Journal Phasis - Greek and Roman Studies

Tonia, Nana

Sappho and \u27πόλιον γῆρας\u27

Sukhishvili, Tamar

Phasis 9, 2006 
 
Tamar Sukhishvili (Tbilisi) 
LIVER DIVINATION IN CICERO’S DE DIVINATIONE * 
Praesensioet scientia rerum futurarum (the foresight and knowledge of 
future events), Cicero gives this definition of the term divinatio at the very 
beginning of his treatise De Divinatione (Div. I, I, 1). He goes on to restrict 
this definition in an important way: Id est de divinatione, quae est earum 
rerum, quae fortuitae putantur, praedictio atque praesensio / I refer to divina-
tion, which is the foreseeing and foretelling of events considered as 
happening by chance (Div. I, V, 9).1 
This paper does not discuss the practice of divination and its theory in the 
ancient world, dealing chiefly with the depiction of hepatoscopy (liver 
inspection) in De Divinatione. First of all I will explain why I paid attention 
to the two definitions of the word divination presented by Cicero. The first 
definition explains the general idea of divination, and the second one 
concentrates on the remarkable detail: events, which are thought of as 
happening by chance.  
Having taken into consideration the peculiarities of the Mesopotamian 
model of divination and the idea that there was no such thing as chance2 
I consider this definition important to get an idea of Greek and Roman 
models.  
The treatise by Cicero is especially significant, first as a source depicting 
ancient ritual practice (in the first part the treatise contains much information 
on Greek and Roman divination practice) and second as a source for the 
                                                 
  The paper was presented during the Scottish Classical Postgraduate Conference at Edinburgh 
University on 24th of May 2006. 
1  Cicero, De Divinatione, with an English Translation and Introduction by W. A. Falconer, The 
Loeb Classical Library, v. 20, Harvard University Press 2001 = De Divinatione. 
2  Brill’s New Pauly (Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World), edited by H. Cancik and H. 
Schneider, v. 5, Leiden-Boston 2004, 569-577 =BNP. 
Liver Divination in Cicero’s De Divinatione 
 
195
theory of Stoicism (the second part of the treatise basically concentrates on a 
criticism of the Stoic arguments), as the Stoics used the theory of divination 
to support the theory of determinism. Stoics’ opinions on divination practice 
can be found in other treatises as well: De Natura Deorum and De Fato.  
In his works, Cicero derives his arguments chiefly from Greek sources 
and develops and illustrates them with examples from his experience. As a 
result we have a picture of both Greek and Roman divination practices. 
Though divination was not a part of official Roman cult it played an 
important role in the social and political life of the Roman people and even 
the fact that Cicero was very interested in it and found it necessary to dedicate 
a book to this topic underlines the importance of divination in the life of the 
Roman society of those times.  
In his treatise, Cicero presents and describes the common forms of 
divination and discusses and evaluates the public opinion about this issue. 
One of the most important forms of the divination was a hepatoscopy by 
examining entrails, for which there is evidence from as early as the middle of 
third millennium. The first references to the divination from sacrifice are in 
Homer (Il. 24,221; Od. 21, 145; 22, 318-323). Later on this practice is more 
fully described.3 And Cicero’s work is an important example of it. The 
information provided in the treatise about Greek and Roman divination is 
quite rich and valuable, as usually literary sources do not discuss the details of 
liver divination practice, they mainly focus on the results and not on the 
process. However, entrails examination and divination is implied in the 
content of a sacrificial ritual.  
On the evidence of the treatise, we can conclude that liver divination 
(Haruspicum disciplina) derived from Etruria and it was the most important 
form of divination of those times. The practice, which was a part of a 
sacrificial ritual, was performed the following way: the first important stage 
of the ritual was the choice of a sacrificial animal. People believed that a 
sacrifice that was supposed to be offered to the god was not haphazard. They 
thought that an intelligent force, which was diffused throughout the universe, 
guided the choice of the sacrificial victim.  
The divine response depended on the condition of the liver – whether it 
was healthy or not. If any part of the liver was absent (according to Cicero it 
was head of the liver, ) this was considered a bad omen.  
According to the common belief, a change in the vitals occurred – 
something was added or taken away – at the very moment when the sacrifice 
was offered. And that was an influence of a divine power.  
                                                 
3  BNP, v. 5, 569-577. 
 Tamar Sukhishvili  
 
196 
Divination was a chance given to humans to avoid future disaster but 
people do not always manage to use the chance because of their lack of skills 
in reading the signs:  
Male coniecta maleque interpretata falsa sunt non rerum vitio, sed 
interpretum inscientia / If prophecies, based on erroneous deduction and 
interpretations turn out to be false, the fault is not chargeable to the signs but 
to the lack of skill in the interpreters (Div, I, LII, 118). 
Cicero depicts the practice of hepatoscopy together with the other 
practices of divination and thus tries to criticize the Stoic doctrine. He argues 
that the method of the Stoic argumentation is completely illogical and full of 
contradictions, as illogical as the background and essence of divination itself.  
Cicero builds up his criticism according to the following plan: He 
concentrates on the scheme suggested by the Stoics: if x…than y. Cicero 
thinks that there is a conflict between the propositions, i.e. between x and y, 
and the first proposition is not a true conditional and thus cannot be the basis 
for the following conclusions. Besides, a conjunction x+y is a collection of 
incompatible conjunctions. This opinion is best explained in De Fato 12-15 
on the example of astrological divinatory theorem: Si quis… oriente Canicula 
natus est, is in mari non morietur:4 Si enim est verum, quod ita conectitur: "Si 
quis oriente Canicula natus est, is in mari non morietur", illud quoque verum 
est: "Si Fabius oriente Canicula natus est, Fabius in mari non morietur." 
Pugnant igitur haec inter se, Fabium oriente Canicula natum esse, et Fabium 
in mari moriturum; et quoniam certum in Fabio ponitur, natum esse eum 
Canicula oriente, haec quoque pugnant, et esse Fabium, et in mari esse 
moriturum. Ergo haec quoque coniunctio est ex repugnantibus, "et est Fabius, 
et in mari Fabius morietur", quod, ut propositum est, ne fieri quidem potest. 
Ergo illud, "morietur in mari Fabius", ex eo genere est, quod fieri non potest. 
Omne ergo, quod falsum dicitur in futuro, id fieri non potest. / If this is a true 
conditional, "If someone was born at the rising of the Dogstar, he will not die 
at sea", so is this one, "If Fabius was born at the rising of the Dogstar, 
Fabius will not die at sea." Therefore these propositions conflict with each 
other: that Fabius was born at the rising of the Dogstar, and that Fabius will 
die at sea. And since Fabius’ case the premise that he was born at the rising 
of the Dogstar is certain, there is also a conflict between the proposition that 
Fabius exists and the proposition that he will die at sea. Hence the 
conjunction "Both: Fabius exists, and Fabius will die at sea" is one of 
incompatible conjuncts, because it is incapable of happening as stated. Hence 
                                                 
4  The Hellenistic Philosophers, ed. A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, v. 1, Translations of the 
Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary, Cambridge 1987, 232 =HP 
Liver Divination in Cicero’s De Divinatione 
 
197
"Fabius will die at sea" belongs to the class of impossibilities. Therefore 
everything falsely stated about the future cannot happen (De Fato, VI, 12).  
The general divinatory theorem can be found in "De Divinatione": Sunt 
autem di, significant ergo; et non, si significant, nullas vias dant nobis ad 
significationis scientiam (frustra enim significarent); nec, si dant vias, non est 
divinatio; est igitur divinatio. / There are gods, therefore, they give us signs; 
and if they give such signs, it is not true that they give us no means to 
understand those signs – otherwise their signs would be useless; and if they 
give us the means, it is not true that there is no divination; therefore there is 
divination (Div. I, XXXVIII, 83). Cicero’s commentary on the theorems 
proposed by the Stoics is as follows: Arcem tu quindem Stoicurum", inquam, 
"Quinte, defendis, siquidem ista sic reciprocantur, ut et, si divinatio sit, di sint 
et, si di sint, sit divinatio. Quorum neutrum tam facile quam tu arbitraris 
conceditur. Nam et natura significari futura sine deo possunt, et ut sint di 
potest fieri ut nulla ab eis divinatio generi humano tributa sit." / Why you are 
defending the very citadel of the Stoics in asserting the interdependence of 
these two propositions: "if there is divination there are gods", and, "if there 
are gods there is divination." But neither is granted as readily as you think. 
For it is possible that nature gives signs of future events without the 
intervention of a god, and it may be that there are gods without their having 
conferred any power of divination upon men" (Div, I, VI, 10). The Stoics 
develop the principle: even things that will not be are possible, and Cicero 
says the opposite: they are impossible.5 The point is that actually the Stoics 
had the specific logical arguments of their own. And the differences that 
occurred between the Stoics and their opponents are due to a different 
definition and understanding of logical matters. The Stoics’ logic was closely 
connected with the signs and their semantics and their theory was based on 
the existence of the connection between those signs that occur in the human 
world and the divine world. Besides, their ethics was based on the formula 
if…then meaning that they took something as established. Thus, this was in 
contradiction with the Epicurean ethics based on the principle that nothing 
                                                 
5  For the discussion of this passage see "Divination as a science, together with certain Stoic 
modal principles, allows us to infer that which has been predicted as true is necessary (Fat. 14) 
and that which has been predicted as false is impossible (Fat.13). Hence there appears to be a 
contradiction between the statements that all (predicted) future truths are necessary and that 
some are non-necessary; and between the statements that all (predicted) future falsehoods are 
impossible and that some are possible. As a result, Chrysippus has to give up either divination – 
and thus lose the support for the Fate Principle – or his concepts of possibility and non-necessi-
ty. Thus, the outcome is a variant of the standard dilemma: fate or that which depends on us? 
(Bobzien S., Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy, Oxford 1998, 144).  
 Tamar Sukhishvili  
 
198 
can come into being out of nothing (Lucretius, 2. 251-93)6. Cicero very often 
draws parallels to Epicurean studies and offers a presumable Epicurean 
response – laughter.  
In her book Susanne Bobzien provides us a detailed discussion of the 
arguments of the Stoics and says that they are not as absurd as Cicero and 
other opponents present them. The main mistake to the author’s opinion is an 
approach towards the Stoics argumentation. The opponents do not consider 
the issue as a whole.7  
Cicero’s critical method is as follows: to affirm nothing and to question 
everything. This was the characteristic mental attitude in which the disciples 
of the New Academy approached every question.8 And he succeeds in 
disputing the theories of his adversaries with logic and a fair measure of 
irony. His dispute is based mostly on intriguing questions. These questions 
lead up to Cicero’s conclusion that myths should have no place in philosophy.  
I think the best example of one of these puzzling questions can be found 
in the passage which discusses the liver divination performed just before 
Caesar’s death: Sed affers in tauri opimi extis immolante Caesare cor non 
fuisse; id quia non potuerit accidere ut sine corde victima illa viveret, 
iudicandum esse tum interisse cor cum immolaretur. Qui fit, ut alterum 
intellegas, sine corde non potuisse bovem vivere, alterum non videas, cor 
subito non potuisse nescio quo avolare? Ego enim possum vel nescire, quae 
vis sit cordis ad vivendum, vel suspicari contactum aliquo morbo bovis exile 
et exiguum et vietum cor et dissimile cordis fuisse. Tu vero quid habes, quare 
putes, si paulo ante cor fuerit in tauro opimo, subito id in ipsa immolatione 
interisse? / But you say, Once, when Caesar was offering a sacrifice, there 
was no heart in the entrails of the sacrificial bull; and since it would have 
been impossible for the victim to live without a heart, the heart must have 
disappeared at the moment of immolation. How does it happen that you 
understand the one fact, that the bull could not have lived without a heart and 
do not realize the other, that the heart could not suddenly have vanished I 
know not where? As for me, possibly I do not know what vital function the 
heart performs; if I do I suspect that the bull’s heart, as the result of a 
disease, became much wasted and shrunken and lost its resemblance to a 
heart. But, assuming that only a little while before the heart was in the 
sacrificial bull, why do you think it suddenly disappeared at the very moment 
of immolation? (Div, II, XVI, 37) 
                                                 
6  HP, 106. 
7  Bobzien S., Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy, Oxford 1998, 91-92. 
8  De Divinatione, 379, 1f.  
Liver Divination in Cicero’s De Divinatione 
 
199
And here is the culmination of the question: An quod aspexit vestitu 
purpureo excordem Caesarem, ipse corde privatus est? / Don’t you think, 
rather, that the bull lost his heart when he saw that Caesar in his purple robe 
had lost his head? (Div, II, XVI, 37) Here Cicero plays on the common use of 
cor as intelligence.9 And we can find many examples in which Cicero makes 
complete fun of this practice.  
The above-mentioned passage is noteworthy not only as a good example 
of Cicero’s severe criticism, the depiction of ritual practice, reference to the 
absence of animal’s heart also draws one’s attention. The participation of a 
heart in divination practice is considered to be very unusual. Though one can 
find the examples of heart sacrifice and possible heart divination in Greek 
linguistic materials, but it seems to be a practice of later times in the Greek 
world. Greek verb which first appears in Lucian’s work "On 
Sacrifices" (13) means to draw the heart out of the victim at a sacrifice10: And 
although the notice says that no one is to be allowed within the holy-water 
who has not clean hands, the priest himself stands there all bloody, just like 
Cyclops of old, cutting up the victim, removing the entrails, plucking out the 
heart, pouring the blood about the altar, and doing everything possible in the 
way of piety. It might be suggested that the two passages mentioned above 
concentrate on one and the same practice.  
However, turning back to the Stoics’ pro-divination arguments, though they 
were not very convincing and logical, the practice was very popular. In fact, 
Cicero explains the reason himself: Atque haec, ut ego arbitror, veteres rerum 
magis eventis moniti quam ratione docti probaverunt. / The ancients were 
influenced more by actual results then convinced by reason (Div. I, III, 5).  
Thus, Cicero actually acknowledges that a logical basis and reasoning are 
not a necessary condition for human belief and in many cases a certain event 
happening in front of us is far more important than the whole logical chain of 
reasons and causes. Hence just several examples of the famous victory of an 
army preceded by "successful" divination seemed convincing enough. 
Certainly there were several reasons that strengthened the belief in divination, 
i.e. human wish to perceive the divine power as well as human belief in his 
own power – that mortals have the ability to approach the power of gods; the 
definition of divination as an art; long history of divination, divination as a 
knowledge and experience gained by the ancestors, especially famous 
personae, and a number of examples concerning successful divination. 
Besides, divination was not considered only as a fortune-telling business, it 
was a kind of stimulus for decision-making process. Divination in its essence 
                                                 
9  De Divinatione, 410, 2f.  
10  Liddell H. G., Scott R., Greek-English Lexicon (9th edition), Oxford 1996.  
 Tamar Sukhishvili  
 
200 
contained a well-designed mechanism of self-defense, that one can never 
avoid mistakes. Moreover, there was one very simple reason – human 
inclination towards rituals – that is best expressed in the words of Quintus: 
…quid fissum in extis, quid fibra valeat, accipio; quae causa sit, nescio. 
Atque horum quidem plena vita est; extis enim omnes fere utuntur. / As to the 
cleft or thread in the entrails: I accept their meaning; I do not know their 
cause. And life is full of individuals in just the same situation that I am in, for 
nearly everybody employs entrails in divining (Div. I, X, 16).  
To my opinion, this passage best expresses the phenomenon of divination, 
the practice that was deeply intruded into the culture and daily life. Nobody 
thought of reasons and logic. The need for divination was evident itself, 
without any additional explanations. The habits were stronger than Cicero’s 
arguments. And though Cicero completely ignores the prophetic value of 
divination, he offers a very realistic solution. He tries to find some meaning 
and goal for this practice, tries to make it useful at some points, and thus he 
suggests – why not utilize it for the public goal? It might be a good way of 
making a public event more significant and more valuable and it is a good 
way of keeping political power as well. And here I would like to remind you 
of his work on the republic where he had written "in favour of maintenance of 
the rights of augury and of auspices. But these practices were engrafted on the 
Roman constitution and he advocated their observance because of his belief 
in obedience to law and because, as a member of the aristocratic party, he 
thought augury and auspices the best means of controlling the excess of 
democracy."11 Thus, in De Divinatione Cicero accepts the importance of 
divination practice for public uses.  
                                                 
11  De Divinatione, 216.  


English

Liver Divination in Cicero’s "De Divinatione"

Nizharadze, Ketevan

For the Individualization of Trojan Characters in the "Iliad"

Metreveli, Medea

Τα βασικά χαρακτηριστικά της γυναικείας \u27αρχιτεκτονικής\u27 στο έργο του Μ. Καραγάτση

Dolidze, Nino

Phasis 2-3. 2000 
Nino Dolidze (Tbilisi) 
A NEW INTERPRETATION OF A MAN AND ITS F'UNCTION IN THE TEACHING OF 
SOPIDSTS (FROM THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW) 
Already in Antiquity two main positions were distinguished regarding Sophists' teaching: 1. positive 
- citizens of Athens, especially the nobility, admired them, becoming their pupils and followers; 2. 
critical - this is, how the attitude of their contemporary philosophers can be characterized. Sophists were 
considered to be "clowns" or "sellers of knowledge", who turned the truth into a means of gaining 
popularity and wealth. 
The picture has been partially changed in the following times. From the middle of the XIX 
century Plato's traditional presentation of the Sophists was vigorously debated. As Guthry mentioned in 
The Sophists: "Zeller's History was the last to uphold unchallenged the view, that the teaching of even 
the best of the Sophists was bound in the end to reduce everything to a matter of individual preference 
and prejudice, and turn philosophy from the search for truth into a means of satisfying the demands of 
selfishness and vanity"1• Such a critical view was strongly held in German literature and Sophists were 
clamed even in demoralization of Athenians by corrupted teaching. Grote was the first, who opposed 
this view in his History of Greece2. 
From that period of time, particular attention has been paid to Sophists and their teaching. Stal-
baum, Joel, Gomperz, Laas and Nietzsche were among their defenders. Although, the negative attitude 
was overcome, and most scientists considered, that "the questions and controversies of that time have 
lost nothing of their actuality'',3 the interest of scholars was mainly directed to the problems of social 
plane - the low, its theoretical basis, and the influence of their activity on the social life of Athens. 
Philosophical aspects of their teaching, is usually observed in the full context of the epoch and is not 
considered as an individual and highly valuable teaching. "Representatives of liberal and democratic 
thinking in Greece", Founders of the strongest intellectual movement4 - that is, how Sophists are re-
garded by the scientists. Empiricism and skepticism are two main points thought to be the clue of their 
teaching and activity5. 
Thus, it is doubtless, that many aspects of their thinking became influential for the following 
generations. But in the performed paper we'd like to stress problems particularly of philosophical 
meaning - problems of knowledge and cognition, self-cognition of a man, his concept and place in the 
universe. These problems, as we think, were adopted, consciously or unconsciously, by the new phi-
losophy of middle ages. 
What is the cognition and what is the object of it? Plato explains it as a sudden comprehension 
of the information, that has been empirically gathered and kept in our souls. There are ideas, that exist 
independently from a man. Moreover, the man himself is simply a reflection of the idea of "Mankind". 
Our soul adopts them by exercise and learning, and in a particular moment, through an unexpected in-
ner enlightening the information changes into the knowledge of the truth and the man begins to cognise 
the surrounding world (Plat. VIl Epist. 344b-c). 
How do Sophists understand the phenomenon of cognition? At a first site, they believe, that it is 
a knowledge, obtained by thorough training and examinations. They, themselves, are universal teachers, 
systematizers of Greek literature, mythology, grammar, they are professionals in mathematics, mcdi-
1 Guthrie W.K.C. The Sophists, Cambridge, 1979, p. 11 
2 Grote G., A History ofGreece,v.7 London, 1888 
3 Schmid-Sta.hlin. Geschicte der griechischen Literatur. III Band. Milnchcn, 1948, S., 216 
4 Lesky A. Geschicte der griechischen Litcratur. Milnchen, 1993, S., 388 
5 Popper K., The Open Society and its Enemies, London, 1966 
96 Nino Do\idze 
cine, rhetoric, low and sometimes they try to set up an information that has no scientific value6. But, on 
th~ o~her _hand, their contribution to the development of their contemporary and following philosophical 
t~nlcing is more tha~ evident. Protagoras states the concept of inherent ability of human being to cog-
mse the world and hunself, that many centuries later results in relativism and subjectivism. His basic 
statement, that the man is the measure of every thing, shouts to the words of our contemporary philoso-
P?er: There is no existence without cognition, self-cognition is the only way for human being to detect 
his o,vn ontological position.7 
. General novelty, developed by Sophists was the rejection of the basic principles of presocratic 
philosophy of nature - that is, searching cipxi\, the initial cause of the universe. A man, a human being 
becomes an object of sophistic observation. He measures the reality, he determines the truth, so he is 
th~ o~y one, who can be blamed, that the universe exists. There is no sense to search any independent, 
obJecnv~ truth ~omewhere in the world of real things. A man can not cognise and comprehend the 
world without himself, merged from his own position of observer. Thus, we can assume, that there is no 
world without human being, without observer, who observes and through observation, creates the world 
hie et nunc . The truth, as well as the objective reality, is relative and depends on the view of observer. A 
human being can not perceive the past, the period of time, when he did not existed. So, he can not judge 
about any initial cause of the world unless this cause is himself. Even logos, the primary word, an origi-
nal power, considered by Heraclitus as a basic pivot of the universe, is humiliated from the divine, 
highest idea, to a simple technical mean of rhetoric, that is wholly subordinated to the man and his will 
and serves for him as a tool of creation. It loses its supernatural character and becomes a part of a lin-
guistic game, helping subject to comprehend an objective reality. All mentioned above doesn't mean, 
that Sophists reduced the importance of this powerful tool. They nearly worship it not for its divinity, 
but for its ability to unite, express and confirm totally different and mutually exclusive opinions about 
the same thing or event. This principle of "Double Argumentation" is the act, when the essence of any 
object loses its independence and becomes entirely subordinated to the opinion, expressed about it, to 
the angle of observation, to the man, his internal world and his will. Such a disregard of any supreme 
power is the only way for the man to determine his ontological position and to get free from the shack-
les of objective reality. 
Such an attitude towards the language and the word can explain the fact, that Sophists revealed 
only philological interests and did not considered any aspect of the philosophy of language. 
All the above mentioned greatly affected self-comprehension and self-evaluation of a human 
being. If, in a mythological system he considering himself as a mythological character, an unworthy 
benefactor of the brilliant generations of Gods and Heroes, in a new philosophy he recognized to be a 
central figure of the universe. This was the basis for the strong feeling of respect, that characterized the 
citizens of Greece and especially the Athens in that period. 
The experiment of "Double observation" or "Double Argumentation" developed by Sophists, 
brought out the opposition between man and nature, that can be generalized as the dichotomy of N6µos--
<l>uov;, a key problem of the Greek thought in V-IV cc. It covers a great range of questions - theological 
aspects, problems of low and TTOAl TE1a, some ethical problems, and, generally, the ~pposition between 
artificial and natural. In a philosophical meaning, the dichotomy covers anthropological problems - the 
place of a free man in the universe, relationship between natural and human lows, between low and free 
will. Protagoras explains the dichotomy by a new interpretation of an old m~ of Prom~t~~us: 11:e cen-
tral character of the story is a man, and not a the God, the man, who, despite the proh1b1tlon of Zeus, 
receives a sacred flame from Prometheus and through it receives a supreme knowledge, TEXVTJ , profes-
sional ski1ls, an empirical experience and ability to comprehend and learn. But Promethe~s divine gift 
had one big disadvantage - the man looses his innocence and is merg~d- from the ~ature, b~mg not more 
the part of it. By receiving the prohibited gift he rejects the God's d1vme protection a~d 1s left alone -
opposed to the obscure forces of the nature and the God. Although the man always asp1_r~s to get closer 
to the nature and the God, there is no way back - once started, the process of cognition can not be 
stopped. That is the moment, when v6µos- stars functioning. . . . 
Plato mentions in Legges: Sophists say, that the most bea_ut_1ful an 1m~ortant .thmgs are created 
b tu e and Ka1.pos- while the less important - by art. Indetermm1ty and acc1dentahty are the charac-y na r , ' . b. . I Th . 
teristics of the God. Only the free will, that acts Wlthout any o ~ectwes, can tru y create. e art 1s 
6 JioceB A .ct> . Mcropiur A.HnPIHOH 3 creTHKH,M ., 1969 crp. 23 
7 M aMap.l(alllBRJlH M . Kapre3HaHCKHe P a3MbilllJJeHHH, M . , 1993. crp.39 
A Nm Interpretation of a Man and its Function in the Teaching of Sophists (from the Modem Point of View) 97 
mortal, and it consists of mortal elements. It is just a play, a game, that has nothing common with the 
truth. There are no lows and orders in nature, as initial creative elements (Plat. Legg. 888e-889e). 
Protagoras stated a man to be a king of the universe. This statement was strongly debated 
among his contemporaries, as well as among the thinkers of the following ages. Thanks to his brilliant 
intuition, Protagoras discovered a principle, that became fundamental for the new philosophy - every 
human being carries the part the idea of the God in his soul, he is not only a measure of things, but their 
creator as well. By evaluating and investigating, he creates the every-minute world, that is the only re-
ality - the subjective reality. We do not try to confirm, that Protagoras went so far in his conclusions - it 
was impossible in that period of time, when the influence of polytheistic mythology was so strong - ac-
tually, the mythology was the main source for artists or philosophers. Many centuries later, by the rep-
resentatives of the new philosophy, the moment of apx~, the objective initial cause of life, had been 
overcome and adopted the idea of the God inside each of us. 
Skepticism - that's how the scholars title Sophists' teaching. Of course, it can not be named as 
pure subjectivism or relativism, although the two in many respects are linked to it. We think, that "ln-
tuitional subjectivism" will fully express the basic points and ideas of the philosophy of Sophists, that, 
thanks to their skepticism and nihilism, changed our attitude to any objective truth as well as the whole 
world of reality. 


A New Interpretation of a Man and Its Function in the Teaching of Sophists (from the Modern Point of View)

O. Tommasi, Chiara

Medea in Italian Culture: Music, Iconography, and Cinema

Mirianashvili, Tamar

A Concept of \u27New Song\u27 in "The Exhortation to the Greeks" of Clemens of Alexandria

Tsintsadze, Ketevan

Phasis 10 (II), 2007 
 
 
Ketevan Tsintsadze (Tbilisi) 
MEDEA IN MODERN GREEK DRAMATURGY 
In the 1990s, after a long period of silence, Modern Greek playwrights started 
to take vigorous interest in the themes about Medea. The following plays 
featuring Medea were composed in the mentioned period: Bost’s Medea 
(1993), a comedy, however unexpected this may sound, Kharis Lambidis’ 
Who Killed Medeas’ Children (1981), Vasilis Boundouris’ Another Medea 
(1990), Maria Kekou’s Medea, The Snake-Handed Fury of Passions com-
posed in the same year, Vasilis Zioghas’ Medea (1995) and two short plays 
by Konstantinos Bouras Medea in Athens and Medea’s Death (1997). The 
present paper will focus on the plays by Kharis Lambidis, Vasilis Boundouris, 
Maria Kekou and Vasilis Zioghas, as they are closer to each other in terms of 
their genre affiliation. 
Greek authors attempt to present the well-known myth through their own 
interpretation, although they fall short of being original. While modern world 
features Medea in a bold modernist light and often even sounds most unex-
pected and scandalous with regard to Medea, Greek playwrights go on paving 
their way through the labyrinths of numerous mythological versions, confin-
ing themselves to philological researches accomplished in belles-lettres style. 
The plays of my immediate interest are not based only on the Euripidean 
tradition. The authors make synthesis of various sources and present the con-
clusion which they find acceptable. For the first time following so many cen-
turies, Kharis Lambidis and Vasilis Boundouris relieve Medea of the shame-
ful libel of her own children’s murderer in an attempt to restore historical 
justice. Thus they rehabilitate Medea, one of the last representatives of the 
matriarchal world, who patriarchate has kept throughout centuries entangled 
in the maze of slander in pursuit of hiding away its own shabbiness. As con-
cerns Maria Kekou’s and Vasilis Zioghas’ Medeas, they take after the Euripi-
dean heroine and deprive their children of life by themselves; however, the 
Ketevan Tsintsadze 
 
276 
fact of child-slaughter is veiled in metaphysical obscurity and is presented as 
a symbolic killing to be treated in philosophical terms, rather than as the ven-
geance by a coldhearted murderer. 
Modern Greek playwrights take particular interest in Eumelos’ tradition 
(later replicated by Pausanias), which presents Medea as the rightful heir to 
the Corinthian throne, and although sources say nothing about Medea’s Co-
rinthian origin, Greek dramatists make use of this very aspect, enriching the 
centuries-hardened symbolic image with new traits. Namely, they regard Me-
dea’s arrival in Corinth not as something accidental, but as a thoroughly pre-
meditated step and offer the portrait of a politically active woman, acceptable 
for the feminism-ridden 20
th
 century. In this regard, Vasilis Boundouris’ dra-
ma Another Medea is especially significant. In the preface to the play, Vasilis 
Boundouris admits to being a secret supporter of matriarchate, and states that 
his play is aimed not only at destroying the murderous image of Medea 
created by Euripides the Woman-Hater, but also at rendering the proud feel-
ings of the women who protested against injustice and criminal nature of pa-
triarchal society.
1
 
The author achieves his goal presenting Medea as a genuinely feminist 
woman, whose soul is not burdened with appalling crimes. However, the play 
leaves an impression that despite the bold statements, the author nevertheless 
supports the stand of the masculine half of the world, and attempts to convey 
the following message: A woman who is desperate for freedom and power 
loses the image of a desired woman, which results in her female tragedy; be-
sides, Boundouris’ Medea is not completely discharged from the responsibili-
ty of killing her children. Apart from blaming Medea in her own ill fate, 
Boundouris ascribes the child-slaughter to her excessively ambitious nature, 
thus leaving her the murderer of her own children in an indirect way. 
Kharis Lambidis’ Who Killed Medea’s Children is also written after Eu-
melos’ tradition. The Drama is altogether realistic in terms of its plot; the 
author generalizes Medea’s story and touches the problems that could freely 
come up in any society of any period. Similarly to Boundouris’ play, Lambi-
dis’ Medea also claims her rights to the Corinthian throne. However, this is 
no more a mere struggle for power on the part of an ambitious woman; this is 
the protest of an idealist woman against injustice, the protest of a woman who 
despite her personal adversity, retains good reason and succeeds in uniting 
society against tyranny. In my opinion, Lambidis attempted to use Medea’s 
image to show how one may become a victim of one’s own ideals. Medea’s 
initial mistake was her taking Jason, a stranger from a remote land, who at 
first sight seemed to be seeking adventures, for Mr. Right (or rather Mr. 
                                                 
1
 Β. Μπνπληνχξεο, Ζ Άιιε Μήδεηα, εθδφζεηο Γθνβφζηε, 1990, 8. 
Medea in Modern Greek Dramaturgy 
 
277 
Knight) and her falling in love with him. However, the reality proved abso-
lutely different as soon as she left Colchis. After Jason failed to justify Me-
dea’s expectations, she started to mould a hero of him by herself. The task 
proved rather tiresome for both, which drove their relations to a deadlock. 
Lambidis’ Medea is a feminist, like Boundouris’ character. However, un-
like her counterpart, she feels that she loses interest in life and struggle with-
out Jason and asks him to come back. Lambidis’ Medea does everything for 
the sake of love and tries to restore justice for the sake of her husband’s and 
children’s future. Her tragedy lies in her excessive wishes, which collide with 
the interests of more powerful individuals, and as a result, she loses her future 
together with her love. 
Maria Kekou’s Medea, The Snake-Handed Fury of Passions was com-
posed after Euripides’ play. However, in the introductory note to one of its 
editions, the author writes: ‘In this particular play, Medea and Jason are a 
very modern couple from the neighboring apartment, whose family conflict 
reveals the everlasting clash between sexes and is lost in the depths of the pre-
historic period.’
2
 
Maria Kekou’s play does not aim to comment on Medea’s behavior or add 
new traits to her image; it simply once again reminds us that archetypes are 
everlasting and can be found at any time and in any place. The difference lies 
only in details, which are trifle and unable to change the essence of the story. 
The author states: ‘Medea’s myth can fit any period, as it points to and warns 
against the danger of extreme liberty of woman as a negative archetype.’
3
 
Vasilis Zioghas’ Medea is quite a complex play. Apart from being a 
playwright, its author takes a vigorous interest in ancient philosophy and var-
ious religions, which had great impact on his works and even puzzles the 
reader. Medea abounds of quite unexpected symbols. For example, the chorus 
is replaced here by no less that The Trinity, which, however, is the unity of 
pagan goddesses. Medea is the daughter of God the Creator, borne to him by 
a mortal woman as a human to live an earthly life. Medea takes both of her 
children back to her womb and, exhausted with awful pains, commits suicide; 
then she transforms into a single unity and sets off towards the eternity. Me-
dea’s last words imply an interesting allusion to the New Testament: ‘Why 
hast thou forsaken me, Father?’ 
Since such fragments may takes us far away and considering the time-
limit, I will fail anyway to give appropriate answers to all relevant questions, 
I will only attempt to comment on how Zioghas understands Medea. 
                                                 
2
 Μ. Κέθθνπ, Μήδεηα, ε νθηνπιφθακε εξηλχα ησλ πφζσλ, εθδφζεηο Τπαηία, 1990, 15. 
3
 Μ. Κέθθνπ, Μήδεηα, ε νθηνπιφθακε εξηλχα ησλ πφζσλ, εθδφζεηο Τπαηία, 1990, 14. 
 
Ketevan Tsintsadze 
 
278 
Although the plot is well-known at first sight, Zioghas succeeds in pre-
senting everything from a different angle. He regards the hacking up of Ab-
syrtus as a divine game, symbolically conveying the idea of Medea’s giving 
up her own past. According to her own words, Medea did evil only to herself, 
while the human eye perceived the fact as an appalling murder. Medea is a 
goddess, and unlike her above-described counterparts, gives up not only the 
royal but also the divine throne for Jason’s sake, starts to live an average mor-
tal’s life and is satisfied with the least. Medea is full of love; she loves people 
although they are afraid of her. Medea loves Jason despite his unfaithfulness, 
and is unable to do him any harm; moreover, the goddess is ready to give up 
her immortality provided Jason is with her. But the divine patience also has 
limits; on the verge of her endurance and enraged with the misery of mortals, 
she abandons the earthly life and takes her children away with her to keep 
them away from injustice. Zioghas offers an interesting interpretation of Me-
dea’s image. Unlike other dramas, the central character of Zioghas’ play is 
omnipotent and capable of attaining her aim by a mere thought. However, she 
is most helpless and most feminine, and at the same time as she is ready for 
love with all her being. She is the symbol of a woman-wife who does her best 
not to wound her husband’s pride by exposing her powers; she even forgets 
about her faculties and cries as an average woman when she is in trouble. 
Medea is the symbol of a woman-mother, who is affectionate and caring with 
her little children, her decisions are not selfish – she does not go wherever she 
wishes, but after a long meditation and conflict with her own self, she decides 
to take them away from the infinite evil of the humankind. In my mind, Vasi-
lis Zioghas, who keeps closest to the Euripidean tradition, is anyway Medea’s 
most vigorous advocate, perceiving her primarily as a tender woman. 
The overview of the four dramas enabled me to make some conclusions: 
For some unknown reasons, the highlighting of Medea’s theme in Modern 
Greek dramaturgy coincides with the growth of the Georgian Diaspora in 
Greece, and again for certain reasons, some Greek playwrights accentuate 
Medea’s Greek origin. Besides, although some of the authors try to liberate 
her from the shameful label of murderous mother, they unintentionally remain 
the followers of the existing tradition, and their efforts are limited to loud and 
bold words. For example, Vasilis Boundouris writes in the preface to his play 
that after Euripides wrote Medea, no one on the earth has ever given this 
name to their child; such a statement sounds queer if we consider that out of 
the six members of the Chair of Modern Greek Studies of our Institute, two 
are called Medea. 
Greek playwrights widely use the Medea theme to promote feminist ideas. 
However, Greek authors’ fondness for feminism is a bit strange if we bear in 
mind that since the 1990s and on, women have been most active in every field 


Not a member yet