Medea's Conception Of Roman Religion

Medea’s sacrifice of her children also self-evidently distorts her role as a mother, and thereby also serves, ultimately, as a distortion of religion. According to Martin (2012), “liv[ing] up to the ancient and virtuous ideals of…ancestors…represented the principal source of Roman morality”, such “morality” that – critically – came from maternal “instruction” (Martin, p. 38). Medea, by murdering her children (not to mention her younger brother) perverts the normal manifestation of this Roman moral tenet, preventing her children – and brother – from becoming “virtuous” viri (Martin, 2012, p. 38). By returning to her virgo status Medea “outrag[es] this tradition” that is firmly grounded in religious conception (Martin, 2012, p. 38). It is clear,

At this point, a paradox is reached: does Medea depart from Roman religion? Or does she conform to it by departing exactly where such religion expects a woman who hails from a foreign land to depart? She does both, and therein lies the theme of ambiguity in Medea as it manifests through Roman religion. So, to answer the first part of the central question – how can Roman religion be used to understand Medea – one sees that Roman religion provides one basis for understanding Medea’s ambiguity and the duality of her character. With regard to the second part of the central question – how can Medea be used to understand Roman religion – the duality exhibited in Medea corresponds to a similar duality found in Roman religious practice. If Medea can be said to depart and conform to traditional Roman religious ideals, then the same can be said for Roman religion itself, although the areas where

Seneca’s conception of religion – the third such conception functioning in the play, albeit implicitly – is too complex for this paper’s conclusion (and this author’s mind) to do proper justice, but some consideration of it offers a different perspective for both the other two conceptions of religion already analyzed. First and foremost, Seneca firmly believed in god, having been, as classical historian Aldo Setaioli (2007) states, “endowed with a strong instinctual religious sensitivity” (Setaioli, p. 334). Seneca’s ideas on divinity, however, diverged from those of other Romans; state worship of the “untrue” gods of the Roman pantheon was, in Seneca’s mind, “immoral and sacrilegious” (Setaioli, 2007, p. 349). Seneca’s understanding of the almighty was, like that of other Stoics, based on the “unitary” nature of everything, wherein divinity pervades all physicality and vice-versa (Setaioli, 2007, p. 339). Interestingly enough, Seneca also held little respect for “myth and poetry”, both of which are included in his retelling of Medea (Setaioli, 2007, p. 349). Seneca also believed meaningful spirituality and worship excluded “temples…images of gods, priests, offers, and” most importantly, “sacrifices” (Setaioli, 2007, p. 357). Seneca’s conception of religion, therefore, is at odds with traditional Roman religion. Also essential for