Jocasta Vs. Kaikeyi

A Mother's Control

"A mother's love is unconditional." This is a statement that many of us have heard, and often represented. For those of us that are mothers we can understand this more so than those that are not. Or perhaps there are those of us that were difficult children and were the recipient of this unconditional love. Like everything else, there are always exceptions to the rules. Two prime examples to this are Queen Jocasta from Oedipus the King and Queen Kaikeyi of The Ramayana of Valmiki. Jocasta was given little opportunity to love her child, a fault mostly her own. Because of a prophecy she had her child killed as an infant (or so she thought) for the love of her husband. Kaikeyi on the other hand shows both a mother's love and a mother's hate. For the love of one child she had another exiled. Although Rama was not her blood born child, until manipulated by a servant, she treated him as good as her own. What were the intentions of these women by treating their children so? Were there standards different because they were of royal status? Were there outside forces that caused this treatment of their children? In each piece of literature both women were major influences on the theme.

These women were very similar and different in many ways. Both were women that in some form or other tried to determine the fate of their children; the fate that they chose for their children were very different. Jocasta and Kaikeyi were both victims; the amount of control over their "victim" status is questionable, as well as their responses. Both women reacted when their royal status was jeopardized, but their reactions were again different.

Both Queen Jocasta and Queen Kaikeyi tried to determine the fate of their children. Jocasta had let her husband get rid of their child that was determined to one day kill him and marry her. "My son- he wasn't three days old and the boy's father fastened his ankles, had a henchman fling him away on a barren, trackless mountain." (p. 411) This could be perceived in one of two ways. Either Jocasta was selfish enough to have her own child killed to try and outwit the prophecy or she was trying to spare her child by letting him be killed, and preventing his suffering of killing his own father and living in incest with his mother. Jocasta and Laius honestly believed the prophecy to be the truth. Queen Kaikeyi used a different tactic to determine the fate of Rama. Rather than death, she wanted him exiled for a long enough period of time that his presence would be forgotten, "let Rama withdraw to Dandaka wilderness for nine years and five live the life of an ascetic, wearing hides and barkcloth garments and matted hair." (p. 593) Getting rid of Oedipus and Rama was the fate that each woman chose. The difference of the two was that one chose death and the other chose exile.

Another similarity of the women is that they were both victims of manipulation. Jocasta was a victim of the prophecy, "an oracle came to Laius one fine day (I won't say from Apollo himself but his underlings, his priests) and it said that doom would strike him down at the hands of a son, our son, to be born of our own flesh and blood." (p. 411) Jocasta didn't kill her child herself but knew of the situation and the intent of her husband. What was she to do, she was merely the King's wife. It was said that Laius' greatest fear was his own death, " Laius suffered- his wildest fear- death at his own son's hands." (p. 411) How can a woman choose between her husband and her child? Given that situation Jocasta had little control. Even if she protested for the life of her child, her husband was the King and had the final say on the matter. Kaikeyi was manipulated by her servant Manthara whom she had been around since birth, "Now, Kaikeyi's family servant, who had lived with her from the time of her birth." (p. 586) When Manthara learned of