PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 Médée: From Motherhood to Womanhood C AMILLE L ECLÈRE -G REGORY (U NIVERSITY OF I OWA ) Within Pierre Corneille’s œuvre, no play is more provocative and innovative than Médée, which was first brought to the stage in 1635. Not only does the work stand as the playwright’s first tragedy, it is also the beginning of his innovative vision for theater - the pièces à machine. From a moral standpoint, Médée also displays the triumph of a Manichean Evil versus Good, as the sorceress obtains revenge over Jason, Créon and Créuse, and opens the possibility of extending her sinful deeds beyond the realm of Corinthe. The playwright was met with significant criticism upon the first representations of the play, namely by one of his most notable detractors, La Mesnardière, who wrote a scathing review: Que si le sujet est tel que le personnage principal soit absolument vicieux, il ne faut pas que ses crimes soient exempts d’un châtiment qui lui donne beaucoup de terreur. C’est en ce point-là que le poète ne doit pas commettre les fautes que nous voyons dans plusieurs poèmes, ainsi que la Médée, où le héros est perfide et l’héroïne meurtrière, non seulement du sang royal, mais de ses propres enfants, sans que l’une soit punie d’une cruauté si horrible, ni que l’autre soit châtié, pour le moins en sa personne, d’être ingrat et infidèle (La Mesnardière 21). La Mesnardière stands as the enforcer of moral standards in light of Corneille’s dramatic crime of lese-majesty: the failure to punish Médée and Jason for their transgressive behaviors and their failure to protect their children. Indeed, Corneille’s poetic license stood as a bold statement in the beginning of the age of morality and reason - particularly in regards to the question of “terreur.” The critic seems to lament Médée’s absence of remorse and terror for the crimes that she has committed, as well as the failure on the part of the representatives of the dominant order - namely Jason and Créon - to enforce their power and punish her transgressions. Such a reaction leads us to wonder why La Mesnardière - and many other critics contemporary to Camille Leclère-Gregory PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 86 Corneille, including l’Abbé d’Aubignac 1 - were so unsettled by the play. As John Lyons studies at length in his monograph 2 - the seventeenth century valued a certain equilibrium between terror and pity in order for catharsis to be accomplished. The absence of the former sentiment in the character of Médée - a mother who commits infanticide - thus prevents catharsis and, to a certain extent, provokes the failure of the play’s moral objective by neoclassical standards. Instead, it would appear that given her triumph and lack of guilt, she inspires horror, which, as Lyons notes: is provoked in the spectator by a scale of ethical values: “nous ressentons proprement ce que nous appelons Horreur, lorsque nous voyons une cruauté détestable, une infame trahison, ou quelque semblable bassesse qui offense notre esprit sans épouvanter notre cœur” (25) 3 . Horror affects the mind or esprit of a spectator but does not produce fear. [...] It would be clear to La Mesnardière’s readers that horror as moral offense and as disgust is based on the refinement of the viewer’s sensibility and moral standards [...]. Horror is therefore both disagreeable to such a person and ethically offensive. Terror, on the other hand is highly desirable. [...] Terror should induce repentance in the vicious; it should “épouvanter notre Coeur” (Lyons 61-62). Consequently, according to La Mesnardière, one of the main flaws behind Corneille’s portrayal of Médée stems from the “moral offense” her actions provoke - how could a woman feel such a desire for revenge that she is willing to murder her own children? The refined aristocratic spectator has no other choice than to reject her rather than identify with her (as she has not sought repentance for her crimes or been punished for them). It is no secret that the sorceress stands as a controversial theatrical figure, from her first portrayal by Euripides to the numerous versions of her story brought to the stage during the seventeenth century. 4 Yet, in all of these depictions, Médée is painted as an unequivocally monstrous and detestable character. In his rendition, Corneille was able to bring nuance to the stage and create a blueprint for other notable mothers in his oeuvre, such as Cléopâtre in Rodogune or 1 D’Aubignac denounces the unexpected ending of the play in La Pratique du Théâtre : “la catastrophe en est défectueuse, en ce que le poète dénouant cette pièce par la fuite de Médée dans un chariot enchanté, il n’en avait auparavant jeté aucune semence, c’est à dire aucune préparation, les parties précédentes n’y contribuant en rien” (130). 2 See chapter entitled “Passion in the Age of Reason in Kingdom of Disorder”: 43-82. 3 Lyons here quotes La Mesnardière’s La Poétique. 4 See Christian Delmas’s “Medée, figure de la violence dans le théâtre français du XVII e siècle.” Médée: From Motherhood to Womanhood PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 87 Marcelle in Théodore, vierge et martyr. Claire Carlin has defined this archetype of female antagonist as the “monstrous mother” 5 or the “female heavy”: [Médée’s] infanticide announces the “monstrous mothers,” an exceptional group of women who appear in three plays. The negative illusion created by the female blocking characters in Cornelian comedy has its direct counterpart in the tragedies, although the stakes are higher and the destructive potential more evident in the latter (Carlin 396). What La Mesnardière and other detractors have failed to perceive through Corneille’s Médée is the playwright’s true intent behind the character, which he expresses in the Examen of the play: J’ai cru mettre la chose dans un peu plus de justesse, par quelques précautions que j’y ai apportées: la première, en ce que Créuse souhaite avec passion cette robe que Médée empoisonne, et qu’elle oblige Jason à la tirer d’elle par adresse; ainsi, bien que les présents des ennemis doivent être suspects, celui-ci ne doit pas l’être, parce que ce n’est pas tant un don qu’elle fait qu’un payement qu’on lui arrache de la grâce que ses enfants reçoivent; la seconde en ce que ce n’est pas Médée qui demande ce jour de délai qu’elle emploie à sa vengeance, mais Créon qui le lui donne de son mouvement, comme pour diminuer quelque chose de l’injuste violence qu’on lui fait, dont il semble avoir honte lui-même; (Examen, my italics). As Corneille emphasizes in this passage, he does not wish to portray her as a ruthless murderer who seeks revenge, but rather as a victim of the countless injustices done onto her by Jason, Créon and Créuse. Corneille emphasizes this statement later in in his Examen when he discusses the deaths of the king and his daughter: [c]es deux mourants importunent plus par leurs cris et par leurs gémissements qu’ils ne font pitié par leur malheur. La raison en est qu’ils semblent l’avoir mérité par l’injustice qu’ils ont faite à Médée, qui attire si bien de son côté toute la faveur de l’auditoire, qu’on excuse sa vengeance après l’indigne traitement qu’elle a reçu de Créon et de son mari, et qu’on a plus de compassion du désespoir où ils l’ont réduite, que de tout ce qu’elle leur fait souffrir (Examen, my italics). Once again, the playwright stresses the commitment he has made to depict Médée as a victim, and to stray away from the historical perception of the character as a cunning and heartless sorceress who is hungry for revenge. By turning her into a victim, Corneille shifts the public’s perception and - contrary to what La Mesnardière claims - does in fact accomplish catharsis, although through another lens. Indeed, the spectator feels pity for her on 5 See Carlin’s chapter on “The Monstrous Mothers” in Pierre Corneille Revisited: 91-98. Camille Leclère-Gregory PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 88 account of the aforementioned injustices, but also terror because of her destructive potential: she not only kills her enemies but does so through the use of her magical powers. The threat she poses extends beyond the realm of human possibility and increases her menacing potential. 6 Although such a topic offers a wealth of possibilities for discussion, it has already been studied in detail by other scholars. 7 Consequently, I have chosen to steer my focus away from Médée’s magical powers in this discussion - aside from a brief mention at the end - in order to concentrate on a more tangible aspect of her character: her role as a mother. Although La Mesnardière failed to understand the complexity of the portrayal Corneille created through his Médée, he was successful in highlighting the essential source of outrage and moral fallibility of the character: the “meurtrière non seulement du sang royal, mais de ses propres enfants” (La Mesnardière, op. cit.). It is indeed a particularly bold and provocative decision on Corneille’s part to choose an infanticide mother as the subject of his first tragedy, and to portray her triumph in the fifth act, with no apparent consequences. How is it possible for a mother to murder her children and be devoid of grief or remorse? Does her maternal instinct play a part at any moment in the play? It is my belief that a revocation of such instinct occurs within the character as a means of survival - as a queen and as a woman - and that Médée shatters the moral codes surrounding motherhood in the seventeenth century in order to emancipate herself as a woman. Although unforgiving, the heroine embodied by Médée is not devoid of love, and in fact refers numerous times throughout the play to the acts she has committed out of love for Jason. In her first appearance onstage, she declares: 6 One prominent example can be found in Nérine’s monologue in the first scene of Act III, in which she laments the fate which awaits Créuse because of Médée’s powers: Sa vengeance à la main, elle n’a qu’à résoudre: Un mot du haut des cieux fait descendre le foudre; Les mers, pour noyer tout, n’attendent que sa loi; La terre offre à s’ouvrir sous le palais du roi; L’air tient les vents tout prêts à suivre sa colère, Tant la nature esclave a peur de lui déplaire. Et si ce n’est assez de tous les éléments, Les enfers vont sortir à ses commandements (v.701-708). 7 See Joy Sylvester’s “Will the Real Médée Please Step Forward? ,” and Claire Carlin’s “The Woman as Heavy: Female Villains in the Theater of Pierre Corneille.” Médée: From Motherhood to Womanhood PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 89 Jason m’a fait trahir mon pays et mon père, Et me laisse au milieu d’une terre étrangère, Sans support, sans amis, sans retraite, sans bien, La fable de son peuple et la haine du mien (I,5 v.297-300) By emphasizing what she has renounced for Jason, the murders she has committed for him (her brother and her father) and the situation of isolation and rejection she now finds herself in, the sorceress lays the foundations of her self-portrayal as a wife/ lover who has fallen victim to the intensity of her passion, and who faces the consequences alone. She adds: Tout ce qu’en ta faveur fit mon amour extrême, Je le ferai par haine ; et je veux pour le moins Qu’un forfait nous sépare, ainsi qu’il nous a joints; Que mon sanglant divorce, en meurtres, en carnage, S’égale aux premiers jours de notre mariage Et que notre union, que rompt ton changement Trouve une fin pareille à son commencement. Déchirer par morceaux l’enfant aux yeux du père N’est que le moindre effet qui suivra ma colère (I,5 v.242-49) Médée’s emotions function in extremes and shift brutally throughout the play. In this passage, she highlights the contrasts between past and present, beginning and end and the extremities to which her relationship with Jason have taken her (and will continue to). Her “amour extreme” is only equaled by the “haine” that Jason’s betrayal has caused her. Nevertheless, the object of her hatred fluctuates along with her emotional state as a consequence of the plot’s progression. In the second act, she shifts her focus from Jason to Créon and Créuse, still hopeful to recuperate the love of her husband: “Je crois qu’il [Jason] m’aime encore, et qu’il nourrit en l’âme/ [q]uelques restes secrets d’une si belle flamme; / [...] Créon seul et sa fille ont fait la perfidie; / [e]ux seuls termineront toute la tragédie: / leur pèrte achèvera cette fatale paix.” (II,1 v.358-71). Médée’s disgust then slowly shifts to her children when she realizes that Jason does not love her anymore: Que devenait Jason, et tous vos Argonautes? Sans moi, ce vaillant chef, que vous m’avez ravi Fût péri le premier, et tous l’auraient suivi. [...] Tous vos héros tiennent de moi la vie; [...] Je n’en veux qu’un pour moi, n’en soyez point jaloux. Pour de si bons effets, laissez-moi l’infidèle: Il est mon crime seul, si je suis criminelle; (V,2 v.434-446) Camille Leclère-Gregory PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 90 The sorceress’s inability to focus her anger and resentment on a single source stems from the generalized perception of her as the Other and, who is rejected from all for her inability to conform to traditional conceptions of what a woman, wife and mother should be. After all, she is a sorceress gifted with the ability to control the elements and the enfers who does not shy away from committing regicide and murder. In order to preserve the integrity of her identity, she thus resorts to projecting her resentment onto the fruit of the very love she has lost. Furthermore, those around her know all too well that the children are the only reason for Médée to stay in Corinthe - it thus becomes their objective to separate her from them. Créon is the first to draw her attention to her children when he tells her to leave: Va, dis-je, en d’autres lieux Par tes crimes importuns solliciter les dieux. Laisse-nous tes enfants: je serais trop sévère, Si je les punissais des crimes de leur mère; Et bien que je le pusse avec juste raison, Ma fille les demande en faveur de Jason (II, 2 v.491-496) The king depicts the separation of mother and children as an act of mercy mandated by Créuse - he will magnanimously save them from being punished for the “crimes de leur mère.” Créon offers a twofold vision of the relationship between Médée and her offspring: on the one hand, he emphasizes the idea of heredity, but on the other, he disregards this intrinsic bond through the intent to separate them physically. Furthermore, he also implants the idea within Médée that her children will become solely Jason’s through her solitary exile - he thus symbolically initiates the process of separation between her identity as mother and woman. To this, Médée responds: Barbare humanité, qui m’arrache à moi-même, Et feint de la douceur pour m’ôter ce que j’aime! Si Jason et Créuse ainsi l’ont ordonné, Qu’ils me rendent le sang que je leur ai donné (Ibid., v.497-500) The mother figure within the sorceress is torn at her core by such a dessein and emphasizes the king’s ruthlessness and cruelty through his “barbare humanité.” As Joy Sylvester notes: He thus reminds Médée that her most valuable asset in this game of political expediency may well be her two children. Finally, that most unkind cut of all; not only will Créon, by his order, take away from her rightful husband, the man for whom she has sacrificed everything; not only will he deprive her of her natural right and consolation, her children; but he will do so for the sake of his only child; his daughter, Créuse, who will become Jason’s wife and the stepmother of Médée’s children. Médée thus sees herself wounded in Médée: From Motherhood to Womanhood PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 91 her innermost being as a “femme” in both senses of the word “woman” and “wife” (Sylvester 3). The image she describes of being ripped from herself demonstrates that Médée very much still identifies as a mother, and, as Sylvester notes, as a woman and wife - all three parts which form her identity. By taking away her children - Créon aims to destroy Médée in the very core of her existence. The children thus become the central issue of conflict between Médée and those who oppress her. Yet, although Créon and Créuse play an active role in the war to separate the mother from her offspring, their deeds fail to equal Jason’s cruelty and cowardice, as he utilizes the children as justification and leverage for his desire to marry Créuse. In his first confrontation with his wife, he uses the pretense of the enchanted dress as the payment necessary to let her keep them: Créon bannit Médée, et ses ordres précis Dans son bannissement enveloppaient ses fils: La pitié de Créuse a tant fait vers son père, Qu’ils n’auront point part au malheur de leur mère. Elle lui doit par eux quelque remerciement (III,2 v.755-759) Jason twists the narrative to emphasize that Créuse has saved his children from banishment out of the kindness of her heart, so that they are exempt from a terrible fate. Not only does he fail to acknowledge the apparent intrinsic and visceral bond which traditionally links a mother to her offspring, he imposes an impossible choice onto her: she must decide between two integral parts of her identity, that of motherhood (through her children) and that of womanhood (the dress symbolizes her magical powers and thus her existence as a sorceress and woman). To further enhance this contrast, Jason emphasizes his role as a loving patriarch in the following scene - which I contend stands as the pivotal moment in Médée’s decision to sacrifice her children. Throughout their confrontation, he decides to utilize the children as the main drive behind his decision to leave Médée and marry Créuse - and portrays himself as a loving father who prioritizes their interests and wellbeing over his own personal motivations: Les tendres sentiments d’un amour paternel Pour sauver mes enfants me rendent criminel, Si l’on peut nommer crime un malheureux divorce Où le soin que j’ai d’eux me réduit et me force (III,3 v.823-27) Medée sees right through this performative display of virtue and mocks his “honte généreuse” as well as his “haute vertu” (v.867) and goes so far as to ask him why he stays alive if the shame of his own existence weighs so heavily Camille Leclère-Gregory PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 92 on his conscience. The clever provocation leads Jason to retort once again with the only argument he controls - their children: Au bien de nos enfants, dont l’âge faible et tendre Contre tant de malheurs ne saurait se défendre: Deviens en leur faveur d’un naturel plus doux (Ibid. v.869-871). Through such a declaration, Jason projects his patriarchal ideals of femininity and motherhood onto his estranged wife - that of a docile woman with “un naturel plus doux,” which pushes her into an aggressive display of rejection: Mon âme à leur sujet redouble son courroux. Faut-il ce déshonneur pour combler à mes misères, Qu’à mes enfants Créuse enfin donne des frères! Tu vas mêler, impie, et mettre en rang pareil Des neveux de Sisyphe avec ceux du Soleil! (Ibid., v.872-76). followed by “[j]e l’empêcherai bien, ce mélange odieux,/ [q]ui déshonore ensemble et ma race et les dieux” (Ibid., v.879-880). Médée is struck in her pride and honor as both a mother and a queen and cannot fathom the thought of a potential separation from her children (and of Créuse becoming their stepmother). She thus modifies her rhetorical strategy and takes on a pleading tone, in an unprecedented moment of vulnerability: Je t’aime encore, Jason, malgré ta lacheté; Je ne m’offense plus de ta légèreté [...] Souffre que mes enfants accompagnent ma fuite; Que je t’admire encore en chacun de leurs traits, Que je t’aime et te baise en ces petits portraits; Et que leur cher objet, entretenant ma flamme, Te présente à mes yeux aussi bien qu’à mon âme (Ibid., v.911-922). The queen’s vocabulary translates a degree of tenderness which contrasts with her usual tone and rhetoric and - to a certain degree - she embodies the traditional image of the mother that Jason has tried to impose onto her throughout the play. The end of the scene continues this verbal joust between the parents, who each highlight the other’s “amour paternal” (v.929) or “amour vertueux” (v.933) with irony, and are unable to come together to form a resolution - which will ultimately lead their children to become the collateral sacrificial victims of the hatred that has festered between them. Once she realizes that Jason remains unmoved by her plea, she finally embraces the decision which will free her from his grasp forever. This resolution occurs between the end of Act III and the beginning of Act IV, and the final scene of the former stands as her declaration: Médée: From Motherhood to Womanhood PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 93 J’y donnerai bon ordre: il est en ta puissance D’oublier mon amour, mais non pas ma vengeance; Je la saurai graver en tes esprits glacés Par des coups trop profonds pour en être effacés. Il aime ses enfants, ce courage inflexible; Son faible est découvert; par eux il est sensible; Par eux mon bras, armé d’une juste rigueur, Va trouver des chemins à lui percer le cœur (III,4 v.941-48). From a rhetorical and grammatical standpoint, it is essential to note the shift in Medée’s use of possessive adjectives: through her own possession (“ma vengeance,” “mon bras”), she displays her intentions concerning future actions - these are active, tangible concepts. Meanwhile, her references to Jason (“ta puissance,” “tes esprits glacés,”) demonstrate a more passive quality associated with his position as a patriarch. The queen’s rhetoric leads her to speak of “ses enfants” a pivotal declaration in the scheme of the dramatic action: they are now entirely Jason’s offspring, whom she has dissociated from her own being. The following act begins with a striking transition, which is materialized through a strong transgression on Corneille’s part concerning the unity of place - Act IV opens in Médée’s “grotte magique” (IV,1). Such an innovative and subversive decision on the playwright’s part deserves further consideration. The change of scenery in turn translates a shift in the heroine, which can be noted through her incantatory monologue in Act IV, Scene 1, as she is poisoning the dress Créuse has requested: C’est trop peu de Jason, que ton œil me dérobe, C’est trop peu de mon lit: tu veux encore ma robe, Rivale insatiable, et c’est encore trop peu, Si, la force à la main, tu l’as sans mon aveu: Il faut que par moi-même, elle te soit offerte, Que perdant mes enfants, j’achète encore leur perte; (IV,1 v.961-966). Now that metamorphosis has been initiated, it appears as though her magical dress bears more importance than her own offspring - symbol of her decision to embrace womanhood over motherhood - and that they will become the unwilling and unfortunate instruments for her revenge. The sorceress has resolved herself to murder them - her intent can be noted in her repetition of “perdant” and “perte.” Nevertheless, she is still haunted by a form of maternal love throughout the final act of the play. Although her plan is executed exactly as she had envisioned, Médée is overtaken by doubt in the second scene and oscillates between sadness and determination, in typical Cornelian fashion, although her dilemma is not the result of her mauvaise foi: Que n’a-t-elle [Créuse] déjà des enfants de Jason Camille Leclère-Gregory PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 94 Sur qui plus pleinement venger sa trahison! Suppléons-y des miens: immolons avec joie Ceux qu’à me dire adieu Créuse me renvoie. Nature, je le puis sans violer ta loi: Ils viennent de sa part, et ne sont plus à moi (V,2 v.1331-36). The oxymoron “immolons avec joie” stands once again as a display of Médée’s excessive temperament, which she justifies through a compelling reference to nature. Here, the sorceress affirms and confirms the revocation of her identity as a mother: infanticide stands as one of the capital offenses against the law of nature, particularly in the case of the mother, who has nurtured her offspring and shares a natural bond through what is generally defined as the “maternal instinct” - a perceived inherent and visceral need for a mother to protect her offspring. Maternal love has thus turned into abjection, per Julia Kristeva’s definition: There looms, within abjection, one of those violent, dark revolts of being, directed against a threat that seems to emanate from an exorbitant outside or inside, ejected beyond the scope of the possible, the tolerable, the thinkable. It beseeches, worries, and fascinates desire, which, nevertheless, does not let itself be seduced. Apprehensive, desire turns aside; sickened, it rejects. (Kristeva 10). Interestingly enough, Jason mirrors her mental process in the penultimate scene of the play, after he witnesses the death of Créuse. He laments: Instruments des fureurs d’une mère insensée, Indignes rejetons de mon amour passée, Quel malheureux destin vous avait réservés À porter le trépas à qui vous a sauvés? C’est vous, petits ingrats, que malgré la nature Il me faut immoler dessus leur sépulture. Que la sorcière en vous commence de souffrir: Que son premier tourment soit de vous voir mourir. (V,5 v.1529-1536). He acknolwedges heredity and perceives them as Médée’s children through his reference to “la sorcière en vous” rejects them through a strikingly pejorative lexical field (“indignes rejetons,” “petits ingrats”) and uses the same terms as the mother, be it the verb “immoler” and his reference to “nature.” Yet, while Médée claims to avoid a violation of nature by forsaking her children, Jason is cognizant of the affront and embraces it - which is emphasized by his use of the term “malgré.” The underlying idea enabling Jason to make such a bold claim in the neo-classical universe is his position as the representative of the male order: as the Father, he holds the power of life or death over his offspring and can override laws of nature, because his Médée: From Motherhood to Womanhood PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 95 transgression serves to protect the dominant order against the threat posed by his wife. Nevertheless, the decision to sacrifice her children is a complex internal battle for the sorceress, who struggles in the fight between her maternal love and desire for vengeance, declaring “[m]ais ils sont innocents; aussi l’était mon frère [whom she has killed for Jason]/ [i]ls sont trop criminels d’avoir Jason pour père” (v.1337-38). Her mind oscillates again throughout her monologue in Act V, Scene 2, in which she resorts back to pity: “[m]ais quoi! J’ai beau contre eux animer mon audace, / [l]a pitié la combat, et se met en sa place” (v.1341-42) and even questions her own morality and identity: “[j]’adore les projets qui me faisaient horreur: / [d]e lamour aussitôt je passe à la colère,/ [d]es sentiments de femme aux tendresses de mère” (v.1344-46). Through this example, Médée emphasizes the deeply rooted struggle she faces concerning her identity and the impossibility to reconcile these two aspects, which appear to be mutually exclusive in her situation. She is deeply torn and her questioning leads to a poignant symbolic farewell: Chers fruits de mon amour, si je vous ai fait naître, Ce n’est pas seulement pour caresser un traître: Il me prive de vous, et je l’en vais priver. [...] N’en délibérons plus, mon bras en résoudra. Je vous perds, mes enfants, mais Jason vous perdra; Ils ne vous verra plus... (v.1349-57). The dichotomy between Médée’s tender vocabulary in this apostrophe to her children and the violence of the act she is describing creates a truly unsettling feeling for the reader/ spectator: on the one hand, one can only feel empathy and deep sadness for a woman who has been so severely mistreated, but on the other, it is impossible to forget that she has elected to sacrifice her own children out of spite and revenge. Within these conflicting notions lies the essence of catharsis within Médée, in which both the pity and terror inspired by the character reach their pinnacle. Once the children have been sacrificed, the sorceress makes one final appearance onstage to affirm her triumph over Jason and her oppressors and fully embrace the possibilities offered by her new identity. She declares: Lève les yeux, perfide, et reconnais ce bras Qui t’a déjà vengé de ces petits ingrats: Ce poignard que tu vois vient de chasser leurs âmes, Et noyer dans leur sang les restes de nos flammes. Heureux père et mari, ma fuite et leur tombeau Laissent la place vide à ton hymen nouveau. (V,6 v.1539-44). Camille Leclère-Gregory PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 96 In committing this final act of separation, Médée frees herself from Jason and no longer positions herself as a victim. Instead, her vengeful “bras” - a typical male attribute to which she repeatedly alludes throughout the play - has become the instrument of her emancipation. The reader/ spectator thus becomes the primary witness to Medée’s progressive departure from her status as a mother and a wife to her emergence as a self-sufficient woman. She alludes to this idea of self-containment in the very first act, during an interaction with her nurse Nérine: NÉRINE: Forcez l’aveuglement dont vous êtes séduite, Pour voir en quel état le sort vous a réduite. Votre pays vous hait, votre époux est sans foi: Dans un si grand revers que vous reste-t-il? MEDEE: Moi: Moi, dis-je, et c’est assez NÉRINE: Quoi! Vous seule, Madame? MEDEE: Oui, tu vois en moi seule et le fer et la flamme, Et la terre et la mer, et l’enfer et le cieux, Et le sceptre des rois et la foudre des dieux. (I,5 v.317-324). In many regards Médée is as much a tale of revenge as it is a journey of selfdiscovery for the eponymous heroine. As Corneille mentions in his Examen, his objective throughout the play is to emphasize the injustices Médée faces, so that she becomes a more relatable character, and that the spectator finds themself understanding her decision to sacrifice her children. Throughout her dramatic journey, she is rejected and misunderstood by those who surround her and, above all, underestimated - although the characters all acknowledge her capabilities. François Jouan has brought this paradox to light in his study of fear surrounding the character, in which he highlights Jason’s attitude in particular: On constate que, d’une manière paradoxale, plus on avance dans l’action et moins les interlocuteurs de Médée comprennent sa vraie nature et agissent en conséquence. Au cours des deux grandes scènes qui mettent les époux en présence, peut-on dire qu’à un moment quelconque Jason a peur de sa femme? On le voit excédé par les injures que lance Médée contre les souverains de Corinthe, mais c’est parce qu’elles compromettent sa propre situation. Il est si imbu de la supériorité de son sexe et de sa race qu’il est autant incapable d’apprécier à leur valeur les bienfaits passés de Médée que d’accorder d’importance à ses menaces. (Jouan 93). Furthermore, the magic cave to which Médée retreats between Acts III and IV encompasses the significance of her transition from motherhood into womanhood - as the Law of the Father enforced by Créon and Jason prevents her from embracing her own identity. The cave becomes the very locus of her Médée: From Motherhood to Womanhood PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 97 emergence as a woman and of her resolution to sacrifice her children. I believe that there are several parallels to be drawn between the space Virginia Woolf defines in her essay A Room of One’s Own. In the first chapter, simply entitled “One,” Woolf notes that “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction” (Woolf 4). Although Médée’s art is not in writing, her magic, potions and other supernatural powers appear to forge and anchor her identity as woman. The magic cave thus becomes this “room of [her] own,” in which she can retreat from the judgment and rejection of exterior elements, and fully embrace her nature, identity, and practice her artistry. Furthermore, Woolf also develops the principle of “incandescence” of the mind: the mind of an artist, in order to achieve the prodigious effort of freeing whole and entire the work that is in him, must be incandescent, like Shakespeare’s mind, I conjectured [...] There must be no obstacle in it, no foreign matter unconsumed (Woolf 47). For an artist to truly and freely make art, their mind must be fully freed of obstacles and external matters, and the latter are consumed to fuel the artist’s creative mind. In Médée’s case, her magic was hindered by the desire to protect her children. She had previously channeled her power out of love for Jason, which caused chaos and destruction. Through her exile to Corinthe, she renounced her abilities in order to ensure the safety of her offspring. Yet, with Jason’s treason, which he justified as being in the interest of the children, Médée self-revoked her status as a mother and thus lifted the “obstacle” between herself and her identity as a woman and a sorceress - a state of being which had defined her long before she entered the realm of motherhood. Regardless of her efforts, Médée will always stand as the the Other, the “monstrous mother” outisde of the protected space of selfexpression that her cave represents, so long as she evolves in the same universe as the figures who reject her - Créon, Créuse, Jason and even her children (as an extension of their father). Since she defies the laws of nature through her infanticide, it would be tempting to surmise that the abjection she has developed for her children then transposes onto her own self - which would be the “terreur” La Mesnardière scolds Corneille of never portraying. Following this logic, Médée would give into what Kristeva defines as the “abjection of self”: If it be true that the abject simultaneously beseeches and pulverizes the subject, one can understand that it is experienced at the peak of its strength when that subject, weary of fruitless attempts to identify with something on the outside, finds the impossible within; when it finds that the impossible constitutes its very being, that it is none other than abject (Kristeva 14). Camille Leclère-Gregory PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 98 As I have mentioned, the sorceress is incapable of finding herself and her place in the world outside of her magic cave, and, per Kristeva, thus turns to find the “impossible within.” Rather than letting the crimes that she has committed become a reflection of her own being - which would lead to the abjection of self - she finds within herself the driving force for her new identity as a woman: her magic. The transition from mother to woman/ sorceress thus becomes complete after the murder of her children and of her rivals through the use of her magical powers. This is embodied in the final scene of the play, in which she declares: Et que peut contre moi ta débile vaillance? Mon art faisait ta force, et tes exploits guerriers Tiennent de mon secours ce qu’ils ont de lauriers. [...] Mes désirs sont contents. Mon père et mon pays, Je ne me repens plus de vous avoir trahis; Avec cette douceur j’en accepte le blâme. Adieu parjure: apprends à connaître ta femme; Souviens-toi de sa fuite, et songe une autre fois Lequel est plus à craindre d’elle ou de deux rois (v.1575-80). Médée here acknowledges and celebrates her full identity and the “transcendence” of her spirit through her “art.” In doing so, she embodies a new tragic figure, the only one that Corneille could have conceived: the criminal as heroine. She displays the full potential of her power through the acknowledgement of her “désirs,” and no longer needs to hide behind a false repentance towards her father and brother - Médée thus embraces the chaos and destructive forces she brings to this male-driven universe. She is toutepuissante and nothing can stand in her way. Here, the use of the term “femme” is also quite significant, as it encompasses a double meaning in French: both “woman” and “wife.” Only the possessive adjective indicates that she is referring to her identity as a wife, but I believe that her choice to use the term is intentional to convey a deep sense of irony as it is associated with what is “le plus à craindre.” Furthermore, the shift in Médée’s identity mirrors that of Corneille himself, as he takes a new direction in his theater. Christian Delmas notes: [l]a Médée moderne a tendu à s’autonomiser en hautaine figure du droit, atrocement justicière certes, avant de retourner, avec le déclin de la tragédie politique sous le règne absolu de Louis XIV, à l’image de femme suppliante quoique sûre de son bon droit qu’avait tracée d’elle Euripide. Ainsi la Médée de Pierre Corneille, [...] signale le passage d’un théâtre de la vengeance brute à une tragédie du droit, droit de sujet, droit de héros face à un État tenté par l’absolutisme (Delmas 227). Médée: From Motherhood to Womanhood PFSCL XLVIII, 94 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0006 99 Beyond the sorceress’s desire for revenge emerges a true quest for the right to embrace her identity, in spite of the constrictions of authoritative male rule over her actions, her morals and her body. The sacrifice of her children materializes this change and anchors it into a reality that she creates for herself - thus superbly answering Créon’s demeaning and rhetorical question: “[m]ais en si peu de temps que peut faire une femme? ” (II,2 v.1106) Médée’s triumphant escape on a “char tiré par deux dragons” into the unknown symbolizes the world of possibilities which await her, the woman-sorceress, and consequently strikes the Cornelian universe with the threat of chaos - a theme which will haunt the playwright’s tragédies régulières until the ominous return of the monstrous mother in 1645 with Rodogune. Works Cited C ARLIN , Claire. “The Woman as Heavy: Female Villains in the Theater of Pierre Corneille.” The French Review 59.3 (1986): 389-98.<jstor.org/ stable/ 392667>. C ORNEILLE , Pierre. Oeuvres Complètes. Paris, Garnier, 1970. D ELMAS , Christian. “Medée, figure de la violence dans le théâtre français du XVII e siècle.” Médée et la violence. PALLAS, 45 (1996): 219-228. <jstor.org/ stable/ 43684513>. J OUAN , François. “Qui a peur de Médée? ” Médée et la violence. PALLAS, 45 (1996): 87-97. <jstor.org/ stable/ 43684503>. K RISTEVA , Julia. The Powers of Horror; An Essay on Abjection. New York, Columbia University Press, 1982. L A M ESNARDIÈRE , Hippolyte Jules Pilet de. La Poétique. Sommaville, Paris, 1641. L YONS , John. Kingdom of Disorder - The Theory of Tragedy in Classical France. West Lafayette, IN, Purdue University Press, 1999. S YLVESTER , Joy. “Will the real Médée Please Step Forward? ” Didaskalia 6 (2006). <didaskalia.net/ issues/ supplement1/ sylvester.html>. W OOLF , Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. Eastford, CT, Martino Fine Books, 2012.