Cassandra: A Case Study of Hysteria? (5/5) – Conclusion
Behind us lie four stages of a journey through mythology and psychology. We have examined both Cassandra’s appearance and her myth in search of traces of hysterical mechanisms. We reached differing conclusions: Some mechanisms are clearly visible, while others are not. The final part of this series constitutes the attempt to weave the threads together and come to a conclusion. What does the overall picture look like? Is Cassandra a hysteric, or must we proceed with caution when using this term?
Retrospect
Let us briefly review the findings of this series.
Our search began in the present. We found that Cassandra’s vocabulary and her marriage hymn are not chosen coincidentally but possess a deeper meaning. It seems that she is conjuring up an event from the past. If we contemplate her choice of words and the inherent ambiguity of the hymn, we might conclude that the first part of her appearance constitutes a linguistic fossil of a violent experience—namely, that of her rape in Athena’s temple.
The second part dealt with the strangulated affect. Athena tells us that the Greeks’ transgression has remained unpunished. The entire tragedy hinges on this absent reaction. Hidden behind many facets of the tragedy is the question of an appropriate response—for instance, in Cassandra’s line of argument or the absence of grieving. In our reading, her seemingly paradoxical joy might be an answer to this question. Even without answering this question definitively, the observation remains that The Trojan Women addresses the the failure to react to a violent experience.
In the third part, we stepped onto the thin ice of physicality. We examined the few clues regarding the somatic dimension of Cassandra’s appearance and were able to paint a picture of an agitated Cassandra. Based on Freud’s notes on ‘motor phenomena’, this agitation allowed us to forge a connection to the traumatic experience identified in Part 1. In a sense, Cassandra undergoes a shift from passivity to activity—much like the way Freud describes bodily symptoms as a form of response to the original trauma.
Finally, in the last part, we entered the realm of sexual experience. It became clear that this domain is not merely a partial aspect of her character, but ontologically grounds her entire existence and her gift as a prophetess. The traumatic sexual experience forms the very foundation of her suffering. A similar ontology can be found in hysteria: here, too, it is sexual experience that lies at the core of hysterical symptoms.
Synthesis
How, then, can these findings be brought together? To be honest, the answer to this question is far from simple. And without wishing to make excuses, it was never the goal of this series to diagnose Cassandra with hysteria—that is, to provide a definitive, all-encompassing answer. Rather, my intention was to illuminate individual aspects and search within them for hysterical mechanisms. Nevertheless, I would like to briefly outline the overarching picture of these findings from my own perspective.
First, I would like to emphasize that hysterical mechanisms can indeed be identified both in Cassandra’s appearance and in her mythical conception. This series has provided ample material and illuminated numerous aspects to this end. Although I divided this series into distinct hysterical mechanisms, it is (hopefully) clear by now that these mechanisms always operate simultaneously. The traumatic experience is embedded in sexual experience, the trauma lies within the suppressed affect, and so on. This separation was therefore merely an analytical tool. I tried—in vain—to find a visual analogy to describe how these mechanisms relate to one another. However, my imagination failed me. For this reason, I will leave the visual image to each reader’s own imagination, while I attempt to explain the simultaneity of these mechanisms.
I wish to describe these various mechanisms as a closed system governed by interdependence and simultaneity. If I attempt to locate these mechanisms and elements, I arrive at the following conclusion: Sexual ontology forms the very basis of this system. It is the fundamental condition of Cassandra’s figure and the status quo from which all other phenomena and mechanisms emerge. Without this foundation—the ‘sexual experience’ in Freud’s words—no other mechanisms can exist. One might conceive of this foundation—to put it acutely—as static.
Another part of this system connects this sexual ontology to the present. By this, I primarily mean the strangulated affect, which links the inner cause to the outer appearance. This process is dynamic; it represents the energetic tension that pervades the system.
The remaining two components of this system are language and the body. They are the two channels through which this system communicates, manifesting and discharging the tension within it. Each element conditions the other: language is distorted by affect, the body is choreographed by language, and both remain legible only against the backdrop of sexual ontology.
Thus, we are not dealing with a mere list of isolated mechanisms, but with a total system in which every partial aspect always represents the whole. It is this simultaneity that I take away from these analytical findings. Before I drift further into abstract imagery, I shall stop here.
Now, let us turn to the central question of this series: Is Cassandra a hysteric?
Cassandra: A Case Study of Hysteria?
In my view, Cassandra is less hysterical herself than she is a convergence of hysterical mechanisms. This may seem paradoxical at first, but let me attempt to explain my rationale. This series has shown that dynamics are at play in Cassandra’s appearance and her connection to the myth that Freud similarly describes in the clinical picture and etiology of hysteria. It would therefore be valid to conclude that Cassandra is hysterical—after all, hysterical mechanisms are inherent to her character.
Yet, personally, I find myself struggling with the bodily dimension—that is, the actual symptomatology. In a way, I succeeded in uncovering this somatic dimension in her performance, or rather reinterpret it on another level. However, when reading Freud’s writings on hysteria, one quickly realizes how crucial the bodily symptom is to the condition—and not merely because of its connection to the original trauma. In the case studies in particular, it becomes evident just how informative and revealing the patient’s symptoms are.
The bodily dimension of Cassandra simply cannot fulfill this role. Yes, Cassandra displays a degree of agitation—but is that truly equivalent to the tics of Frau Emmy von N. or Miss Lucy’s loss of smell? Naturally, the somatic dimension in Freud’s texts is far more tangible than in Greek tragedy. That is why, in my view, a certain ‘something’ is missing if one attempts to characterize Cassandra as a hysteric. I hope this somewhat clarifies the rationale behind my hesitation.
After all, the theater is not a clinic, and dramatic characters are not patients. But that is by no means a flaw. Characters in ancient drama rarely display tangible symptoms that a modern physician could diagnose. Nor should that be the ambition of a psychoanalytic reading. While symptomatology is of paramount importance to a concept like hysteria, other psychoanalytic terms are far more detached from the somatic dimension. Reconciling physical symptoms with the psychoanalytic interpretation of drama will always remain a challenge.
Nonetheless, my conclusion should not be misunderstood. I firmly believe that—setting tangible symptoms aside—Cassandra exhibits hysterical mechanisms, and her character does not merely touch upon this complex of dynamics, but hits it dead-center. In and around Cassandra, there exist connections, movements, and dynamics that are likewise found in hysteria. Her performance reflects her past, a suppressed affect permeates the entire tragedy, and sexual experience is inextricably bound to her. Euripides stages all of this impressively, mirroring what Freud described. Cassandra is more than a mere paradigm. In The Trojan Women, she is a psychologically profound character whose myth and conception Euripides seems to have deeply understood. I will dedicate a separate post to this understanding. Nor will these be my last thoughts on the characters in The Trojan Women.
Cassandra does not show us the ‘what’ of a clinical diagnosis, but rather the ‘how’ of a traumatized existence—proving herself to be a psychological masterpiece.
Cassandra: A Case Study of Hysteria?
This post is part of my six-part series on Cassandra’s appearance in Euripides’ The Trojan Women:
- Part 0 (Primer): Why is Cassandra dancing?
- Part 1: Cassandra’s Trauma
- Part 2: The Strangulated Affect
- Part 3: The Physical Symptoms
- Part 4: The Field of Sexual Experience
- Part 5: Conclusion [You are here]
