history, archaeology, geography and other fields of 
the humanities and sciences, and the author presents this truly diverse and 
encyclopedic information not only in each plot element, but also through the 
images of the characters and through their deeds. This last aspect is certainly 
related to remarkable challenges on the part of the reader as it invites deeper 
thought, stronger concentration of mind, and even labor so that to be able to 
grasp the central theme of the work. The ‘originality and talent’4 of Valerius 
Flaccus, ‘who offered an absolutely different interpretation of the popular 
                                                 
1  Ts. Gigauri, Colchis in the Roman Literature, Tbilisi, 1985, 84 (in Georgian). 
2  Quintiliani institutio oratotia, X, 1. 
3  I. Peters, De Valerii Flacci vita et carmine, Regimonti, 1890, 2. 
4  M. Val. Martialis epigrammaton, Lips., 1925, lib., VIII, 56, 45, 48 etc. 
Personal Motives in the Argonautica by Valerius Flaccus 
 
73
plot’,5 ‘who presented it with new episodes’6, and embellished with ‘fine, 
pathetic style and harmonious hexameters’7, was not left unnoticed by 
European scholars of ancient studies, including Ursula Gärtner8 and David R. 
Slavit.9 
Remarkably, Valerius Flaccus, who had not been much privileged with 
the attention of literary critics before, in 2000 attracted considerable interest 
of not only classical philologists, but also of average readers. Such popularity 
of Flaccus should be ascribed to the translation of David R. Slavit. 
Ursula Gärtner studies the literary images of Medea, Jason and Heracles 
on the basis of comparisons. Heracles captures attention not only owing to 
Flaccus’ ingenious elements, but also in order to make Jason’s image more 
complete. Heracles has positive properties in the work, like Medea and Jason. 
Apart from having superhuman power, which enables him to fight against the 
mythological monsters, he is at the same infinitely noble. This quality of his 
is attested by his relationship with average people and Hillas. If Heracles of 
Apollonius Rhodius is more powerful than Jason, who is conveyed by the 
constant thematic accent, Valerius Flaccus presents Heracles and Jason as 
characters with equally distinguished personalities. Heracles is unanimously 
proclaimed the leader by the men of the Argo in Apollonius’ Argonautica10, 
and only owing to his resolute request and calling that it was Jason who 
assembled them; they agree to make Jason their chief. This element is 
purposefully missing in Flaccus’ work: Jason is the real leader from the start 
of the poem11 and to its end. I would like to note here that David Slavit ‘puts 
right’ what he considers a sheer discrepancy in Flaccus work.12 Although 
Jason is characterized in a completely positive way, the text says: ‘Let us 
recall how we all were filled with admiration and gratitude when Heracles 
joined us.’13 When the Argonauts were enjoying themselves in the company 
of the women of Lemnos, Heracles watched them indifferently. He proudly 
remained in solitude and complained to Jason: ‘Why did you hire me. Give 
me Phasis, Aeetes, the hazards of Scythian seas, challenge me in a 
competition, and let me experience the sweetness of adventures and not 
                                                 
5  M. Schanz, Geschichte der Römischen Literatur, München, 1913, 138. 
6  A History of Latin Literature by Moses Hadas, New-York, London, 1964, 265. 
7  A History of Roman Literature, Moscow, 1962, V. II, 183 (in Russian). 
8  U. Gärtner, Gehalt und Funktion der Gleichnisse bei Valerius Flaccus, Franz Steiner Verlag 
Stuttgart, 1994. 
9  The Voyage of the Argo, The Argonautica of Gaius Valerius Flaccus, translated by D. R. 
Slavit, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. 
10  Apollonius Rhodius, The Argonautica, The Loeb Classical Library, 1955, I, 341-9. 
11  Ts. Gigauri, Colchis in the Roman Literature, Tbilisi, 1990, 103 (in Russian). 
12  See Debra Hershkowithz: www. scholar. lib.vt.edu 
13  D. R. Slavit …, ibid., III, 765-8. 
 Tsisana Gigauri 
 
 
74
idleness and emptiness. I came with the love for perils, and you take pleasure 
in the perils of love’ (II, 378-84).14 Ursula Gärtner prefers Heracles to Jason. 
When describing Jason’s character in Flaccus’ Argonautica, she refers to 
Apollonius and notes that although Jason is presented as ‘primus inter pares’, 
he is not recognized anywhere to be on the first place.15 In her opinion, Jason, 
who falls short of heroic qualities in Apollonius’ Argonautica, is remarkably 
altered in Flaccus’ epic. Putting forward general arguments and avoiding 
details, Ursula Gärtner concludes that the Roman epic writer presents Jason as 
a true hero, but at the same time she mentions Heracles and his heroic feats. 
What the scholar finds important is Jason’s moral status and not whether he 
meets the functions of a leader or not.16 Comparing the opinions of various 
scholars, U. Gärtner states that Jason’s positive qualities, which he often 
demonstrates, and which set him apart from other Greek heroes, can be 
generalized as his bravery. Comparing him to Heracles (134 ff., 387 f., VII 
623 f., VIII 125 f., 228 ff.), the scholar admits that Jason is capable of 
presenting himself as a hero owing to his looks as well as to these qualities, 
which he has in common with Heracles.17 
Ursula Gärtner refers to Flaccus’ comparisons, when Jason, as a brave 
hero, is compared to Mars (Arg., III, 83 f.), to the tempest of winter (III, 
151f.)., to a lion (VI, 613 f., VII 645f.)., a fighting steed, kept idle for a long 
time (II, 386 ff.).18 Dwelling on the comparisons, Ursula Gärtner notes that 
the gods which Jason is compared to are not positive, especially Mars, who is 
enraged, and embodies the eagerness for war. Consequently, Flaccus’ 
comparison is more associated with a war-thirsty person, than a brave hero.19 
This is how the majority of the comparisons, including those related to 
Medea, are interpreted. 
In my opinion, Jason is compared with Mars not because the author 
regards war as a beneficial phenomenon, but in order to accentuate Jason’s 
courage and heroic qualities. I believe that close consideration of Flaccus’ 
epithets will enable us to find out his attitude to his characters. 
The analysis of the characters of Flaccus’ Argonautica20 in the context of 
epithets will facilitate the understanding of their personal qualities and 
behavior. Since I am presently interested in Jason, I will recall the following 
                                                 
14  D. R. Slavit . . ., ibid., II, 378-84. 
15  U. Gärtner…, ibid., 285. 
16  Ibid. 
17  Ibid., 286 
18  Ibid. 
19  Ibid. 
20  Flaccus Valerius, Works with an English translation by T. H. Mozley, The Loeb Classical 
Library, 1959. 
Personal Motives in the Argonautica by Valerius Flaccus 
 
75
epithets: individual – Aesone natus, Aesonides – the offspring of Aeson (I, 
148f., II, 334 f., III, 8, IV, 675f., etc.), neutral – ductor – the leader (IV, 
703f.), dux – leader (V, 310), heros – hero (VII, 614, VIII, 24, 109ff.); 
positive – decus – pride (I, 56f.), pulcher – good-looking (VII, 263f.), ferox – 
courageous (VI, 615f.), turbidus – swift, quick (VII, 67f.), fortissimus – most 
powerful (VIII, 419f.); genealogical – dux Thessalus – Thessalian leader (V, 
277f.), ignotus – unknown (VII, 173f.); compassionate – profuga – fugitive 
(VII, 129f.).21 
I find it relevant to cite the epithets because, despite the emphasis on the 
positive aspect, U. Gärtner sometimes questions the positiveness of Medea’s 
and Jason’s images.22 I believe that epithets, which vividly characterize 
literary personalities, will help to remove any undesirable doubts. In the 
scholar’s opinion, the poet is distinguished by remarkable psychological 
intuition, and despite this, U. Gärtner finds Medea a dull character, unlike 
Flaccus, who presents Medea’s personality in bright colors. Gärtner believes 
that all the characters in general suffer from ill anticipation. Admitting to a 
slightly more delightful disposition of the characters in Apollonius’ 
Argonautica, the scholar anyway concludes that both epics are dominated 
with the fair of destiny, and therefore, the reader can feel sympathy rather 
than delight.23 
To illustrate the above-mentioned, I have attached Flaccus’ text to the 
comparisons cited by Gärtner. Remarkably, Gärtner quotes the comparisons 
which picture tender looks of the virgin and the power of her character. 
Flaccus’ Medea is the fair daughter of the king, compared to a lily issuing 
irradiating white light (VI, 492f.), to a scared bird (VI, 505f.), caught in white 
flames (VI, 664f.). Gärtner understands the latter comparison as the storm, 
and  parallels with an ear in the rain (VII, 24f.) and the emphasis on dog-like 
devotion (VII, 124f.), as well as the use of mythological figures, merely stirs 
sympathy in the scholar.24 
Undoubtedly, Ursula Gärtner is quite right as she talks about the moral 
conflict within Medea – when her love and responsibility to her father and 
homeland collide with her newly-born love for stranger Jason. I also 
appreciate that she finds Medea an attractive character, who stirs 
compassion.25 
In order to be convinced in Medea’s attractiveness, virtues and noble 
mind, it is not necessary to closely consider the whole epic work; it suffices to 
                                                 
21  Ts. Gigauri, Colchis ..., 1984, 137-8. 
22  U. Gärtner…, ibid., 285. 
23  U. Gärtner…, ibid., 280 
24  Ibid. 
25  Ibid …, 283. 
 Tsisana Gigauri 
 
 
76
look at the epithets. Valerius Flaccus accentuates Medea’s nobleness at every 
step. According to Ludwig Radermacher, Medea, as the rescuer of Jason, 
could have belonged to the level of Hera, Athena and Aphrodite by her rank.26 
Valerius Flaccus refers to Medea with the following epithets: genealogical 
– Aeeta virgo (IV, 14f., VI, 267f.), Aeetida – the daughter of Aeetes (VI, 481, 
VII, 445, VIII, 233), Regis filia (I, 61), Regina (V, 373, 441; VI, 657); 
positive – Medea iuventa – charming Medea (V, 257); sympathetic – infelix – 
poor (VI, 490; VIII, 160). She is compared to the sun and is referred to in the 
following way: Sol magne – the Great Sun (VIII, 350). 
The detailed analysis of Flaccus’ texts showed me that the negative 
attitude to Medea, shared by the majority of scholars, and even the meek 
attempt to praise her, the ‘biting’ praise, as illustrated above, is the influence 
of the established tradition. Admittedly, the literary source which lowered the 
set of Medea’s and Jason’s values was Euripides’ Medea. Considering 
mythological material, scholars admit that, in fact, Medea did not kill her 
children, and that the child-slaughter was the imagination of Euripides.27 The 
great gift of the tragedian and his reputation proved sufficient to blindly 
accept and ‘be subdued’ by this version, which defamed the distinguished, 
beautiful daughter of Colchis and brought her so much mischief. I will cite 
one opinion out of many related to this question: ‘Euripides hat hier den 
überkommenem Sagenstoff, nach dem einst die Korinther Iasons und Medeias 
Kinder getötet haben sollen, um sich von der Herrsonaft eines mit 
Barbarenblut gemischten Geschlechtes zu befreien, mit groβter Freiheit 
behandelt. Medeia als Mörderin der eigenen Kinder ist seine Erfindung.’28 
It can be openly declared that ancient tradition, which goes far beyond the 
personal fate of Medea and Jason, has no actual grounds. 
Flaccus’ Medea is not a blind weapon, a toy in the divine hands; she is an 
independent and smart young woman, who, seeing a brave and good-looking 
lad in the battlefield, fell in love with him in her devoted and frank manner.29 
This is the very element which proves innovative in the Argonautica-related 
literature. Inspired with pristine love, she is driven towards the supreme goal 
by a wild zeal; she unsparingly resorts to her potential faculties and is ready 
to sacrifice herself. 
Valerius Flaccus freed Medea from the disgraceful label of a woman 
obsessed with passion, of a woman, who discarded all and everything for the 
                                                 
26  L. Radermacher, Mythos und Sage bei den Griechen, Darmstadt, 1968, 235. 
27  See Ts. Gigauri, Medea and Jason in Roman Literature, Tbilisi State University Works, Tbilisi, 
v. 249, 1984, 226 (in Russian).  
28  Euripides, Tragödien, Erster Teil, Medeia, Griechisch und Deutsch von Dietrich Ebener, 
Akademieverlag, Berlin, 1972, 31. 
29  Flaccus Valerius, Argonautica…., ibid., VI, 663-7. 
Personal Motives in the Argonautica by Valerius Flaccus 
 
77
sake of her own desires, and deserved no sympathy as she remained in the 
memory of readers as a repugnant traitor. Flaccus’ Medea is embellished with 
the best qualities, like Jason, who prior to the Argonautica by the Roman poet 
was notorious for his treachery, unfaithfulness, dishonesty and ruthlessness. It 
is only his name that Flaccus’ Jason has in common with his prototypes. 
Instead of the perfidious, cowardly, insidious and murderous traitor, Valerius 
Flaccus presented a brave hero, who finds his good name and honesty most 
important, who intentionally meets any kind of peril; in short, he is the best 
Roman with his best and negative qualities.30 The traditionally negative image 
of Jason acquires new qualities in Flaccus’ epic. Jason is an active and 
promising person. This is the image of a Roman commander the conqueror.31 
Valerius Flaccus, who dedicated his epic poem to the victory of Titus, 
made Titus the prototype for Jason. The Roman hero is noble and merciful. 
Despite Pelias’ treachery, he is remorseful of Acastus’ secret escape with 
him, without informing his father.32 
Jason is peaceful and benevolent not only with his friends, but with 
everybody. He is ready to help even those who he meets for the first time. 
This is illustrated by the episode with Cyzicus, whom he promises to help in 
the fight against savage tribes.33 
Jason is the worthy pupil of Chiron and justifies his royal descent. He 
behaves worthily when Aeetes deceives him; he shows fabulous courage as 
he is fighting against Aeetes’ enemies, or the fire-breathing bulls of the field 
of Mars. Jason deeply falls in love with Medea and tries to arouse her love 
through his dignity and devotion to her. 
Aeetes’ hopes to scare the hero with the sight of the monster proved 
groundless. Jason, with the Golden Fleece on his shoulders, is compared to 
Heracles, after he slew the Nemean lion.34 
It is owing to such an innovative interpretation of the Argonaut legend 
that the famous poet and translator, David Slavit took interest in Flaccus’ 
work. He transformed the adventure of Medea and Jason in an original way, 
according to his own imagination. Commenting on his own translation, which 
not only altered the actions of the characters, but also rendered their language 
in modern terms, David Slavit commented that he is delighted he has taken 
the courage of interpreting the language of Flaccus in terms of English.35 D. 
Slavit calls for peace on those fond of libraries and book-stores, and tells 
                                                 
30  A History of Roman Literature…, ibid., 180. 
31  N. Deratani, I. Nakhov, A History of Roman Literature, Moscow, 1954, 442 (in Russian). 
32  Flaccus Valerius, Arg., ibid., I, 693-703. 
33  Ibid…, II, 656-664. 
34  Ibid…, VIII, 121-6. 
35  D. Slavit…, ibid., IX. 
 Tsisana Gigauri 
 
 
78
them that he was admired by the episode from Book 8, when Flaccus allows 
Medea to put the dragon to sleep, thus giving Jason an opportunity to acquire 
the Fleece with a single strike of hand. None of the Latin authors thought of 
carrying this out in one minute. Only Medea allowed herself to take pity on 
the dragon. According to D. Slavit, this was such a surprise, that he was 
compelled to translate the poem in a new way. 
David Slavit’s translation, which made Flaccus’ Argonautica popular in 
the 20th-21st centuries, succeeded in precise rendering of the main idea of the 
original and in making the book acceptable to modern readers. The public 
became acquainted with the brilliant epic author and at the same time, 
through the use of agreeable humor, D. Slavit skillfully ‘cheered up’ the 
‘sadness’ and the ‘gloom’ which Ursula Gärtner found with the images of 
Medea and Jason. David Slavit admits that he had a lot of fun when working 
on the translation and calls on the readers to do the same. 
Such ‘transformations’ are not alien to world literature. I. Kotlyarevski’s 
Aeneid36 is another example of it. The author treats the positive characters 
with considerable humor, but does not humiliate them. Through the humorous 
account, I. Kotlyarevski turned everything upside down – the ‘high’ became 
‘low’, the heroic and pathetic – casual, the past became the present, and the 
present – the future, the great epic of the Roman poet was transformed into an 
amusing joke. I. Kotlyarevski made the Roman author extremely popular and 
owing to his work, the modern Aeneid was included in the classical literary 
fund of the Ukraine.37 
David R. Slavit’s translation produced the same effect. Robert V. Albis38 
wrote in the New England Classical Journal that Valerius Flaccus became 
more agreeable and acceptable for the reader in Slavit’s version, while the 
Brown University professor David Konstan stated that D.R. Slavit’s 
translation will remarkably increase the number of readers of Flaccus’ work.39 
 
                                                 
36  I. Kotlyarevski, Aeneid, translation from Ukrainian into Russian by I. Braghnin, Moscow, 
1955. 
37  I. Eriomin, I. P. Kotlyarevski and His Aeneid, introduction to the translation, ibid., 9.  
38  For details see: www. amazon.com/VoyageArgo-Argonautica-ValeriusFlaccus/dp. 
39  For more details see: www.addall.com/detail. 


Personal Motives in the "Argonautica" by Valerius Flaccus

Moreschini, Claudio

Phasis 10 (II), 2007 
 
 
Claudio Moreschini (Pisa) 
MEDEA IN ITALIAN LITERATURE 
Nota omnibus Medea (Petrarch) 
The myth of the Argonauts and Medea was well known in Greek and Latin 
culture, for it embodied feelings and behaviours, which are typical of human 
nature. No wonder, therefore, that it spread through Italian literature soon 
from its beginning. In the Italian schools, during the Middle Ages, Latin lan-
guage was currently taught and spoken, and the most important works of 
Latin literature were fundamental for a sound education. Among these works, 
there were Ovid’s Metamorphoses, which contain the longest narration of 
Medea's tragedy, full of psychological details. And we cannot forget that the 
myth of the Argonauts was considered an example of human boldness and 
ingenuity, for it describes the first human’s tentative of navigation. So it is not 
without reason that Petrarch uttered the words we have put in the beginning 
(De remediis utriusque fortunae, I 52, 8), though he blamed Medea’ passions 
and deeds. 
1. The Argonauts’ myth 
The great, heroic enterprise of the Argonauts, which was celebrated in 
classical times, provoked a warm admiration in the greatest Italian poet, 
Dante Alighieri. In his Comedia (Paradiso, II 16-18) he evokes "those glori-
ous men who sailed to Colchis", and Jason’s labour of ploughing, when he 
had to subdue the furious bulls.  
But another great poet and scholar, Francesco Petrarca, interpreted the 
myth in a new way, that is critically: in his opinion, the Argonauts weren’t a 
band of heroes, a group of bold young men who reached the boundaries of the 
world in search for the Golden Fleece, but a crew of pirates, such as there 
were so many in the Mediterranean Sea during the Middle Ages, in his own 
 Medea in Italian Literature 
 
77 
times (De remediis utriusque fortunae (I 117, 8)): in spite of Ennius’ words 
(scaen., 250-251, which Petrarch quotes indirectly, through Cic., Tusc., I 20, 
45), they were not illustrious men, but vere predones, drawn by the fama divi-
tiarum. Indeed, the famous Golden Fleece possesses no noble signification, 
does not allegorize the desire of glory, and of confronting the most difficult 
enterprises, but simply indicates that vulgar people are in search of wealth. 
According to Petrarch, the Argonauts simply looked for luxurious clothes, 
that is the Golden Fleece. Also in Epist., Familiares, XIX 3, 5 Petrarch, medi-
tating on some Ennius’ lines (which he knew, as usual, thanks to a quotation 
in Cicero), describes the Argonauts, who "parva spe magno et procelloso mari 
Colchon barbaricam petiere, ubi regnabat incognitus rex Oethes". The ‘feeble 
hope’ is the greed of wealth, certainly not the desire of knowing the king 
Oetes and his country.  
2. Jason 
According to Jason’s characteristics he found in the classics, Dante 
strictly condemned him as a seducer, describing his punishment in one of the 
lowest ‘circles’ of his Inferno, the first of the so called ‘Malebolge’ (XVIII, 
86 ss.).  
Quelli è Iasòn, che per cuore e per senno / li Colchi del monton privati 
fene. / Ello passò per l’isola di Lenno […] Ivi con segni e con parole ornate / 
Isifile ingannò, la giovinetta / che prima avea tutte l’altre ingannate. / Lasciol-
la quivi, gravida, soletta; / tal colpa a tal martiro lui condanna; / e anche di 
Medea si fa vendetta. / Con lui sen va chi da tal parte inganna … 
Jason surely was endowed with boldness and intelligence, but had de-
ceived and abandoned first Hypsipyle and then Medea (the two heroines are 
often introduced together by poets who described Jason’s forfeits). This de-
scription is most probably drawn from Statius Thebais (books 5 and 6), a 
poem which enjoyed a great popularity in the Middle Ages and which Dante 
uses extensively.  
3. Medea 
3, 1. Medea in literature 
According to Dihle
1
, European literatures characterized Medea in three 
ways; either she is a loving woman, ready even to kill her husband and her 
sons to take vengeance for having been abandoned; or she is a demonic per-
                                                 
1
  Cf. A. Dihle, Euripides’ Medea und ihre Schwestern in europäischen Drama, Antike und 
Abendland 22, 1976, 175-184. 
Claudio Moreschini 
 
78 
son, endowed with superhuman (that is, infernal) powers; or, lastly, she is a 
barbarian woman, whose customs don’t fit the civilized Greece. The first 
categorization has its origins in Euripides’ tragedy and spread from the Ren-
aissance theatre to the Italian ‘Opera’; demonic Medea is inspired by Se-
neca’s – but also by Ovid’s  – characterization; the third type is much more 
recent, and spread particularly in modern European literatures: in hard po-
lemic against racism and colonialism, aims at giving Medea a higher estima-
tion.  
Generally speaking, Italian literature was much more interested in de-
scribing Medea as a loving and passionate woman, whose vicissitudes excited 
warm feelings.  
Petrarch, on the contrary, reminds Medea’s drama and her wrath, in the 
Triumphus Cupidinis (I, 128-132); but he wrote this work in his old age: 
therefore, he does not justify Medea: true, she loved Jason and hoped to have 
deserved his love, but she was guilty of murdering her father and her brother.  
The poet who was more interested in Medea was Giovanni Boccaccio. 
Many of his works, just as his Decameron, are romantic and erotic, and he is 
moved in many, different, ways, considering the fortunes of the heroine. 
Medea was exceedingly beautiful, he says in Comedia delle ninfe fiorentine 
12; she appears in the crowd of loving women, whose catalogue is given in 
Filocolo, IV 83, and in Rime parte II 38,75 (because of her love to Jason, she 
abandoned her father); she is a poisoner and a sorcerer (Teseida, I 102; Com-
media delle ninfe fiorentine, 34). As usual in Mediaeval treatises on love, 
sometimes Boccaccio cites Medea as an example of the changes love pro-
duces in humans: disputing with the queen (a character of his novel, Il Filoco-
lo), Caleone says that Medea was forced by love to abandon herself, her hon-
our and her country, and to follow Jason. This means that, thanks to love, 
humans utterly immolate themselves; but the queen replies that love usually 
produces dangerous effects, just as those mentioned above (Filocolo, IV 45). 
The terrible consequences of love and the madness it causes, are a common-
place in Mediaeval literature, and Boccaccio mentions them several times (for 
instance in Commedia delle ninfe fiorentine, 29, Amorosa Visione, IX 25 ss., 
containing a catalogue of famous women
2
).  
In the Amorosa Visione the whole chapter XXI is interesting. Boccaccio 
represents not only Hypsipyle and Medea, but also Creusa: both are angry 
with the young bride (they are "con Creusa sospette"); Jason is on the scene, 
                                                 
2
  "In abito crucciato con costei [scl., with Hypsipyle] seguia Medea crudele e dispietata; con 
voce ancor parea dicere: "Omei, / se io più savia alquanto fossi stata /né sì avessi tosto preso 
amore, / forse ancor non sarei suta ingannata"". Here, again, Medea is mentioned together with 
Hypsipyle.  
 Medea in Italian Literature 
 
79 
but doesn’t utter a word. In a tone, which recalls Ovid’s Heroides, first Hyp-
sipyle reproaches him for his treachery: he loved her, but he abandoned her 
while she was pregnant with the twins Thoans and Eunaeus. She hoped to see 
Jason coming back soon, but she heard that he had fallen in love with a 
woman in Colchis and had changed his feelings
3
. So now, Jason does not 
mind her and takes delight of Hypsipyle’s foe. Her sufferings are terrible, but 
she begs in vain Jason not to leave her. Medea too is moved by wrath: she 
reproaches Jason for neglecting her love; indeed, she had loved him more 
passionately than any other woman did. Furthermore, she helped him to es-
cape the dangers in Colchis and to catch the Golden Fleece; and, what's most 
infamous to her, she killed her young brother Absyrtos, so that she could fly 
with him. Thanks to her magic arts, she rejuvenated Aeson, Jason’s old father, 
killed Jason’s uncle Pelias, so that he eventually could reign in Thessaly. He 
is well aware that Medea will do everything in order to please him – yet, 
longing for another woman, he forgot even his sons. As a conclusion, Medea 
begs Jason to come back to her, who is his wife, but he takes care neither of 
Hypsipyle nor of Medea and gladly embraces Creusa (XXII, 1-3).  
Elsewhere Boccaccio, considering Medea’s cruelty, somehow justifies Ja-
son’s behaviour. In Filocolo, III 18 Florio is longing of his loved Biancifiore; 
he is compared to Hypsipyle, abandoned by Jason, who fell in love for an-
other young girl – but he had to do so, because he was in danger, and he could 
not have saved himself if Medea hadn't helped him. Soon after these events, 
Jason abandoned Medea, but, again, pour cause, due to her cruelty
4
: he had 
met Creusa, who was so kind and loving. 
As a whole, Giovanni Boccaccio, the poet of love and the storyteller of 
the Decameron, was the writer most interested in Medea’s vicissitude, in her 
adventures, or faults, and eventually found some reasons for justifying her. In 
the same way, the Renaissance poet Matteo Maria Boiardo shows his sympa-
thy for her, though he knows, as every poet or narrator did
5
, that she was a 
sorcerer, skilful in magic arts; she could tie and untie the lovers by the filters 
she prepared with unknown grasses; yet she couldn’t untie herself from the 
chains of Love (Amores, I 48, 5-8).   
                                                 
3
  "ch’avevi nuova amica presa in Colcòs e mutato proposto" (vv. 41-42). 
4
  This is a topic; in the same work, there is a catalogue of cruel women (Clitemnestra, Helen, 
Procne and other): there Medea too is present: cf. III, 35. 
5
  For example, Matteo Bandello. It is worth mentioning also a miscellaneous 'novel' by Frances-
co Colonna (XVth century), the Hypnerotomachia Polifili (p. 178, 275, 390 ed. G. Pozzi, Pa-
dua 1980): the author labels Medea with the usual characterization as sorcerer, and lover.    
Claudio Moreschini 
 
80 
3, 2. Medea on the stage 
Thanks to the rediscovery of classical theatre, a new literary genre rose in 
Italy and spread through Europe during the Renaissance. Greek and Latin 
tragedies were 'rewritten' in Italian: it was not, however, a simple translation, 
but an interpretation and a modification of Euripides’ or Seneca’s plots. In the 
Renaissance Medea is not a real, living woman of the past, as the Middle 
Ages had considered her, but a mythical character – that is, not ‘historical’; as 
such, she is an unvarying, uniform character, always identified by her magical 
arts and provided with extreme cruelty. While the Senecan tragedy was con-
sidered the model par excellence of Medea's vicissitude, Horace became the 
theoriser of her savage and uncivilized behaviour.  
3, 2, 1. Among these Italian tragedies, we can mention the Medea by Lu-
dovico Dolce, a polygraph, who wrote eight dramas (Medea was published in 
1557). As we said, in the XVIth century, translation was often a remaking: 
therefore, the source of Dolce’s Medea is Euripides’ drama. In fact, the Italian 
poet was an admirer of Euripides, as every cultivated man was in XVIth cen-
tury. At the same time, he inserted in the plot some details from Seneca. 
Tragedy was highly estimated as a dramatic genre of classical origin, even 
though it was considered as a relic of heathenism. However, interest for 
Greek tragedy wasn’t common in Renaissance Italy, and particularly in the 
years 1540 - 1560, when the Catholic Reformation didn’t approve plots end-
ing in catastrophe and desperation. Furthermore, the literary tastes of culti-
vated people preferred a ‘happy end’.  
Sometimes sentences or exhortations to Christian faith were artfully in-
serted into the tragedies, into the choruses and at the end, so that the author 
could distinguish himself from the ancient poets of pagan dramas. It was rec-
ommended introduce on the stage a feminine character, who might be not a 
heroine, but a victim, or a young girl whose destiny could arouse pathos (e.g. 
Antigone), or an old woman, whose vicissitude arose piety (e.g. Hecuba). 
Nevertheless, feminine characters were allowed acting cruelly, infringing 
laws, being liable for the evil they had done. Such was Medea, the sorcerer 
inspired by hell, merciless and unable of repentance, thanks to the long tradi-
tion we hinted at.  
4. And, as it was normal for the Italian scholars in the Cinquecento, such a 
frightful character, modelled from Euripides’ and Seneca’s tragedy, interested 
authors of rhetorical and poetical treatises
6
. In their works nothing remained 
                                                 
6
  Also a great poet, Torquato Tasso was interested in this theoric problems; he observes that 
Thyestes’, Medea’s and Oedipus’ story (Tasso is considering the most famous Senecan trage-
 Medea in Italian Literature 
 
81 
of the sprightliness of the ancient and mediaeval Medea; the heroine is ana-
lysed only from the point of view of the dramatic technique and the exigency 
of how to construct a character fitting to rational rules: who is depicted by 
tradition as cruel, in no way can appear tender toward her sons. Could, there-
fore, Medea feel pity to his children? Was Jason a heroic character, or not? 
He didn’t possess any actual virtue; a hero might be, on the contrary, Charles 
the Great …  
Yet, such a schematism didn’t choke Medea’s life, her love, and her 
wrath, which were stronger than erudition, and continued to the subject of 
dramas (also musical ones) in the following centuries, until our ages. 
Of course, it is not possible to single out the whole story of Medea in Ital-
ian literature; we limit ourselves to mention some significant examples, 
drawn from the production of nineteenth and twentieth centuries: classicizing 
tragedies continued to be written
7
. But much more interesting are the modern 
distortions or adaptations of the myth. The popular feuilleton writer Francesco 
Mastriani was the author of a long novel Medea di Porta Medina (a popular 
quarter in Naples), published in 1915; Alberto Savinio wrote a short story in 
                                                                                                    
dies) attracted many ancient poets, who, thanks to their elaboration, renewed it in many ways 
("variamente tessendolo, di commune, proprio, e di vecchio, nuovo il facevano": Discorsi 
dell’arte poetica , p. 5; Discorso del poema eroico, libro secondo, p. 86 - Cf. T. Tasso, Dis-
corsi dell’arte poetica e del poema eroico a cura di L. Poma, Bari 1964.). Tasso distinguishes 
between the simple argument (the ‘materia nuda’) and the subsequent elaboration of it, which 
determines the success of the poet’s work. Indeed, if a poet wants to rise compassion, he will 
be more successful treating Oedipus’ misfortune, who killed his father unintentionally, than 
representing Medea, who, though aware of the crime she would commit, torn her sons into 
pieces: "questa appena sarà atta a intiepidire gli animi, ancora che l’artificio, nell’una e 
nell’altra (favola) usato, sia non solo simile, ma eguale". It is also very important to consider 
the nobility of the enterprises, such as those of the Argonauts, which were the subject of Or-
pheus’, Homer’s and Apollonius’ poems. However, epic poem can have its origin from an 
erotic subject, as from the myth of Jason and Medea, which was treated by the Greek Apollo-
nius and the Latin Valerius Maximus (Del poema eroico, libro secondo, p. 108. In this quota-
tion I suppose a mistake by Tasso, obviously he meant Valerius Flaccus). Reputation of piety 
and religiousness requires a 'perfect knight', as were Charles the Great and King Arthur, not 
Theseus and Jason (ibid., p. 98; cf. Trattati di poetica e di retorica del Cinquecento, a cura di 
B. Weinberg, vol. I-IV, Bari 1970-1974). Such and other similar considerations (rather pedan-
tic, we admit) can be found in Bernardino Daniello's treatise Della poetica (a. 1536 – vol. I, p. 
252), who, according to Horace’s Ars poetica, adfirms that cruel, terrible and shameful actions, 
such as those of Medea and of Procne, cannot have their place on the scene. On the contrary, 
Bartolomeo Ricci (de imitatione liber primus – del 1541, p. 444) thinks that such behaviours 
are allowed, as it is shown by Seneca’s Hercules, "et naturam suam et fortasse etiam sua tem-
pora secutus". Who is interested in this problem pertaing the history of Italian culture and lit-
erature can read also Gian Giorgio Trissino, La poetica, quinta divisione, p. 24 (anno 1549); 
Giason Denore, Discorso etc. (anno 1586 – III, p. 387); Nicolò Rossi, Discorsi intorno alla 
commedia (1589 – IV, 74. 75. 94. 96). 
7
  See e.g. the tragedies by G. B. Nicolini (1803) or C. della Valle (1810). 
Claudio Moreschini 
 
82 
1917-18, in which he identified himself with Jason. We should mention also a 
tragedy by Corrado Alvaro, La lunga notte di Medea (1949). Finally, a brief 
section in Cesare Pavese's masterpiece Dialoghi con Leucò, written just after 
World War II, and inspired by Greek mythical characters, reproduces a dia-
logue between two Argonauts about human life and ultimate destiny
8
. 
                                                 
8
  Cfr. P. Fornaro, Medea italiana, in Atti delle giornate di studio su Medea, Torino 23-24 otto-
bre 1995, ed. by R. Uglione, Torino 1997, 117-163. M. G. Ciani (ed.), Euripide, Seneca, Grill-
parzer, Alvaro, Medea, Venezia 1999; A. Zumbo, La Lunga notte di Medea di Corrado Alva-
ro, in La riscrittura e il teatro dall’ antico al moderno e dai testi alla scena, a cura di P. Radici 
Colace e A. Zumbo, Messina 2004, 135-147; G. Ieranò, Tre Medee del Novecento: Alvaro, Pa-
solini, Wolf, in B. Gentili - F. Perusino (eds.), Medea nella letteratura e nell’arte, Venezia 
2000, 193-216. 


Medea in Italian Literature

Khintibidze, Zaza

Compositional Function of the Circe-Myth in Greek-Roman, Medieval European and Georgian Epic Traditions: Typological Similarity or Literary Reception?

Adrymi-Sismani, Vassiliki

Iolkos: Myth, Archaeology and History

Koplatadze, Gvantsa

Phasis 10 (II), 2007 
 
 
Gvantsa Koplatadze (Tbilisi) 
CHRISTIAN TROPOLOGY OF THE ARGONAUT MYTH 
The unbiased study of the culture created on the basis of the history of 
Christian religion and Christian outlook more and more exposes the 
erroneousness of the viewpoint that Christianity irreconcilably opposed 
ancient world as soon as it established itself. Of course, this does not mean 
that the instances of hostility did not occur at all; however, they should not be 
identified with the general stand of Christ’s Church regarding pagan 
civilization and culture. Distinguished thinkers and Church Fathers duly and 
timely appreciated the merits and significance of the best works of ancient 
culture on the way of spiritual development of the humankind and did not 
spare efforts for the creative reception of the works. 
For example, in the opinion of Clemens of Alexandria, one of the great 
fathers of the Alexandrian school, development of spiritual culture was 
accomplished under the guidance of the Divine Logos and therefore, he 
believed that every science and art had the heavenly origin.
1
 
A particularly significant role in the creative reception of ancient culture 
was played anyway by the Cappadocian school. The understanding of the 
Christian religion as hostile to the past and in general, to the world around 
was unacceptable for great Cappadician fathers. It even may be admitted that 
they determined the attitude of Byzantine Christian thinkers to ancient 
culture, finding themselves the rightful successors to its best traditions and 
advancements. The Cappadocian fathers not only used those achievements in 
their own works, but also advised others to start education with the study of 
pagan culture. For example, according to Basil the Great, young people were 
first to train their eyes by reading the best works of ancient authors, as owing 
                                                 
1
  Лосев А., Философия, Мифология, Культура, М., 1991. 
Gvantsa Koplatadze 
 
70 
to the ‘natural faith’ (Saint Paul), which means conscience, they offered many 
spiritually beneficial and unforgettable examples of high morality. 
Basil the Great also specifies what should be learned from pagan culture 
and what should not. Young people can learn a lot when poets describe the 
images and deeds of noble characters. They should love them, follow their 
example and compete with them. But if an author pictures an immoral 
behavior with sympathy and attempts to make it more presentable, young 
people should block their ears in the way Odysseus did it so that he could not 
hear the sweet but disastrous tunes of the Sirens.
2 So, Basil the Great himself 
offers a specific and memorable example of what can be taken and learned 
from ancient literature or mythic characters. 
Gregory the Theologian so often referred to ancient mythological plots 
and characters in his homilies in order to embellish and render artistically his 
ideas that his works, distinguished by laconic style and requiring 
explanations, were primarily attached with mythological comments, which 
survived to our times under the name of Nonnos of Panopolis.
3
 
Of course, such attitude of Christianity towards mythology was altogether 
unacceptable in the sphere of religious consciousness, and the synthesis of 
Christianity and Hellenism was likewise out of the way.
4
 
Before dwelling on the Christian tropology of the Argonaut myth, it is 
necessary to first present which particular method and position of its reading I 
use and support. This method and position was developed by A. Losev, the 
greatest scholar of our times.
5
 
According to this method, the interpretation of the myth should be based 
on the material offered by the mythic consciousness and not on the personal 
outlook of a researcher. Although this statement sounds indisputable, the 
actual fact is that the 17
th
-19
th
 century scholars tried to study the scholarly 
reality on the basis of subjectivism, almost neglecting the actuality and 
objectiveness of its categories and sometimes even taking pride in the 
arguments such as ‘we offer the study of a particular subject, but actually we 
are not concerned about whether they truly exist or not’, which is altogether 
opposite to the mythic consciousness. 
This problem exists in our contemporary academic world as well and 
compels us to face the following dilemma: 1. We talk not about the mythic 
consciousness itself, but about either our own, or other scholar’s attitude, 
                                                 
2
  Basil the Great, Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature, PG. vol. XXXI, 
564-590. 
3
  Georgian translation of pseudo-Nonnos mythological comments was published by A. 
Gamkrelidze and O. Otkhmezuri, Tbilisi, 1989 (in Georgian). 
4
  Fleury E., Hellénisme et christianisme, Paris, 1930. 
5
  Лосев А., Философия, Мифология, Культура, М., 1991. 
Christian Tropology of the Argonaut Myth 
 
71 
which can be either positive or negative (the myth is wonderful, divine, 
sacred; the myth is a childish invention, it is irreal and frail in philosophical 
terms) and 2. we should not be willing to express either our or other’s 
attitude, or even to try to develop scholarly consciousness, but to explain the 
mythic consciousness itself. If we share the second position, we will not find 
it difficult to agree with the opinion that myth, naturally, ‘for mythic 
consciousness, which is altogether specific, is the highest, the maximally 
intensive, and extremely tense reality. It is not an invention, but the most 
genuine truth; it is an altogether indispensable category of thought and life, 
standing apart from any kind of chance and arbitrariness.’... ‘There is nothing 
accidental, redundant, arbitrary, invented or fantastic’ in the myth. It is not an 
invention, but has the most firm and definite structure and is logical i.e. 
primarily dialectical and indispensable category of consciousness and being 
in general.’
6
 
A. Losev provides a convincing argument in favor of the opinion that 
myth is neither an ideal being, nor a primitive-academic and philosophical 
string of ideas, nor a scheme, an allegory or a piece of poetry, but in contrast 
to them is lively perceptible and creatable, material reality, containing its 
own, non-academic pure mythic truth, genuineness, and distinguished for its 
own principal norms and structure. It may also incorporate in itself schematic, 
allegorical and live-symbolic layers. It is a personal being, or more precisely, 
the image and form of a personal being. 
Myth should by no means be regarded as a scheme. If it was a scheme, the 
supersensible and the ideal in it would turn into an abstract idea, while the 
sensible as meaning would remain inessential and would add nothing to the 
abstract idea. Myth always relates not about mechanisms, but about 
organisms and even more than that, about personalities; its characters are not 
abstract ideas, but live beings, in which the important thing is exactly the 
specific, the sensible, the particular, the actual and the figurative. 
As concerns the allegory of myth, almost every popular mythological 
theory puts an accent on the allegorical character of myth, discerning therein 
personified natural elements or deified historical personalities. In those 
theories, mythic characters are interpreted in a special, allegorical sense; they 
point to some other reality, apparently more important and conceptualized, 
but are not actual themselves. But if we follow the above-mentioned 
viewpoint, according to which mythic reality is neither metaphorical, nor 
allegorical or allusive, but is an actual, completely self-existing one, we will 
come to the inevitable conclusion that it should be perceived as it is, naively 
                                                 
6
  Лосев., 1991, 24. 
Gvantsa Koplatadze 
 
72 
and word by word.
7
 Allegory will not facilitate its understanding, as it always 
implies misbalance between the signifier and the signified; the image is 
always more than idea, being always embellished and illuminated, while the 
idea is abstract and unexpressed. As concerns myth, we find a full balance 
between ‘idea’ and ‘image’, ‘inner’ and ‘outer’, the ideal and the actual. 
There is nothing in the image that is missing in the idea. Therefore, the 
expression can be symbolic, which implies the above-mentioned balance 
between image and idea. ‘Idea’ is by no means superior to ‘image’, and 
neither is ‘image’ ‘particular’ in any way, but is perceived as an abstract 
concept. ‘Image’ on its part refers to expressed ‘idea’ and not merely to 
‘idea’. It is impossible to discern in the symbol ‘idea’ without ‘image’ or 
‘image’ without ‘idea’. The symbol is an independent reality. Although it 
implies two planes of being, they are offered through absolute integrity.
8
 This, 
of course, does not mean that ‘idea’ and ‘symbol’ do not at all differ in myth 
– otherwise, symbol would lack expression. Besides, as the very fact of ‘the 
inner’ is identified with the fact of ‘the outer’ in symbol, ‘idea’ and ‘matter’ 
are united not simply by conceptual, but also by material sameness. For 
example, the beasts of a fable, whose actions are conscious and who 
sometimes even utter philosophical ideas, are allegorical, as nobody believes 
in the actuality of their actions and speeches; however, the author presents 
one of the horses of Achilles, which suddenly speaks up and prophesies the 
approaching death of his master, as real, to be interpreted straightforwardly 
and accepted with naive directness. Hence, here we have a symbol and not an 
allegory. So, myth is neither a scheme, nor an allegory, but first of all a 
symbol, which may incorporate in itself schematic, allegorical and 
complicated symbolical layers. 
Naturally, all diverse methods of myth interpretation accepted in the 
scholarly community were applied in connection with the Argonaut myth as 
well. One of such interpretations attributes the act of child-slaughter 
committed by Medea to the cult of Hecate, the representative of the receding 
matriarchal culture and to the frequent practice of offering young boys as a 
bloody sacrifice in the last phase of the matriarchate, in this particular case 
performed by Medea, the priestess of Hecate. In another opinion, the myth is 
allegorical and Medea’s killing of children implies the state of a new life. 
Some scholars go even farther and not only regard Medea as the priestess 
of Hecate, but even identify her with this Thracian goddess of moon and 
consider that owing to her special state, she was authorized to have at her 
disposal the Golden Fleece, which embodied masculine aggressiveness. 
                                                 
7
  Лосев., 1991, 47. 
8
  Лосев., 1991, 48. 
Christian Tropology of the Argonaut Myth 
 
73 
Medea is to be interpreted as the destructive force against the masculine 
element, as the power which, from the matriarchal point of view, rejects the 
masculine force. Such interpretation of the myth presents the integrated image 
of Medea and Hecate as the protector and at the same time demolisher of the 
masculine. 
According to Kerenyi, Jason and Medea, as the representatives of 
masculine and feminine aggressive cultures, are incompatible as there is 
nothing that would unite them, which the author of the theory calls ‘the 
hermetic principle’.
9
 
It is clear that such and other similar methods of interpreting the Argonaut 
myth are based on subjectivism; the scholars seem to forget that in terms of 
mythic consciousness, the mythic reality is an actual and self-existing reality 
and not a metaphorical or allegorical one, and therefore, myth should be un-
derstood as it is, naively and word by word, and its characters should be 
perceived as actual beings. In these circumstances, Medea and Jason cease to 
appear as the representatives of feminine and masculine aggression 
respectively; in fact, the former is the woman skilled in sorcery, whose 
unkindly intentions are helped by evil spirits, while the latter is a person, who 
cannot be called a hero despite his heroic feats as he accomplished them with 
woman‘s help, and not with his own bravery and intelligence. 
The Argonaut myth, as well as its literary versions, captures attention not 
by the sublime qualities of its characters, but by the psychological truth which 
underlies them. Their unity is achieved by a firm inner logic characteristic of 
truly high art and indispensable for the creation of coherent characters – one 
of the requirements for poets, posed as early as by Aristotle.
10
 This logic on 
its part implies a deep insight into and analysis of the characters’ qualities, 
which motivate their actions. 
The characters of Medea and Jason develop in such a surprisingly logical 
way that this consistency is never violated, and neither of their words or 
actions bring disharmony into the unity of their characters. In this respect, I 
dare not agree with the distinguished scholar Grigol Tsereteli, who 
maintained that Apollonius Rhodius failed to logically develop Medea’s 
image, presenting her in Book 3 as a tender virgin in love struggling against 
herself, and in Book 4 as a cold, matter-of-fact and implacable witch.
11
 In my 
opinion, the psychological authenticity of Medea’s character is determined by 
her actions after she betrayed her father and homeland. For example, there is 
                                                 
9
  Kerenyi K., Das hermetische Prinzip in Mythologie, Zűrich, 1943. 
10
  Aristoteles, Poetik, Leipzig, 1972, 54.  
11
  Аполлоний Родосский, Аргонавтика, перевод, введение и примечания Г. Церетели, Тб., 
1964, 14. 
Gvantsa Koplatadze 
 
74 
nothing unexpected in the fact that she doomed her brother to a brutal death, 
which repeats in all the versions of the myth. I dot not agree with the opinion 
that Medea did this for the sake of ‘the great cosmic love’
12
, as love is an 
integral emotion and treachery and murder, especially of a close person, is 
altogether alien to those endowed with this gift, and what is more, on the part 
of those who love, this feeling implies self-sacrifice and not the sacrifice of 
others. 
The emotion, gripping the heart of the king’s daughter after she met the 
strange guest, not only failed to turn into the fire of love, which would be at 
the same time a light-giving source, but went out, and Medea was possessed 
by darkness and bleakness. She was doomed to such an agonizing state by 
herself, when she decided to win Jason’s favour and love at the expense of 
betraying her father and homeland. The virgin, skilled in magic, ruined with 
her evil deeds the remnants of her tender and beautiful feeling, if there was 
such, and eventually became a callous witch, provoking fright, or intimidation 
at best. 
Considering the above-mentioned, the fact that after fleeing Colchis, 
Medea has nothing in common with Jason except crimes is the very evidence 
of the logical and coherent development of the character. She is not able to 
love, and is well aware that neither can Jason love the woman, who, although 
for his sake, has committed so much evil. Therefore, it is quite natural that 
Medea requires his protection not because of love, but because of the debt 
which Jason owes her, and shows surprising practicality like those skilled in 
bargains. 
Skilfulness in magic implies help from evil forces and not only kills the 
gift for love in a person, but makes him/her implacable and ruthless. After the 
merciless murder of her own brother, the killing of Peleas, Jason’s uncle, 
Creon, the king of Corinth and his daughter because of vengeance is 
perceived as Medea’s normal behaviour, and therefore does not have very 
strong impact on the reader. But this is not all. The principle of logical 
development of her character requires of her an unparalleled, the most 
appalling crime. According to various versions of the myth, Medea either 
kills her children herself, or they die from the hands of the Corinthians, or 
because their mother wanted them to join the ranks of the immortals. 
Euripides had her murder her own children intentionally, to revenge upon 
Jason. According to R. Gordeziani, this innovation of the playwright proved 
indeed successful, as following the 5
th
 century, Euripides’ Medea was almost 
                                                 
12
  Бауер В., Дюмотц И., Головин С., Энциклопедия символов, М., 1998, 155. 
Christian Tropology of the Argonaut Myth 
 
75 
the only source referred to as the model for the development of Medea’s 
theme in ancient culture.
13
 
Although the first performance of Euripides’ Medea in 431 failed to 
appeal to the spectators, horrified with the brutal murder, as soon as the first 
and the most painful impression was past, the spectators, as well as the 
readers, easily accepted the psychological authenticity of the character 
pictured by the tragedian as the evil, which ruins itself, is unable to spare 
anyone. As neither Jason is distinguished by high morality, his union with 
Medea is quite logical. It is likewise logical that vainglory Jason, who did not 
have enough power to carry out his ambitions, as he failed to recover the 
throne of Iolcus and decided to become a king in Corinth, once again with a 
lady’s help, through marrying Creusa, abandoned the woman whom he owed 
the retrieval of the Golden Fleece to his homeland. They more or less deserve 
each other, which is clearly attested by the dialogue, in which the spouses 
rebuke each other remembering the service they gave each other. 
The above-mentioned reveals that in the characters of the Argonaut myth 
the idea and the image are assimilated in actual terms, at the level of matter. 
Neither the idea is somewhat more than the image, nor is the image 
something particular. According to Losev, such a balance is characteristic 
only of symbol. That is why Medea became the symbol of betrayal and 
ruthlessness, and Jason the symbol of an average little man, whose actions are 
motivated only by ambitions and profiteering, but as he does not have enough 
power himself, he tries to attain the goal through gaining ladies’ favour. This 
may account for the fact that the characters of the Argonaut myth were less 
popular in the Byzantine period. Since they could not have served as 
spiritually beneficial examples to be followed by the Christians, Church 
Fathers preferred to be reticent about them. Even Gregory the Theologian, 
who is distinguished among the Holy Fathers for multiple references to 
mythological materials, does not mentioned the characters of the Argonaut 
myth. Their names appear more often in historical writings, whose authors 
give an account of Colchian events, and each case of such a reference 
conveys a negative message.
14
  
                                                 
13
  Euripides, Medea, translated into Georgian by B. Bregvadze, introduced and commented on by 
R. Gordeziani, Tbilisi, 1996, 11 (in Georgian). 
14
  Georgica, The Notes of Byzantine Writers about Georgia, edited by S. Kaukhchishvili, vol. I, 
VIII, Tbilisi (in Georgian). 


Christian Tropology of the Argonaut Myth

Evdokimova, Alexandra

Ελληνικά χαράγματα ως σημεία των βυζαντινών οδοιπόρων

Dinu, Tudor

The Legend of the Argonauts in Procopius’ of Caesarea "Gothic Wars"

Metreveli, Medea

Phasis 10 (II), 2007 
 
 
Medea Metreveli (Tbilisi) 
THE TENDENCIES TO REHABILITATE MEDEA’S IMAGE  
IN THE 20TH CENTURY EUROPEAN LITERATURE 
(CH. WOLF, M. KARAGATSIS) 
‘In fact, there was something special in this woman,  
that excited so many minds, and it seemed  
they were unable to free themselves from her.’  
Christa Wolf, Medea: Voices 
 
Euripides’ Medea has inspired a lot of writers since ancient times till 
nowadays. It is owing to the great tragedian that Medea became one of the 
most interesting and popular images for world literature. Bearing in mind 
many various interpretations, the 20
th
 century European literature is 
distinguished by especially interesting tendencies. The one of "acquitting" 
Medea is particularly remarkable. There are various motivations. If Georgian 
writers are more concerned with discharging Medea from moral 
responsibility, European literature turns her image into a certain symbol of 
accomplishment of the so-called feminist ideas in modern world. This 
common tendency may be detected in the work by different writers separated 
by a remarkable chronological distance, who were less likely to be acquainted 
with each other’s works. In my paper, I will dwell on the novel The Great 
Chimaera (1953) by M. Karagatsis, a 20
th
 century Greek writer, and the novel 
Medea: Voices (1998) by a German writer Christa Wolf. These two books are 
completely different. The Great Chimaera describes the life-story of a French 
woman, Marina Reiz and indirectly alludes to Medea, while Medea: Voices is 
completely based on the myth. Anyway, both works reflect very interesting 
tendencies for the interpretation of the message conveyed through the image 
of Medea. 
Medea Metreveli 
 
216 
The novel The Great Chimaera is distinguished for original parallels 
between its central character, Marina, and several mythological images 
(Helen, Phaedra, Jocasta, Medea) out of which an allusion to Medea is the 
most essential. Marina is related to Medea in double ways: through her 
personal attitude to the mythological character and through the key episodes 
of her life that resemble Medea’s tragedy. M. Karagatsis unambiguously 
resorts to Medea as a prototype to create Marina’ artistic image, and offers a 
completely different and original way of rehabilitating the mythological 
character.
1
 
In the novel, Marina can be identified with Medea at several levels: 1. 
both are strangers – Medea was brought to Greece by Jason in the same way 
as Marina by Yannis; however, their functions are partly reversed. According 
to ancient Greek tradition, Jason took the barbarian woman to civilized 
Hellas, while Yannis brings Marina from civilized and emancipated France to 
patriarchal and less emancipated Greece. 2. Marina, like Medea, finds it 
difficult to adapt herself to Greek society. 3. Marina unintentionally becomes 
the murderer of her children (her six-year-old girl dies because of her 
negligence, while her suicide as she was in the family way equals the murder 
of a yet unborn baby), while according to Euripides, Medea kills her two boys 
purposefully. 4. Suicide is the only way-out for both characters: "But for this 
(Marina says about the baby in her belly), I would die, get released."
2 These 
words are the repercussion of Euripides’ Medea: "I am undone, I have 
resigned all joy in my life, and I want to die."
3  
Karagatsis does not deny that Medea killed her children; however, he 
looks for a certain "good reason". The Great Chimaera presents a number of 
other parallels as well. We learn from Marina’s recollections that she was 
educated in classical philology and her doctoral thesis dealt with the 
interpretation of Medea’s image. She remembers how she addressed the 
Examination Board at the presentation of her thesis: "Medea fostered pathos 
in me. A woman, who killed her children because of erotic jealousy, is she a 
psychopath or not? This was the question that puzzled me. ... No, she is not a 
psychopath. If she was, she would not have inspired the genius of Euripides, 
who never looked among maladies for the themes for his tragedies. Medea is 
a psychological individual, whose mind is blinded by erotic pathos in the 
same way as this could happen to any ordinary individual. According to this 
                                                 
1
  Metreveli M., For the Relationship of Marina with Euripidean Medea according to M. Karagat-
sis’ novel The Great Chimaera, The Proceedings of the Republic Conference I, KSU, Logos 
2003, 130-133. 
2
  Καξαγάηζεο Μ., Η Μεβάθδ Χίιαζνα, Αζήλα, 2001, 318. 
3
  Euripides, Medea, The Loeb Classical Library, 1994, 2001, 227-228. 
The Tendencies to Rehabilitate Medea’s Image in... 
 
217 
unusual conclusion, a person who is not capable of experiencing such pathos 
is not physiological."
4
 
Marina’s pathetic words in defence of Medea evidently pursuaded the 
professors, who used to regard her with scepticism, in the rightness of her 
arguments and she was conferred the doctoral degree. So, Marina was fond of 
Medea’s pathos since her young age. She found quite logical what Medea, 
driven by erothic pathos, committed with blinded mind. And later in her life, 
her fondness for Medea developed into her assimilation with the mythical 
character. 
Feeling the parallels between Medea and herself, Marina tried to drift 
apart from her "mythic prototype" after she became pregnant with her second 
child. This is attested by the the following fragment from the novel: "From 
that very day when she felt herself pregnant, she did not take Medea from the 
table."
5
 
This episode implies the desire of a woman to avoid the curse of killing 
her second child. However, her suicide, which at the same time means the 
murder of her unborn child, does not allow her to overcome the "Medea 
complex". 
Marina, the central character of The Great Chimaera, is French. Her 
nationality makes her appear different, distinguished in Greek society, which 
she evantually confronts. The author mentions several times that the woman 
is "alien" to Greeks. I find it relevant to cite a fragment where the aurthor 
presents Marina and her mother-in-law, Ana Reiz, as the opposing sides: "It is 
impossible for these two women to live under the same roof. They are put 
apart by the infinite gap that lies between the countries, peoples and the 
differing consciousness. One is the daughter of brave fair-haired vikings, 
greedy for gold and pleasure. The other is Asian, with secluded spirit, in 
whose veins flows the blood of real sailors. They fight the waves, in order to 
sell the fruits of the earth. Some regard the sea as the means, and others as the 
target."
6
 
Marina and her mother-in-law are united by a common sorrow beside the 
bed of the dying child. However, the author again accentuates the difference 
in their nationalities: "The seas, the mountains, the rivers that set apart 
Normandy and Cassos, again stretch out between them ... The Norman and 
the Asian definitely felt the infinite distance that put them apart, different 
                                                 
4
  Καξαγάηζεο Μ., Η Μεβάθδ Χίιαζνα, 24. 
5
  Ibid; 298. 
6
  Ibid; 65. 
Medea Metreveli 
 
218 
bloods, which made their hearts beat in different ways. Nothing united them 
any more."
7  
Karagatsis aims to present the status of a woman, her concept of freedom, 
her attitude to the problem. His method is very interesting. The conflict 
should be discussed at two levels. On the one hand, the writer brings a strange 
woman into the context of the Greek society, into Greece and shows how she 
"adapts herself" to the Greek reality. He is interested if this is possible, or if 
the attempt is doomed to a failure. On the other hand, the author resorts to 
another device to make the conflict more severe and to give it tragic 
colouring. The opposition becomes more conspicuous when he accentuates 
Marina’s nationality: Marina is French, which accounts for her conflict with 
Greek society, the conflict with old and firm traditions. 
Karagatsis’ intention is clear. He aims to show the reader the conflict 
between two cultures, two nations, two societies. In this respect, France is the 
antipode of Greece. The conflict and the tragic end of the character is 
inevitable. For Marina, rejected and ousted by the society, the suicide is the 
only way for survival, for preserving her own self, for becoming free, while 
Euripides’ Medea ends with apotheosis, which in fact means that Medea 
leaves the world of mortals. So, the parallels between Marina and Medea in 
Karagatsis’ novel are conceptual in their essence, as Marina embodies all 
what was essential in Euripides’ tragedy: the free and emancipated woman. 
The novel Medea:Voices by Christa Wolf is distinguished by unusual 
architectonics. In a highly original way, the novel is divided into 11 chapters, 
each introduced by the quotations of well-known writers. Each chapter is 
named after one of the characters of the novel – in fact, the characters 
represent the voices, the thoughts of the characters.
8 "This new form of 
narration developed in parallel with other methods. It was only later that I 
heard the voices and realized that this way enabled me ... to present each 
literary figure equally and at the same time present Medea from an entirely 
different angle with all of her controversial character"
9
, Christa Wolf writes. 
Although the novel is based on Euripides’ tragedy (it follows the central 
plot elements of the myth), the author is principally opposed to a number of 
questions related to Medea, thus attempting to restore the earlier version 
existing in pre-Euripidean sources. And finally, what is Christa’s Medea like? 
Is she a barbarian, a savage, a sorceress, or simply an emancipated, free 
                                                 
7
  Ibid; 260. 
8
  Danelia M., Literary Interpretation of the Myth about Medea in Christa Wolf’s Work, The 
Proceedings of the Republic Conference I, KSU, Logos 2003, 68-73. 
9
  Christa Wolf, Medea: Stimmen. Voraussetzungen zu einem Text, München, 2000, 80. 
The Tendencies to Rehabilitate Medea’s Image in... 
 
219 
woman, who is unable to get used to injustice and fights for self-assertion in 
the patriarchal world at the expense of her life? 
Medea abandoned her fatherland Colchis only because she could not bear 
injustice, when Aeetes, willing to retain his royal power, let mad women 
dismember Apsyrtus. "I went with Jason as I could not bear any more to stay 
in this irrecoverable, doomed Colchis"
10
, says Medea. She shares the fate of 
her aunt, Circe, who also had to leave Colchis when she opposed the king 
together with her supporters. Circe was accused of crime and was ousted from 
her fatherland. 
When presenting Medea’s character, the author accentuates such 
properties as pride, defiance and fearlessness. 
Pride – Jason noticed this character trait of Medea already in Colchis and 
could not hide his admiration: 
"I saw how proudly she went down the streets of her country, holding up 
her head, how everyone around greeted her, how they talked to her. She 
seemed to be flying freely and boldly on the waves of universal wonder."
11
 
It was her pride that the Corinthians could not forgive her and interpreted 
as arrogance. According to Laocoon, the astrologist of the king, "the court 
was bothered with her pride".
12
 In spite of this, Laocoon is fascinated with 
Medea and can not hide his admiration for Colchian women in general. They 
are so much different from Corinthian women, who have become the slaves 
and shadows of Corinthian men. "Well, how should I tell her that the 
Corinthians attribute her self-confidence to arrogance and that is why they 
hate her. ... However, other Colchian women are none the less. They do the 
hardest work, and still walk around with their heads up as if they were the 
wives of the nobles. The surprising thing is that they can not walk otherwise. I 
like this habit of theirs, but it worries me as well."
13
 
In Colchis, Medea’s mother taught her the following: "if some time 
anyone wants to ruin you, they will first have to kill your pride. This is truly 
so, and will be so for ever", Medea recollects.
14
 
And truly, Medea is unable to tole rate the stern patriarchal society of 
Corinth, where a word or a thought of a woman is of no value. She openly 
confronts Greek society by her deeds and explains her behavior to Jason in 
the following way: "I have not come here from Colchis to go around 
humble."15 
                                                 
10
  Christa Wolf, Medea:Voices, translated into Georgian by M. Mirianashvili, Tbilisi, 2004, 67. 
11
  Ibid; 26. 
12
  Ibid; 32. 
13
  Ibid; 112. 
14
  Ibid; 10. 
15
  Ibid; 43. 
Medea Metreveli 
 
220 
Medea exasperated the Corinthians with her defiance as well. She ruined 
the stereotype of an obedient woman, acceptable for the Corinthians, and in 
this way put herself and her children in a great danger. "As if she was playing 
with fire on purpose. Her manner of walking also has something defiant in 
itself. Yes, defiant, this is exactly the right word"
16
, says Jason. 
Medea does not restrict herself and behaves as a queen even in the palace, 
at the festive dinner of the king. "I behaved like a queen. I wished to irritate 
the king. But am I not a queen? I am an offspring of the king"
17
, Medea says.  
Medea opposes the Corinthians in their fundamental manners. Despite 
Jason’s numerous warnings, she goes around with her hair down: "Neither 
does she stop walking around with that wild disheveled hair! She never has 
them gathered, as it suits married Corinthian women. ... Shameless!"
18
 
Even the free and delightful laugh of Medea is the object of judgments: 
"Only she laughs so, why should we bear her impudent laugh?!"
19 Turon says 
to Glauce. 
Medea’s appreciation of Corinthian discontent with her is quite sensible 
and although she clearly sees the approach of her death, she does not lose her 
temper. Fear is alien to her. Medea has found the fearsome mystery of 
Corinth and has unveiled it although she understands that the Corinthians will 
never forgive her. "What is the use of pondering and grieving. I would act 
like this anyway and would not end up my days in this world of gods. There 
is even no air left here for me to breath in"
20
, says Medea.  
Medea is truly distinguished in the Corinthian society. She is not like 
obedient wives of Corinthian men, for which the Corinthians detest her even 
more. "The Corinthian say I am reckless in the same way as I used to be. For 
them each woman, who has a bit of wits, is reckless. While the wives of those 
Corinthians remind me of thoroughly trained, tamed animals"
21
, says Medea. 
Corinthian women cannot even utter a word in the company of their 
husbands, which is intolerable not only for Medea, but for other Colchians as 
well. "The right for the first word belonged to men; more than that, they are 
supposed to speak instead of women."
22
 
Even Jason believes that it is necessary to kill even a slight expression of 
free will in women. This is a commonly accepted opinion in Corinth. "We 
                                                 
16
  Ibid; 30. 
17
  Ibid; 8. 
18
  Ibid; 43. 
19
  Ibid; 92. 
20
  Ibid; 127. 
21
  Ibid; 9. 
22
  Ibid; 51. 
The Tendencies to Rehabilitate Medea’s Image in... 
 
221 
should keep women in our captivity like slaves. We should kill in them any 
will to resist."
23
  
Medea could not accept Oystros’ advice to live in a shadow and do not 
irritate people, because she simply could not live so. Here Medea admits that 
some inner forces drove her to the floor of the accused, and served as a reason 
for ousting her from the city. "All right, I, Medea, am a witch, if you wish so. 
But who are you? Strangers, savages. You will never see my fear and 
humiliation"
24
, says Medea. 
Christa Wolf’s Medea is a free, emancipated and accomplished woman, 
who calls on others to express their own feelings, thoughts and desires. "Do 
not deny yourself any thought, even on the most shameful desires."
25
  
The writer completely relieves Medea of the responsibility for killing her 
children. Unlike Karagatsis’ novel, Christa’s Medea does not commit suicide 
in order to free herself. Medea is ousted from Corinth, which is the same as 
the escape from the oppressive society of Corinth. 
So, the novels discussed above imply typological parallels as concerns the 
understanding of Medea’s image. Both, Marina-Medea and Medea of Christa 
Wolf, are the symbols of feminist ideas. Both have to live in the society 
where female rights are rather limited. In one case, the protest ends in a 
suicide, while in the other case, the central character is ousted. These novels, 
written in the 1930s and the 1990s, have common pathos. Besides, as the 
author of the Great Chimera is a man, we may conclude that the so-called 
"feminist protest" is indirect in the first case, and direct in the second. 
                                                 
23
  Ibid; 148. 
24
  Ibid; 130. 
25
  Ibid; 98. 


The Tendencies to Rehabilitate Medea’s Image in the 20th Century European Literature

Not a member yet