Euripides’ Helen
A means for approaching the lives of women in
classical Athens
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Humanities
Master’s Program in Classics and Ancient Civilizations: Ancient Studies with Greek
First Supervisor: Dr E.M. van Opstall Second Supervisor: Dr J.J. Flinterman
State of originality
This document is written by student Olympia Ntasiou who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Graduate School of Humanities is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Introduction……….………...1
1. Chapter 1………...7
2. Chapter 2………29
2.1 Helen and her relationship with Menelaus……….29
2.2 Helen and her relationship with the chorus and Theonoe………...41
3. Conclusion………...54
Introduction
Greece, entering the 5th century BC, was tasked with facing a fierce external enemy, the Persians, who would try everything in their power to capture the Greek cities and create a passageway to the western part of the known world. After a number of battles, on both dry land and at sea, the Persians were defeated and the Greek states were able to retain their freedom. The Persians were not the only problem the Greek faced during this century. Almost a half a century after that threat was confronted, a new war began among the Greek states. During the Peloponnesian War, Sparta and its allies fought a number of battles against Athens, which had also created an alliance with several other cities. However, the period in between the two wars had given prominence to Athens. The city became the proud representative of Greece, developing a civilization that, from a present point of view, is considered to be higher than any other Greek city in terms of establishing democracy as well as a political culture in general.
For modern scholars, whose research focuses on gender roles within the Athenian city-state, there is a significant conflicting issue that has its origin in the sources coming from the time of classical Athens. Namely, what is of great interest in gender studies, is the inconsistent evidence that can be found regarding the characteristics of women’s lives in the Athenian society of the 5th century. For this reason, in the first part of my thesis I intend to present evidence that has already been discussed and interpreted by modern scholars, so as to shape an overall opinion of the conversation that has been at the center of gender studies for many decades. In the second part, however, I will use Helen, Euripides’ tragedy, as my primary source. With guidance from secondary literature I will approach the actions of Helen, her relationship with Menelaus, with the members of the chorus as well as with Theonoe. In that way I will try to show that Euripides gives to his female characters features from women’s lives in Athens during the 5th century, and also that he could possibly be commenting on aspects of the Athenian life during the classical period.
Among modern scholars, there are two main ways of approaching the subject of women’s lives during the 5th century. The first is to emphasize the inferior position of women as compared to their male counterparts. From the moment they were born,
until their death, men defined how women would live. Generally in Greek history, the prevailing view of Greek women was that they were remarkable only for their inferiority and docility, with an exception of the high-born Homeric ladies.1 Donaldson says that, “The summation of a woman’s life was to remain inside and to be obedient to her husband,” while The Companion to Greek studies accepts the phrase “domestic imprisonment.” The Athenian wife was “secluded, dull and uncompanionable.”2 Consequently, women of classical Athens are presented in modern scholarship as isolated inside their houses. They had no place in the world outside of the home and at the same time they were not accepted by the local society as suitable for participating in the public life. Their role was the upbringing of children and the care and organization of the household.
Although the opinion discussed above is confirmed by information found in a number of primary sources, there is also a second way of approaching and obtaining information regarding the different aspects of women’s lives during the classical period. The point of departure for this research is the separation between ideology and reality. This particular research has only recently been added to gender studies. According to its champions, the Athenian society as an effectively functional organism, had established certain ideals according to which all citizens ought to live.3 It was those ideals that characterized women as isolated and completely subordinate to men, and it was these ideals that were taken from modern scholars as valid proof of the everyday life of women in the Athenian society of the 5th century. According to Cohen, “In order to be able to separate ideology from reality, comparative evidence could prove useful.” For this reason, I am going to discuss two commonly made mistakes amongst scholars that are mentioned by Cohen.
First, there is a common tendency among modern scholars to confuse separation with seclusion.4 That is, it does not mean that because men’s sphere of action was outside and public and a woman’s was inside and private, that women lived in total isolation from all except their family members and slaves. This misunderstanding comes from texts that manifest the ideal wife or daughter, but as already mentioned, we should be careful when taking such manifestations as 1 Richter 1971: 1.
2 Richter 1971: 1. 3 Cohen 1989: 6-7. 4 Cohen 1989: 6.
belonging to reality. Secondly, the translation of cultural ideals into social practices is another tendency that can lead to false assumptions.5 Let us take for instance the depictions of women found on vases. They show women going to the fountains in order to bring water. Since respectable women did not go out of the front door of their homes, these women seen on vases should be slaves. But, evidence has revealed that the vast majority of women could not afford to have a slave so they had to go themselves to bring water. Thus, we should not jump to conclusions without accurate examination of all possible sources and viewpoints.
As it was mentioned at the beginning of the introduction, in the second part of my thesis Euripides’s Helen is going to be my main primary source of research as I attempt in prove that Euripides uses aspects of the everyday life of women in classical Athens. A little more needs to be said about why I have chosen Euripides rather than one of the other two tragedians, Aeschylus and Sophocles, and why in particular, Helen. As an innovator, Euripides contradicted the stereotypical viewpoints that characterized women of the classical period as inferior to men, and placed them on the sideline of the society. Only by looking at the names of some of his works, Medea, Trojan Women, Helen, Iphigenia in Tauris, does it become clear how he achieved it. Namely, by putting aside the stories of common male heroes and their struggles from the epic tradition and replacing them with female heroines of the same chronological period. But with Helen, he moved further. He broke the epic tradition by having her remain captive in Egypt for all the years of the Trojan War and by putting in her place in Troy, a fake image. In that way he offered redemption to Helen and at the same time he developed different strands of the narrative.
In order to discuss the contribution of Helen in particular, in connection with the characteristics of women’s lives during the 5th century in Athens, it is first useful to discuss what some of the primary sources reveal. What I intend to do in the first chapter of my thesis is present how modern scholars have interpreted some of the evidence from primary sources such as literary texts, legal documents, funerary monuments and religious festivals, in an attempt to present the ideal women of society in the 5th century, as opposed to the life of the everyday woman during that time. Also, I will pay attention to possible contradictions that may occur while approaching some of the various sources. Tragedy also has a special position among the literary 5 Cohen 1989: 7.
evidence. The three tragedians of the classical period, Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides, have all dealt intensively with the subject of women. Tragedy offered a stage to women. Among modern scholars there is no agreement on what exactly the drama reveals. Some say that it reveals how the restrictions on women truly worked in everyday life. Some others suggest that perhaps its context is just a fantasy, drawing its models from the epic tradition, and that it has nothing to do with reality and contemporary life.6 I will support the idea that drama represents up to a certain degree the real life, and although it includes imaginary elements, it cannot be thought of as a fairytale.
Helen was first produced in 412 BC and presented to the Athenian audience during the ‘City Dionysia’, the urban part of a large festival in ancient Athens honoring the god Dionysus. The central events of this festival were the theatrical performances of tragedies, which took place from the third day of the festival until its end. Euripides presents Helen as an innocent woman, tricked by the will and the games of the gods. She never cheated on her husband and she never went to Troy. On the contrary, all of the years of the Trojan War, she was being kept captive in Egypt, and Menelaus fought for a fake image, an eidolon. Helen wants to return to her native land and when she learns from a messenger that Menelaus is alive and shipwrecked in Egypt, and that all Greeks hate her for the pain she has caused, she decides to convince her husband of what has really happened, restore her reputation and return to her home.7
Some scholars have characterized Helen as an anti-war play that emphasizes the pointlessness of the Trojan War on the one hand, and of the Peloponnesian War and the Sicilian Expedition on the other.8 This opinion is justified when taking into consideration the chronological period in which the play was presented. These two wars caused great damage to both Athens and Greece, leaving many dead and the cities in bad economic situations. During this time, doubts about the usefulness of wars were being expressed, and theater was considered a suitable place for such conversations. Other scholars believe that one can uncover a deeper layer of philosophical ideas through the play. For instance, some pay attention to Helen’s 6 Shaw 1975: 255.
7 Kovacs 2002: 3-4. 8 Allan 2008: 5.
dualistic state.9 To be more precise, they suggest that the significance of this play is that it shows Helen living a double existence, occupying both worlds of appearance and reality. The eidolon represents the appearance, whereas the real Helen represents reality. The world of appearance is dangerous and we must careful, for it can lead to confusion of the mind, therefore causing the fatal consequence of death. Such is the case of Helen, whose eidolon (or appearance) caused a tremendous war with countless victims. As far as I am concerned, my approach to Helen is going to be done in a different way. I intend to focus on the characteristics and way of action of Helen herself, and then look at the other female characters in the play in order to understand how they act and what kind of relationships are developed between them.
Therefore, the second chapter will be initially dedicated to Helen and her relationship with Menelaus, since this relationship could be seen as a possible reflection of the relationships between men and women in 5th century Athens. Helen indeed keeps some of the characteristics coming from the epic tradition and from Euripides’ predecessors. However, Euripides cleverly combines these characteristics and at the same time he creates his own way of approaching the characters. Through her actions and behaviors, Helen breaks the stereotypes about the ways in which women should operate. Of course, this has an impact on her relationship with Menelaus as well. The course of action is based mainly on her decisions and despite her sorrows she decides to fight for her rights and her reputation. All of this should have caused surprise to an Athenian audience used to the cultural idea of passive women being completely subordinate to the will of men. Or maybe, as modern scholars have pointed out, the cultural idea of the inferiority of Athenian women does not correspond to the everyday life of classical Athens. Thus, Euripides could implicitly be commenting on aspects of the social reality in Athens, according to which, women were allowed to participate in public life.
I also aim to discuss the relationships between women in the play, and in particular, the relationships that develop between Helen and the chorus, and between Helen and Theonoe. The chorus represents a social group that connects with Helen as the story moves forward. Because the chorus is constituted of Greek captive women10 it is worth seeing whether it approves or disapproves Helen’s thoughts and actions, as 9 Jansen 2012: 329.
well as what the function of the chorus is. The chorus could represent the relationships between women in the Athenian society. Additionally, what does Theonoe’s decision to support Helen show about their relationship? Theonoe has to choose between brother and a foreigner, and yet she chooses the foreigner, a fellow woman. All of these relationships can be complicated and there certainly cannot be a direct connection with life in Athens of the 5th century. Nevertheless, there are small details and implicit elements that can possibly make such a connection possible.
As already mentioned in the introduction, there are controversies within the studies about women and their position in the Athenian society of the 5th century. But before discussing how modern scholars have approached the various primary sources, what information they offer to us and why they can be of great importance it is worth indicating why women themselves were considered significant in terms of studying a society. One could easily argue that since the Athenian society was masculine, women played no role except for giving birth. However, their contribution was more than that. Of course giving birth to children, especially boys, added to their prestige. But, apart from that, what made them even more necessary was the dowry they brought to their new house when they got married. The bigger the dowry was, the more desirable they were. On the contrary, when the dowry was low, it was difficult to find a husband from a wealthy family or to have many offers to choose from. Undoubtedly, the motives were economic, in particular, the enrichment of the house of the husband. Moreover, they were needed for the maintenance of the house. Men would usually be occupied outside, working or socializing, so it was mandatory that women were responsible for everything going on inside the house. The house is an important aspect of the Athenian society and its right representation meant a lot for man’s reputation. Finally, significant in the Athenian society was the chastity of women. The virtuous women were respected more by the society and her husband was equally praised for having a ‘good’ wife.
There is a number of primary sources that reveal a lot about life in general, and about the life of women in classical Athens in particular. I will illustrate how modern scholars have interpreted evidence about the life of women in classical Athens by including some examples from biographical texts and historiography, as well as from oratory. Attention is going to be given to drama as well, since it has something innovative to add. Also, Aristophanes writes comedies and they reveal a lot about women in 5th century Athens. Next, there are legal documents. I will discuss the law of property11 and I will also go into the legal status of women, in order to see what information they offer about the position of women in Athens of the classical period. In addition, during the 5th century there was a change in the depictions in funerary monuments and vases.12 The explanation offered for the differentiation in funerary depictions could possibly indicate an alteration in the treatment of women in the 11 Foxhall 1989: 32-35.
period of the 5th century or in the society in general. And finally, there are statements that can be found in various types of texts that refer to religious festivals13 and other aspects of private and social life that involve women’s participation.14 In this case I will only use secondary literature without quoting any primary source.
Generally, in ancient Greek culture there are pairs of complementary oppositions which help us acquire better knowledge about the Greek society, as they ‘intrude’ into every aspect of social interaction. The oppositions that are going to be our guide in this chapter so as to help approach the characteristics of women’s live in classical Athens, in connection to their relationship to men, are: men – women, private – public and inside – outside.15 Precisely, the life of men and women in Athens of the 5th century was mainly divided in two spheres. On the one hand, there was the private sphere, the household or oikos, which was constituted by the husband, his wife and children and their property (people and land). On the other hand, there was the public sphere, determining the social way of living, the co-existing with the other members of the city. Both spheres had an impact on the life of women and it is worth seeing how each of them determined the way of living.
To begin with, in terms of the opposition private – public that was mentioned above, Xenophon comments on what is proper for men and women to do. For women he says: τῇμὲνγὰργυναικὶκάλλιονἔνδονμένεινἢθυραυλεῖν.16 Their sphere of action was their household which also formed or even demanded their virtues: caring wife and mother, with an ability to create harmony and a peaceful environment. She ought to be obedient to her husband’s decisions and actions, for if she was dominant her husband would appear to lack from assertiveness17, something that would harm his honor. Generally, it was not acceptable in the society for women, especially for those who were unmarried or coming from the upper classes, to leave the borders of their backyards and be seen in public. Every person who was not a relative was a potential enemy, who could dishonor them, as well as the whole family. Therefore, their friends
13 Gould 1980: 46-51. 14 McClure 1999: 40-56. 15 Foxhall 1989: 23.
16 Xenophon, Oec. 7.30: ‘‘to the woman it is more seemly to stay indoors than to be outside.’’ Marchant 2013: 450-451. For further discussion see Richter 1971: 3.
were only their relatives18 and their lives could be characterized as restricted and well defined by the rules for morality that the society had established.
For men on other hand, Xenophon writes: τῷδὲἀνδρὶαἴσχιονἔνδον μένεινἢτῶνἔξωἐπιμελεῖσθαι.19 So, the society ascribed different roles to men. Their image is determined by the fact that their sphere of action is outside the house. Except for working in the fields or in the city, they also interacted with other men, developing in that way their social skills. Their aim was always the protection both of their oikos and of the city in which they lived. Beyond any doubt, public life was an integral part of the life of the Athenian male citizens of the 5th century and the success in a man’s actions was measured by the honor the community would offer to him.20 Thus, honor was the highest and most important achievement and friendship came second. Indeed, it could often happen that men sealed friendships and collaborations according to their personal advantages and rejected others which would not bring them the desirable honor and public recognition.
Although men and women had different roles in terms of the general concept and organization of the Athenian society of the 5th century, there is no opposition among modern scholars that in their private lives the situation was divergent. In particular, as Foxhall writes: ‘‘The household embodies the unification of the male/female opposition.’’21 Perhaps there were a number of individual intentions, desires and behaviors, but the prosperity of the house was of great concern and therefore both men and women collaborated for its achievement. And it was this particular balance and cooperation within the boundaries of the oikos that led to its health and well-being as a properly constituted body22. Hence, the plan was collaboration for the benefit of the house on the one hand, proper behavior in public on the other, which meant that men would be active citizens and women would be under the control of their fathers or husbands and restricted in their households.
Furthermore, there is evidence for the existence of a law pertaining to the ‘‘silence of women’’. I shall begin by quoting the source: ‘‘If the law allowed women 18 Shaw 1975: 257.
19 Xenophon, Oec. 7.30: ‘‘but to the man it is unseemly rather to stay indoors than to tend to business outside.’’ Marchant 2013: 450-451. For further discussion see Richter 1971: 3.
20 Shaw, 1975; p. 257. 21 Foxhall, 1989; p. 23. 22 Foxhall, 1989; p. 23-4.
to speak in the courts, I would defend myself, but now, one of you, lend me your voice and read this speech, adding or omitting nothing’’.23 This reference to a law comes from an anecdote attributed to Plutarch about Aspasia, the wife of Pericles. She recounts that it was illegal for a woman to speak in court, namely in public, so when she had to respond to accusations made against her by the Athenians she wrote a speech, but assigned it to a male citizen to read it. Since there is no more evidence that prove the existence of such a law, Aspasia’s reference to it can be considered doubtful. However, more literary texts also manifest and support the silence of women, especially in public, as one of the most significant virtue of the Athenian women during the classical period. They praise female silence and verbal submission, whereas women’s talk is being equated with adultery. For instance, in Semonides’ work, where he speaks against women, there are ten types of women under discussion. From these types, only the silent one is acceptable because she does not gossip with the other women: οὐδ’ ἐν γυναιξὶν ἥδεται καθημένη οἵκου λέγουσιν ἀφροδισίους λόγους. τοίας γυναῖκας ἀνδράσιν χαρίζεται Ζεὺς τὰς ἀρίστας καὶ πολυφραδεστάτας. 24
It seems that the rights of parrhesia and isegoria that the democratic organization of the society extended to adult male citizens of Athens and distinguished them from the majority of the noncitizens did not apply for women.25 Also the testimony of women was considered unreliable. Just says, that probably there is a difference between a women giving her evidence and the evidence of a woman being presented by her kyrios.26 It seems that the evidence coming from women were not considered to be as good as men’s. In the same way, it was not proper for them to be the subject of conversation. Not their looks but only her good reputation should be known to everyone. Even at the courts orators would employ elaborate periphrases in order to avoid saying the name of respectable women.27 Although this could be considered as extravagant, it reflects how strict the Athenian society was on this matter. The polis seems to have conspired in the silence about women from birth, since the names of female infants were not ascribed in any official catalogue with the 23 McClure 1999: 20.
24 Semonides, Fr.7.90-4: ‘‘She takes no pleasure in sitting among women in places where they talk about sex. Such women are the best and most sensible whom Zeus bestows as a favor on men.’’ 25 McClure 1999: 19.
26 Just 1989: 34. 27 McClure 1999: 21.
names of grown-ups. Finally, questionable is whether the birth of women was even recorded in the phratry.28
The evidence about silence is being confirmed from another passage from Plutarch’s Moralia. In particular he says: δεῖ δὲ μὴ μόνον τὸν πῆχυν ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τὸν λόγον δημόσιον εἶναι τῆς σώφρονος, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν ὡς ἀπογύμνωσιν αἰδεῖσθαι καὶ φυλάττεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς ἐκτός· ἐνορᾶται γὰρ αὐτῇ καὶ πάθος καὶ διάθεσις λαλούσης.29 So, women of classical Athens ought to be modest and away from the public. It was also inappropriate for them to be seen unguarded and even more to talk. The exposure of feelings was considered to be a flaw. Aristotle in his Politics also comments on the issue of silence: γυναικὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει - ἀλλ’ ἀνδρὶ οὐκέτι τοῦτο.30 Women should remain silent, but men not. This is connected to their spheres of action. Of course men were often outside their houses, so they talked with their fellow citizens. But it was more like an obligation for male citizens of Athens, in order to be respected by the society, to participate in the public affairs. They had to speak in public about problems of their city, suggest solutions and show that they are active.
In addition, Demosthenes writes: τὸ γὰρ συνοικεῖν τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, ὅς ἄν παιδοποιῆται καὶ εἰσάγῃ εἴς τε τοὺς φράτερας καὶ δημότας τοὺς υἱεῖς, καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἐκδιδῷ ὡς αὑτοῦ οὔσας τοῖς ἁνδράσι. τὰς μὲν γὰρ ἐταίρας ἡδονῆς ἔνεκ’ ἔχομεν, τὰς δὲ παλλακὰς τῆς καθ’ ἡμέραν θεραπείας τοῦ σώματος, τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας τοῦ παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως καὶ τῶν ἔνδον φύλακα πιστὴν ἔχειν.31 This passage proves for one more time that the role of married women was to bear children and care about the prosperity of their household. Men, on the contrary, had the freedom to enjoy the pleasures of life, with the company of other women apart from their legitimate wives. Legitimate sons were also significant to the Athenian society. Most likely they would succeed their father in public offices, but most importantly, they 28 McClure 1999: 21.
29 Plutarch, Mor. II. 142: ‘‘Not only the arm of the virtuous woman, but her speech as well ought to be not for the public, and she ought to be modest and guarded about saying anything in the hearing of outsiders since it is an exposure of herself; for in her talk can be seen her feelings, character, and disposition.’’ Richter 1971: 4.
30 Aristotle, Pol. 1260A: ‘‘Silence gives grace to woman – though that is not the case likewise with a man.’’ Richter 1971: 4.
31 Demosthenes, LIX. 122: ‘‘For this is what living with a woman as one’s wife means – to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one’s own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.’’ Richter 1971: 5.
were the next in line to represent the family name in the society and for this reason they should be raised according to the high values that characterized classical Athens. Attention should be paid to a passage from Isaios. In his work Philoktemon he says: Εὐκτήμονι γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες, τῷ Φιλοκτήμονος πατρί, τοὺς μὲν ὄντως γενομένους παῖδας, Φιλοκτήμονα καὶ Ἐργαμένην καὶ Ἡγήμονα καὶ δύο θυγατέρας, καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτῶν, ἣν ἔγημεν ὁ Εὐκτήμων, Μειξιάδου Κηφισιῶς θυγατέρα, πάντες οἱ προσήκοντες ἴσασι καὶ οἱ φράτορες καὶ τῶν δημοτῶν οἱ πολλοί, καὶ μαρτυρήσουσιν ὑμῖν: ὅτι δ᾽ [οὐδ᾽] ἄλλην τινὰ ἔγημε γυναῖκα, ἐξ ἧς τινος οἵδε αὐτῷ ἐγένοντο, οὐδεὶς τὸ παράπαν οἶδεν οὐδ᾽ ἤκουσε πώποτε ζῶντος Εὐκτήμονος.32 Philoktemon was the son of Euktemon and died while fighting in Chios, around 376 BC. In his will Philoktemon had adopted Chaerestratus, the son of one of his sisters, but the claim of Chearestratus was opposed by a kinsman of Euktemon. In this speech, Chaerestratus tries to prove that truly existed a will by Philoktemon and he tries to disapprove the legitimacy of the alleged sons of Euktemon.
Two points from the passage that was mentioned before need further discussion. Firstly, it shows inconsistency to the prohibition of women of classical Athens to participate as witnesses in court that was mentioned before. Here it is clear that the wife of Euktemon is expected to testify, together with her daughters and sons. Some scholars claim that an exception was made in cases of homicide and women and slaves could testify only against the accused. But, from the existing evidence we cannot be sure that this was true. Also, the case of Euktemon does not include homicide and yet there are female testimonies. Secondly, this passage shows that in the Athenian society men were specified with their names, whereas women by their relationships with men. The explanation by Just is that: ‘‘the specification of a woman in terms of her familial relationships with men was quite sufficient to establish her identity.33 Thus, the legal importance of her identity lay explicitly in her relationship with men and the situation in the household. A woman was ‘the wife of…’, ‘the mother of…’, or ‘the daughter of…’. Only hetairai or concubines could be mentioned with their names and this is because they belonged either to the category of slaves or 32 Isaios, Phil.10-11: ‘‘The real sons of Euktemon the father of Philoktemon, namely Philoktemon himself, Ergamenes and Hegemon, and his two daughters and their mother, the wife of Euktemon and the daughter of Meixiades of Kephisia, are well known to all their relatives and to the members of their phratry and to most of the members of their deme, and they shall testify to you; but no one is aware or ever heard a word during Euktemon’s life time of his having any other wife who become mother by him of our opponents.’’ Just 1989: 27-28.
foreigners and therefore they had nothing to do with the kinship system of the Athenian society.
The situation should have been different also among women of lower classes and courtesans or prostitutes. The case of prostitute’s speaking is something different, so I will concentrate on the women from lower social layers. Since only a minority of the population had the economic privilege of affording slaves for taking care of the daily jobs, the women coming from these households probably had to work. This means that they came in contact with other women, helping in childbirths for example, but it also requires a daily give and go in the world of men. For instance, if a woman went to the market in order to buy food for her family or the family she worked for, then conversations with male citizens was unavoidable. Some women also worked in the fields with other male workers. Apparently, only women coming from the upper classes remained isolated in their houses, away from the public eyes. And they did not correspond to the majority of the female population.34
Next, it is really important having a closer look at tragedy as it developed in Athens during the 5th century, since women characters play an important role in them. Tragedians had a rich epic tradition and the archaic poetry from which they could use characteristics attributed to women. For example, it was in the archaic poetry that they found images of women as victims, commentators and lamenters, who gave expression to suffering.35 However, in their works they presented women with different characteristics. Indeed, there is very little in earlier poetry to prepare us for example for what was said and done by Antigone, the Sophoclean Electra or Medea. In particular, drama among other things presents women going out of their houses, talking and disagreeing with men, even if they were not their husbands. These women who were represented in the drama of the 5th century also had an interest in politics and they were far from passive and obedient.36 Women were not invisible and helpless as little children. On the contrary, they played a prominent role in Athenian literature of the classical period.
Modern scholars have interpreted the information coming from the tragedies in two different ways. To be more precise, there are those who claim that drama is 34 Cohen 1989: 7.
35 Easterling 1987: 16. 36 Shaw 1975: 255.
simply about the fantasy of the Athenians, not about their lives, and that the justification for the importance of women in tragedy is to be found more in the ‘‘fantasies of the nursery’’ than in the actual life of the 5th century.37 Others argue that since women in the drama were drawn from epic models they have nothing to do with contemporary reality, but they only refer to characteristics of the life in the epic past.38 The primary sources discussed before, together with the reference to the inferior position of the Athenian women in the state laws that is going to be discussed later, led modern scholars to think that women’s life during the 5th century was restricted, characterized by isolation and defined on the whole by their male partners and the ideals established by the society.
It is worth mentioning Easterling’s argument regarding what was discussed in the previous paragraph. She supports that when watching a drama, the audience of the classical period knew that, in some sense, what they were watching was not real.39 Therefore, while watching a play the audience can accept violence, although in real life they would try to stop it: Medea killing her children for example. In the Athenian society such a deed would be unacceptable and severely punished. In a similar way the violation of property can also be accommodated. Moreover, the world evoked by the dramatic action is not Athens of the 5th century, but a society of past times, whether Greek or barbarian, and heroes who live in it are not imagined to live in the exact way of the people of the classical time. Thus, according to Easterling’s argument, it is only in this ‘imaginative’ context that women can speak and act differently from what was thought proper or natural in contemporary social life.
According to the second point of view regarding the information from the tragedies about the characteristics of the lives of women in classical Athens, drama could also comment on how the restrictions on women truly worked out in practice.40 Scholars who support this opinion agree that the society indeed had formed a certain way of describing the ideal life of women. There were rules defining how women should and should not behave. There were also laws trying to put women under continuous supervision while not offering them the possibility to be independent. Nevertheless, these rules, written or not, did not correspond to everyday life. 37 Shaw 1975: 255.
38 Shaw 1975: 255. 39 Easterling 1987: 17. 40 Shaw 1975: 255.
Literature in general and Greek drama in particular, is interested in how women are supposed to act, but it also looks behind this mask. It moves forward searching how they truly acted. Further, it does not examine only the effect of the visible man and the invisible woman. These roles are altered or reversed.41 Women have the leading role and although men told women not to talk, most of the times this admonition was ineffective.
At this point it is interesting to see what Gomme has to say about tragedy. Gomme was one of the first modern scholars to challenge the one-sided approach of his colleagues towards the primary sources from the Athenian society of the 5th century and the information with which they provided us about the characteristics of women’s lives during this period. He argues that when scholars made statements about the position of women in the Homeric age or in the Minoan Crete, they relied among others also on the imaginative literature. In Athens of the 5th century there is such evidence too, but it is constantly being ignored or misinterpreted.42 When talking about the Homeric age, both Hector and Andromache are proof of epic feeling and have something to say. On the contrary, for Athens of the 5th century only Jason and Creon are evidence, but Antigone and Medea are just imaginative figures, whose role is to entertain the audience.
Moreover, modern scholars say that tragedians got the female characters of their plays from the epic tradition and they did the same with their plots. At the same time though, tragedians did not derive from this tradition other things like the religious views, the politics, the organization of the epic societies, and the characteristics of the male characters that we encounter in their plays.43 In that way, Orestes, Theseus, and Creon are presented as Athenians of the 5th century, but instead, their women are Homeric. If such a separation existed, it would have been methodologically unsound. Last but not least, Gomme suggests that if women of classical Athens were truly treated with contempt, then we should expect tragedies only with male protagonists and insecure women.44 Sophocles for instance, might have gone so far writing an Alcestis, in order to show the obedience of women during 41 Shaw 1975: 256.
42 Gomme 1925: 5-6. 43 Gomme 1925: 5. 44 Gomme 1925: 5.
his time, but there would have been no Attic tragedy as we know it today. If the treatment of women in classical Athens was so negative, as a number of primary sources have shown, then women would not have a place in men’s plays destined for a mainly male audience. The fact that literature of classical period dedicated its context to female characters and their feelings, their actions and sufferings, reveals that they had an important role in the society of the 5th century and that male citizens respected them and were eager to hear about their problems and difficulties.
During the 5th century Aristophanes writes comedies. However, unlike tragedy, which is partially based on epic tradition and takes its myths and figures from there, comedy also deals with the Athenian society of the 5th century. Likewise, women in comedy can be everyday Athenians, ‘girl-next-door’ types.45 They may not always be the main characters in every play, but they are somehow involved in the action. Different types of women appear in these plays: wives and daughters, little girls, women in the market, and even mythical figures. Women tend to manipulate costume and language, for comic effect.46 They also act in contradiction to the stereotypical viewpoints about femininity and women, and therefore, they can be seen outside the house, talking, and even taking part in political issues that concern the city. All these in order to cause laughter and the pleasure of the audience. Finally, among modern scholars, there are those who believe that women of comedy are fictional creations, useful only for entertainment and there are also those who suggest that women incorporate some of the characteristics of Athenian women of the 5th century.
We are now moving on to the legal documents. In this category I would like to pay attention to some laws of the 5th century regarding women. The law is beyond any doubt one of those parts of social institutions, by which society seeks to characterize its inner structure. So, first let’s define the juridical status of women. It refers to women as always inferior to men. A woman, regardless of her status (sister, daughter, mother or wife) and no matter of her age and social class, is in law an infinite minor.47 What is meant by this definition is that throughout their whole life women were in the legal control of a male kyrios who would represent them both in the law and in the society in general. In cases of unmarried young girls they were in the kyrieia of their 45 Cartledge 1990: 32-33.
46 Taafe 1993: 23-4. 47 Gould 1980: 43.
father, their brother(s) by the same father, or their parental grandfather. From the moment she got married some support the view that she was totally in the kyrieia of her husband, whereas others claim that a father had the right to dissolve a marriage, even against the daughter’s will.48 On the husband’s death, either they pass to the kyrieia of their son(s) or go back to that of their father, if he was still alive. And if they had adult sons, they would be their kyrios. And if their son(s) was/were minor(s) they would fall under the kyrieia of their kyrios. If they were pregnant on their husband’s death, they might, and perhaps must, remain in the kyrieia of whatever male would become the protector of their future child. Most probably the protector would be someone from the family of the deceased husband.
Moreover, one further element that plainly manifests that women were always dependent on men is the situation of the epikleros. In particular, if a man dies leaving only a daughter or daughters and none of them is married to one whom the father had already adopted as a son, then these daughters become ‘assignable’ and are ‘assigned’ by the archon eponymos to the closest male kinsman in a fixed order of precedence.49 Even if they already have a legal husband, the marriage could be dissolved in order to allow them to be assigned in this way. The order of the precedence proceeds through the agnatic line, starting of course with the dead father’s brothers, and failing any in this line, through the cognatic. All this apparently identifies the lives of women as continuously connected and dependent to their male protectors. In the law they are nowhere referred as independent, free to choose their own path. Such institutions perhaps aimed in the continuity of the dead man’s oikos.
What is even more surprising is the fact that even the society had under its concern the maintenance of rules that govern and protect the wives, the epikleroi and the wards. Probably it was among the responsibilities of the archon and this point of view can be strengthened by looking at the first act of the archon when entering his new office. In particular, this was to proclaim: ὅσα τις εἶχεν πρὶν αὐτὸν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ἀρχήν, ταῦτ’ ἔχειν καὶ κρατεῖν μέχρι ἀρχῆς τέλους.50 It is hard to avoid seeing the archon’s responsibility for preventing the ill treatment of women who were potential transmitters of property. Therefore, it was this role of theirs as transmitters of property 48 Gould 1980: 43.
49 Gould 1980: 43.
50 Gould 1980: 44: ‘‘all that any man possessed before he entered upon his office, that he should possess and control until the end of that office’’.
for which the community displays concern and extends protection to its women even within its legal rules and institutions. The way it does so probably suggests that women themselves were not capable of acting on their own, since in the law they were almost considered as an ‘un-person’51, outside of those limits that create a society’s responsible member. Yet, at the same time they were acknowledged as essential for the maintenance of the social order, precisely for the continuity of property. As Just writes: ‘‘With epikleros we have perhaps the limiting case of ‘patrilineal succession’’’. The epikleros represents the woman’s non-existing brother and protects her until her son is in a position to protect, by himself, the oikos.52 Again the purpose of such an institution is the proper succession of the oikos.
In addition, there was a law that defined the movement of property. The most valuable category of property that belonged to Athenian women was their dowry. A dowry is the property that goes with a woman when she gets married. It was considered to be the basis of her maintenance and livelihood.53 It served as patrimonial inheritance and was equal to what the brothers received as inheritance after the father’s death. Normally, a dowry for an upper class woman consisted of money, furniture and other moveable objects.54 To give a large dowry definitely increased not only the power, but also the honor of the giver. On the contrary, if someone received a dowry too large in proportion to the patrimony, this decreased the honor of the receiver. It becomes clear once again that marriage was being understood as a partnership, a collaboration in which the dowry was regarded as the woman’s financial contribution to the establishment and further development of the new household.
Officially now, as the law itself determined, any kind of dowry that went with the woman in marriage was controlled by her husband, since he was her kyrios, but it could not be disposed of by him. On the husband’s prior death or in case of dissolution of the marriage the dowry passes with the woman to her next kyrios. On the death of the wife without having any children the dowry goes back to her original kyrios.55 There are those who still believe that once in the new house the women had 51 Gould 1980: 44-45.
52 Just 1989: 98. 53 Foxhall 1989: 32. 54 Foxhall 1989: 33. 55 Gould 1980: 44.
to deny their rights on their property and accept that from that moment on it would be completely in the hands of their husband. Once again the evidence is conflicting. Legally, a woman could not dispose of her property, but this does not necessarily mean that her husband had the right to do so.56 The evidence is not enough so we can form a complete opinion. What is clear, though, is the fact that in cases of divorces for whatever reason, the dowry always went with the woman. It seems that women of classical Athens were closely connected to their dowry, since it was the only thing they could own and through which they were considered to be of some value.
Finally, a short reference to Perikles’ ‘‘Law of Citizenship’’ should be made. In 451/0 BC the Athenians passed a measure, proposed by Perikles. According to this measure, the privilege of Athenian citizenship was limited to those freeborn persons whose mothers, as well as fathers, were Athenian.57 The reason why Perikles suggested such a measure is not clear and modern scholars have expressed various opinions. For example some say that it was a measure to control the population or that is was an anti-aristocratic measure that aimed in preventing the Athenian elite from marrying foreign women. Regardless the true reason for such legislation, it fit well into the context of Athenian thinking during the classical period as different from all other Greeks. Furthermore, it assured that Athenian relations with people from other cities were never more than temporary, and that Athenian relatives were all Athenian.58 We cannot be sure if marriage preferences really changed, but it is possible that this new law had an effect on how the Athenians symbolized their own identity, namely by encouraging public acknowledgement of Athenian wives and mothers. Indeed, further examination of the changes in funerary monuments that is going to be discussed next will also support this point of view.
Throughout antiquity women in general played in important role in the relationship between humans and gods. However, before 500 BC women could rarely be found in the Athenian funerary monuments.59 According to the funerary reliefs that Richter catalogued, 45 of them figure men, and 3 figure a man and a women. None of them figures only a woman. Similarly, from the 54 Athenian funerary inscriptions from the archaic period that were collected by Jeffery, 1 commemorates a man and a 56 Foxhall 1989: 37.
57 Osborne 1997: 4. 58 Osborne 1997: 11. 59 Osborne 1997: 11.
woman, 6 commemorate women and in 8 cases the sex is unclear. The relief and free-standing sculptural monuments associated with these inscriptions figure men in 54 cases, women in 8 and neither men or women in 20.60 This situation was exceptional within the Greek world, since funerary reliefs of women have survived from other archaic states.
Around 500 BC the Athenians stopped putting monumental markers in their graves. The exact reasons are still unclear, but when funerary reliefs reappeared, at a date that is until today in dispute, but probably in the third quarter of the 5th century, they looked very different.61 Clairmont made a catalogue of classical tombstones from Athens and the results are impressive. There are 628 monuments figuring women, 468 figuring men and 1136 figuring both men and women. At this chronological period, women outnumbered men in all various compositional formations. For instance, among reliefs featuring just one figure, we can find 131 women and 117 men. And in cases of reliefs showing two figures, in 241 of them both figures are woman, and in 187 we have two male figures.62 The data clearly reveal an alteration in comparison to the data coming from the archaic Athenian period, and this sculptural evidence can be extended by the evidence discovered from the iconography from the mid-fifth century and from the white-ground lekythoi of the same period.
All these data show that women of the 5th century Athens were represented on grave monuments and on vases associated with burial in a way that they were not in the archaic grave monuments. Classical Athens finally joined the rest of the Greek cities which had accepted the representation of women in their funerary already from the archaic period. A question that logically arises at this point is why during the classical period the Athenians changed their practices in funerary depictions. The answer to the question lies somewhere between three possible changes that occurred in the Athenian society of the 5th century. I am going to discuss each of these changes in order to see if we can conclude to a certain answer.
The first possible answer is that during the classical period there was a change in the Athenian artistic habits. This explanation is offered by those scholars that believe that art and society are two independent cases. Osborne does not agree with 60 Osborne 1997: 12.
61 Osborne 1997: 14. 62 Osborne 1997: 14.
this statement but he gives some more details about this viewpoint. In particular, it has been proposed that the fulfillment of the ‘Parthenon project’ led to a surplus of sculptural skills. All the people who worked at the ‘Parthenon project’ lost their jobs after its completion, so they turned their interest to the sculpting of funerary reliefs. Maybe this was true. But such a situation does not explain the reason why these sculptors who were experts in representing male figures started representing female.
The second possible explanation includes changes in attitudes to death. Archaic reliefs had the tendency to focus on the lived life. For example, we often see an athlete parading in front of our eyes. Similarly, archaic free-standing sculptural monuments dedicated to the dead take the form of kouroi. Kouroi were naked male figures with feet flat on the ground, one leg advanced, hands by their sides and face staring directly ahead.63 So the sculpture gives no sense of the individual’s achievements, but invites the viewer to ‘stand and weep’, a phrase that is regularly found in the inscriptions accompanying the funerary kouroi. Therefore, the viewer finds himself standing and gazing at a figure with which she shares nothing but his death. On the contrary, classical monuments do not figure a ‘context-free’ individual in the way the archaic kouroi do and only a few classical grave reliefs focus on the achievements of the life lived. It seems that during the classical period the vast majority of classical reliefs invoke the social setting of the deceased by showing men or women talking with family members or other contemporaries. Therefore what is more important in classical period, is rather the relationships of the deceases and not his actions. Thus, the classical reliefs do not so much commemorate the achievements of a life as declare the nature and scale of the loss to others, and mainly to the family circle.64
As far as female figures in funerary monuments of the 5th century are concerned, and in particular the stelai which were dedicated to women, they exploit the analogy between marriage and death. Literary evidence supports this finding. For instance, in the tragedies written in the second half of the 5th century, there is also a link between marriage and death. Nevertheless, what is more intriguing is the fact that there is already from the archaic period a connection between marriage and death. The rare findings of korai, equivalent to kouroi, support this connection. For example, in 63 Osborne 1997: 20.
the case of the kore which is now in Berlin, the connection between marriage and death in made by the pomegranate she holds in her right hand. The pomegranate is a symbol of fertility, but also a symbol of death. According to the mythological tradition, it was eating a pomegranate, while being abducted by Hades that prevented Persephone, the daughter of goddess Demeter, from returning permanently to the world of the living. So, if changes in the way of thinking about death lied behind the prominence of women on grave monuments, it can only be a case of new emphasis and not the development of new ideas that had not been heard in the archaic period.
Last but not least, the answer could also be found in a change in the attitudes to women. During the archaic period there was no general reluctance to put women on display in works of art. The Athenian Acropolis, for example, displayed a number of dedications in the form of korai. Therefore, it was not women that the society neglected to display, but rather the death of women. In that way, could it be the move from the commemoration of individual achievements to the marking of loss and its effect to be family of the deceased that resulted to a change in the attitude towards women? When commemorating the individual achievements was most important for the society, women had no place in it. In a society that was masculine and that public life was considered to be a privilege of men, it is justified that men rather women were the focus of attention.65 But, when the display of family becomes more important, then both men and women are likely to be commemorated. Especially women were significant for the continuity of the family. And this a good reason for them to be commemorated and have a prominent role in the various grave monuments.
Religious festivals also offer us information about women of classical Athens as they reveal the participation of women in them. To begin with, religious festivals were part of the public life in the Athenian city-state. Religion in general was connected to the development of a society, and therefore, we can assume that festivals in honor of the gods that helped the city to progress or face an enemy occurred in a regular basis. However, surprisingly, the religious festivals were not exclusively men’s responsibility or obligation. There were festivals in Athens of the 5th century in which also women participated or festivals that were solely at the responsibility of women. In the case of the ‘Panathenaia’, the festival in honor of goddess Athena, 65 Osborne 1997: 26.
there was a part in which women participated too. In particular, in the procession of the Peplus, which was destined for the statue of the goddess, priestesses took part. Women also took part as kanephoroi or ‘basket-bearers’.66 It was an honor to be selected for this position. Even if not participating in this festival, women used to attend the various ceremonies. There was also the religious festival of ‘Thesmophoria’. It was celebrated in the whole Greek world in order to honor goddess Demeter and her daughter Persephone and it was an exceptional case, since it was completely organized by women. Athenian women used to meet outside their houses in order to discuss and decide about the details that concerned the proper preparation of the festival.67 Only women who were spouses of Athenian male citizens could participate in the celebrations, whereas men were excluded, but were expected to send their wives and meet the costs of the festival.
Apart from the religious festivals in which women of classical Athens seem to have participated quite often, there were, also speech genres assigned to women, both in literature and in everyday life of the 5th century. The ritual of lamentation belongs to this category.68 Lamentation was considered to be inappropriate for men, because it included public expression of emotions, but on the contrary it remained a female practice throughout the Greek tradition. As more sensitive, women used lamentation as a symbolic way of showing their grief and their will to be reunited with the deceased. Although it expressed private pain for the loss of a beloved person, is was also a public activity, because it usually involved a group of female mourners who would sing their songs in antiphony.69 In Greek tragedy it was the chorus who would often take the role of mourner. Yet, the significance of speech genres like lamentation for the lives of women in classical Athens lies in the fact that as a collective activity it drew together a subordinate group of the society. The Athenian women had the chance to meet with other women, to create and negotiate realms of experience and action that were exclusive to women. It was a chance for them to leave the surroundings of their houses and feel that they belonged to a group of people with which they shared the same experiences.
66 Just 1989: 110.
67 Cohen 1989: 8 & McClure 1999: 22. 68 McClure 1999: 40.
Although in early epic the laments of women served a positive function by bringing the community together and affirming collective values, in the 5th century the situation was different.70 Female lamentation in classical Athens was interpreted as a source of danger and disorder that could undermine the stable, masculine community. Lamentation involved expression of feelings and this is the reason why this kind of ritual was inappropriate for men. Nevertheless, it was an aspect of the lives of women and another proof that women in the Athenian city-state enjoyed at least some of the privileges of the social life.
After presenting various examples of how modern scholars have used the primary sources in order to approach the role and the position of women in the Athenian society of the 5th century it is clear enough that the study of women is not so simple. It is easy to divide the primary sources in two categories, according to the type of information they provide us with. The first category of evidence supports the idea that Athenian women during the 5th century had an inferior position than the Athenian male citizens. They also show women of this chronological period restricted to their houses. The Athenian society defined as proper for its women to stay isolated, with the company only of their family members and slaves. When a woman was seen in public, she was suspected of adultery and in any case it was a situation not suitable for the good reputation that a woman would want to keep. Silence was also considered to be a virtue of Athenian women in the 5th century. Women were not allowed to talk, especially in public and even more with men. For this reason, it was men, fathers, husband or brothers who represented women in the Athenian social life.
The second category provides us with different information, presenting another 5th century society. It reveals women talking, acting in public, participating in public rituals and caring about public affairs. The evidence presents women that are not left in the sideline of the society, but women that concern the Athenian city-state of the 5th century and have an important role to the society’s development. This information is clearly contradicted to the first group of evidence, so at this point comes the question, which category of evidence are valid and what should we believe about the role and the characteristics of the lives of women in classical Athens.
At this point it is worth seeing how modern scholars have interpreted the information coming from the primary sources from the 5th century. Again there are two ways of looking into the evidence. The first way, which many modern scholars have followed for years, is to regard women of the Athenian city-state as inferior to their male contemporaries. Indeed, they present women of the classical period as dull, isolated in their houses. The women’s only contribution was to give birth to children and care for the proper organization of the household. However, since the scholars accept this point of view, they seem to have totally ignored what the second category of evidence reveals. They based their interpretation exclusively to this category and therefore, they formed a one-sided opinion about the lives of women in Athens of the 5th century. Despite the amount of evidence, scholars continued seeing the society through male eyes, perhaps because it was the men of the society who were the most capable of providing an articulate account of their lives.
Two further elements make me doubt even more the choice of modern scholars to form a one-sided opinion about the life of classical women. First, all the literary texts and the legislation were written by men for a society that was mainly masculine and in which masculinity was the basic requirement for being respected and regarded as a right citizen. Hence, it could be argued that the authors of the primary sources were themselves subjective up to a degree and eager to present the Athenian women in a way that suited their perception of them. It is a fact that we do not have any works from women of the classical period, so as to discover how they were thinking of their world and men in the Athenian city-state. Secondly, it seems that the primary sources that I used in the first chapter generally depict life as it was among families that belonged to the higher social levels of classical Athens. For instance, when it is said that women were not allowed to leave their front-yards, the sources, and by extension modern scholars, do not seem to take into consideration what happened in cases of families that could not afford slaves who would do the everyday jobs. We can suppose that in such occasions women had to leave their houses, in order to work, bring water, and food. Therefore, in order to form a more accurate opinion it would be really useful to see what happened in families that belonged to inferior social levels.
As the studies about gender developed, modern scholars started approaching the primary sources in a more complete way, taking into account all the evidence that
have been found. They started thinking the study of men and women in the ancient societies as equally essential in order to have a clear idea of their lives and their connection to their societies. This led to the better interpretation of primary sources that contradicted the stereotypical viewpoint that was mentioned in previous paragraphs. More and more scholars nowadays support the validity of the evidence that show women of classical Athens as separated from the world of men, but not secluded. Women in that period had their own friendships with other women, they worked when necessary, and they participated in religious festivals and public rituals. The explanation that modern scholars offer for the existing of controversial primary sources, and with which I agree, is that the Athenian society of the 5h century had established some ideals, according to which its women should behave. However, this did not necessarily mean that women in classical Athens spent their everyday lives following the rules of the society. And those primary sources that distance themselves from the stereotypical opinions show exactly some aspects of the everyday life in Athens. Thus, it is necessary when studying such a complex topic as the characteristics of women’s lives in the Athenian city-state to take into consideration all available sources before reaching conclusions.
We now have a general idea about the type of primary sources we have, what they say about the lives of women in classical Athens, how modern scholars have approached these sources, and what problems have occurred. I agree with those scholars who present a more moderate opinion about the lives of women during the classical period. I believe that women occasionally had separate spheres of action but were still an important part of the Athenian society, not being completely subordinate to the Athenian male citizens. I am reluctant to believe that there was a society, even in the distant past, which had established the act of seclusion for its women. Male citizens probably were more active in public issues, but this does not decrease the significance of women in regards to the development of society. In order to support my point of view, in the following chapter I am going to use the tragedy, Euripides’ Helen. Tragedy, as a literary genre, was developed fully during the classical period in Athens, and as already explained, it brings women to the foreground. Although there are scholars who claim that tragedy offers the audience nothing more than a fairytale, I contend that it was presented to the Athenian audience not only for entertainment, but as a means for Euripides to explore, or even comment on some aspects of the life
in classical Athens. Therefore, I will look at the genre of tragedy as a primary source that is likely to include some characteristics coming from the everyday life of the 5th century in Athens.
Let me explain why I have chosen a play by Euripides rather than one of the other two tragedians, Aeschylus and Sophocles, since they all say something about women. Euripides has been characterized as a misogynist by a number of modern scholars. The origins of this characterization come from Aristophanes, who in his comedy Thesmophoriazusai, presents the Athenian women of the 5th century as being angry with Euripides because he slanders them in his plays.71 So, it is interesting to examine Helen from this point of view, namely to see whether Euripides treats his female characters with contempt or not. Moreover, Euripides deals with different female personalities, from noble, self-sacrificing women like Iphigenia, to women with bad reputations, like Medea and Helen. Thus, he approaches their psychology in a more complete way.
There are a number of modern scholars who agree with the depiction of Euripides as made by Aristophanes, and approach his plays as the work of a misogynist. However, there are also those scholars who argue that Euripides was certainly not a misogynist.72 They support their opinion by saying that no misogynist would include in his works courageous, noble women, and a misogynist would certainly not search deeply into their psychology and personalities. Even in the case of Medea who murders her own children, Euripides presents her wickedness in a way that makes us feel piety and compassion.73 In my opinion, Euripides cares about women and he also cares about the society in which he lives. With his tragedies he implicitly depicts the flaws in as well as those made by the Athenian society and tries to suggest ways for improvement.
My focus will be on Helen, a tragedy that has already been discussed extensively by modern scholars. Most scholars see it as a tragedy with an anti-war message or as a tragedy of ideas concerning life and death, reality and illusion. My approach will be taken in a different manner. I understand it as a play that reflects upon aspects of the everyday life in Athens, and mainly the aspects that concern the 71 March 1990: 32.
72 March 1990: 32. 73 March 1990: 33.
lives of women in the Athenian society. In order to support my opinion I am going to examine Helen, Menelaus, the chorus of the play, and finally, Theonoe. I will not be exploring these characters as individuals, but will mainly be looking at how these characters interact with one another. I believe that Helen and her relationship with Menelaus refers to the relationship between men and women in classical Athens. Likewise, the relationship that develops between the female characters reflects the relationships between Athenian women. Using passages from the text and having in mind the information from the first chapter, I am intrigued to find whether or not my theories can be confirmed by the text, and, if my theory is in fact confirmed, what Euripides has to say about life in Athens of the 5th century. Finally, I will give an answer as to why Euripides chose to use a well known myth, but changed it by creating an innocent Helen who was taken away from her beloved ones, and who finally finds her way back home.
2. Chapter 2
2.1 Helen and her relationship with Menelaus
Helen is familiar to the Athenian audience from the epic tradition. First of all, Helen and her story are known from the Homeric epics. There she was held responsible for causing the Trojan War because she left Sparta and Menelaus, with Paris, the Prince of Troy. She is also known for her divine beauty, which is often
