Volume 19, 2007 - Brown University

Fluency and Fear 27
points to the extent to which Medea has been intertwined with the practices of
debate and rhetoric in the scholarly imagination. If one views Euripides’ work as
“an open-ended debate,” then the play itself becomes analogous to the thematic
concerns of its characters (1991: 128-129). In using debate to critique the mode
of debate (i.e., rhetoric), Euripides again reveals his profoundly complex
relationship with that mode of communication. On the one hand, the past crimes
and current fears of his characters’ are shown to be based on the power of words
and rhetoric to deceive, and yet he exposes those criticisms through eloquent
speech and evocative debate.
In examining what Euripides is showing the Greeks about the Greeks, it is
important to recall the location of the exposition. In the grand Theater of Dionysus,
it would have been difficult for an audience member to see the actor, which
would arguably increase the importance of speech and its delivery (Arnott,
1991: 112). Just as Medea depends on the mode she criticizes, so too does
Euripides as he problematizes the significance of words in a venue where they
were among the most important modes of communication with the audience.
The conditions of Greek tragic performance further complicate Euripides’
presentation of rhetoric. Contextually, tragedies such as Medea would have
occurred as part of the state-sponsored City Dionysia. Politics and performance
were also united in the very architecture of the Theater of Dionysos, virtually
identical to that of the Athenian Assembly. Further, to be a successful speaker
and legislator in the Assembly would demand many of the same skills as being
an actor in the Theater of Dionysos. The necessity of possessing a strong voice
and of commanding the attention of several thousand both contributed to the
theatricalized presentations given in the theater and to the growing influence of
the Sophists, who taught rhetoric and oration (Wiles, 2000: 54-56). So Euripides
reveals this complex view of rhetoric in a space analogous to the politicized one
in which rhetoric was most often demanded.
If, as Geertz posits, performance is the medium through which cultures
show themselves to themselves, Medea and its conditions of performance in the
City Dionysia point towards a cultural ambivalence towards rhetoric, a simultaneous
dependence on and distrust of a key form of social interaction. Where
Geertz’s analyses of the Balinese performance falters, however, is that he does
not include any observations from actual Balinese participants. If one uses
Geertz’s theory to understand the relationship between a society and its performances,
then one must also address the beliefs of multiple participants in the society
to avoid the same interpretive myopia. In order to examine whether Euripides’
play reveals a cultural ambivalence towards rhetoric, the work of Greeks
other than Euripides must be noted as well. For example, Plato’s dialogue and
Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War illuminate a broader cultural
landscape and its subsequent perception of rhetoric.
Plato, known through his writings for a strong aversion to dramatic arts,
presents the issue of rhetoric as it relates to his search for truth. He attacks the
Sophists who, as Wiles explains, teach the art of rhetoric. In The Sophist, Plato