"Toil and Trouble": Changes of Imagery to Hekate and Medea in Ovid's Metamorphoses

“Toil and Trouble”: Changes of Imagery to Hekate and Medea in Ovid’s Metamorphoses

Elicia Ann Penman

Seventh of November 2014

A Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Classics and Ancient History at the University

of Queensland.

School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics.

ii

Declaration

I declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted in any other form for another

degree or diploma at any other university or institute of tertiary education. Information derived from

the published or unpublished work of others has been acknowledged in the text and a list of

references is given.

I also declare that I am familiar with the rules of the School of History, Philosophy, Religion and

Classics and the University of Queensland relating to the submission of this thesis.

Signature:

Date:

Estimated word count: 20 006

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr Luca Asmonti and Dr Amelia Brown, for their support and guidance

through this project.

iv

Abstract

In the study of the ancient world there is nothing more diverse and complex as the study of

mythology. As mythology was originally circulated through oral transmission, many variations of a

single myth can occur. A character can also change over time, developing as society does as well as

being adopted by other societies. This thesis will look at the changes of imagery of two well-known

characters, Hekate and Medea to show how mythology is ever changing and to give insight on how

the portrayal of women and magic is critical in understanding these changes.

v

Table of Contents

Chapter, Title, page number

1. Introduction page 1

a. Greek Mythology page 1

b. Roman Mythology and Greek Myths page 3

c. This Thesis page 6

2. Hekate page 9

a. Origins of Hekate page 9

b. Hekate in Pottery page 15

c. Hekate in Greece page 16

d. Ovid and Hekate page 20

e. Beyond Ovid page 25

3. Medea page 27

a. Ovid and Medea page 28

b. Medea in Euripides page 35

c. Seneca and a New Medea page 38

d. Medea: An Agent of Aphrodite page 42

4. Conclusion page 46

5. Bibliography page 51

1

INTRODUCTION

In the study of the ancient world, in particular the study of ancient mythology, a figure’s

identity is crucial in defining where they fit in the social and political hierarchy. This becomes

even more important when looking at the world of the gods. Since the time of Homer, many

authors have composed works to honour the gods, and before them a long tradition of oral

composers would travel from town to town . Due to this many stories have more than one

version, many characters have conflicting and changing identities. These changes are very

evident in the world of witches and witchcraft, even more so in their patron goddess Hekate.

This thesis will examine the changes in identity not only of Hekate but of Medea, arguably the

most known witch of ancient mythology, as well by comparing their imagery from Greek

mythology through to Ovid’s interpretations of their myths.

 Greek Mythology:

The origin of Greek mythology comes from the storytellers. These storytellers passed on the

original myths of the Greek culture for generations before writers such as Homer and Hesiod

wrote the stories down.1 The oral tradition of the early-Greek myths was essential as it created

basis to form the wide diversity of myths known today. This oral tradition meant that

mythology was very fluid and ever changing, and this fluidity continued as myths were passed

along in the written word.2 It is also because of this fluid nature that Greek mythology was

influenced by other cultures, such as that of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, it is said that

the Greek myths took their own definitive shape during the Mycenaean period.3 This oral

tradition and influence by other cultures meant that as each story teller, and later writer, told

his stories, each telling was different; each storyteller had his own version of the story,

influenced by events and people in his own life.4 This means that unlike the fairy tales of

modern society, which more or less tell the same story with each telling, there could be

several versions of just the one myth in circulation at any one time, and a possibility of there

being countless versions for the more popular myths such as the twelve labours of Herakles.

Not only could there be multiple versions of myths in circulation but they could also be

                                                                                               1  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  3.  2  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  3.  3  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  3.  4  Hard,  2004:  1.  

2

recorded, or passed down, in a variety of different genres. These many variations of genres

can be seen in the centuries between Homer and Euripides where the change from epic poetry

to tragedies on the stage is evident in the telling of similar myths.5 The origins of Greek

mythology are shrouded in the anonymity of the storytellers from the long distant past, in

which these stories were first told.6 These storytellers were strongly influenced by older

traditions, such as those of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, merging the older stories into

the Greek culture, leading in the course of the Mycenaean period to the development of a

distinctive pantheon and collection of myths.7 Herodotus states that the Olympians took

temporary residence in northeast Africa, possibly caused by the attacks from Typhon,

showing how the Greeks knew of the influence of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures

on their own mythology.8 This pantheon of deities served to inject purpose into a universe that

was overwhelming to the ancient Greeks in its complexity.9 Qualities such as cosmic

harmony, wisdom and principles of equity, represent by deities such as Zeus and Athena,

were considered divine to the Greeks, and many monotheistic faiths still believe this.10 As

oral transmission made the early Greek myths fluid and at times contradictory, the very nature

of Greek society at the time made the definitions between the variations even more

pronounced. As Greece was divided into a number of diverse city-states geographically and

politically very different from their neighbouring cities, each of these poleis tended to create

and adapt their own variations of these myths.11 This resulted in cities creating their own

variations of myths to the deity honoured by their city, for example Athena and Athens, or to

their claimed local heroes, that the twelve labours of Herakles has variations of the number of

labours and what the labours are is an example of this.12 A culture’s myths therefore are a

living element y, they grow, change and adapt as the culture does.

For some, mythology is full of falsehoods. Today some people do equate myths with lies and

untruths.13 This is not true: myths are stories but not lies, and they are the history of a culture

before the universe was understood as it is today. Many modern scholars use the term myth

with more respect, stating that a myth has a truth of its own, that one that transcends fact to

                                                                                               5  Hard,  2004:  1.  6  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  3.  7  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  3.  8  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  9.  9  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  6.  10  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  6.  11  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  8.  12  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  8.  13  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  8.  

3

convey realities that, at the time of the myths creation, could not be empirically proven.14

Mythology of the ancient world shows the cultural views of society at the time, its life’s goals

as a society and the dangers of the time, both naturally and spiritually.15 To the ancient

Greeks, mythology was a type of pre-history, traditions of their ancestors from the extreme

distant past, from the world’s being to the time of the Trojan War.16

An essential part of any culture’s mythology is the placement of humanity, that is whether the

character is mortal or divine based on their conscious decisions. This humanism, the

placement of the human consciousness as a worldview in the centre of the universe, asserting

its intrinsic worth and the creative potential of the human conscious of an individual human

being, is essential to the Greek perspective in their mythology, as can be seen in Hesiod’s

Theogony.17 Whilst the Theogony does detail Zeus’ rise to power, it does not detail the

beginnings of the universe. This could be due to Hesiod not being able to conceive a world in

which men did not exist, though one without women he could.18 Hesiod supported the

influence from Near-Eastern cultures by following their conceptions of a mythic origin of the

universe, based on the Near East myths and their observations of their physical environment.

As Harris and Platzner state, this theory was later disproved by classical astronomers who

favoured a view of the universe that is the basis of our understandings today.19 These

traditions all combine to form a collection of genres in which these myths can be told,

creating a web of intertextuality.20 In many cases this web meant that new works had a sense

of relying and responding to earlier works, such as Seneca’s Medea.21 These traditions did not

only leave it open for the individual writer to adapt myths to suit their needs but to also write

their own if no myth suited his purpose.22

                                                                                               14  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  8.  15  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  8.  16  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  13.  17  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  20.  18  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  20.  19  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  45.  20  Graf,  2002:  110.  21  Graf,  2002:  110.  22  Graf,  2002:  110.  

4

Rome, Its Mythology and Greek Myths:

It was not only individual writers of the same society that adapted earlier myths. Greek myths,

which were distinguished by their humanism, anthropomorphism and sophistication, were

modified by the Romans, often for political and didactic purposes.23 This however was not an

exclusive characteristic of Roman writers as Greek writers had also used their mythology for

political purposes.24 Roman writers often used this legacy to validate and criticise policies and

pretentions of the Roman Empire.25 This can be seen in Ovid’s Metamorphoses whose final

book consists of a satiric juxtaposition to two claims of undying fame, that of the politicians

of the Imperial period and the fame of the poets.26 Ovid, like many other Latin writers, was

well versed in the earlier Greek writings, as well as commentaries on these by ancient writers.

These earlier genres, of Hesiod and Homer, were then taken over and adapted by the Latin

writers, who also used the themes and motifs of the Greek writers and made them their own.27

The Metamorphoses is again an example of this. Most of the work consists of Greek myths

retold for a Roman audience, including the use of Latin names for the gods such as Jove for

Zeus and Minerva for Athena. As with their Greek predecessors, the myths of the Romans

was full of intertextuality; however, this intertextuality became more complex as it not only

linked Latin writers to the earlier Greek writers but also to Roman writers before them and to

their contemporaries as again the myths of the Mediterranean were altered to suit the society

and political standings of the time.28 However the Latin writers, particularly of the late

Republic and early Augustan periods differed from their Greek predecessors in one key

element, to the Romans myths were works of poetic fiction and not that of history.29 This

notion dates to the sixth century BC and its philosophical reaction to the poets’ narrations on

the gods.30 Latin rhetoricians were clear in the categorization of mythical narrative texts, or

fabulae, and its opposition to historia, i.e. historical narrative. These definitions are referred

back to unknown Greek models.31 Mythical narratives were also different from plots of plays,

or argumenta.32 These categorizations were based on how much truth was in the content of

the body of works assigned to each category. Historiae are works that report actual events,                                                                                                23  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  3.  24  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  13.  25  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  13.  26  Harris,  Platzner,  1995:  13.  27  Manuwald,  2013:  114.  28  Manuwald,  2013:  114.  29  Graf,  2002:  108.  30  Graf,  2002:  109.  31  Graf,  2002:  109.  32  Graf,  2002:  109.  

5

whilst fabulae and argumenta are both fictional.33 However these two fictional categories

differ from each other in their plausibility and orientation. Argumentum is closer to historia in

this case as it has a clear orientation on real facts and can be deemed as a plausible event,

lacking the supporting evidence needed to make it historia.34 Fabulae were deemed as a work

that does not contain facts, definitive or plausible, and especially belongs to the tragic stage.35

However this last statement must be taken lightly as not only Ovid’s Metamorphoses but also

Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, or The Golden Ass, are works of poetic narrative and not

tragedies.

This idea of Romans assimilating the myths of the Greeks into their own mythology is based

on the assumption that the Romans already possessed their own repertoire of mythology.. In

contrast to this it has been claimed that in the earliest period of Rome, there was no Roman

pantheon: there only existed primitive powers undifferentiated by personal attributes.36 As

there were no gods, in the same sense as the Greek gods, there could be no stories about their

rise to power, their deeds and adventures or of their dalliances with humans.37 Slowly these

primitive powers began to take on personal attributes, transforming into anthropomorphic

gods, as Rome increased contact with Greece and its neighbouring cultures, such as the

Egyptians, in the last centuries BC.38 This theory however disregards Etruscan influence on

Roman mythology, and it can be said that the myths of the Etruscans are the forbearers of

Roman mythology. Another theory regarding early Roman mythology is that this native

tradition was lost or forgotten as the larger repertoire of the Greeks took over the mythology

of the Mediterranean.39 George Dumézil’s work examines this by looking at early Roman

religion and showing that there had once been Roman mythology that was equal to other

Indo-European people.40 In the Middle Republic, Dumézil argues, this original Roman

mythology was swamped by the larger Greek one.41 In contrast to these theories, some have

suggested that the early Roman myths did survive Greek assimilation, in plays, songs and

                                                                                               33  Graf,  2002:  109.  34  Graf,  2002:  109.  35  Graf,  2002:  109.  36  Beard  et  al,  1998:  171.  37  Beard  et  al,  1998:  171.  38  Beard  et  al,  1998:  171.  39  Beard  et  al,  1998:  171.  40  Dumézil,  1970:  47.  Beard  et  al,  1998:  171.  41  Beard  et  al,  1998:  171.  Quoting  Dumézil,  1970:  47-­‐59.  

6

folktales, right into the Imperial period, but do not survive to modern day was they were not

favoured by the elite writers, which was heavily influenced by Greek culture.42

This Greek influence can be seen in the public imagery of the late Republic and early-

Augustan period, which was largely mythological.43 The early books of Livy and Dionysius

of Halicarnassus continued this trend, exploring the mythology of early Rome.44 The

Metamorphoses was not Ovid’s only mythological work, his Fasti consisted of descriptions of

religious festivals and their associated myths.45 The borrowing from the Greek culture, as well

as other cultures such as the Egyptians’, and combining this with the native Italic traditions

created a mythological repertoire that was a complicated amalgam.46 This is a crucial fact, as

no matter how heavily influenced by the Greeks Roman writers were, Roman mythology is

distinctly different from its predecessor.47 This difference can be seen in the types of myths

the two cultures featured. Roman myths were in essence myths of place, of one location and

time separate from all others.48 In contrast to this, whilst the Greek myths similarly are

attached to specific cities and territories, they are not separated; rather they are linked to each

other in a grand Greek, or Panhellenic, mythology. The city of Rome is the dominant power in

Roman mythology, whether as in Greek mythology no one city has such domination over the

others.49 However both are similar in that they recount history, of Greece up to the Trojan

War and of the city of Rome itself respectively.50

This Thesis:

In Ovid’s Metamorphoses countless characters go through image changes, some as drastic as

physical changes from human in animals, such as birds and spiders, or even as far as mythical

creatures such as Scylla. These changes are more often brought about by the powers of the

gods, involving episodes of magic. At times these image changes can be subtler, involving

changes of character rather than physical changes. But it is not only in Ovid’s work that these

changes can be seen. More popular characters can undergo changes from how they are

perceived in earlier works to how Ovid portrays them. Two such characters are Hekate, who

                                                                                               42  Beard  et  al,  1998:  171.  43  Beard  et  al,  1998:  172.  44  Beard  et  al,  1998:  172.  45  Beard  et  al,  1998:  172.  46  Beard  et  al,  1998:  172.  47  Beard  et  al,  1998:  172.  48  Beard  et  al,  1998:  173.  49  Beard  et  al,  1998:  173.  50  Beard  et  al,  1998:  173.  

7

in classical mythology is the goddess of witches, and her most known and documented

servant, Medea. The image changes of these two characters will be explored in this thesis.

These two characters were chosen for a multitude of reasons. The first of these reasons is their

associations with magic and witchcraft. As stated, Hekate in classical mythology was the

goddess of witches, witchcraft and the crossroads, a place where many magical rituals took

place. However she was not always associated with witchcraft. In her earliest image, in

Hesiod’s Theogony, she was a protective and benevolent goddess, similar in ways to the Isis

of Egyptian mythology. In the centuries that passed between Hesiod and the writings of

Euripides and then later Ovid and Seneca, her image slowly took on that of the malevolent

and chthonic Hekate, patron of witches. These changes not only took place in works of

literature but also in pottery, which will also be explored. Medea in similar ways also changes

from a benevolent figure to a malevolent one. However unlike her patron, this change does

not take place over centuries, but over the course of her own story. Despite this, her story is

told in different ways, from the tragedies of Euripides and Seneca, both of which are very

different in their approaches, to the epics of Apollonius and Ovid, Medea’s life is not told in

the same way twice. Whilst many of these variations will overlap in the chosen time frame of

Medea’s story, each writer is very different in how they approach Medea and her

representation. Euripides’ character keeps some of her humanity, she is regretful that her

children must die at her hands for her revenge to be complete, whereas Seneca’s character

loses all her humanity; she has no regret over her children’s death. Studying the imagery

changes of Hekate and Medea is important as it gives insight to the reception of witches and

magical women in Greek mythology and how these perceptions change in a Roman context.

As both women started out as benevolent characters in their Greek perception and were

transformed into their malevolent perception by the Latin writers, it can be seen that the

Greeks were more open to the difference of non-Greek people, whereas the Romans where

closed off from anything they deemed non-Roman. This in turn can give insight into both

cultures as a whole and show how they can take the myths from earlier cultures and change

them to fit their own purpose. As these two characters are very different, approaches to the

exploration of their imagery changes must also be different. In exploring Hekate, this thesis

will start at the beginning of her chronological path, with Hesiod, working through the

centuries, to her portrayal by Ovid. As Hekate is more often a secondary character, her

imagery changes will be studied by looking at how she is called upon not only by her servants

such as Medea, but also how she is present in the myths of other deities such as Demeter and

Persephone in the Homeric hymn to Demeter. In surveying Medea her path through her life

8

will be explored, starting with Ovid’s portrayal of her life in Colchis, with contrasts of

Apollonius’ Argonautica, to her time in Corinth as described by Euripides and Seneca. By

exploring the imagery changes to these two characters it will be shown how mythology is not

a fixture in fiction like today’s fairy tales can be, but is a living genre that is in constant

change, dependant upon the society and political standings of any given time.

9

CHAPTER ONE

Hekate

Hekate is one of the most mysterious deities of the Greek-Roman pantheon. In classical

mythology she appears as a chthonic goddess associated with witches and negative magic.

This image of a malevolent goddess clearly comes through in books Seven and Eleven of

Ovid’s Metamorphoses, where she is called upon by Medea and Circe in their acts of

witchcraft. But Hekate was not always connected to witches. In Caria, a region of Asia Minor,

around the first century BC, it seems that Hekate was worshipped as a great goddess, the wife

of Zeus Panamerios.51 In Asia Minor Hekate’s functions cantered on the duty of gatekeeper of

towns and homes.52 This can be seen in greatest detail at Lagina, the site of the largest

sanctuary of Hekate (figure 1), where she is the preeminent deity, guaranteeing the protection

and affluence of the inhabitants.53 Another indicator of Hekate’s change in imagery is in Asia

Minor where the epithet Soteira or Saviour given to her in these lands.54 Hesiod’s Theogony

further supports this picture of a protective goddess.

Origins of Hekate

It is essential in the exploration of Hekate’s imagery changes to also explore the debate that

surrounds her origins. Carol Mooney goes into detail on theories of where Hekate’s origins

can be found. She starts this by looking at Lewis Farnell’s theory. In this Farnell takes a small

quote from Pausanias, in which Pausanias himself is quoting Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women

where Iphigenia is transformed, by Artemis, into Hekate.55 In doing this Hekate’s image is not

chthonic but similar to Artemis, otherworldly but not under worldly. By this it is implied that

Hekate was worshipped in the Chersonese as the maiden goddess of the Tauri, an image

similar to that which Hesiod presents.56 In Thessaly a legend contradicts Hesiod and makes

Hekate the daughter of Pheraia, who was exposed at crossroads, linking Hekate’s single form

to her triple form from classical mythology.57 As Artemis is the cousin of Hekate, they are

often identified as one in the same. This is supported by the fact that at Iolchus, Artemis was

                                                                                               51  Mooney,  1971:  11.  Berg,  1974:  131.  52  Mooney,  1971:  13.  53  Larson,  2007:  165.  54  Mooney,  1971:  13.  55  Mooney,  1971:  5.  Paus.  1.43.1  'They  say  Iphigenia’s  tumulus  is  there  too,  for  she  too  died  in  Megara.  But  I  have  heard  a  different  story  about  her  in  Arkadia,  and  I  know  that  in  Hesiod’s  poem,  the  Catalogue  of  Women,  Iphigenia  does  not  die,  but  by  the  power  of  Artemis  she  becomes  Hekate.  56  Mooney,  1971:  5.  57  Mooney,  1971:  6.  

10

not worshipped as the virgin huntress but as the goddess of sorcery, much like Hekate in the

Classical period.58 Hekate was most likely an equivalent to Artemis in Iolchus.59 In Boeotia

this link between the two goddesses continues to be seen , and in Pherae it seems that Hekate

was the daughter of Artemis and not her cousin.60 Farnell then goes on to connect witchcraft

and evil that Thessaly later develops is due to the popularity of Hekate in the region, though

she would have had to have these elements in her original character for this to be the case.61

Changes in her imagery can make the origins of Hekate difficult to place. Hekate’s origins

have been a topic of great debate but general consensus is now that Hekate was originally a

foreign goddess and that she was native of Caria and not Thrace.62 It is likely that Hekate’s

cult was adopted in Greece very early, at latest by the seventh century.63 Though Greek

religion had already assimilated Near-Eastern material before the arrival of Zeus worshipping

Indo-Europeans.64 Theodor Kraus places Hekate in Caria originally as there are a large

number of theophoric names, names with hekat-, testifying to Hekate in the Carian region of

Asia Minor, also that her main sanctuary was located in Lagina.65 Kraus calls this cult pre-

Greek as Lagina was not an important city during Greek times and its foreign name and

believes the cult made its way through Asia Minor and into Greece as early as in Mycenaean

times.66 A festival that took place annually in Lagina where it is conjectured that Hekate is

seen as a goddess of the dead and the underworld could possibly be the origins of Hekate’s

chthonic image, developed by the fifth century B.C.67 Whilst Hekate and Artemis are

commonly pictured together, particularly in the classical period and earlier, they are still very

different as in most aspects Hekate is grim, queen of ghosts and magic, the blacker the

better.68 In this same period monthly offerings of food and libations were left at statues of

Hekate to feed the goddess as stated in Aristophanes’ Wealth.69 It was also said that Hekate

was responsible when a patient exhibited night terrors that drove them from their beds.70

Deborah Boedeker states that “Hekate unites the spatial divisions of the universe, and also

                                                                                               58  Hard,  2004:  193,  Mooney,  1971:  6.  59  Mooney,  1971:  9.  60  Mooney,  1971:9.  61  Mooney,  1971:  7.  62  Mooney,  1971:  13,  Hard,  2004:  193.  63  Hard,  2004:  193,  Larson,  2007:  165.  64  Athanassakis,  1983:  5.  65  Mooney,  1971:  14.  Kraus,  1960:  43.  Berg,  1974:  134.  66  Mooney,  1971:  14,  16.  67  Mooney,  1971:  14,  Collins,  2008:  69.  68  Hard,  2004:  193.  69  Ar.  Plut.  594-­‐597.  Collins,  2008:  95.  70  Collins,  2008:  37.  

11

links the mortal and immortal races. Hecate also unites past and present time with her

influence.”71 Following the Hesiodic Hekate this is easily possible for a goddess with honour

and power in three realms, and even easier when combining her chthonic image, which would

give her power in all four realms. It is evident in the Theogony that Hekate’s power is mostly

focused on men, which makes it possible to consider Hekate to be a positive counterpart to

Pandora.72 In some recorded rites to Hekate it is said that the spilling of dog’s blood to purify

superstitious omens and leaving the bodies at crossroads were to propitiate the wrath of the

goddess.73 The epithet kourotrophos, ‘nurturer of youths’, points towards Hekate’s chthonic

origins, as does her role in the breeding and increasing of livestock, stated in the Theogony,

which points towards a chthonic deity with powers over generation and growth.74 This is

unusual when looking only at the modern definition of chthonic according to Oxford

Dictionary, meaning relating to or inhabiting the underworld, the world of the dead. The

origin of the word ‘chthonic’ however clears this up. Khthōn, the base of chthonic means

earth in Greek, who when personified is a nurturer and bringer of growth, much like Hekate in

the passage of the Theogony quoted above. This is in direct contrast to Hekate’s imagery in

Egypt, where her place among the gods is in folklore and not mythology.75 As well as this

Hekate is believed to be another title for Isis, the queen of the Gods, Mistress of Words of

Power, Goddess and Weaver of Spells and the Great Lady.76 This can be seen in the

Oxyrhynchus Papyrus XI 1380 where it is stated that in Caria Isis was called Hekate.77

Another link between Hekate and Isis is in their respective roles as supreme goddesses.

Hesiod states that τὴν περὶ πάντων Ζεὺς Κρονίδης τίµησε (“Zeus, Cronous’ son, honoured her

above all others”), making Hekate the most honoured of all the gods, Isis is a supreme mother

goddess.78 Both goddesses are also called upon in the protection of children, Hekate in the

Theogony and Isis as the mother of Horus.79 An association with witches is also incorporated

into the imagery of both Hekate and Isis. The use of magic is essential to Isis as it is by her

powers of magic that she is able to revive Osiris, her brother-husband, conceive and protect

Horus and assist the dead in the afterlife.80 This last use of her magic also creates a link to

Hekate, who is associated with the underworld in her capacity as guardian to roadside                                                                                                71  Boedeker,  1983:  82.  72  Boedeker,  1983:  90.  73  Fairbanks,  1900:  254.  74  Athanassakis,  1983:  57.  75  Williams,  1942:  112.  76  Williams,  1942:  112.  77  Grant,  1953:  128.  78  Hes.  Theog.  411.  Wilkinson,  2003:  148.  79  Hes.  Theog.  451.  Wlikinson,  2003:  148.  80  Wilkinson,  2003:  147.  

12

graves.81 Hekate is honoured in the Earth, Sky and Sea.82 Likewise, Isis has honours in three

realms, those being Heaven, Earth and the Netherworld, according to a hymn from Philae.83

In Plutarch, Isis is venerated as a moon goddess, but Hekate is also associated with the moon

through her connections to Selene.84 It is this lunar association that brings in a connection

between Hekate and Etruscan deities, in this case Catha. As the daughter of the sun Catha is

said to have lunar qualities, her first tie to Hekate.85 Catha is a goddess of heaven and light,

tying her to Hekate who has honours in heaven and is referred to in the Homeric Hymns as

being veiled in light.86 Catha also carries the epithet of Αἴγλη,“The Shining One”.87 Catha

also bears an underworld connection, as it was believed in Etruscan religion that the sun of

night shone in Hades.88 Catha however is not the only Etruscan goddess that shares aspects of

Hekate’s imagery, though she bears the most similarities. Alpan also has a similarity to

Hekate, namely in her being a personification of willingness.89 Hekate is said to be willing to

give happiness to the prayers she chooses to answer, and is willing to stand in support beside

those who honour her.90 Hekate’s imagery would have been familiar to not only the Greco-

Romans but the Egyptians and Etruscans as well.

This though assumes that Hekate originates in the Near East, with a great deal of influence

from the Egyptians into her original character. But, as William Berg argues, Hekate may have

originated in mainland Greece. Berg starts this exploration of whether Hekate is Greek or

Carian by examining the sanctuary at Lagina. The east frieze of the temple, showing the birth

of Zeus in which Hekate is giving the stone replacement to Kronos, can be supported by the

Theogony as she is kourotrophos par excellence, the nurturer of young children, in this case

Zeus.91 This is further supported by inscriptions dated to the Roman Imperial period, attesting

that Hekate is indeed great, so great that to obtain the priesthood of Hekate, one must be in the

priesthood of Zeus first.92 It can be said to be strange that these inscriptions follow the trend

of Hesiod’s praise as by the Roman Imperial period Hekate was firmly placed in the folds of

                                                                                               81  Hornblower  et  al.  Oxford  Classical  Dictionary.  82  Hes.  Theog.  412.  83  Wilkinson,  2003:  147.  84  Wilkinson,  2003:  147.  Hornblower  et,  al.  Oxford  Classical  Dictionary.  85  De  Grummond,  2006:  103.  86  De  Grummond  and  Simon,  2006:  11.  87  De  Grummond  and  Simon,  2006:  139.  88  De  Grummond  and  Simon,  2006:  140.  89  De  Grummond,  2006:  142.  90  Hes  Theog.  429-­‐446.  91  Berg,  1974:  130.  92  Berg,  1974:  130.  

13

chthonic deities, her attachment to witches and witchcraft settled after centuries of

corruption.93 Also by this period Hekate is seldom presented without her triple body, or at

least triple head, form, however at Lagina she is presented in her single body form, which is

dated to the sixth and fifth centuries BC, though she was also represented in triple form during

these centuries as well.94 It is here that the idea of Hekate being of Carian origins starts to

breakdown. Stratoniciea, the town of which the sanctuary of Lagina lies on the outskirts of,

seems to be the only region in Caria to present Hekate in her single form, elsewhere she is

presented in her triple form.95 The single form cult statue, holding a torch and phialē, also

appears on coins from Stratoniciea from the first century BC onwards.96 Only one other

example of Hekate being presented in such a form, outside of Stratoniciea has been found and

that is from Euhippe, a Trajanic town of unknown origin.97 As other towns in Caria, such as

Antiocheia and Tralles, minted exclusively the triple form of Hekate, it is likely that Lagina is

the only location in Caria to house her “original Carian” single form.98 Another hole in the

Carian origin theory is that despite the extensive amount of epigraphic evidence and ruins at

Lagina, only one item so far has predated the first century BC, the altar of Mēnophilos.99 This

altar is not a grand monument to a superior Anatolian goddess, rather than it is a monument of

Roman imperial policy in Asia Minor.100 This temple then, whether it is dated to before or

after the Mithridatic wars, proclaims the theme of eternal friendship and loyalty of

Stratoniciea to its Roman Masters, kyrioi Romaioi, as stated in an inscription on the temple

itself.101 If Caria is indeed the origins of Hekate, she did not achieve the status of superior

goddess, despite her praises being sung by Hesiod, until Rome made her so, due to the

military and political events of the first century BC.102 However there had been some religious

activity at Lagina before the first century BC. An exploration of a nearby necropolis revealed

a collection of potsherds that are dated as far back as the Geometric period.103 An altar dated

to the second pre-Christian century shows worship of Hekate at Lagina during the period of

Rhodian domination, this is the above-mentioned altar of Mēnophilos, a priest of Hekate.104

                                                                                               93  Berg,  1974:  130.  94  Berg,  1974:  130-­‐131.  95  Berg,  1974:  131.  96  Berg,  1974:  131.  97  Berg,  1974:  132.  98  Berg,  1974:  132.  99  Berg,  1974:  132.  100  Berg,  1974:  132.  101  Berg,  1974:  132-­‐133.  102  Berg,  1974:  133.  103  Berg,  1974:  133.  104  Berg,  1974:  133.  

14

However nothing is known of the site of Lagina and its religious practices before the third

century BC, four centuries after Hesiod wrote his Theogony.105 The strongest argument which

Berg makes for Hekate being of Greek origin is that almost all of the archaeological evidence

for her comes from the Greek mainland and not the Asia Minor coast.106 A second argument

is made that the “Hymn to Hekate” from Hesiod’s Theogony was actually a later addition,

dating no later than the archaic period.107 Berg argues that the name Hekate is not especially

Carian; rather it is an aspect of her Hellenization and was brought to Lagina by the Rhodians,

who saw in the Lagina goddess traits of a Greek Hekate.108 This idea of Hekate as a Greek

name is further supported by epithets used with Apollo, with whom Hekate is associated at

Miletus.109 Hekatos is an epithet often applied to Apollo by the Ionian Greeks, its meaning is

unclear though it is generally thought to mean “far-shooting”, and this traditional etymology

has been applied to Hekate as well.110 At the end of the third century BC, this epithet, in its

female form hekatē, had been applied to Artemis, who like her twin brother was also “far-

shooting”.112 The application of this epithet to Artemis could explain the imagery of a single

bodied Hekate, a simple confusion of names.113 This can be seen to have occurred as on

Delos and Rhodes Artemis and Hekate are linked as a grave-goddess.114 This image is far

from the usual wild huntress image associated with Artemis, but is closer to the imagery of a

chthonic Hekate of Classical mythology. These two goddesses are further linked by their

individual associations with dogs, hunting dogs and Artemis and dog sacrifices with Hekate.

By this a misnaming can be seen to be plausible. Hesiod’s Theogony is the first surviving

documentation of Hekate in the Greek world, and in this body of work she is linked closely

not only with Zeus, who praises her above all others, but also with Poseidon and Hermes.115

These three deities together are valuable to men who live from harvesting, whether off the

land, livestock or sea.116 This tie to harvests is strengthened further with the Homeric hymn to

Demeter, where Hekate is linked to the grain goddess and her daughter Persephone, bringing

about an Eleusinian trio to aid men in harvest and cultivation of livestock. Berg’s final

argument for a Greek origin of Hekate is that down to the fourth century BC, literary,

                                                                                               105  Berg,  1974:  134.  106  Berg,  1974:  134.  107  Berg,  1974:  134.  108  Berg,  1974:  135.  109  Berg,  1974:  134.  110  Berg,  1974:  135.  112  Berg,  1974:  136.  113  Berg,  1974:  136.  114  Berg,  1974:  136.  115  Berg,  1974:  138.  116  Berg,  1974:  138.  

15

archaeological and epigraphic evidence of the worship of Hekate is only found in Ionian and

Aeolian cities and their colonies on either side of the Aegean, the population that claims

decent from the fallen Mycenaean kings.117 These are only a brief examination of Berg’s

arguments for a Greek origin of Hekate.

Hekate in Pottery:

Hekate’s image as a protective goddess and later a chthonic goddess comes through in

literature as well as art. The imagery used to present Hekate in pottery is important as it may

show representations of myths that have not survived in literature. To show this, and how it

relates to her imagery in literature, three pieces of art have been selected, progressing from

her protective image of Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns, to her ties to witches, like Medea,

and their craft as the goddess of witchcraft. The first of these is a terracotta bell crater dated

circa 440 BC in Attica, currently in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (figure 2).

Depicted on this crater is Persephone’s return to her mother Demeter from the Underworld,

guided by Hekate and Hermes. This crater is a direct link to the Homeric Hymn to Demeter.

On this crater Hekate is depicted as a mature woman, of age with Demeter. She carries two

torches to light Persephone’s way. This crater lacks most of the images associated with

witches, such as the flowing hair, as Hekate’s is tied up similar to Demeter’s, wildness of

gesture and facial expression, Hekate is quiet serene in this depiction, however the bare feet

are present on Hekate and possibly Demeter. This crater is clearly keeping the imagery of

Hekate as a protective goddess into the fifth century, where her image in literature changes to

that of a chthonic goddess. The second image comes from a lekythos currently at the

University of California, San Diego (figure 3). This lekythos is dated circa 480 BC, forty

years older than the crater. Hekate’s image depicted on this lekythos is not directly linked to

any of the Hekate myths to be discussed but is a link between how her imagery changes. It

cannot be definitively said that she is practicing a magical rite on this lekythos but this image

does link her natures as a protective goddess to that of the goddess of witchcraft. On this

lekythos Hekate is depicted with her hair flowing over her shoulders and her feet are bare, two

devices used to depict someone as a witch. She is still quite serene in her face and still carries

the two torches much like how she is depicted in the crater, though torches are also associated

with chthonic deities. This second image can be seen on a jug of the British Museum, dated

circa 350-300 BC (figure 4). On this jug Hekate, or one of her priestess, is depicted as

dancing wildly in front of an altar with flames, torches in hand, flowing hair and assumedly                                                                                                117  Berg,  1974:  140.  

16

bare feet. Gone are the serene expressions of the two previous images, Hekate, or her

priestess, are clearly involved in a magical rite, the image of a witch indisputably present.

Hekate in Greece

The Theogony provides an account of the origins of the world and deities as Hesiod knew

them to be. The main theme to the poem is the rise and fall of the various levels in the

hierarchy of the gods, beginning with Uranus and ending with Zeus. The opening line to the

‘Hymn to Hekate’ in Hesiod’s Theogony sets up a plethora of praise towards the goddess.

Hekate, ‘whom Zeus, Cronus’ son, honoured above all other’ has none of the later

connotations of witchcraft her image comes with.118 No other known piece of literature has

such praise of Hekate. But in the first Orphic Hymn, the ‘Hymn to Hekate’, there is a

combination of the positive image portrayed in the Theogony, as well as the image of Hekate

as the goddess of witchcraft from later antiquity: ‘Lovely Hekate of the roads and of the

crossroads I invoke.’119 Whilst the Orphic Hymns do not mention Zeus bestowing honours

upon Hekate like the Theogony, they mix the two images being presented: Hekate as a

protective goddess and as a malign goddess of witchcraft.

The Theogony continues with:

µοῖραν ἔχειν γαίης τε καὶ ἀτρυγέτοιο θαλάσσης.

ἣ δὲ καὶ ἀστερόεντος ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ἔµµορε τιµῆς

ἀθανάτοις τε θεοῖσι τετιµένη ἐστὶ µάλιστα..120

These lines define just where in the hierarchy of the universe Hekate has honour, or timê. She

is awarded honour in earth, sky and sea both by the Titans, the old order, and by Zeus in the

new order.121 In the case of Hekate, timê implies honour more than power, but this does not

detract from the honour granted to Hekate.122 That Hekate is given honour in earth, sky and

sea, but not the underworld, is unusual when considering the imagery of Hekate in the

Classical period. “Hekate’s share in all these realms contrasts with the Homeric pattern

                                                                                               118  Hes.  Theog.  411-­‐412.  Trans.  G.  Most  2006.  119  Hymn.  Orph.  1.  120  Hes.  Theog.  413-­‐415.  ‘μαλισταTo  have  a  share  of  the  earth  and  of  the  barren  sea,  and  from  the  starry  sky  as  well  she  has  a  share  in  honour,  and  is  honoured  most  of  all  by  the  immortal  gods.’  121  Boedeker,  1983:  81.  122  Boedeker,  1983:  81.  

17

whereby different parts of the universe are apportioned to different gods.”123 It is a common

myth that the three brothers Zeus, Poseidon and Hades drew lots to divide the world between

them, earth and sky, sea and the underworld respectively.124 Hekate however has honours,

given by Zeus in three of these. Her underworld, chthonic, imagery is strangely missing from

this poem.125

[...]πολλή τέ οἱ ἕσπετο τιµὴ

ῥεῖα µάλ᾽, ᾧ πρόφρων γε θεὰ ὑποδέξεται εὐχάς,

καί τέ οἱ ὄλβον ὀπάζει, ἐπεὶ δύναµίς γε πάρεστιν.126

This passage of the Theogony shows that in archaic Greece men, and assumedly women,

prayed to Hekate to bring happiness and protection to themselves. They would not have done

this if, at this time, she were solely associated with negative magic, witches and the

underworld. Though in the case of the underworld it could be possible that protection referred

to protection from entering the underworld before one’s time and happiness could refer to

entering the Elysian Fields and not Tartarus. Supposing that the honours mentioned in line

418 were those given to a person upon the occasion of their death supports this interpretation.

However this interpretation does not fit into the rest of the poem and supports that Hesiod did

not see Hekate as the chthonic goddess she later became. Line 429 further supports this

conclusion: ‘She stands mightily at the side of whomever she wishes and helps him.’127

Another piece of evidence to support the idea that Hekate did not start as a chthonic goddess

comes in lines 434-436 of the Theogony:

[...] παρ᾽αἰδοίοισι καθίζει,

ἐσθλὴ δ᾽ αὖθ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ ἄνδρες ἀεθλεύωσιν ἀγῶνι,

ἔνθα θεὰ καὶ τοῖς παραγίγνεται ἠδ᾽ ὀνίνησιν [...]128

                                                                                               123  Boedeker,  1983:  81.  124  This  myth  is  mentioned  in  the  Illiad  lines  223-­‐230.  125  Boedeker,  1983:  84,  Collins,  2008:  193.  126  Hes.  Theog.  418-­‐420.  ‘Much  honour  very  easily  stays  with  that  man  whose  prayers  the  goddess  accepts  with  gladness,  and  she  bestows  happiness  upon  him,  for  this  power  she  certainly  has.’  127  Hes.  Theog.  429.  128  Hes.  Theog.  434-­‐436.  ‘She  is  good  whenever  men  are  competing  in  an  athletic  contest-­‐  there  the  goddess  stands  by  their  side  too  and  helps  them.’  

18

One would not call upon a goddess associated with negative magic when asking for good luck

in sporting competitions.129 So by this Hekate could not be associated with the underworld at

the time of Hesiod, and if she was Hesiod did not see her this way. This could be for a number

of reasons. Hesiod could be ignoring the popular view of Hekate and could be attempting to

create a new image for her. Or he could be ignoring the contemporary view of the goddess in

favour of her origins, which will be discussed further. A third is that this is the archaic

goddess, and not the one portrayed in classical mythology. One way of achieve a new imagery

for the goddess would be to link her to another god, such as in lines 444-447:

ἐσθλὴ δ᾽ ἐν σταθµοῖσι σὺν Ἑρµῇ ληίδ᾽ ἀέξειν:

βουκολίας δ᾽ ἀγέλας τε καὶ αἰπόλια πλατέ᾽ αἰγῶν

ποίµνας τ᾽ εἰροπόκων ὀίων, θυµῷ γ᾽ ἐθέλουσα,

ἐξ ὀλίγων βριάει κἀκ πολλῶν µείονα θῆκεν..130

In this passage Hekate is linked with Hermes as a protector of livestock. This is another case

in which one would not usually to call upon a chthonic god for help. Though line 447 does

suggest Hekate can be cruel and decrease the number of livestock a man may have, if she so

wishes, this is not to suggest she is a cruel, malignant goddess, just that like all the gods men

are at their command and can sometimes be victims to their moods and whims. What is more

complicated in this passage is the link between Hekate and Hermes. This is because Hermes is

not only the protector of livestock but also companion to the dead on their journey to the

underworld.131 This image of Hermes, along with Hekate and Persephone, as the guide and

visitor of the dead was prominent by the fifth century BC and is also seen in Homer,

particularly the Odyssey.132 This change to Hekate’s image, towards the malevolent, chthonic

goddess of classical mythology, is a complete turnabout from the protective, benevolent

goddess she was viewed in earlier centuries, which is shown in the Theogony, as has been

discussed.133 This change can be seen in the ‘Homeric Hymn to Demeter’, dated to the

seventh century BC, as this is the first known evidence linking Hekate to Persephone.134

Having heard of the abduction of Persephone, -‘no one except the daughter of Perses, tender-

                                                                                               129  Golden,  2004:  147.  130  Hes.  Theog.  444-­‐447.  ‘And  she  is  good  in  the  stables  at  increasing  the  livestock  together  with  Hermes;  and  the  herds  and  droves  of  cattle,  and  the  broad  flocks  of  goats  and  the  flocks  of  woolly  sheep,  if  in  her  spirit  she  so  wishes,  from  a  few  she  strengthens  them  and  from  many  she  makes  them  fewer.’  131  Collins,  2008:  71.  132  Hom.  Od.  15.1-­‐4,  Collins,  2008:  71.  133  Collins,  2008:  71.  134  Hard,  2004:  193.  

19

hearted Hekate, veiled in light, heard from her cave’135, she informs Demeter of the abduction

and is there when mother and daughter are reunited, at which time Hekate becomes

Persephone’s companion:

[…]Ἑκάτη λιπαροκρήδεµνος

πολλὰ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀµφαγάπησε κόρην Δηµήτερος ἁγνήν

ἐκ τοῦ οἱ πρόπολος καὶ ὀπάων ἔπλετ᾽ ἄνασσα.136

This passage illustrates Hekate’s transformation into the chthonic goddess she is known as in

later centuries. In this poem she is still portrayed in a positive light as she is constantly

referred to as being veiled in light. These lines from the ‘Hymn to Demeter’ are also the

beginning of her later association to the moon.137 The final piece of evidence to prove that

Hekate did not start as a chthonic goddess comes in the final three lines of the ‘Hymn to

Hekate’:

θῆκε δέ µιν Κρονίδης κουροτρόφον, οἳ µετ᾽ ἐκείνην

ὀφθαλµοῖσιν ἴδοντο φάος πολυδερκέος Ἠοῦς.

οὕτως ἐξ ἀρχῆς κουροτρόφος, αἳ δέ τε τιµαί.138

That she is made the nurse of all children clearly shows that she was not associated with the

underworld at this time, as no parent would logically want a chthonic goddess protecting their

child.

Hesiod gives more attention to Hekate than any other deity save for Zeus.139 The honours

given to Hekate in the Theogony are unique, not only to the poem itself, but in the pantheon of

gods as no other is given such a broad range of influence.140 Hekate is not mentioned in

Homer, in any extant texts.141 It is evident in Hesiod’s lines praising Hekate, that she was seen

                                                                                               135  Hom.  Hymn  Dem.  24-­‐25.  136  Hom.  Hymn  Dem.  437-­‐440.  ‘Hekate,  veiled  in  light,  came  near  them  and  warmly  embraced  holy  Demeter’s  daughter.  From  then  on  Hekate  was  her  attendant  and  companion.’  137  Larson,  2007:  166.  138  Hes.  Theog.  450-­‐452.  ‘And  Cronus’  son  made  her  the  nurse  of  all  the  children  who  often  see  her  with  their  eyes,  the  light  of  the  much-­‐seeing  Dawn.  Thus  since  the  beginning  she  is  a  nurse  and  these  are  her  honours.’  139  Boedeker,  1983:  80.  140  Boedeker,  1983:  80.  141  Collins,  2008:  193.  

20

as a universal goddess.142 “Mazon, without citing any evidence apart from the passage itself,

declares that Hekate must have been the chief goddess of Hesiod’s village of Ascra, and that

the Theogony must have been composed specifically for a festival.”143 As to the goddess’

individual character very little light is shown.144 The Theogony mentions the benefits Hekate

can give if she so choses but does not mention if she is more inclined to give or take away.

There is also no mention of how Hekate is worshipped though it can be presumed that she was

worshipped as a great goddess as she was in Caria as Hesiod’s description is closer to her

Carian one than to her image of the Classical period, which it blatantly contradicts.145 “In

contrast to the usual picture of a sinister, chthonic Hekate associated with the dead, the moon,

crossroads, torches, dog sacrifices, the Hesiodic figure can be called ‘a healthy, independent

and open-minded goddess with “universal” powers.146

Ovid and Hekate

This contrast is most evident when comparing Hesiod’s Theogony to Ovid’s Metamorphoses.

Whilst Ovid does not give Hekate her own story she is mentioned extensively in others,

particularly those of Medea and Circe. The first time Ovid presents Hekate is in the following

line:

Ibat ad antiquas Hecates Perseidos aras,

Quas nemus unbrosum secretaque silva tegebat.147

This passage introduces Hekate to the reader; there is no information about her other than that

she is the daughter of Perses. However it can be assumed that she has fully taken on her

chthonic imagery by this time as Medea, who is a well-known sorceress, is going to her altar,

which is hidden deep in a forest. If she was still the universal goddess from Hesiod her altar, it

can be assumed, would not be hidden as deep as implied by this passage. That Hekate’s altar

is in a forest also adds to the imagery of a witch goddess, for many witches, even in modern

fairy tales, hide in forests. This is because many witches use herbs and plants in their spell

                                                                                               142  Collins,  2008:  193.  143  Boedeker,  1983:  80.  144  Collins,  2008:  193.  145  Collins,  2008:  193,  Larson,  2007:  165.  146  Boedeker,  1983:  79.  147  Ov.  Met.  7.74-­‐75  She  (Medea)  took  her  way  to  an  ancient  altar  of  Hekate,  the  daughter  of  Perse,  hidden  in  the  deep  shades  of  a  forest.  

21

craft, so it is fitting that the goddess of witches and witchcraft has her altar in the forest. That

this form of witchcraft is supported by Hekate is evident in the following passage:

[…] Per sacra triformis

Ille deae lucoque foret quod numen in illo

Perque patrem soceri cernentem cuncta future

Eventusque suos et tanta pericula iurat:

Creditus accepit cantatas protinus herbas […].148

Triformis in this passage refers to Hekate as she is often depicted as having three forms, one

for looking each way at a crossroad. The herbs, or herbae, that Medea is giving Jason in this

passage are ones to protect him from the fire breathing bulls and to give him strength against

the warriors that arise from the planted dragon teeth. As such in this instance the magic being

used can be considered positive magic, as it is a means of protection not of destruction. That

Jason must swear by Hekate, among others, before Medea will give him these herbs shows

that Hekate is goddess of all magic and witchcraft, not just those concerning curses or

negative magic. Whilst by this time Hekate would have fully transformed into the chthonic

goddess image of classical mythology, in book seven of the Metamorphoses Ovid has written

her to be involved in positive magic more than negative magic, at least in this stage of the

myth. Even in the following passage were Jason is asking Medea to remove years from his

life to restore his father’s.

[…] “Quod” inquit

“Excidit ore tuo, coniunx, scelus? Ergo ego cuiquam

Posse tuae videor spatium transcribere vitae?

Nec sinat hoc Hecate, nec tu petis aequa; sed isto,

Quod petis, experiar maius dare munus, Iason.

Arte mea soceri longum temptabimus aevum,

Non annis revocare tuis, modo diva triformis

Adiuvet et praesens ingentibus adnuat ausis.”149

                                                                                               148  Ov.  Met.  7.94-­‐99  He  (Jason)  swore  he  would  be  true  by  the  sacred  rites  of  the  threefold  goddess  (Hekate),  by  whatever  divinity  might  be  in  that  grove,  by  the  all  beholding  father  of  his  father-­‐in-­‐law  who  was  to  be,  by  his  own  successes  and  his  mighty  perils.  She  (Medea)  believed,  and  straight  he  received  the  magic  herbs  and  learnt  their  use,  then  withdrew  full  of  joy  into  his  lodgings.  149  Ov.  Met.  7.171-­‐178  ‘What  impious  words  have  fallen  from  your  lips,  my  husband?  Can  I  then  transfer  to  any  man,  think  you,  a  portion  of  your  life?  Neither  would  Hekate  permit  this,  nor  is  your  request  right.  But  

22

Medea sees it as malevolent and very unnatural to remove the years of someone’s life to give

them to another. By Hekate not permitting this to be done shows that she supports protective

magic and not the negative magic some may say she is active in.

This malevolent image can be seen in Euripides’ Medea:

οὐ γὰρ µὰ τὴν δέσποιναν ἣν ἐγὼ σέβω

µάλιστα πάντων καὶ ξυνεργὸν εἱλόµην,

Ἑκάτην, µυχοῖς ναίουσαν ἑστίας ἐµῆς,

χαίρων τις αὐτῶν τοὐµὸν ἀλγυνεῖ κέαρ.150

These lines contradict the image of positive magic evoked by Ovid’s Hekate. This

contradiction could be due to the fact that these two passages come from very different parts

of the Medea myth. The chosen passage of Ovid is set at the beginning of the Medea myth,

just after Medea and Jason have fled her homeland. The passage from Euripides is set when

Jason betrays and leaves Medea for a younger wife, setting Medea on a path of revenge and

destruction. That it is Medea calling upon Hekate in all of the above passages and not

passages of the goddess herself means that the imagery invoked of Hekate is dictated by

Medea’s mentality. In the passages from Ovid, Medea is happy, joyful and benevolent,

without signs of her vengeful nature. She has her husband by her side, seemingly full of love.

In Euripides, Medea is filled with bitterness and rage, love has left her heart leaving her

empty and cold, so it is only natural for her to use malevolent magic to enact her revenge, and

as Hekate is the patron of all witches, Medea’s revenge takes Hekate’s imagery down the

same destructive path. Both Ovid and Euripides are in direct opposition to Hesiod, in many

ways. The largest of these is whether or not witchcraft is portrayed in Hekate’s imagery;

Hesiod does not have this aspect, Ovid and Euripides do. Hesiod, and the chosen passages in

Ovid from the Medea myth both invoke light images of the goddess, as a universal goddess

and as a patron of protective magic respectively; Euripides does the opposite by invoking

Hekate in malevolent magic. The final passage concerning Hekate in the Medea myth as told

by Ovid comes as Medea is collecting herbs to use in restoring the life to Jason’s father.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     a  greater  boon  than  what  you  ask,  my  Jason,  will  I  try  to  give.  By  my  art  and  not  your  years  I  will  try  to  renew  your  father’s  long  span  of  life,  if  only  the  three-­‐formed  goddess  will  help  me  and  grant  her  present  aid  in  this  great  deed  which  I  dare  attempt.’  150  Eur.  Med.  395-­‐398.  ‘For,  by  the  mistress  whom  I  revere  most  of  all,  and  whom  I  have  chosen  as  a  partner,  Hekate,  dwelling  in  the  corners  of  my  hearth,  none  of  them  will  hurt  my  heart  and  be  happy.’  

23

“Nox” ait “arcanis fidissima, quaeque diurnis

Aurea cum luna succeditis ignibus astra,

Tuque, triceps Hecate, quae coeptis conscia nostris

Adiutrixque venis cantusque artisque magorum

Quaeque magos, Tellus, pollentibus instruis herbis,

Auraeque et venti montesque amnesque lacusque,

Dique omnes nemorum, dique omnes noctis adeste,

Quorum ope.”[…]151

Again Hekate is referred to in her triple form. In this passage Hekate can be compared to the

imagery of witches Apuleius invokes in his own Metamorphoses.

“Saga’ inquit ‘et divini potens caelum deponere, terram

suspendere, fonts durare, montes diluere, manes sublimare, deos

infimare, sidera exstinguere, Tartaum ipsum illuminare.’152

This passage is describing a witch by the name of Meroe, who slit the throat of Socrates, a

friend of the author not the philosopher, in an act of malevolent magic. Socrates however

lived after this rite had been performed, none the wiser, though his friend had witnessed it.

She is described as having supernatural powers, just as Medea and Hekate have. Meroe has

power in earth and sky, like Hekate in the Theogony, but also in Tartarus, which Hekate is

later, associated with, this imagery beginning to be seen in Ovid at this time and already seen

in Euripides. By invoking not only Hekate but the Earth, Night, gods of the grove and that the

herbs being collected are meant to improve the life of an old man, her father-in-law, makes

the spell Medea is casting benevolent magic. Though the extension of life beyond its natural

course is deemed unnatural, and by this could be considered negative magic, the use of herbs

                                                                                               151  Ov.  Met.  7.193-­‐215  ‘O  Night,  faithful  preserver  of  mysteries,  and  ye  bright  stars,  whose  golden  beams  with  the  moon  succeed  the  fires  of  day;  thou  three-­‐formed  Hecate,  who  knowest  our  undertakings  and  comest  to  the  aid  of  spells  and  arts  of  magicians;  and  thou,  O  Earth,  who  dost  provide  the  magicians  with  thy  potent  herbs;  ye  breezes  and  winds,  ye  mountains  and  streams  and  pools;  all  ye  gods  of  the  groves,  all  ye  gods  of  the  night:  be  with  me  now.’  152  Ap.  Met.  1.8  “A  witch,’  he  replied,   ‘with  supernatural  power:  she  can   lower  the  sky  and  suspend  the  earth,  solidify  fountain  and  dissolve  mountains,  raise  up  ghosts  and  bring  down  gods,  darken  the  stars  and  

light  up  Tartarus  itself.’    

24

is well known to extend life, just not to the extent Ovid writes, making it neutral magic.

Ovid’s choice to use magorum derived from magus, or “magician”, instead of saga or

venefica both of which means witch or sorceress, also supports this idea of Hekate being

involved in only positive magic. Whilst maga can also mean witch that it is also the word for

magician shows that magic could be separated into rites practiced by magicians as positive

and neutral magic, neutral magic being that which is unnatural but not harmful, and rituals

practiced by witches as malevolent magic, but both are magic and both are under the

patronage of Hekate. The final passage comes from the myth of Circe and Odysseus, where

Circe is transforming Odysseus’ men into pigs. This is the first time in Ovid where Hekate is

being called upon in a negative magic rite.

Illa nocens spargit virus sucosque veneni

Et Noctem Noctisque deos Ereboque Chaoque

Convocat et longis Hecaten ululatibus orat.153

In this passage the herbs are called baleful drugs and poisonous juices, spargit virus sucosque

veneni giving them a more malevolent imagery. This turns the power of herbs, like the ones

used by Medea at the start of her myth, from positive magic, natural and beneficial, to

malevolent magic, used to harm, nocens, and by doing so adds to Hekate’s imagery that of

negative magic. This however is conflicting. Whilst Circe is as well known a sorceress as her

niece Medea, it is Circe who invokes Hecate in the more sinister rites of witchcraft, and not

Medea, who does so in Euripides. Indeed Ovid does not go into great detail of Medea’s

murderous revenge enacted upon Jason at all. Ovid does record the deeds that Medea does in

Corinth, namely burning the princess alive via magical clothing and killing her sons, it is done

so in only a few lines and it is at this time Medea turns truly malevolent. This is reflective of

Hekate’s own transformation from the light universal goddess of Hesiod to the chthonic

goddess found in Ovid and later writers.

                                                                                               153  Ov.  Met.  14.403-­‐405  But  she  (Circe)  sprinkled  upon  them  her  baleful  drugs  and  poisonous  juices,  summoning  to  her  aid  Night  and  the  gods  of  Nights  from  Erebus  and  Chaos,  and  calling  on  Hecate  in  long-­‐drawn,  wailing  cries.  

25

Beyond Ovid

It is clear from the above discussion that Hekate did not always have the image of a chthonic

goddess. She started as a foreign protective goddess with no ties to witchcraft and power in

earth, sky and sea. This image first drawn by Hesiod and in the Homeric hymns is later

supported by the art of the late-fifth century, two centuries after it was recorded. Though in

the case of the Homeric Hymns they could also be supporting the imagery associated with

Hekate in pottery as they were composed over many years. The turning point towards the

chthonic imagery Hekate takes on in the literature of classical mythology is not clear, but was

evident in the early fifth century pottery.Meaning that the two separate images of Hekate were

in circulation together at one time, for a period of at least forty years by looking at the art

mentioned. Ovid further drew on this imagery of the chthonic goddess in Classical Greek

mythology, drawing upon her associations with magic and the underworld. Ovid made Hekate

the patron of all witches and practitioners of magic, whether they practiced benevolent or

malevolent magic made no difference to Ovid’s Hekate. Ovid however was not the end of

Hekate’s development, her image continues to develop even today as more is discovered

about this mysterious goddess as can be seen in Seneca’s Medea and into Renaissance

literature in Shakespeare’s Macbeth.

26

Figure  1:  Layout  of  Sanctuary  of  Hekate  

at  Lagina  

Figure  2:  Terracotta  Bell  Crater,  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art:  28.57.23  

Figure  3:  Lekythos,  University  of  California  

                                                                                                                                                                         Figure  4:  Jug,  British  Museum:    

                                                                                                                                                                                         GR  1871.7-­‐22.1  

27

CHAPTER TWO

Medea

Hekate is not the only character in Greco-Roman mythology associated with magic that goes

through a change of imagery. For example, one of her best-known servants, Medea does. Like

her patron goddess, Medea’s image changes as her story is told and retold. However Medea’s

is not a linear progression. Euripides’ homonymous play is the first piece of literature in

which we are introduced to Medea. But this is not the beginning of her story. Euripides’ play

retells the middle of her chronicle, in Corinth. It is this play that gives Medea her image as a

powerful witch. Creon, King of Corinth, banishes Medea from the city because she is ‘clever

(έξυπνος) […] and knowledgeable (νοήµων) in many evil (κακῶν ) things’154. This line

clearly refers to her magical arts, ones that she herself boasts to Aegeus, King of Athens.155

However, whilst it is Euripides’ play that gives Medea her image as a witch or sorceress, the

image of her portrayed by Roman authors such as Ovid and Seneca is very different.156 For it

is in Ovid’s Metamorphoses that the full story of Medea is told. In the centuries between

Euripides’ tragedy and Ovid’s epic many writers, such as Ennius, Accius and Horace, had

taken up the mantle of conveying Medea’s story. Horace briefly mentions the

inappropriateness of showing Medea when she murders her children, highlighting an this as

an unnatural characteristic.157 Ennius and Accius only survive in fragments and in the

commentaries by other Roman writers.158 Ovid does draw heavily upon Apollonius of

Rhodes’ Argonautica in this retelling of the Medea myth, for example in the scene where

Medea and Jason first meet alone at the altar of Hekate. In Ovid’s Metamorphoses, like in

Euripides’ play, Medea hides her powers at first but as each piece progresses she reveals

them. In Ovid her powers are seen at first as beneficial though they turn malevolent very

quickly. Euripides’ Medea however ignores her beneficial powers and concentrates on the

malevolent ones instead. Seneca’s Medea on the other hand makes no attempt to hide what

her powers have done for Jason in the past, and is constantly referring to the times in which

she has used them to the benefit of Jason and usually the harm or death of others, namely her

brother and Pelias, Jason’s uncle. In her story has a whole, Medea’s magic starts as benign

and slowly over time transforms into the wicked magic most associate with her. In doing so,

                                                                                               154  Eur.  Med.  285.  155  Graf,  1997:  30.  156  Graf,  1997:  30.  157  Hor.  Ars.  P.  185.  Manuwald,  2013:  116  158  For  more  information  on  Medea  in  Latin  Literature  outside  of  Ovid  and  Seneca  see  Manuwald,  2013.  

28

the story highlights Medea’s own metamorphosis from a meek, naïve adolescent to a strong,

independent, vengeful woman. She becomes a law unto her own, a force of chaos and

mayhem, very much following the footsteps of her patron goddess Hekate.159 Medea herself is

often seen as a divine being. Her grandfather is the sun god Helios; it is in his chariot that she

escapes at the end of Euripides’ play. But she is seen as divine in her own right. To the

ancients a character exhibiting both masculine and feminine qualities is unnatural and

therefore must be divine.160 By acting out against her husband and killing the children of her

own womb, Medea loses the feminine qualities of a mother and gains masculine ones, thus

making her divine in the eyes of audiences in the ancient past. These gender boundaries were

supposed to be natural, especially in fifth-century Athens. Anyone who could confidently

cross these lines, without a show of regret such as Medea, could not be natural and therefore

must be divine.161 However it is her imagery as a woman that will be the focus of this chapter.

Sourvinou-Inwood argues that Medea is reinterpreted constantly under the representations of

the good, bad or normal woman, in other words the saviour of Jason, the sorceress and the

wife and mother, and in doing so does not conform to the structures of Greek society imposed

on her in any way.162 It is this reinterpretation of the Medea image that will be the focus of

this chapter, looking at her story as a whole, from her youth told by Ovid to her time in

Corinth told by Euripides and how these two writers influenced Seneca in his retelling of her

time in Corinth.

Ovid and Medea

Ovid’s retelling of the Medea myth takes most of book seven of the Metamorphoses to

convey, in which Ovid reinterprets the version of Medea’s chronicle as told by Apollonius.

This is one version of the Medea myth Ovid writes, the third and final of which, a

homonymous play, is lost. Heroides 12, a letter from Medea to Jason written moments after

the wedding procession has passed, and a tragedy, Medea, which survives only in fragments,

were Ovid’s two other pieces over his career to feature Medea. Heroides 12 makes an

interesting term of comparison to Seneca’s character. The Medea Ovid presents in the

Metamorphoses is first encountered as a sympathetic, benign character, her feelings are

relatable to a young woman in love and she is able to briefly control her passions for Jason at

                                                                                               159  Williams,  2012:  49-­‐50.  160  Griffiths,  2006:  76.  161  Griffiths,  2006:  76  162  Griffiths,  2006:  79.  Quoting  Sourvinou-­‐Inwood,  1997.  

29

the end of her extended monologue, 7.11-71.163 She is, in this opening, nothing more than a

mortal woman, consumed by a powerful passion she does not understand, and is powerless

against:164

Excute virgineo conceptas pectore flammas,

Si potes, infelix! Si possem, sanior essem!

Sed trahit invitam nova vis, aliudque cupido,

Mens aliud suadet: video meliora proboque,

Deteriora sequor. Quid in hospite, regia virgo,

Ureris et thalamus alieni concipis orbis?165

Sed trahit invitam nova vis, ‘but some strange power draws me against my will’ clearly shows

Medea’s struggle against the feelings pulling her to betray her family in order to help Jason.

She knows that to pursue these feelings would be wrong, as she states in the line that follows,

video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor, ‘I see the better and approve it, but I follow the

worse’. She is able to quell her feelings in the final line of this passage by reminding herself

she is a princess of this land and Jason, whilst of noble birth, is a stranger and a foreigner.

But this does not mean she is heartless to the trials he is about to face. Lines 23-31 state the

many ways in which Jason could die in the task set by Medea’s father, which Jason must

complete if he is to gain the Golden Fleece. Medea responds to herself with:

Hoc, ego si patiar, tum me de tigride natam,

Tum ferrum et scopulos gestare in corde fatebor!166

Medea here does not mention that it is her feelings that drive her to pray for Jason to be saved,

but that it is right as a fellow human to want this. That by allowing Jason to face the fire-

breathing bull, the warriors born of earth and dragon’s teeth and the sleepless dragon unaided

when she herself can provide this aid it is against human nature and thus she must be the child

of the wild tigress with a heart as cold as iron and unfeeling as stone. This monologue

                                                                                               163  Williams,  2012:  50.  164  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  234  165  Ov.  Met.  7.17-­‐22  Come,  thrust  from  your  maiden  breast  these  flames  that  you  feel,  if  you  can,  unhappy  girl.  Ah,  if  I  could,  I  should  be  more  myself.  But  some  strange  power  draws  me  on  against  my  will.  Desire  persuades  me  one  way,  reason  another.  I  see  better  and  approve  it,  but  I  follow  the  worse.  Why  do  you,  a  royal  maiden,  burn  for  a  stranger,  and  think  upon  marriage  with  a  foreign  world?  166  Ov.  Met.  7.32-­‐33  ‘If  I  permit  this,  then  shall  I  confess  that  I  am  the  child  of  a  tigress  and  that  I  have  iron  and  stone  in  my  heart.’  

30

concludes with Medea deciding to aid Jason and her leaving for the temple of Hekate, where

she encounters Jason. This passage, of Jason entreating Medea for aid in return of marriage

shows how Ovid draws upon Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica. Aspects of Medea’s

character, namely her maiden-like belief in Jason being true to her only, have been recognized

as being influenced by Apollonius, however Ovid does depart from his predecessor quickly in

this passage.167 In Ovid the gods play no part in Medea’s love for Jason. Ovid’s description of

Jason also differs from Apollonius. Whereas Apollonius’ Jason appears semi-divine, proceeds

to Hekate’s temple by design and exercises full charm of word and appearance to woo Medea,

Ovid describes him as being ‘more handsome then usual’, it is mere accident that he and

Medea meet at Hekate’s temple and it is Medea’s own madness that causes her to see ‘the

face of no mortal man’ and not an act of the gods.168 It is natural love that drives Medea to act

the way she does and not love induced by Aphrodite. As it is Jason who offers marriage in

return for her aid and not Medea asking for it, Medea’s choice to help him is completely one

of her own doing, as shown in the following passage:

“Quid faciam, video: nec me ignorantia veri

decipiet, sed amor. Servabere munere nostro,

servatus promissa dato!” […]169

Medea is fully aware of what she is about to do, but instead of following her head and

choosing the right path of a dutiful daughter, she follows her heart, love is her undoing. This

theme follows her through the entire Medea myth. This decision also contradicts the earlier

monologue in which she convinces herself that it is right as a human to aid another, though

they are a foreign stranger, but it is wrong to fall in love with this person and by doing so

betray her father and her country. But as Medea is young and vulnerable to the sways of her

emotions she turns from what she knows to be right and throws her lot in with this more

handsome than usual stranger.

It is also this agreement that brings about the first mention of Medea’s abilities as a witch:

Creditus accepit cantatas protinus herbas

Edidicitque usum laetusque in tecta recessit.170

                                                                                               167  Williams,  2012:  50.  168  Ap.  Rhod.  Argon.  3.919-­‐26,  938-­‐46,  975-­‐1007.  Ov.  Met.  7.84,  87.  Williams,  2012:  50.  169  Ov.  Met.  7.91-­‐93  “I  see  what  I  am  about  to  do,  nor  shall  ignorance  of  the  truth  be  my  undoing,  but  love  itself.  You  shall  be  preserved  by  my  assistance;  but  when  preserved,  fulfil  your  promise.”  

31

Having made Jason swear to the gods that he will keep his promise, Medea provides him with

herbs to protect himself against the fire-breathing bull. The names of these herbs are not

provided and this mention of Medea’s power is very vague. No details of any ritual, or a

description of the type of magic being used is provided.171 Jason using the herbs, and not

Medea, the lack of detail or information all point towards Ovid overly characterizing Medea

as a powerless, enamoured woman in love, in other words the ‘normal woman’ as argued by

Sourvinou-Inwood.172 At this stage of the myth Medea as a witch is heavily in the

background, though she is starting to appear more from this point on.173 Despite the lack of

information on these herbs, they are clearly powerful and very effective as they do not need

further magic to aid in their use against a fire breathing bull. Indeed the next time Medea uses

magic is when Jason faces the warriors born of earth and dragon teeth, shown in the following

lines:

Neve parum valent a se data gramina, carmen

Auxiliare canit secretasque advocate artes.174

Judging from the line given the herbs which Medea gave to Jason were to protect him against

any that wished to harm him. However she did not think they would be strong enough now,

seeing how many warriors had sprung forth from the earth to battle Jason. Ovid tests Medea’s

power, her artes, at this point in her story, and she quakes with fear at it.175 In this instance

she is very vulnerable. She does not know if her powers are strong enough to provide further

aid to Jason and in failing to do so she will not have the escape route to Greece she has with

Jason, one that she needs in order to flee from her betrayal of her father. Her initial reaction,

the quaking with fear, is quite human and in no other event does she question whether her

powers are strong enough, stressing the idea of Medea being a ‘normal woman’ in love,

worried over the wellbeing of her beloved.176 However, without the added magic induced by

her chanting, Jason would have triumphed over the earth warriors as it was his cunning to toss

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     170  Ov.  Met.  7.98  “She  believed;  and  straight  he  received  the  magic  herbs  and  learnt  their  use,  then  withdrew  full  of  joy  to  his  lodgings.”  171  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  236.  172  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  235-­‐36.  173  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  236.  174  Ov.  Met.  7.136-­‐138  “And,  lest  the  charmed  herbs  which  she  had  given  him  should  not  be  strong  enough,  she  chanted  a  spell  to  help  them  and  called  in  her  secret  arts.  175  Williams,  2012:  53.  176  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  236.  

32

a boulder into the earth warriors midst and cause them to fight each other that won him this

victory, all done without the advice of Medea and her magic.177 Medea has not yet grown to

acknowledge her full range of power at this stage in Ovid’s version of the myth, nor does she

have the confidence of an experienced practitioner.178 The final episode of magic whilst

Medea is still in her homeland does not actually involve her, though it is assumed that she

supplies Jason with the herbs he uses:

Pervigilem superset herbis sopire draconem

[…]

Hunc postquam sparsit Lethaei gramine uci

Verbaque ter dixit placidos facientia sommos,

Quae mare turbatum, quae concita flumina sistunt.179

This is Jason’s final task in his quest for the Golden Fleece. In portraying this act of magic

Ovid again offers little information on the herbs, only that the herb contained Lethaean juice.

And as with the herbs used against the fire breathing bull, it is Jason who uses them and not

Medea, she at this stage is a background character.180 And it is with final obstacle overcome it

becomes clear that Medea has been misguided by the man she claims to love. A love which he

does not reciprocate, instead Medea is just another spoil to him, much like the Golden

Fleece.181 Jason labels Medea as muneris auctor (vendor of functions) and spolia (spoil),

showing that to him Medea is only worthy in a materialistic way, as long as she is useful to

him she has worth.182 And it is from this moment on that Medea finds that she needs to prove

her worth, not only as a woman but also as a witch. Medea’s reply to Jason’s appeal for her to

save his father Aeson’s life, by removing some of Jason’s years, in lines 171-178 shows how

her ambition to prove herself as a witch has grown on the voyage from Colchis.183 However,

as she progresses further down the path to become a powerful witch, she loses the more

human aspects of her nature. This begins to become evident as she prepares for the ritual to

                                                                                               177  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  237.  178  Williams,  2012:  53.  179  Ov.  Met.  7.148,  152-­‐154  “There  remained  the  task  of  putting  to  sleep  the  ever-­‐watchful  dragon  with  magic  herbs…  after  Jason  had  sprinkled  upon  him  the  Lethaean  juice  of  a  certain  herb  and  thrice  had  recited  the  words  that  bring  peaceful  slumber,  which  stay  the  swollen  and  swift-­‐flowing  rivers.”  180  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  237.  181  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  237.  182  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  237.  183  Williams,  2012:  54.  Quoting  Newlands,  1997:  187.  

33

give Aeson more years.184 She walks out in the dead of night to a full moon, bare-footed and

with her hair and clothing loose. After invoking the support of Hekate, Night, Earth and Luna,

as they have come to her aid in previous spells, she goes forth for nine days and nights

gathering herbs to use in the ritual. This freedom of movement and her attire mirror her

isolation from what was deemed normal and from the world as a whole.185 During the ritual

itself her ululatus (wailing cries) prefigure her metamorphosis into a witch, an image of

something otherworldly and not human, with a nature similar to that of Circe and ‘seems to be

symbolically purging the more human aspects of her nature.’186

Medea’s divergence from her human aspects can be seen in the following lines:

His et mille aliis postquam sine nomine rebus

Prositum instuxit mortali barbara maius187

This change shows how Ovid draws on her more traditional imagery as a witch, which is

symbolized by her grander pursuit of magic.188 It can also be seen as Medea develops from a

young woman in love, to a married woman who uses her powers to aid her husband, to mother

turned witch as she not only destroys those around her who have slighted her but her human

self as well.189 This destruction of her human self goes one step further with Medea’s hand in

the murder of Pelias, Jason’s uncle. However Jason himself plans no part in this, he is unware

of Medea’s actions, she is seemingly taking the initiative herself with no motive for Pelias’

murder other than to further her magical abilities and her love for Jason.190 Magic is again

used in this ritual, in the rejuvenation of a ram to prove to the daughters of Pelias the

efficiency of the ritual, and in putting to sleep the guards of Pelias so they cannot aid their

king, as shown:

Iamque neci similis resoluto corpore regem

Et cum rege suo custodes somnus habebat,

                                                                                               184  Ov.  Met.  7.179-­‐293.  185  Williams,  2012:  54.  186  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  239.  Williams,  2012:  54.  187  Ov.  Met.  7.274-­‐276  ‘When  with  these  and  a  thousand  other  nameless  things  the  barbarian  woman  had  prepared  her  more  than  mortal  plan.’  188  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  234.  189  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  234.  190  Williams,  2012:  57.  

34

Quem dederant cantus magicaeque potentia linguae.191

The murder of Pelias is the first event in the Metamorphoses in which Medea appears to have

become a uenefica, a sorceress, acting in malevolent ways. However, it is ironic how this

event should be the first as it is Medea’s powers of persuasion and not her magical abilities

that leads to Pelias’ death at the hands of his daughters.192 It is with this act that Jason

disregards Medea’s human self in favour of her abilities as a witch, and what those abilities

can achieve for him and by doing so forces Medea, and Ovid, to acknowledge her magical

self which until the two attempts at rejuvenation had been severely down played.193 Until the

murder of Pelias, Medea did not have the imagery of a wicked witch, as her magic had only

been used for good and at the direct request of Jason.194 She had not up to this point in

anyway acted independently; she was coerced into acting on a side of her nature she had

successfully repressed, making her transformation into a witch only partial.195 After this event

Ovid progresses Medea’s chronicle quickly, in some cases events are passed over in only a

few lines. For example Medea’s time in Corinth is told in only three lines:

Sed postquam Colchis arsit nova nupta venenis

Flagrantemque domum regis mare vidit utrumque,

Sanguine natorum perfunditur inpius ensis,

Ultaque se male mater Iasonis effugit arma.196

Medea’s time in Corinth is very important to her story but Ovid passes over it in a few lines

shows how this event would end his representation of Medea as a sympathetic character. Both

Euripides and Seneca do not attempt to throw this same sympathetic light, though Euripides

does show some sympathy towards Medea at the beginning of his play, which will now be

discussed.

                                                                                               191  Ov.  Met.  7.327-­‐330  ‘And  now  a  death-­‐like  sleep  held  the  king,  his  body  all  relaxed,  and  with  the  king  his  guards,  sleep  which  incantations  and  the  potency  of  magic  words  had  given.’  192  Williams,  2012:  57.  193  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  238.  194  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  238.  195  Rosner-­‐Siegel,  1982:  238.  196  Ov.  Met.  7.394-­‐397  ‘But  after  the  new  wife  had  been  burnt  by  the  Colchian  witchcraft,  and  the  two  seas  had  seen  the  king’s  palace  aflame,  she  stained  her  impious  sword  in  the  blood  of  her  sons;  and  then,  after  this  horrid  vengeance,  the  mother  fled  Jason’s  sword.’  

35

Medea in Euripides

It is Euripides’ tragedy of 431 B.C. that gives Medea her traditional view as a witch driven to

murder her children by her husband’s desertion.197 The play opens to the Nurse lamenting the

fate of her mistress. In this opening monologue two images of Medea are presented. The first

is that of a poor homeless woman, with great powers bearing down on her against which she

cannot fight.198 The second is shown in the following line:

δεινὴ γάρ: οὔτοι ῥᾳδίως γε συµβαλὼν

ἔχθραν τις αὐτῇ καλλίνικος ᾁσεται..199

These lines come after the nurse has compared Medea to wild beasts and natural forces. Even

after the lengthy description of Medea this monologue provides her character at the hands of

Euripides has not been fully defined as it has in Seneca’s opening, and until the murder of her

sons there are possible alternatives for Medea’s character.200 Medea does not describe herself

as a beast nor as a natural force but as a victim of these forces, ‘a victim of the sea, looking

for a safe place to land.’201 This viewpoint links back to her journey from Colchis to Greece in

which Medea, Jason and the Argonauts faced many daunting obstacles. At the beginning of

the play Medea presents herself to the Chorus as a normal woman just like them, earning

sympathy for her plight from them. They agree with her in her plan for revenge against Jason,

before they learn exactly what Medea actually intends to do.202 Creon describes Medea as

wise in evil ways and because of her lost marriage capable in harming his daughter:

δέδοικά σ᾽ (ο ὐδὲν δεῖ παραµπίσχειν λόγους）

µή µοί τι δράσῃς παῖδ᾽ ἀνήκεστον κακόν.

συµβάλλεται δὲ πολλὰ τοῦδε δείγµατα:

σοφὴ πέφυκας καὶ κακῶν πολλῶν ἴδρις,

λυπῇ δὲ λέκτρων ἀνδρὸς ἐστερηµένη.203

                                                                                               197  Boedeker,  1997:  127.  198  Boedeker,  1997:  129.  199  Eur.  Med.  44-­‐45.  ‘For  she  is  clever;  one  would  not  easily  engage  in  enmity  with  her  and  sing  the  victory  song.’  200  Boedeker,  1997:  127.  201  Boedeker,  1997:  130.  202  Boedeker,  1997:  133.  203  Eur.  Med.  282-­‐286.  ‘I  am  afraid,  there  is  no  need  to  wrap  up  the  words,  that  you  will  do  some  irreparable  evil  to  my  child.  Many  proofs  of  this  coincide;  you  are  clever  and  knowledgeable  about  many  evils,  and  you  are  hurt  by  being  deprived  of  your  husband’s  bed.  

36

The view which Creon has of Medea can be seen as complimentary to how Ovid portrays her

during the rejuvenation of Aeson and the murder of Pelias. It is Medea’s cleverness and the

aid of the gods that allows Aeson to rejuvenate with Medea’s potion and it is her vindictive

nature that drives Medea to murder Pelias, under the guise of love and driven by her belief in

the slight against Jason. Her vindictive nature supports Creon’s statement that she thrives on

evil, as the stinging loss of another throne could drive her to act in such a way not only for

Jason but for herself as well. Medea attempts shift the view of her back to the innocent,

slighted wife who means no harm, trying to cover her vengeful nature, as shown in the

following lines:

οὐ νῦν µε πρῶτον ἀλλὰ πολλάκις, Κρέον,

ἔβλαψε δόξα µεγάλα τ᾽ εἴργασται κακά.

χρὴ δ᾽ οὔποθ᾽ ὅστις ἀρτίφρων πέφυκ᾽ ἀνὴρ

παῖδας περισσῶς ἐκδιδάσκεσθαι σοφούς204

Medea stresses that her problem is:

τῶν δ᾽ αὖ δοκούντων εἰδέναι τι ποικίλον

κρείσσων νοµισθεὶς ἐν πόλει λυπρὸς φανῇ.205

Lines 305-06 suggest that if she were a man and clever Creon would have nothing against her,

it is her femininity that he fears more so then her cleverness, though he fears this as well as is

stated in line 320. Through with being classed only as a wicked woman due to her cleverness,

Medea likens herself to a soldier preparing for battle with her former husband and his new

royal family, at the same time she calls herself an “ill-fated woman” as she is also preparing to

kill the children she bore Jason.206 Before this however she arms herself with her magical craft

and in doing so secures shelter with Aegeus. This plan is expressed in two phrases, the first is

the plan for revenge, the second her reward for Aegeus should her shelter her:

                                                                                               204  Eur.  Med.  292-­‐295.  ‘Not  for  the  first  time  now  has  my  reputation  hurt  me,  Creon,  but  often,  and  with  great  harm.  No  right-­‐thinking  man  should  ever  have  his  children  taught  to  be  over-­‐wise”  205  Eur.  Med.  300-­‐301.  ‘And  again  being  thought  more  powerful  than  those  who  think  they  have  some  subtle  knowledge  you  appear  troublesome  in  the  city.’  206  Eur.  Med.  1242,  1244,  1246-­‐50.  Boedeker,  1997:  136.  

37

κράτιστα τὴν εὐθεῖαν, ᾗ πεφύκαµεν

σοφοὶ µάλιστα, φαρµάκοις [...].207

παύσω γέ σ᾽ ὄντ᾽ ἄπαιδα καὶ παίδων γονὰς

σπεῖραί σε θήσω: τοιάδ᾽ οἶδα φάρµακα.208

This first line shows how, unlike Ovid’s character, Euripides’ Medea has no problem in using

her magic, stating it is the best that she can do. Whilst Ovid’s Medea is a novice in the

magical arts, Euripides’ Medea is a fully accomplished witch, with the powers to harm and to

heal, as is the case with Aegeus and his childlessness. The chorus no longer can call her

‘woman’ or ‘mother’. Given her plans, they can only see her as a supernatural power they

cannot stop.209 And by this they fail to place any human precedents on Medea, her human

aspects are no longer visible.210 This can also be seen in the idea that Medea is killing a

reflection of her earlier self when she was first held in Jason’s sway as a young vulnerable

woman, by murdering Creusa.211 Jason also can no longer define Medea as a woman. He does

this by claiming that she has done what no Greek woman would do.212 However Jason could

not achieve his purpose by stating that she has done what no Greek woman could as Medea is

not Greek but Colchian, and as such she may be reacting in such a way that is acceptable in

her homeland. Though the killing of one’s own offspring was, and still is, considered such an

inhumane act that even her own culture must exclude those who do so from society. Jason

does go one further by repeating the Nurse’s previous comparisons of Medea to beasts, as

shown in the following passage:

οὐκ ἔστιν ἥτις τοῦτ᾽ ἂν Ἑλληνὶς γυνὴ

ἔτλη ποθ᾽, ὧν γε πρόσθεν ἠξίουν ἐγὼ

γῆµαι σέ, κῆδος ἐχθρὸν ὀλέθριόν τ᾽ ἐµοί,

λέαιναν, οὐ γυναῖκα, τῆς Τυρσηνίδος

                                                                                               207  Eur.  Med.  384-­‐385.  ‘It  is  best  to  take  the  direct  road,  at  which  we  are  particularly  clever,  and  kill  them  with  poisons.’  208  Eur.  Med.  717-­‐718.  ‘For  I  will  stop  you  from  being  childless  and  I  will  make  you  beget  children;  such  are  the  drugs  I  know.’  209  Boedeker,  1997:  136.  210  Boedeker,  1997:  136.  211  Boedeker,  1997:  144.  212  Boedeker,  1997:  137.  

38

Σκύλλης ἔχουσαν ἀγριωτέραν φύσιν.213

Jason also comes to call her a lioness, an identity which Medea accepts, saying that she has

acted the way she has to “bite” him, as she herself was previously “bitten” with

misfortunes.214 This role reversal switches Medea from a sufferer of pain to its inflictor,

changing her metaphorical image from a lioness protecting her cubs, to one who has turned

against nature in killing them.215 It is this final image that Seneca draws upon in his own play,

though compared to Seneca’s Medea, Euripides’ Medea has yet to fully embrace her nature as

a sorceress. “Unlike Seneca’s formidable sorceress, who annihilates a weak but

sympathetically paternal Jason who is clearly no match for her, Euripides’ Medea destroys her

husband in part by adopting his own methods.”216 It is clear that Seneca draws upon aspects of

both Euripides’ Medea and Ovid’s Medea, and it is this influence that will now be discussed.

Seneca and a new Medea

Seneca’s tragedy Medea bridges the gap in Ovid’s Medea chronicle as is told to Roman

audiences, identifying with a transformative project missing from Ovid’s Metamorphoses.217

Whilst it follows the tragic nature of Euripides’ Medea, and there are clear indications that

Seneca was influenced by Euripides’ play, Seneca’s play takes the idea of revenge and

betrayal to a new level. Seneca’s Medea is not a rewriting of Euripides’ tragedy; in fact she

shares more similarities with Ovid’s Medea.218 This play opens to Medea cursing Jason and

detailing what she wishes to befall him as her revenge. Medea delivers this opening

monologue moments before the Chorus enter singing praises over Jason’s new marriage. This

directly links Seneca’s play to the Medea of Heroides 12, a letter from Medea to Jason

moments after the wedding procession passes her house. Seneca sees in this letter a different

view of Medea than what was previously shown in Greek tragedy and Roman epic.219

It is interesting that Heroides 12 is the first discernable link, which Seneca makes, and not the

Metamorphoses, which details Medea’s life. This could be due to the fact in the Heroides

                                                                                               213  Eur.  Med.  1339-­‐1343.  ‘There  is  no  Greek  woman  who  would  ever  have  dared  to  do  this,  and  I  thought  fit  to  marry  you  in  preference  to  them,  a  tie  hateful  and  deadly  to  me,  a  lioness,  not  a  woman,  with  a  more  savage  nature  than  Tyrsenian  Scylla.’  214  Boedeker,  1997:  131.  215  Boedeker,  1997:  132.  216  Boedeker,  1997:  145.  217  Walsh,  2012:  71.  218  Walsh,  2012:  71.  219  Trinacty,  2007:  64.  

39

Medea threatens her revenge but does not act upon it, giving Seneca a foundation on which to

build his Medea. Indeed Heroides 12 does give a background on the love Medea had felt for

Jason and while this allusion to the past is present Seneca is able to forge the continuity

between the Medea of the Heroides and Seneca’s own Medea.220 This link can be seen in

Medea’s reflection on seeking her revenge:

Dum ferrum flammaeque aderunt sucusque

Veneni, hostis Medeae nullus inultus erit!221

[…] voce non fausta precor.

Nunc, nunc adeste, sceleris ultrices deae,

Crinem solutis squalidae serpentibus,

Atram cruentis minibus amplexae facem;

Adeste, thalamis horridae quondam meis

Quales stetistis: coniugi letum novae

Letumque socero et regiae stirpi date.

Mihi peius aliquid, quod precer sponso, manet: vivat […]222

Whilst Seneca goes into more detail on how Medea will exact her revenge it is clear that both

versions of Medea are driven by her need to avenge her scorned marriage. However unlike

Ovid’s Medea of the Heroides, Seneca’s Medea fulfils her promised threats, which illustrates

how love can so easily turn to hate, turning a story from an elegy to a tragedy.223 It is clear

that Seneca’s play picks up where the Heroides ends where Medea claims

Nescio quid certe mens mea maius agit

                                                                                               220  Trinacty,  2007:  66.  221  Ov.  Her.  12.181-­‐182  ‘While  sword  and  fire  are  at  my  hand,  and  the  juice  of  poison,  no  foe  of  Medea  shall  go  unpunished!’  222  Sen.  Med.  12-­‐19.  ‘I  pray  to  you  with  words  not  of  good  omen.  Be  present  now,  you  goddesses  who  avenge  crime  (The  Furies),  you  hair  bristling  with  loosened  snakes,  your  bloody  hands  grasping  a  black  torch;  be  present,  as  once  you  stood  unkempt  and  fearful  around  my  marriage  chamber.  Bring  death  on  this  new  wife,  death  on  the  father-­‐in-­‐law  and  the  whole  royal  stock.  For  the  bridegroom  I  have  a  worse  prayer  in  store:  may  he  live.’  223  Trinacty,  2007:  66.  

40

Hinting at the tragedy to come from her feelings of anger and desertion.224 This link can be

seen at the end of Medea’s opening monologue:

Accingere ira, teque in exitium para furore toto.225

Seneca’s Medea as evolved beyond her image in elegy, no longer holding any romantic

notions for Jason.226 Seneca foreshadows the part the children play in Medea’s revenge with

his use of imagery of pregnancy, it also points out the difference between the tragic and

elegiac genres.227 Tragedy must end as such, with a tragedy, most commonly with a single or

many deaths, elegy on the other hand does not end with a death, but is a reflection of one,

whether it be a physical death or a metaphorical one such as the end of a marriage. As tragedy

is the heavier genre Medea’s crimes must be greater as a necessity in her position of a

mother.228 This can be seen in the following lines where Medea is comparing her crimes

against her homeland to the ones she is about to commit:

[…] Gravior exsurgat dolor:

Maiora iam me scelera post partus decent.229

That she has given birth, a heavy time emotionally and physically in a woman’s life, means

she must be greater in her acts then she was as a young woman. Seneca highlights the

comparison between the past and future further as his Medea states quae scelere parta est,

scelere linquenda est domus, Seneca accentuates the tragedy in this story and highlights the

difference between the empty threats stated by Ovid’s Medea and the power which his Medea

possesses and uses.230 The first chorus of Seneca’s play focuses on Jason’s remarriage, which

responds to Medea’s opening monologue and Ovid’s poem.231 In this chorus it can be seen

how Seneca attempts to complete the story presented in Ovid’s Heroides, it is an example of

intertextuality that adds to his supplementation of Ovid’s work.232 The fourth act of Seneca’s

play is heavily influenced by the scenes of magic in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and it is at this                                                                                                224  Ov.  Her.  12.214  ‘my  mind  surely  plans  something  greater’.  Trinacty,  2007:  67.  225  Sen.  Med.  51  ‘Arm  yourself  in  anger,  prepare  to  wreak  destruction  with  full  rage.’  226  Trinacty,  2007:  68.  227  Trinacty,  2007:  69.  228  Trinacty,  2007:  69.  229  Sen.  Med.  49-­‐50  ‘My  bitterness  must  grow  more  weighty:  greater  crimes  become  me  now,  after  giving  birth.’  230  Sen.  Med.  55  ‘the  home  was  procured  by  crime,  it  must  be  left  by  crime.’  Trinacty,  2007:  69.  231  Trinacty,  2007:  69.  232  Trinacty,  2007:  70.  

41

point that Medea comes to the realization the Jason will not leave Creusa. Medea also

recognizes just how far she has come in developing self and through that the level of crime she

has committed.233 However like in Euripides’, it is only in the final act that Medea gives into

her anger, the conclusion to the struggle of emotions Seneca shows Medea going through

during the play.234 Unlike Ovid’s Medea, who believes she will regret her actions in the future,

facti fortasse pigebit235 Seneca’s Medea is full of joy and pleasure at her actions, as seen in the

following line:

Quid, misera, feci? Paeniteat licet,

Feci. Voluptas magna me invitam subit,

Et ecce crescit […].236

At the end of the play, Medea’s revenge on Jason, the murder of her children, is evidence of

her change from the young woman in love of the elegiac genre, to the strong, vengeful woman

that is the tragic Medea.237 This gives a conclusion to the metamorphosis of Medea’s image

through her story. In Ovid she is the young woman, besotted with the handsome stranger. In

Euripides, though his play is composed well before Ovid’s time, she takes on the image of the

mother reluctant to accept her powers as a witch and a woman who will later regret her

actions, mostly the murder of her children. Seneca, the final segment of the story, wipes that

regret from his character; she is fully aware of her powers and welcomes them. She is

saddened by the fact she will kill her own children but that sadness is dissolved by the surge of

anger and revenge that leads her actions. However this third image of Medea, whilst she is the

most accepting of her witch powers, she claims that it is her acts of scelus, crime, that force

her hand to act as such and not her abilities as a witch.238 This is in contrast to Ovid’s Medea

of the Metamorphoses who once she accepts her abilities uses them as a driving factor in the

events that play out around.

So far it is only the Medea whom Ovid presents in Heroides 12 that has been discussed,

however the Medea of the Metamorphoses could not have been ignored by Seneca in his

                                                                                               233  Trinacty,  2007:  70.  234  Trinacty,  2007:  73.  235  Ov.  Her.  12.209  ‘But  perhaps  my  action  will  displease  me’.  236  Sen.  Med.  990-­‐992  ‘Poor  woman?  Whatever  my  regrets,  I  have  done  it.  A  great  sense  of  pleasure  steals  over  me  unbidden,  and  it  is  still  growing.’  Trinacty,  2007:73.  237  Trinacty,  2007:  75.  238  Guastella,  2001:  201.  

42

creation of his own heroine. Whilst the Metamorphoses tell Medea’s story in great detail Ovid

gives no clear reason as to why Medea transforms in a semi divine sorceress, an evil being,

though the narration makes it clear a transformation does indeed occur: an abrupt change

occurs from the portrayal of Medea as a sympathetic love-sick maiden to an accomplished

pharmaceutria, witch, and murderess through a tragi-comic account.239 While it is the

Heroides that is the most influential of Ovid’s Medea stories on Seneca’s Medea, like the

Metamorphoses it still leaves a large gap in the Medea story, one that Seneca fills with his

play. It is in Seneca’s Medea that her divine heritage is stressed, an aspect that is strangely

missing in such emphasis in the Medea of both Euripides and Ovid.240 It is this history that

Medea makes use of to establish her place in the hierarchy of society, including the gods, and

provides support for her justification of revenge.241

Medea: An agent of Aphrodite

What if her magic was not what was driving Medea to revenge? That is what if Hekate wasn’t

the only goddess influencing Medea and her story. Medea can be seen to assimilate Aphrodite

in several ways. Their mutual role as Jason’s saviour is the most obvious way they are

connected.242 The saviour of Jason is debated by Medea and her former husband in Euripides’

play243:

ἔσωσά σ᾽, ὡς ἴσασιν Ἑλλήνων ὅσοι

ταὐτὸν συνεισέβησαν Ἀργῷον σκάφος,

πεµφθέντα ταύρων πυρπνόων ἐπιστάτην

ζεύγλαισι καὶ σπεροῦντα θανάσιµον γύην.244

ἐγὼ δ᾽, ἐπειδὴ καὶ λίαν πυργοῖς χάριν,

Κύπριν νοµίζω τῆς ἐµῆς ναυκληρίας

σώτειραν εἶναι θεῶν τε κἀνθρώπων µόνην.245

                                                                                               239  Walsh,  2012:  71.  Quoting  Newlands,  1997:  192,  178.  240  Walsh,  2012:  84.  241  Walsh,  2012:  84.  242  Boedeker,  1997:  140.  243  Boedeker,  1997:  140.  244  Eur.  Med.  476-­‐479.  ‘I  saved  you,  as  all  the  Hellenes  who  embarked  together  in  the  same  ship  Argo,  when  you  were  sent  to  master  the  fire-­‐breathing  bulls  with  yoke-­‐straps  and  to  sow  the  deadly  furrow.”  245  Eur.  Med.  526-­‐528.  ‘Since  you  actually  pile  up  the  favour  I  owe  you  too  high,  I  consider  that  Cyrpis  (Aphrodite)  was  the  only  saviour  among  gods  and  mortals  of  my  ship’s  expedition.’  

43

In Euripides’ play Medea claims to be working of her own free will, uninfluenced by the

arrows of Aphrodite and Eros. However a very different picture is painted in the Argonautica.

To help their favourite hero Hera and Athena enlist the help of Aphrodite:

‘δεῦρ᾽ ἴοµεν µετὰ Κύπριν: ἐπιπλόµεναι δέ µιν ἄµφω

παιδὶ ἑῷ εἰπεῖν ὀτρύνοµεν, αἴ κε πίθηται

κούρην Αἰήτεω πολυφάρµακον οἷσι βέλεσσιν

θέλξαι ὀιστεύσας ἐπ᾽ Ἰήσονι. τὸν δ᾽ ἂν ὀίω

κείνης ἐννεσίῃσιν ἐς Ἑλλάδα κῶας ἀνάξειν.’246

This supports Jason’s argument in Euripides’ play that it was Aphrodite and not Medea who

saved Jason. Medea is only useful as she knows the use of herbs and drugs but she would not

go against her father, her duty to her family was too great in the Argonautica. Without the

arrows of Eros, Medea would have never aided Jason and his mission would have failed. The

Argonautica is not the only body of work in which Aphrodite saves Jason through Medea. In

Pindar’s Pythian 4, Aphrodite journeys to Colchis to teach Jason herself how to overwhelm

Medea by the use of love charms thus making her an agent of Aphrodite, to do the love

goddess’ will, rather than Hekate247:

[...]πότνια δ᾽ ὀξυτάτων βελέων

ποικίλαν ἴϋγγα τετράκναµον Οὐλυµπόθεν

ἐν ἀλύτῳ ζεύξαισα κύκλῳ

µαινάδ᾽ ὄρνιν Κυπρογένεια φέρεν

πρῶτον ἀνθρώποισι, λιτάς τ᾽ ἐπαοιδὰς ἐκδιδάσκησεν σοφὸν Αἰσονίδαν:

ὄφρα Μηδείας τοκέων ἀφέλοιτ᾽ αἰδῶ, ποθεινὰ δ᾽ Ἑλλὰς αὐτὰν

ἐν φρασὶ καιοµέναν δονέοι µάστιγι Πειθοῦς.248

                                                                                               246  Ap.  Rhod.  Argon.  3.25-­‐29.  ‘Come,  let  us  go  visit  Cypris  and  together  approach  her  and  urge  her  to  speak  to  her  son,  in  hopes  that  he  will  be  persuaded  to  shoot  Aeetes’  daughter,  expert  in  magic  drugs,  with  his  arrows  and  enchant  her  with  love  for  Jason,  for  I  think  that  with  her  counsels  he  will  take  the  fleece  back  to  Hellas.’  247  Boedeker,  1997:  140.  248  Pind.  Pyth.  4.213-­‐219.  ‘But  the  Cyprus-­‐born  queen  of  sharpest  arrows  bound  the  dappled  wryneck  to  the  four  spokes  of  the  inescapable  wheel  and  brought  from  Olympos  that  bird  of  madness  for  the  first  time  to  men,  and  she  taught  the  son  of  Aison  to  be  skillful  in  prayers  and  charms,  so  that  he  might  take  away  Medea’s  respect  for  her  parents,  and  so  that  desire  for  Hellas  might  set  her  mind  afire  and  drive  her  with  the  whip  of  Persuasion.  

44

A second way in which Medea and Aphrodite resemble each other is in their concern with the

marriage bed.249 Medea, whether under the influence of Aphrodite or acting on her own free

will, does not agree to help Jason until he swears he will marry her. Jason claims that Medea’s

anger is brought on by her thoughts that he has abandoned her bed for that of a younger wife:

[…]ᾗ σὺ κνίζῃ, σὸν µὲν ἐχθαίρων λέχος

καινῆς δὲ νύµφης ἱµέρῳ πεπληγµένος

οὐδ᾽ εἰς ἅµιλλαν πολύτεκνον σπουδὴν ἔχων250

Medea herself does not claim this, but it is clear to Jason that Medea is determined to keep her

position in the marriage bed by reminding him of his vow. The chorus goes to show how

Aphrodite is essential to a faithful marriage bed, something which Jason does not have:

στέργοι δέ µε σωφροσύνα, δώρηµα κάλλιστον θεῶν:

µηδέ ποτ᾽ ἀµφιλόγους ὀργὰς ἀκόρεστά τε νείκη

θυµὸν ἐκπλήξασ᾽ ἑτέροις ἐπὶ λέκτροις

προσβάλοι δεινὰ Κύπρις, ἀπτολέµους δ᾽

εὐνὰς σεβίζουσ᾽ ὀξύφρων

κρίνοι λέχη γυναικῶν.251

That Jason is going against the will of Aphrodite, the goddess whom he claims to be his

saviour, shows how Jason is only thinking of himself and his status in Greek society, rather

than the honour his saviour goddess and his wife deserve. This would naturally displease the

goddess but unlike in Hippolytus, Aphrodite herself does not extract revenge on Jason, that

task is left to Medea.252 The way in which both Aphrodite and Medea act to deal with those

they wish to over-power also resemble each other.253 Aphrodite is armed with an inescapable

golden bow and arrows, Medea with a golden circlet and gown. Both of the women’s weapons

are anointed, Aphrodite’s with desire, Medea’s with poison.254 Aphrodite’s erotic love would

                                                                                               249  Boedeker,  1997:  141.  250  Eur.  Med.  555-­‐557.’…which  is  what  niggles  you,  because  I  hated  your  bed  and  was  struck  with  desire  for  a  new  bride,  nor  because  I  had  an  urge  for  a  competition  in  having  many  children’  251  Eur.  Med.  636-­‐644.  ‘May  self-­‐restraint,  most  beautiful  gift  of  the  gods,  favour  me;  and  never  let  terrible  Cypris  attack  me  with  squabbling  rages  and  insatiable  quarrels  and  strike  my  heart  with  love  for  another’s  bed,  but  may  she  revere  peaceful  marriage-­‐beds  and  judge  the  liaisons  of  women  with  a  sharp  mind.’  252  Boedeker,  1997:  142.  253  Boedeker,  1997:  141.  254  Boedeker,  1997:  142.  

45

typically strike its victim quickly, Medea’s victims, in this case the children, are stuck down

just as quickly.255 Hekate may be Medea’s patron goddess but it is clear that she is not the only

influence on Medea’s story. Aphrodite, whether by providing love charms to Jason, or just in

her realm as the goddess of love has a clear influence on Medea as well.

Like her patron goddess, Medea goes through a change as her story is told and retold. As a

maiden she is the dutiful daughter who is easily persuaded to betray her family and country by

the slightly more handsome stranger. As a wife she begins to come into her own, making

decisions to help her new husband, whether that is by increasing the life of his father or to

murder his uncle through the hands of his cousins. It is at this stage in her life that Medea

begins to take on the image of a witch that she is now associated with. As a mother she is

ruthless. The murder of her children is seen as unnatural but to her it is the only way she can

see to save them from the fate set upon them by delivering the gifts of death to the princess. To

Medea the children would have suffered a fate worse than death at the hands of the people of

Corinth in revenge for their murder royal family. Whilst this may seem as a mercy to the

children, Medea also kills them to wound Jason in the worst way possible. His new wife is

murdered, along with his tie to her royal family. His sons are gone, murdered by his former

wife and their mother; he has no one to carry on his name. To Jason fame is the most

important thing, as he states in Euripides’ play.256 In the end it is his fame as the father of

murdered children, the husband of the barbarian sorceress that is his fame and not his deeds in

gaining the Golden Fleece. Medea follows the path of change in a similar fashion to that of

Hekate, she begins as benevolent, using her knowledge of herbs for what she perceives to be

good, she ends as the wicked sorceress, using the same knowledge to kill. She becomes

Medea.

                                                                                               255  Boedeker,  1997:  142.  256  Eur.  Med.  549.  

46

CONCLUSION

This thesis has explored the changes of imagery to both Hekate and Medea. In the

understanding of Hekate’s imagery changes, her origins must also be explored. One theory,

from Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women is that Hekate is Iphigenia transformed by Artemis to

save her after she willingly lets herself be sacrificed by her father Agamemnon to gain

favourable winds. This theory is not very strong as there is little other surviving

documentation of this myth. However it does support Hekate’s benevolent image as she is

connected to Artemis, through the aid of the Huntress, her image takes on otherworldly tones,

rather than the underworld tones associated to her in classical mythology. From this work

Hekate is the maiden goddess of the Tauri, worshipped in the Chersonese area. A Thessaly

legend however connects Hekate to her chthonic image of Classical mythology, contradicting

this image of a benevolent maiden goddess. This legend also shows the transformation of

Hekate from her single form, to that of her triple form. This triple form is due to her

association with crossroads, one body, or face, to look down each of the roads she guards.

Hesiodic genealogy connects Artemis and Hekate again, as they are cousins and they can

often be identified the same. This benevolent image of Hekate, through her connections to

Artemis, was corrupted in Thessaly in the centuries that passed between Hesiod and

Euripides, connecting her to the witches to whom she becomes the patron goddess of in

Classical mythology. The origins of Hekate and her changes of imagery are so intertwined

that it can be difficult to place her origins definitively and thus it is hard to see the progression

of her image, as the original is unknown. It is highly accepted that Hekate is originally from

Caria, though the case has been made that she is from Thrace or Greece. In Greece Hekate is

presented as a benevolent goddess in Hesiod’s Theogony. Whilst this poem is centred on

Zeus’ rise to power, Hesiod does spend a considerable time praising Hekate, listing her

attributes. These included giving aid to those whose prayers she receives, giving and taken

from flocks, harvests and catches out at sea. These last attributes tie her to Poseidon and

Hermes, protectors of horses, guardians of the sea. Hekate also has ties to Demeter, a fertility

goddess who protects the harvest, not only in the Theogony but also in the ‘Homeric Hymn to

Demeter’. In this hymn Persephone is abducted by Hades, an event Hekate heard from her

sanctuary in the woods. She assists Demeter in finding Persephone and bringing her back to

Earth from the underworld, and in doing so becomes a constant companion to Persephone. In

this hymn, whilst Hekate does still retain her benevolent image, her chthonic image starts to

bleed through with her connection to Persephone, who has become queen of the underworld

47

and consort to Hades. The Theogony continues its praise of Hekate as a benevolent goddess,

calling her the nurturer of young children. Whilst in plays such as Euripides’ Medea whilst

Hekate is not directly involved, she is invoked by her servants, such as Medea, in magical

rites, and in doing so completely ties Hekate to the chthonic goddess of witches of Classical

mythology, which continues into the works of the Latin writers. Like with the playwrights,

Latin writers such as Ovid do not deal with Hekate directly, but through her servants, again

including Medea but also Circe in Ovid. Like in the ‘Homeric Hymn to Demeter’ Ovid

presents Hekate’s sanctuary, in this case her altar, in a forest, a dark and otherworldly place.

This only adds to her image as patron of witches, as many magical rites take place in glades in

the middle of forests. Magical herbs and plants are found in these locations as well. Again in

Ovid readers are presented with the triple form, denoting crossroads, of Hekate, by the use of

triformis. However whilst Hekate is a chthonic goddess in Ovid’s time she is still able to

assist her servants in rites of positive magic, for example in Medea’s rejuvenation of Jason’s

father. It is also in Medea and Jason’s discussion of this rite that we see Hekate will refuse to

do something so unnatural as to take years of life from one person and give them to another.

In refusing this act, Hekate retains some of her benevolent imagery whilst her chthonic

goddess of witches image is in the foreground. This image changes again however when she

is invoked by Circe in book Fourteen of the Metamorphoses, as Circe has no good intentions

in her transformations of Odysseus’ men into pigs. It is clear that Ovid completes Hekate’s

transformation from benevolent and protective goddess shown in Hesiod’s Theogony, to that

of a malevolent witch goddess, guardian of the crossroads.

Like her patron, Medea also goes through a transformation of character, however hers is not

only over centuries as her story is retold and adapted to suit the changes in society. Medea

also transforms in the context of her own story. In Colchis, Medea is an innocent maiden,

gifted with magical abilities. This is seen not only in Ovid but also in Apollonius. Unlike her

patron, Hekate, Medea’s image does not change in a linear chronological sense, as Apollonius

is writing in Greek in the third century BC, Ovid in Latin in the first century AD. That the

centuries, different societies and purposes behind their writings leads to similar Medea

characters at this stage in the Medea myth by these two writers shows how Medea’s character

transcends time and is held to her own chronological timeline. As Medea grows into her

powers, the further away from Colchis and into Greek society she travels, her image changes.

In rejuvenating Jason’s father, she shows how powerful she can be, in leading Jason’s cousins

to murder their father, Jason’s uncle; she shows how these powers can easily be turned from

48

benevolent to malevolent. Jason at this point believes that Medea will not turn these powers

against him, that she is a tool for his use. Medea however knows that she is not, that whilst

she is his wife she is still an independent woman capable of making her own decisions. And it

is this independent and clever streak that she states in Euripides’ Medea that causes her

downfall and the end of her marriage to Jason. Another transformation takes place here, in

two different ways presented by Euripides and Seneca. Again these transformations are

written centuries apart and it is clear that Seneca was influenced by Euripides’ character,

though he did make a Medea of his own. In Euripides, Medea turns her powers against Jason,

murdering not only his new wife and father-in-law but his children by Medea as well; this is

common to both Euripides and Seneca. Where these two writers differ is in Medea’s reaction

to this final act. In Euripides Medea is remorseful, regretting that she must take the lives of

her children to complete her revenge against Jason, and in doing so cleansing herself of his

presence in her life. Seneca’s Medea feels no such regret, going so far as to throw her

children’s’ lifeless bodies from the roof of their house, at their father. Seneca’s character

completely detaches herself from any emotional connection to her offspring and by doing so

transcends the barriers between mortal woman with divine heritage, to a divine being in her

own right, as for a mother to kill her children was deemed so unnatural only a divine being

could think of the act let alone to actual carry it out. It is with Seneca’s portrayal that Medea

completes her transformation, one even more drastic than her patron. Like Hekate, Medea

starts innocent and benevolent, as she grows her malevolent streak starts appearing, though it

appears with her want to do good for her husband, a pure ambition if not a little misguided.

Whilst Hekate is invoked in magic rites by Circe for completely malevolent purposes, she

does not go so far as to murder innocent children, it is possible her attribute of guardian of

young children given to her by Zeus in Hesiod’s Theogony continued into the Roman period,

though no literature evidence of this has been found. Medea however loses any sense of

innocence as she takes the lives of her children, and in Seneca shows no respect for them.

The changes of imagery to these two characters is important for understanding how

mythologies change over time, especially in understanding the portrayal of women, in

particular those possess the ability to use magic. As wandering bards and poets first circulated

mythology, there is no definitive beginning to anyone culture’s mythology. These stories

changed with every telling, and from poet to poet countless versions would be in circulation at

any one time. When these stories first started to be recorded in the written word, by Homer

and Hesiod for example, these stories did not become less fluid. Poets began to write down

49

their stories, and in doing so each poet had his own version of the story, told time and time

again, but one that was different from the next poet. As these poets began to settle into the

cities rather than travel from town to town, each region began to develop its own set of

mythologies. The Labours of Herakles is a prime example of how one myth could be told in

many different ways. As more cities claimed to be linked to the great hero, his list of tasks to

perform to purge himself of the murders he committed changed, not only in what the tasks

where but in how many there were to perform, from city to city to suit the individual needs.

As Greece started out as a union of city-states, though this union was very unstable and often

broken, a connected repertoire of mythologies was one such way to join these geographically

separate states. And whilst each city had its own collection of myths, creating a vast collage

of mythology, the characters and stories where familiar enough between the city-states to join

them together under a single banner of Greek mythology. Roman mythology shows on the

other hand how the assimilations of many culture’s mythologies can combine to provide a

rich tapestry of stories, that can be manipulated to reflect the political and social standings of

a society at anyone time. Whilst this can also be said of Greek mythology, the Romans seem

to do so much more often. The final book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses is after all a satiric jibe at

the political climate of early Augustan Rome. Being used as a tool to reflect political climates

means that mythology of any culture never stands still it is always changing; essentially it is a

living organism.

Women play a very important role, as wives, mothers, and sisters, in these ever changing

mythologies and as such their portrayal is important to examine. Both of the women discussed

are strong characters in their own right. Hekate may not have any surviving myths that have

her as the main character, but many of her servants’ stories would not have the same effect if

she were not invoked. The same could be for the goddess Hera, who like Hekate has few

myths that centre solely on her. Many of Hera’s myths show her as a jealous woman in

pursuit of her wayward husband’s latest consort. Whilst many of her stories cast her as a

secondary character to Zeus and to the unlucky woman to have caught his eye, this does not

make Hera by any means a weak character, if anything that she is so prevalent in these stories

is a testimony to her strength. Medea as well starts as a supporting character, lending aid to

Jason in his quest for the Golden Fleece but by the end of her chronicle the balance shifts and

Jason becomes the secondary character, bringing Medea, her thoughts and actions to the

foreground. These women are also important in examining portrayals of magic throughout

mythology. By possessing the ability to control the elements of magic, these women are

50

already set out from society, their cleverness is a burden as well as a gift. How they use these

powers is what sets them aside. Hekate in Greek culture uses these powers to aid those who

worship her, and to hinder those who offend her. This can be seen in all deities no matter the

pantheon they belong to. However as the centuries past these deities take on more and more

petty characteristics, demanding more from their followers, to the point they are abusing their

magical gifts. This shift from respectful use of power to abuse of it can also be seen in mortals

gifted with magic abilities. At the beginning of her story Medea is hesitant to use her powers,

knowing that to over use them with would corrupt her, as if does the more she uses her

powers, and the larger acts of magic she performs. As society develops more, and the ancient

sciences take over superstitions, those with the ability to use magic are further excluded from

society. Medea acts in ways no human mother ever could and the gods become more recluse,

offering aid only to those who they deem truly worthy. As these sciences take hold,

mythologies become less common eventually taking the role of fiction rather than the

histories they were to the Greeks. In doing this many myths have been lost to time, gaps have

formed, leaving contemporary scholars to puzzle over fragments to piece together a better

understanding of a world that shook off the belief in the gods’ powers over the universe, to

turn to a search for empirical facts to explain their universe.

51

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ancient Sources

Apollonius Rhodius (trans. W. H. Race). 2008. Apollonius Rhodius: Argonautica, Cambridge,

London: Harvard University Press.

Apuleius (trans. J. A. Hanson). 1996. Apuleius: Metamorphoses, Cambridge, London:

Harvard University Press.

Aristophanes (trans. D. Barrett). 1985. The Knights, Peace, The Birds, The Assembly Women,

Wealth, New York and London: Penguin Books.

Euripides (trans. J. Mossman). 2011. Euripides: Medea, Oxford: Oxbow.

Hesiod (trans. G. W. Most). 2006. Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days and Testimonia,

Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.

---(trans. Athanassakis, A.N.) 1983. Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Day, Shield, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.

Homer (trans. A. T. Murray). 1995. Homer: The Odyssey, Cambridge, London: Harvard

University Press.

Homeric Hymns (trans. H. P. Foley). 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Horace (trans. R. Mongan). 1854. Satires, Epistles and the Art of Poetry, London: Cornish.

Orphic Hymns (trans. A. N. Athanassakis). 2013. The Orphic Hymns, Balitmore: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Ovid (trans. F. J. Miller). 1977. Ovid: Metamorphoses, Cambridge. London: Harvard

University Press.

---(trans. G Showerman). 1977. Ovid: Heroides, Amores, Cambridge, London: Harvard

University Press.

52

Pausanias (trans. P. Levi). 1979. Pausanias: Guide to Greece, London: Penguin Books.

Pindar (trans. W. H. Race). 1997. Pindar: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes, Cambridge,

London: Harvard University Press.

Seneca (trans. J. G. Fitch). 2002. Seneca: Hercules, Trojan Women, Phoenician Women,

Medea, Phaedra, Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press

53

Modern Works

Artstor. 2014. Artstor Shoulder Lekythos, website, accessed 5 July 2014, <http://library.artstor.org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/library/iv2.html?parent=true#>. Beard, M., North, J. and Price, S. 1998. Religions of Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berg, W. 1974. ‘Hecate: Greek or "Anatolian"?’ Numen 21: 128-140. Boedeker, D. 1983. ‘Hecate: A Transfunctional Goddess in the Theogony?’ Transactions of the American Philological Association 113: 79-93. Boedeker, D. 1997. ‘Becoming Medea: Assimilation in Euripides’ in Clauss, J.J. & Johnston, S.I. (eds.) Medea: Essays on Medea in Myth, Literature, Philosophy and Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 127-148. British Museum. 2014. British Museum, website, accessed 5 July 2014, <http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/ribbed_black-glaze_jug.aspx>. Collins, D. 2008. Magic in the Ancient Greek World, Malden: Blackwell Publishing. De Grummond, N. 2006 Etruscan Myth, Sacred History, and Legend, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. De Grummond, N and Simon, E. 2006. The Religion of the Etruscans, Austin: University of Texas Press. Dumézil, G. 1970. Archaic Roman Religion, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fairbanks, A. 1900. ‘The Chthonic Gods of Greek Religion’ The American Journal of Philology 21: 241-259. Golden, M. 2004. Sport in the Ancient World From A to Z, London, New York: Routledge. Graf, F. 1997. ‘Medea, the Enchantress from Afar: Remarks on a Well-Known Myth’ in Clauss, J.J. & Johnston, S.I. (eds.) Medea: Essays on Medea in Myth, Literature, Philosophy and Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 21-43. Graf, F. 2002. Myth in Ovid in Hardie, P. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Ovid Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 108-121. Grant, F. 1953. Hellenistic Religions: The Age of Syncretism Indianapolis: The Liberal Arts Press. Griffiths, E. 2006. Medea, London, New York: Routledge.

54

Guastella, G. 2001. ‘Virgo, Coniunx, Mater: The Wrath of Seneca's Medea’ Classical Antiquity 20: 197-220. Hard, R. 2004. The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology, London, New York: Routledge. Harris, S.L. and Platzner, G. 1995. Classical Mythology: Images and Insights, London: Mayfield Publishing Company. Hornblower, S. Spawforth, A. Eidinow, E. (eds.) 2012. Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kraus, T. 1960. Hekate: Studien zu Wesen und Bild der Gottin in Kleinasien und Griechenland, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Larson, J. 2007. Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide, Oxon, New York: Routledge. Manuwald, G. 2013. ‘Medea: Transformations of a Greek Figure in Latin Literature' Greece & Rome 60: 114-135. Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2014. Metropolitan Museum of Art, website, accessed 5 July 2014, <http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/252973>. Mooney, C.M. 1971. ‘Hekate: Her Role and Character in Greek Literature From Before the Fifth Century B.C.’ MA Thesis, Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University (DigitalCommons@McMaster). Newlands, C. 1997. ‘The Metamorphosis of Ovid's Medea' in Clauss, J.J. & Johnston, S.I. eds. Medea: Essays on Medea in Myth, Literature, Philosophy and Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 178-210. Rosner-Siegel, J.A. 1982. ‘Amor, Metamorphoses and Magic: Ovid's Medea (Met. 7.1-424)’ The Classical Journal 77: 231-243. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1997. ‘Medea at a Shifting Distance: Images and Euripidean Tragedy’ in Clauss, J.J. & Johnston, S.I. eds. Medea: Essays on Medea in Myth, Literature, Philosophy and Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 253-296. Trinacty, C. 2007. ‘Seneca's Heroides: Elegy in Seneca's Medea’ The Classical Journal 103: 63-78. Walsh, L. 2012. ‘The Metamorphoses of Seneca's Medea’ Ramus 41: 71-93. Wilkinson, R.H. 2003. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, New York: Thames & Hudson. Williams, G. 2012. ‘Medea in Metamorphoses 7: Magic, Moreness and The Maivs Opvs' Ramus 41: 49-70.

55

Williams, M. 1942. ‘Hecate in Egypt’ Folklore 53: 112-113.

Williamson, A. 2013. City and Sanctuary in Hellenistic Asia Minor, website, accessed 25

October 2014, <http://home.tiscali.nl/polissanctuary/index.html>.