Throughout the play Medea, Medea is the main character who is looked at as the protagonist. She has more than enough reason to be upset with her husband, Jason, and to be seeking out justice for what he has done to her. She left her home for him and helped him in finding the Golden Fleece, which has made him famous. As a reader I started off feeling bad for Medea and hating Jason, but as the play went on, I started to slowly shift in the other direction.I became less sympathetic towards Medea once she started to take her plot for revenge too far. The idea of her killing her own children to upset her ex-husband is some really dark actions to take. This ultimately leads me to question, is Medea really the protagonist? Should I be rooting for someone who has gone so far as to kill her own children to seek out revenge on her ex-husband? At the second half of the play I start to not even like any of the characters. Jason has clearly been depicted as the villain throughout the entire play, and I still do not like him for what he has done to Medea. Medea has overreacted completely about Jason's previous actions and has taken her revenge way too far. After reading this play I felt no satisfaction for any of these characters. None of them do good, and the end is just pure misery.
I feel as though many people are missing the point behind the actions of each of the characters within the play. Everyone is extremely focused on each individual deed that each individual character had done within the play. Although these deeds may seem vicious, cruel, wrong, immoral,and whatever other negative connotation that one can come up with to describe the actions of the characters, that is not the point of these individual deeds. In my opinion, these deeds must be viewed through a lens that incorporates that larger picture that each deed represents and then what the totality of all of the events means. Sure, these awful deeds create reactions and perceptions on characters and basically make us biased, but we need to understand what is meant by the hidden meaning within each of the deeds. These are characters that are each fighting for their own purpose and goal. Each of them represent a larger idea. Medea's actions can be viewed as having a feminist cause/negative portrayal of women and exiles, etc. and Jason's deeds can be viewed as misogynistic, and that's what we should be looking for when interpreting the text. Not the fact that the fictional event that is described is so wrong and immoral that we cannot even begin to see past it and get stuck on it. It is difficult because they pull on the strings of our emotions and it gets the best of us, but there are other intentions behind the action.
Medea is seen as the protagonist at first but then she reveals her dark side and starts to seem insane. Even though she did all of those things for Jason she was still unjustified in acting the way she did when he chose to marry someone else. The whole situation could have been handled better by both Medea and Jason. I agree that Medea should not be seen as the protagonist because she has not done anything worth supporting throughout the entire play. But on the same note, neither has Jason, or anyone for that matter. So I also agree with you when you say that you did not like any of the characters. Whether it be Medea's killing spree, Jason's leaving his wife and kids, or Creon's exiling Medea, every character did a major wrong somehow.
Does the chorus represent the voice of reason? In the first half of the play, the roles of the chorus have been to interact with Medea and Jason as well as to provide additional background chorus help to keep an objective perspective during a heated argument of irrational characters.
What is the role of the Gods in the first half of the play? The Gods and religion played a significant role in ancient information and context for the audience. Since this is a play, the role of the chorus is solely for the audience that would be attending the performance. The chorus is important in this particular play because Medea and Jason are relatively crazy characters who do not always display common sense and reason. It is not necessarily the place of the chorus to play a key role in the events in the story; rather, the chorus serves somewhat as an intermediary between the other characters in the play and the audience. Passively, the chorus agrees with Medea that she has been wronged and has the right to be vengeful. This objective perspective gives the audience a more moderate outlook on Medea’s situation. Likewise, the chorus breaks up the argument between Jason and Medea in order to present a more moderate, objective outlook. Line 520 says, “When members of a family fight like this, rage pushes them beyond all compromise.” The chorus then praises Jason’s logical argument but reassures the audience that he is in the wrong. These little additions from the Greek theater. Is this the case in Medea. In the first half, the Gods are referenced many times. When Medea plans her revenge, she calls upon Hecate, the Greek Goddess associated with witchcraft and sorcery among other things, to assist her in her vengeance. Aphrodite is a key figure in the play. During Jason and Medea’s heated conversation, Jason contends that it was Aphrodite who saved his life in Colchis, not Medea. Loyalty to Aphrodite could possibly relate to the conversation in class about specific virtues that could make Jason a more admirable character. Overall, the Gods are frequently referenced in the first half of the play. I think that this frequency represents how immersed religious values were in Ancient Greek theater. It seems that the references would be a given in any play of this period.
Is Medea inherently unstable? Jason’s betrayal and treatment of Medea give plenty of good reason for Medea to be upset and vengeful. However, based on the background information, she has murdered before and displayed wild behavior. She is a witch, she murdered her own brother and she had King Pelias’s daughter murder him. Jason’s treatment of her is in no way justifiable but her past raises some questions about how innocent she really is. Right from the start, the audience knows what Medea is capable of. Instead of being a passive housewife who undergoes a dramatic transformation and murders her children, she is a witch who does not take kindly to being betrayed. Her actions are extreme, but her past adds a more dramatic element to the plot.
Initially, I was prepared to disagree with question number three, however, reading your response has caused me to pause and think a little harder. At first, I wanted to justify all of Medea's actions, post abandonment, simply based on the trauma it must have caused her. That thought though, was made without considering Medea's previous track record. I'm willing to allot some leeway for someone in Medea's circumstance, provided they're a first time offender. Medea, on the other hand, seems to lose her composure every time something goes wrong. In order for one to be stable, they must be able to handle adversity. Medea proved time and time again that she is unable to handle adversity as a stable person would.
Amanda Thomas Humn 220 Akman Blog #4 What is the main role of women according to Medea? The role of women throughout ancient Greece was to be a property of men and take care of the house and raise children. Medea can be seen in these roles as she loves her children and does not want to be exiled and leave them from the place they call home. All women want best for their children and she fell that they have done nothing wrong. In the beginning she is only heard crying but not seen. This can show a sense that women cannot be seen upset or angry and must hide as they are seen to have strong wills. Medea fits this but when she comes out she begins to plot her revenge against what Jason has done by marrying another princess. This can show a role of Medea as a woman that what she had she liked and what Jason did is not allowed and she does not want him to get away with it. Medea can set an example in that she wants to be a good mother for her children but knows she cannot do it when they are not in an environment that they know. Why take blame out on her children? Medea sets the stage as her plan to kill her children and Jason’s new wife, the princess. One may ask the question why does Medea want to kill her children. They have nothing to do with the fact Jason has married another women. Medea may think that by killing her children she would get sympathy from Jason. I believe that Medea is looking for revenge and she feels that if she kills her two children she will get what she wants. I believe this is wrong in that the children did nothing wrong and she take more of her blame towards her husband Jason and try to understand why he did what he did. Killing innocent children will not fix the problem it could in fact add more to the situation. I also think that she as a mother of two children she wants to do what she feels is the best for her children’s life. What does the role of the chorus play for Medea herself? I believe that role of the chorus in Medea is to all the reader or audience a better understanding of what is really happening and to connect with the story better. As for Medea the chorus at some point has different views on how they want to take what she is saying. They interpret what they here in a way for the audience to better understand and then reply. The way they reply to her can be seen as calm relax way. They really do not take her side or the others side. They in a way accept what is happening but try to see both the good and bad of what Medea wants to do.
I think you have an accurate interpretation of the role of the chorus in regards to Medea. The chorus has a very passive stance on issues and never stand firm against Medea's rage driven thoughts. When she decides that she must kill her children the chorus speaks of how much of a burden raising children can be. I think that the role of the chorus is to put all of the intense emotions of the play into perspective. Both Medea and Jason are irrational and crazy at times, so the chorus presents all sides of the issue in order for the audience to have an idea of what is truly going on. Your first point of discussion is relevant to today's discussion in class about proto-feminism vs. misogyny. Medea, by being so bold and outspoken, is stepping out of the traditional role that women played in ancient Greek society. Medea points out during the play that both the wise and the foolish fear her because of her wisdom. Even though she is an intelligent woman, she automatically is disregarded by the men in society solely because she is female. I personally think that her decision to take vengeance on Jason supports the pro feminist argument. The fact that she kills her children makes the debate much more complicated.
"Old ties give way to new, he bears no longer any love to this family" is a ling by the attendent that says it all. Jason has terribly wronged Medea and does not care for his family regardless of the claims he makes otherwise. His claims are a means of justifying his actions not only to Medea but possibly himself due to any form of guilt or fear he may have. He is aware how terribly Medea has taken this affair and is afraid of her. He knows her capabilities and knows that she is a strong woman. There is a really psychological basis to Jason's actions. Jason has two main goals that are to be wealthy and a part of a great nation. He first uses Medea for the golden fleece to obtain wealth, and thinks that he has aquired what he longs for. Then when he realizes this, he quickly makes another goal and fall into the arms of the princess. He doesn't, however, want to give up Medea completely, so he has children with her, believing that these children will keep her with him. He believes he can have all his trophies at once, but as the nurse points out, "and she hates her children now and feels no joy at seeing them..." She could care less of the children now, and this actually happens. All those children serve as now is a reminder of what she has lost. Not only does Jason take her away from her homeland but makes her betray her family. She now has nothing left and no love for the children. It is Jason's fault that she kills her children.
I think the Attendent is an important character that really isnt mentioned. He serves as a part of mimesis by putting some background into how men in society act. He speaks of their ways of being greedy and doing solely what can make the indvidual excel. Medea speaks of the women's role as well comparing childbirth to battle in a hyperbole of the woman's forgotten importance and her required roles in life. Men are required to go to battle while women are require to have children. It is society that puts the pressure on people to act the way they do. Medea is fulfilling her role by doing whatever she can for her husband and Jason fufills his role by only bothering with his own needs and wants and doing whatever he needs to to fulfill his goals.
If Jason is trying to prove his wrong doing to Medea then why did he not try and reason more with her as to why he left her for a new wife. I believe Jason is a guy who can not settle down and has to keep new things in his life in order to stay happy. Medea in a way was forced to have children because of what the society sees as a role of a wife and women but she can not put the blame on Jason as to why she kills them when he leaves her. She should still love them and accept what has happened and place the blame on them. If she kills the children what joy does she get out of seeing Jason upset. She might get some revenge but I believe she hurts herself more then Jason by killing her own two children. I do agree with the fact that society turns people into who they really become by pressuring them. Medea in a way is pressured because of being an outsider and the fact that her husband left her and their children and being exiled. She has to prove a point that women cannot just accept this kind of treatment and move on like nothing never happened.
Was Medea more of a feminist writing or was it more misogynistic? In my opinion, I see Medea as a misogynistic tale. I see it this way for a number of reasons. The first and most important reason is that the character of Medea is portrayed in such a way that almost makes her seem crazy and unbalanced. The first time we hear Medea she is screaming and yelling about how distraught she is about how Jason left her for the princess of Corinth despite of everything they had together. In these moments some would say that she is portrayed as a crazed woman. Throughout the story she continues on her pursuit of revenge on Jason, King Creon, and the king’s daughter who Jason plans to marry, Glauce. Medea is successful in killing Creon and Glauce, but she chooses not to kill Jason. Instead, she chose to do something much more radical. She decided to kill her own children because the satisfaction from the pain Jason will receive from the murder of their children would be greater than the pain she would feel. This play seems misogynistic to me because Medea is portrayed in a way that almost makes her the villain at the end. Although it is pretty clear that Jason is the villain in the story, Medea basically becomes the villain because she was so greedy for her revenge that she found a way to justify murdering her two children. In the end, I pictured Medea as an unbalanced and a rather evil character for murdering her children instead of murdering Jason. It was an important part that really left a lasting impression of what kind of character she was. Also, this play was written in a society which was very misogynistic in its views. Women in Athens were not respected in the least and were treated poorly. I highly doubt that Euripides was ahead of his time when it came to respecting women. All in all I feel that this book is misogynistic in a way because of the time period it was written in and how Medea is portrayed.
What kind of person was Jason? From the way Jason acted in Medea I came to the conclusion that Jason was a weak and greedy man. Jason is weak man because he used Medea to get what he really desired. Jason used Medea and allowed her to give up her homeland and kill her brother so he could obtain the Golden Fleece. Jason really desired to make a name for himself in Athens, since he was not originally from Athens. He planned to marry the king’s daughter Glauce even though he was married to Medea and had two kids with her. He was also weak because he could not even apologize to Medea. Instead, he tried to justify his actions. He justified himself by saying that he was giving his children a better life and that she should be happy that he took her away from the barbarian lifestyle she grew up in. I believe it is pretty clear that throughout the story Jason was the main villain and rightly so. He was greedy for a new and better life, and in the end he paid for it.
Who was Dionysus and how was he important to Greek plays/Medea? Dionysus is the Greek god of wine and he is an important symbol for Greek theater. Without Dionysus there may very well be no Greek theater. Theater was one of the new, up-and-coming forms of entertainment around 500 B.C. and much of it had to with Dionysus. People would throw festivals where they would watch several plays in a row and drink and enjoy themselves. They would sometimes sacrifice a goat to Dionysus because the Greek people loved to please their gods. Dionysus was really a center figure that people could focus their activities around. He represented the cultural prowess of Athens, and he inspired people to create plays and especially tragedies. Dionysus most likely inspired Euripides and his story about Jason and Medea. Overall, Dionysus was an important symbol at the time when Euripides wrote his plays. He was the most important symbol for Greek theater.
The first arguement mentioned about Medea wailing I can fully relate with. I would certainly not take it lightly if I had just heard that the man that I had had 2 children with was married to someone else. It's almost as bad as finding out someone is cheating on you on facebook for today's standards. It was such an informal means of her finding out that her life as she knows it is over that I can completely understand her reaction initially. Now knowing that in the myth of Medea she didn't kill her children, I beleive that Euripedes could have been ahead of his time as unlikely as it seemed, and put that she did kill her children so that maybe he would not be ridiculed for his diverse perspective. He could have been trying to save himself by have her do something immoral for hopes of authority getting completly wrapped up in that and not reading between the lines.
I agree with your argument about Jason. I too thought that Jason was trying to justify his actions, resulting in him coming across as selfish and greedy. One point that you brought up that I had never thought of before was calling him weak. I never saw him like that but I agree with your reasoning behind that. I think that Jason was just trying to give Medea what she wanted to hear, to almost get her out of his face and on with her life. Jason was greedy for a better life; he used Medea for all she could provide him and then left her to better himself. He claimed it was about his children and a better life for their family as a whole, however I believe his was selfish and weak. I liked your argument about him being the main villain of the play. This was also something I never considered.
I agree that this story makes Medea look like a villain in the end of the story and that it certainly has misogynistic parts. But I feel that because Euripides had no tales to pull from he had to go into the dark writing this play. He broke the idea of the typical woman, which we are just really starting to do in this modern era. Women were seen as fragile, passionate, inferior creatures in Greek society, so he really went to the extremes to break this caste. He made her cunning, devious, and willing to do anything to achieve her goals. This was very original to people. He also made her surprisingly helpful to Jason, in a time when the biggest ways a woman could help a man was producing a son or marrying him with a rich family. She played a very active role in Jason’s success and without her he surely would never have accomplished anything. I agree that in the end Medea does become a villain. To kill your own children is a heinous crime in almost any society, and even more so if you’re a woman because women are often seen as being closer to their children than the father. To me it seems that Euripides made Medea a woman controlled by passion who had cunning to go with it. It seems that if Medea fell in love with a better man she would have been an ideal wife. Her great love of a weak man caused her to become “evil”. Jason really was a weak man. His only true goal was advancing in life no matter the cost which is disgusting considering he would abandon his children and wife to achieve it. I would not describe Jason as a hero but as an opportunist. He really believes he has done nothing wrong by abandoning Medea and thinks that she should be happy he gave her a chance at not being a barbarian, even though he himself is one.
During the time this play was written women were seen as inferior to men in every way possible. Equality among the sexes was not even foreseeable at this point, so for anyone to try and portray women positively it would be breaking new ground. And with breaking new ground the action sometimes does not always go as smoothly as if a person was doing it for the hundredth time. Euripides tried to show a different side of women by portraying Medea as a strong, independent woman. In many stories woman are portrayed as helpless, dainty, and soft. Euripides takes a whole different approach in Medea. Medea plays an essential role in the advancement of Jason’s fame, in a way that many would consider brutal for even a man let alone a woman to commit. The character of Medea broke the norms of what a woman should be, which is why this play was not greatly appreciated during the time. When Medea knows Jason is going to try and marry another woman she is furious to say the least. This is very common and considered a norm for almost anyone regardless of sex. This part helps the audience relate to her until they learn she is going to kill her own children. This act greatly alienates Medea from any of her past supporters. For a mother to kill her own children just to spite the father is truly a disgusting act, that is frowned upon in any society.
I agree with you that Euripides makes Medea look like a strong, independent woman. Medea was certainly independent since she made the whole plan to murder everyone who wronged her all by herself. This was new for the people in Athens, who were not used to strong and cunning women. However, I tend to believe that the Euripides also makes Medea seem like an evil woman since she does kill her own kids. This is why I feel the play is misogynistic at heart, because the woman in the story is ruthless and manipulative. She shows no mercy and I do not see her as a feminist character at all.
I agree completely that surely this story was a break from the normal perception of women in ancient Greek society, and displayed a strong, independent woman. The play is definitely a proto-feminist one, however, as I said in my original post, he craziness and injustices that she wrought definitely tarnished her image, and how this play could be seen and used in ancient Greek society. I think it would be more of a tool for the misogynistic people of ancient Greece to use rather than the pro-feminists. I could just imagine a misogynistic guy saying “just look what happens when you give a women power, she goes off and kills a bunch of people!” With that said, I don't think Euripides made this play with the intent of making a feminist play to be used to further feminism or womens rights in ancient Greek society because of how badly Medea is portrayed by the end of the story; it would be counter productive to such a cause.
It is true that women growing up during this time were seen as inferior and almost as if they did not exist. Euripides I believe was trying to break this barrier but in a way punish women for hiding from what a true society is about. He does portray Medea as a strong women but there is also a more sinister side of Medea showing that women can have different emotions and they are the same as men. Women for men sometimes are just a way to show off, especially for Jason as he leaves Medea for a better wife. I do agree that the play was not accepted due to the fact of the main role as a women and she is not following what a normal woman would have done in that society during those times.
Euripides definitely supports a feminist view on society. By going against the norm and developing a character such as Medea changes people’s perspective on norms of society. He made Medea into exactly the opposite of what people would expect a woman in her situation would do. She was a strong and powerful woman that took a stand and said how she felt and how she deserved to be treated. By being heartbroken by her cheating husband and exiled from the land she reached the bottom of society in her own eyes. The only way push through was to murder the higher government officials the King, and the princess. However, that was not even enough. She went as far as killing her own children to get back at what her husband, Jason had done to her. This is like Reggie said a disgusting act that any society would look down on. But, this was the only way she thought she could show to other women women’s true potential.
While I understand her desire to get revenge on the man who betrayed her, and those who helped him do it, I do not believe her actions were justified. I think she was not entirely justified when she killed the king and the princess, because neither of them made her husband leave her. It was Jason’s decision to marry the princess and there is no one Madea can blame except Jason. Further, Medea’s decision to kill her children can in no way be justified. Medea’s children had never wronged her nor done anything in the story that could make me believe she was justified in killing them. To me her reasoning was nowhere near good enough to allow for justification, let alone understanding. It is my opinion that the only action she could have been justified in committing would be killing her husband, which she did not do.
How is Jason’s greed responsible for Medea’s actions?
Jason is very much responsible for Medea’s actions. It was because of him that the turn of events in the story came about. It is my opinion that it was greed that led Jason to Medea, searching for a golden fleece, and he used her to get it. This action cost Medea her home as she had to go into exile after killing her brother and convincing Pelias’s daughters to do the same (pg. 52). I believe it was greed that led Jason to leave his wife for the princess and all of her riches. This act of greed and betrayal is what led Medea to seek vengeance, since by Jason’s actions Medea had no other home to go to. It was Jason’s desire for wealth that led to Medea’s actions and it is likely that if he had never given into his greed then none of these events would have happened.
What could Creon have done to prevent Medea’s actions?
I believe that it is also possible that Creon’s actions could have prevented some of Medea’s actions. For instance if Creon had not approved the marriage between Jason and the princess without Medea’s consent that her marriage to Jason was over then her actions might have been prevented. Part of what led to Medea’s actions was the fact that her husband suddenly left her and married, sending her into depression and giving her a desire for vengeance. It is also possible that if Creon had not banished her then perhaps she would not have been rushed to kill him and his daughter; instead she might have focused her vengeance solely on Jason for his betrayal. I believe at the very least had Creon not exiled her then she would not have killed her children; I think it was her exile that caused her to rush her plans that resulted in her killing her children. So I do believe, at the very least, that Creon may have been able to prevent Medea from killing some of the people that she did.
I agree with what you said in response to your first question, however the second response I disagree with. I do not in anyway believe Jason to be responsible for Medea's actions. Yes, Jason is a bit of a jerk, and he is very selfish, but no one made the decision to do what Medea did for her. She made those choices herself. This makes her responsible and her alone. I'm sure if things went differently, such as Creon not banishing her or Jason's greed, then Medea may not have made those decisions, but she was the only one who could make these decisions to kill and take her revenge. Nobody made her do it. Therefore, I disagree with you, and think no one is responsible for what Medea did but herself.
I think the point about why Medea didn't choose to just kill Jason is a very interesting one. In a sense, it would be the ultimate incarnation of tragic reversal of fate; Jason thought he could do whatever he wanted, everything seemed good, and then he just dies. It does seem strange that Medea would decide to do all the other things that she does, but in a sense maybe the things she does are far in a way worse than just straight up killing Jason. It would certainly bring a lot more emotional pain to Jason, and maybe give the audience a lot more of an extreme emotional response if she were to kill her own children instead. I think it's very important, actually it's absolutely integral, to always consider the fact that what we're reading is fiction, and that the author has to consider a lot of things, and that a lot of times character's actions need to be thought about in terms of plot, not just morality. In this sense, it does make a lot more sense why Medea did the things she did, and not just go and kill Jason instead.
I agree the Medea’s actions were in no way justified. There is no reason for her to kill her children. If she wanted to take revenge on Jason she could have done something to him instead of killing her innocent children and the princess.
Jason greed was definitely the cause of Medea’s actions. If he really wanted to leave Medea, he should have had a different approach. He knows what she is capical of when she helped him with the Golden Fleece. Maybe if he had a different approach she would not have been so determined to seek revenge.
I think that both Jason and Creon could have prevented Medea’s actions. Both of them know that she has murdered for love, so did they think about what she could do to someone that she hates. If she wasn’t suddenly given the news that her husband was leaving her and then she was exiled, she could have had a different approach of dealing with it.
Why is Medea so upset with Jason? Medea is angry with Jason because he deserted her and their children to marry another woman. She feels like she has done nothing to him to deserve this. Medea talks about how she has left her own country, her father, and how she has killed her brother all for Jason. She has created a whole new life for herself so that she can be with him in Corinth. Medea also says that she saved Jasons life. She can't understand why her husband would leave her after all that she has done for him. Not only has she left him, but he has left her for another woman which makes Medea jealous. How does Jason justify leaving Medea and their two sons? Jason begins his defense by saying that Medea did not do as much for him as she claims, and that she is overestimating her favors to him. He says that he owes it to the goddess Aphrodite for saving his life because she and the god erros were the ones responsible for making Medea fall in love with him. Jason continues on to say that Medea got more out of their marriage than she admits, such as living a greek life instead of a barbaric life. Jason says that he is not marrying another woman for selfish reasons, but that he is doing it with Medea and his sons in mind. He says that if he marries the kings daughter then he can unite their families and his children with Medea will also be able to prosper because their new siblings will be part of the royal family. How does Medea "solve" her problems with Jason? Jason comes to Medea after he finds out that she and their sons have been exiled by King Creon due to the fact that Medea had been saying bad things about the royal family. Medea and Jason argue about their separation and Medea makes it blatantly obvious that she is angry with Jason. Late on, Medea asks Jason to come back so she can talk to him. Medea talks to Jason and apologizes for being so angry. She tells him she was wrong and that she should have supported his decision. All of this was a lie. Medea is not sorry for how she feels, she is only setting Jason up for a lifetime of sadness. Medea then calls her children out and tells them to bring gifts to Jasons new wife so that she might convince her father to let them stay even though their mother is exiled out of the country. The children bring the gifts to the new wife. Jasons new wife accepts, but then is struck by the poison that has been put on the gifts by Medea. Jasons wife dies a horrific death. When her father, King Creon, finds his daughter he foolishly throws himself on her only to die as well. Jason goes to Medeas house shortly after she kills his new wife. He finds out that Medea has killed their two sons, only to hurt him. Medea then appears in a flying chariot and tells Jason that she has killed their two sons because she wanted him to suffer. His whole life has now been ruined. He has nobody left and nobody to carry on his name.
I agree with your reasons for Medea being so angry with Jason. She gave up so much for him and in the end he left her in a foreign land with two sons, while he runs off with the princess. Not only was Medea angry with Jason because he was leaving her, but he did not even tell her until after he had already married the princess. The excuses Jason made for leaving Medea were simply that, excuses, and Jason used Medea to get what he wanted and discarded her as soon as he was finished. One of Jason's justifications that was mentioned was that he would be giving his sons a better life by giving them siblings in the royal family. But I can't help but wonder how is having a royal sibling going to help the boys at all, I do not recal any mention of the boys getting a share of the wealth of their father or their royal siblings. Therefore Jason's justification is flawed in this. Medea solution to her problem with Jason can also be interpreted simply as a desire for vengance. Everything Medea does is out of her need to get revenge on Jason for his betrayal. She wants to hurt Jason for what he did and she goes so far to accomplish this that she kills his wife, the king, and their children. I think all this is more than simply solving a problem, to me solving Medea's problem would be killing Jason. But what she did goes way beyond that.
At the tragic end of the play, Medea murders the Corinthian princess, the king and her own children for her revenge. In mourning, Jason cries out "My sons, mine own" and Medea responds "Not thine, but mine".
{I should stress here that I'm am not condoning child murder and am staunchly opposed to people murdering anyone, especially children)
But what does that mean especially in context of a deeply patriarchal society that sees women as good for only having (male) children. Medea compares childbirth to being braver than fighting on the frontlines - after all, women did (and still do) die in childbirth.
In the context of a patriarchy, children are seen as belonging to the father more than to the mother. Medea is the barbarian princess in a deeply xenophobic Greece. She was not quite as much as a prize as the Golden Fleece but certainly -was- a prize to the civilized Greek Jason.
In the play Medea, I feel as though Medea is portrayed as a strong (psychotic) woman. She is not submissive to her husband and does not support his decision when she knows that he is wrong. I find it extremely interesting that when Jason says to Medea "my sons, mine own" Medea replies with "not thine, but mine" especially since she had mentioned the pain of childbirth in comparison with being in battle three times. From what I gathered, Medea feels like she owns her children since she gave birth to them, and in a patriarchal society this was not the norm. In this play, Medea shows that she was a very opinionated woman who did what she wanted and didn't answer to anyone except the gods.
I really like this response and completely agree with it. I think people get too caught up in the fact that she murdered her children to see the bigger picture. Not only did she want to cause him harm, but she wanted to show him not only what she had given him but what she could take away. She wanted to show him that she could not just be used to give him sons and then tossed away when he found someone wealthier. I think that definently the point you made is the reason Medea kills her children. The sons really aren't mentioned a lot in the play other than when Medea speaks of using them or hurting them, so the audience is completely prepared for their deaths and the son characters are not played up in a way that an audience could become attached to the character so it really shouldn't have come as a shock when Medea killed them.
"In mourning, Jason cries out 'My sons, mine own' and Medea responds 'Not thine, but mine'."
Excellent usage of the quote to show how Medea feels about all of the events that had occurred in total and especially how strongly she felt about her position and her views about society and life at the time that the play takes place.
In response to the above comment though: I do not believe that the quote is trying to show a Medea who is stubborn and one who believes she owns her children in a way in which they appear to be her property rather than Jason's. This quote in my opinion is a perfect example of the immense and almost never-ending ability to use self-sacrifice and to fight for a belief which is viewed as completely negative by everyone else surrounding Medea (all the men, basically). It is a testament to how far this woman was willing to go for what she believed in and what she was fighting for. She loves these children, no doubt about it. However, she views them as something that she is willing to sacrifice for the long-term and possible future goal that could be brought by the fight that she persists on following through. It is a sacrifice that must be made for the (unfortunately unlikely) fight of Medea, her position in society, and in general everyone else's position in society (mainly the females). She knows that in this patriarchal society that she stands no chance in ever being heard, let alone seen. What better (not condoning murder, but rather viewing the large scheme of the events unfolding within the story) way to shock society and the men who silence her than taking away something that is important to Jason, the man and father, and something that others view as important, the birth of male children? She's willing to sacrifice her loved ones multiple times for the ideas that she believes in. This shows more strength on her part than any man can provide during a war or any other activity viewed as something only men can do. She is fighting for growth, while everyone else is in it for selfish reasons or glory.
EDIT: In response to the first comment, not the second.
I agree with this response. I think that throughout the whole play Medea showed a type of rebellion to the patriarchal society she lived in. When Medea addresses a man in the story she speaks to them in a manner that says they are not above her. When Medea killed her children she proved that she had the power to take away that which society said belonged to the father. Medea refused to give in to the rules of patriarchal society and when Jason crossed the line with her she lashed out in a way few other women of that society would.
How are women portrayed in Medea? The fact that the play itself is called Medea instead of Jason shows that the emphasis is on Medea even though she is a woman. At the beginning the audience feels sorry for Medea. She has saved Jason’s life and helped him get the Golden Fleece and now he has betrayed her for Creon’s daughter. Unlike the normal weak image of a woman Medea doesn’t go on crying throughout the whole play. She is distraught at first yelling out to the stage but later she decides to take her revenge on Jason. Many times throughout the play women are depicted negatively. One example is when Jason says “If only children could be got some other way, Without the female sex! If women didn’t exist, Human life would be rid of all its miseries.” (line 573-5) Even Medea states “We were born women- useless for honest purposes, But in all kinds of evil skilled practitioners.” (line 412-413) Along with these examples though we see the strength of women when Medea says “We wives are forced to look To one man only. And, they tell us, we at home Live free from danger, they go out to battle: fools! I’d rather stand three times in the front line than bear One child.” (lines 247-50)I would say for most of the play though the emphasis is that women are weak. Medea says “A woman’s weak and timid in most matters.” (line 260) and Jason believes that his new bride will yield to him and do as he asks even without Medea’s gifts. Woman are shown as inferior and are easily overcome by sexual jealousy. By the end the audience sees the crazy side of Medea and no longer have so much pity for her. Are Jason’s actions justifiable? Is it better to be rich? Jason says he wanted to marry Creon’s daughter in order to not be poor and give his sons the honor they deserve. “To be rich and powerful brings no blessing; Only more utterly Is the prosperous house destroyed, when the gods are angry.” (Line 127-9)Jason wanted to become rich and powerful and in the process everything is destroyed. His new wife is murdered along with his two sons by Medea, who he claims he still loves. He might have been better off just living his life as Jason who retrieved the Golden Fleece and shouldn’t have looked for any more power. It is because of his greediness that his family is destroyed and he is left to suffer. His sons die all because he was trying to give them a better life. Perhaps it was the gods that created this fate because Jason had done wrong by trying to become rich.
What is the importance of children in Medea? Medea states “Even after I had borne you sons! If you had still Been childless I could have pardoned you for hankering After this new marriage.” (line 490-2) Having a legacy such as a son is so important that it’s a justification to leave your wife if she can’t provide you with children. Aegeus is so distraught because he can’t have children. He agrees to protect Medea partly because she promised him that he “shall beget children.” Children are so important to him that he’s willing to help Medea. The chorus talks about childless people and how they “have no means of knowing whether children are A blessing or a burden.” (line 1093-5) They then go on to say that people with children are always worried and anxious and “they can never know whether all their toll Is spent for worthy or worthless children.” (line 1102-3) Medea spent all that time raising her children and went through the pain of giving them life and now she has to kill them to get revenge. It was “All was for nothing, then- these years of rearing you, My care, my aching weariness, and the wild pains When you were born. Oh, yes, I once built many hopes On you; imagined, pitifully, that you would care For my old age, and would yourselves wrap my dead body For burial. How people would envy me my sons!” Children play a key role throughout Medea. It’s Medea’s son that ultimately help her get revenge on Jason and create the biggest conflict of the plot. It seems insane to most people, such as the chorus, that Medea could ever kill her sons and yet at the end she does it.
How far would you go for revenge? When Medea finds out that her husband Jason is leaving her for the Corinth princess, she is furious. She develops a strong hatred for him and wants revenge. She comes up with a plan to get back at Jason that involves killing the princess and their children. “Will you dare to kill your own flesh and blood, Medea? Yes, this will cause my husband to feel the most pain.” Medea thought that their children strongly resembled Jason and since her hatred for him was so strong, she ended up hating her children too. This is why she included them in her murderous plan. The fact that she murdered her children because her husband was going to marry someone else is absolutely absurd. The children were innocent and if she really wanted revenge she could have done something else besides murdering them. Is there sympathy for Medea and are her actions justifiable? Initially when the play began, I did feel some sympathy for Medea. I felt sorry for her. She loved Jason and gave up everything to help him find the Golden Fleece then he leaves her for the princess. So I could definitely understand her frustration and being upset with him. However, when she was planning her revenge that included murdering her children, I lost all sympathy for her. “For I shall kill my children. There is no one who will rescue them.” There is absolutely no circumstance where it is ok to murder children just to get back at your husband. Therefore her actions are in no way justifiable.
Is there sympathy for Jason? Through out the whole play I did not feel sorry for Jason. He was greedy and uses women to improve his social status. He gets Medea to leave everything behind and she helped him find the Golden Fleece. After this they became well known. When he wanted to improve his status even more, he decides to leave Medea for the Corinth princess. Therefore, he is greedy and cares more about his status than his family. However, I showed a little sympathy for him when he found out that his children were murdered. “You had the heart to take the sword to your own children to whom you gave birth, and you have left me childless and devastated.” After knowing how Medea will do anything to get what she wants, he probably should have made sure his children and his new wife were better protected. Therefore, I was only sympathetic for Jason when he found out his children were murdered.
I believe that there is sympathy for both Jason and Medea, although this sympathy rarely overlaps. At the beginning of the play, it was easy to sympathize with Medea; she had just been left by her husband, who she sacrificed much for, and was told that she was to be exiled from her country. Her misery at the time was completely understandable, as was her hatred of Jason. However, as the play progressed and her intentions to commit infanticide became clear, it became much harder to find sympathy for Medea, and much easier to find sympathy for Jason. While I believe that it would be incorrect to call either of the two the protagonist of the play, it is my personal opinion that Medea could be considered the play's antagonist, given her extreme and cruel actions.
I agree that what Medea did was insane. They were completely innocent but I do think that it might have been one of the best ways to get revenge on Jason. I mean what better way to hurt someone than to kill their children. When you take into account that they were his only children and were sons makes it an even bigger deal. After killing his bride he has no hope there for better off children and the sons that he had to carry on his name are now gone. Jason is left completely alone. You can’t get a better revenge than that. I also felt pity/sympathy for Medea in the beginning. She helped Jason out with getting the Golden Fleece and even killed her brother in order to help him and then he ends up leaving her for a princess. My sympathy waned when she decided that murdering her children would be the best solution. She should have just left with them and made a better life without Jason. I feel that on some level Medea’s actions were justifiable. They certainly would have hurt Jason which was the whole point. She looked at her children more as pawns than as human beings which isn’t right. I think Jason got what was coming to him. He couldn’t have expected that Medea would be fine with him marrying someone else just to get rich and powerful. He should have known that Medea would be upset and possibly try to kill the princess. There is a little sympathy that his children are dead but he is the main cause of that.
I agree with you that sympathy transfers from Medea to Jason throughout the play. Overall, I think that Medea ends up being the true antagonist in the play, as opposed to Jason. Jason's actions were unjustifiable but murdering one's own children is a far greater crime. It is common for certain audiences to support a quest for revenge during a work of fiction; in this case Medea had every right to feel hurt and seek revenge. If she had only murdered Jason's new bride or Jason himself, I don't think I would lose as much sympathy for Medea. Murdering innocent children is hardly fair punishment for being cheated on and betrayed. I think it can be argued that the children being murdered at the end implies that Medea is the antagonist in the play. She goes from being rightfully upset to becoming mad and murderous. I can't imagine a worse pain for a parent than seeing their children murdered. Jason certainly feels the same way. On the other hand, Medea seems to think that Jason's betrayal is worse. She kills her children solely to anger Jason. I don't think Medea can be categorized as a good mother at all if getting revenge on Jason is more important to her than her than the lives of her children.
How should a reader feel about Madea? This is the most important consideration for any reader of the play, it allows the audience to take into consideration what Madea is going through and empathize with her. Madea has suffered a horrible betrayal from Jason at the beginning of the play; he has brought her from her homeland and had two children with her before he left her for another woman. Madea has been put in a situation in which she has no options, she has left her homeland and family for a man who has now abandoned her. When the King banishes her it is a situation that will most likely lead to her death because she is a woman with no family or husband to rely on. How much the audience empathizes with Madea is also important when the conclusion comes and we find that she has not only killed the woman who married her husband and the King, but also has killed her own children to exact revenge on Jason. Will the audience view Madea as a villain who could not control her rage and committed the worst crime possible, or is she an early feminist hero who refused to be used and abandoned by her husband. Obviously, killing her own children makes her an unsympathetic character, but Greek mythology is filled with fathers consuming children and sons overthrowing fathers for power and justice. This may suggest Madea was really an extremely early portrayal of a strong woman who was wronged by a greedy husband and went to great lengths to exact revenge.
What is the difference between the understanding of the modern audience and the audience of Euripides time? One question I had when reading this text was how the audience would have understood this play during Euripides time. Clearly, the mindset and morals of people in modern America will be very different compared to the mindset and morals of ancient Greek people. One example would be the lines around 550 when Jason states that Madea should be thankful that he brought her from a barbaric land to the civilized Greece and this was enough for her to be thankful for even though he left their marriage for another woman. When the modern American hears this statement they would think that Jason is an ignorant and unfaithful man who would abandon his family for a better wife. It would be hard to know for sure how the average Greek would feel about this action, would they feel that this was justified, or would they feel that this was the action of a greedy scoundrel. Ancient Greece did feel superior to the surrounding areas that they labeled as uncivilized and barbaric, also at this time ensuring wealth and safety for yourself by marrying royalty may have seemed like the most intelligent and logical move. Considering not only the text of ancient civilizations but also the culture and society of ancient civilizations is important.
How are women portrayed in this text and what can the reader assume from this portrayal? From the beginning of this play a woman’s obedience to her husband is emphasized as important in marriage, implying that men are the stronger more important sex and that women should be secondary to their husbands. Madea does challenge this notion when she states in the part around line 250 that she would rather fight in the front lines of battle than bear children. This essentially takes the accepted stereotype that men doing battle is more important and noble than anything a woman does and rejects it completely stating that childbirth is more difficult as well as more important. She continues in the next paragraph that women stay away from battle, but when their marriage is threatened or betrayed women will become angrier than any warrior. So really this text gives two sides of an argument, one that women should ultimately be obedient to men, another that women have the right to exact revenge when their marriage is threatened.
I liked the parallel drawn at the end of the first statement about how many male Greek gods consumed their offspring. It does seem like Medea follows in their footsteps and is depicted as a man in a women's body for that time period. But biologically speaking it is much easier for males to kill their offspring than it is for females. Although it is the fathers own genetics passing through to his child, the mother invests much more energy into the offspring endangering her own health to conceive. Infant mortality was very high before modern medicine and even mothers were significantly more challenged to survive the birthing process. In this way I believe Medea is actually insane and is the antagonist. It is interesting to think about how the play was received by the audience in Ancient Greece although we can draw parallels there could be other significant differences in culture that change their perspective completely.
I agree with all the responses to the questions. There are many ways in which people can interpret this play. I believe the way people interpret this play has a lot to do with their background or time period. As stated in the second question, people in modern times would think of Jason as a jerk for leaving Medea, where as in Euripides times they might not see anything wrong with it.
I liked reading Medea much more than either the Qur’ran or the Bible. It was much easier to read and follow the storyline, it doesn’t skip around and the footnotes are actually useful. The play is very interesting and different than many other plays of its time in having a female lead character. What is even more interesting is the question of whether she is the protagonist or antagonist.
I personally think Medea is the antagonist, not to say that Jason is the protagonist for he is equally to blame for the situation. The first lines we here from Medea are her disembodied voice calling out her woes and crying. This gives an eeiry feeling and makes you think about Medea as an unpleasant character right off the bat. We learn of her struggles with Jason and how he plans to marry another woman for power. Here Jason is in the wrong and despite the excuses he uses later to attempt to reason with her, Medea sees right through them. You can tell that she is desperate and angry when she calls upon the gods to right the injustices but they do not answer. This is when Medea takes it upon herself to plot against Jason, his new wife and King Creon.
Medea is right to want revenge but she takes it to far when she involves her children. They are innocent yet she hates them because of their connection to Jason, Medea sees him in them and it drives her mad. This is where she becomes an antagonist, when she will do anything just to get revenge.
I agree with your statement that Madea is difficult to classify as a character, clearly she is difficult to call a protagonist considering she murdered her own children, although I think she is a tragic protagonist. she is clearly the individual in the story that the audience can empathize with in the beginning and all members of the audience can think of being betrayed. After leaving her home and bearing Jason two children Madea was abandoned in her new home. This makes her the protagonist trying to solve her personal issues and find safety in the Greek world. Madea becomes an unsympathetic character when murder becomes her method of revenge and once she kills her own sons the character completely loses the audience. But, if she is the antagonist at this point then who becomes the protagonist? If it is Jason that means the protagonist is a man who left his wife and children to marry royalty. Really this is a tragic story of revenge taken too far, and the result of unfaithful husbands.
You pose a great question! Which role does Medea fill? Protagonist or antagonist? I personally see her as both. We see her struggle and her pain. We see everything from this woman's viewpoint. We feel for her. At least I did. In this sense, she would be the protagonist. However, when she starts plotting and making horrible choices, she also becomes the antagonist, and someone we hate. I agree with all of your points about Medea being the antagonist, but keep in mind that at first, we see Jason as the bad guy, treating her unfairly, and we feel for her. (By saying "we" I actually speak for myself).
One of the interesting parts about this story is that there is no clear antagonist and there is no clear protagonist. I like to think that both Jason and Medea are both antagonists. They both have done horrible things, such as adultery and murder, yet I find it difficult to side with either one of them. It is easier to side with Medea in the beginning but by the end I see her as a crazed child killer. I also don't believe that killing her children was her only option, she could have spared them. No character in this play is a saint.
I think, just like most things in life, this isn’t all cut and dry. Both Jason and Medea are in the wrong at some points. When Medea kills her children and the King and his daughter, and when Jason leaves Medea to better himself. In most stories, the character isn’t perfect, and I think we see this here too. Medea goes back and forth on her decision to kill her children, and Jason is still willing to support Medea and her children (before she went all crazy). I think the role of Protagonist and antagonist fluctuates between the two of them.
I agree with what you said about this being much more interesting and easier to understand than The Bible and Qur'an. I found myself actually enjoying reading it and it was almost like I was at the actual play. I had a love/hate relationship for Medea. I felt in a way she was both the protagonist and the antagonist. I pitied her when reading about how hurt she was after Jason left her for another woman, a wealthier woman at that. I did feel bad seeing her in so much pain, but when it came to her talking about killing her own children, I very much disliked her and considered her a very bad person. What kind of mother would do that to her children? That's screwed up in any time period. She is right to want revenge, like you said, but revenge does not mean murdering your own flesh and blood. These poor children never did anything to deserve this. They were born and then murdered because of who their father was. It's just wrong is so many ways.
Who is the Chorus in the play and what is the role of the Chorus?
The chorus represents the women of Corinth. They have an important role in this play because they try to fill in the blanks when the audience needs more information. They also set the stage for the next scene of events or dialogue between two people. Sometimes they are just talking to the audience but sometimes they do interact with certain characters one on one. The Chorus likes to comment on actions and is the voice of reason or common sense.
Why does Jason think that he is doing the right thing by leaving?
Jason thinks that he has put Medea in a good situation. She used to be a uncivilized barbarian witch and he helped her earn her place in Greece. She now has her own home to raise her children and all the wonders she can possibly want, in his mind. Also, he thinks he has pushed Medea to her limits and needs to move on to something better than will get him further up in society, that is why he goes off with the princess. He can’t let his only chance to royalty run away from him.
Medea – a crazy witch or a just woman trying to get by in society?
By only reading half of this story I don’t have the juicy details that are part of the finale to this play. However, by critical thinking I can figure out what happens either way. Were her actions of killing her children and husband the right thing to do? Well in her situation she started out as a power hog, she wanted to show the world she lived in that women can take control of their own lives that they don’t have to follow the traditional society of getting married and having babies and being a stay home mom. She didn’t want that life at all. So by starting out as a barbarian and then becoming this ruthless killer I think she had the killer inside her all along and was just waiting for the chance to show the world. She was definitely a power player but in this time woman usually did as they were told by their husbands, it is nice to see someone fight back towards the man. Other woman should follow in her footsteps just not murder their families they should find other actions equally powerful that show their thoughts on society.
I agree with the points you made in the first two questions but I disagree with the third statement. First off I don't think she started off as a barbarian, that's just the xenophobic view of Jason being portrayed in the bool. She is very clever and that particular characteristic is mentioned time and time again in the play. We know that she is ruthless from the beginning when the nurse gives her speech filling us in on the backstory, in particular the part where she mentions that she killed her brother for Jason. This does seem harsh but she is just the type of person who would do anything for someone she loves. This isn't a testament from what culture she was brought up in, it's more of a statement of her character. Her actions later are extreme and at no point in the play does anyone act logically, but hey if nothing crazy happened it wouldn't be fun to read or watch.
I agree that the chorus plays an important role in the play. It’s the voice of reason and helps the audience understand certain parts. The chorus is horrified when Medea is going to kill her children and voices that concern but it ultimately doesn’t change the outcome.
I do think that Jason thinks he has helped Medea. He’s brought her to a more civilized place and away from her barbican homeland. He thinks that he is helping her by marrying the princess. He will gain riches and power and in turn that will make his sons more powerful. This would be beneficial to Medea. But that’s not the way Medea wants it and he should have realized that.
I agree that Medea shows how powerful women can be. She goes against the traditional role of women and fights back. She’s not afraid to do whatever she wants. She kills her brother, saves Jason, and kills the king, princess and her sons. She’s in no way weak, she’s a strong fighter. There’s some debate on whether these things were the right thing to do but she didn’t just idly stand by. She took action and did something that most women probably wouldn’t have done. She didn’t just leave when Creon told her to, she formulated a plan and took her revenge.
The Chorus is definitely the voice of common sense in this play, but after our discussion in class today I've begun to question whether or not Euripides actually likes common sense. The Chorus, comprised of the combined women of Corinth, spends the second half of the play chastising Medea and begging her not to kill her children, making the chorus the voice of traditional morality in the play. This also puts the Chorus in opposition to the protagonist of the play. I've come to believe that Medea is not really a morality tale, since Medea is our hero, yet she does what could be considered immoral things. Rather, the play is an empowerment fantasy for women. In that context, that would place the Chorus in the position of trying to hold back Medea from obtaining the ultimate power over her condescending husband. Essentially, the Chorus represents all the women who would advocate staying in their traditional role as care takers of children, where as Medea is the transcendent woman who chooses to throw off the shackles of patriarchy by doing the opposite of what is expected of her by society and murdering the children she is supposed to protect and raise, even if this is painful for her.
The chorus plays a very important part in this play. I agree that they do help to fill in the gaps and they sometimes they are agreeable to the characters feelings, like when they are sympathetic to Medea about her feelings of anger towards Jason. I agree with the second statement of Jason taking her as far as she could get him. Jason only serves Jason and whenever there is a better chance for him, he will surely take it. He let Medea ostracize herself from her people so he could gain fame and now he says the next ladder up and will not stay on a lower level. I don’t believe Medea was setting an example for other woman, I believe that she was just trying to carry out her own vengeance. I agree that women should follow in her footsteps, besides the murdering, and craziness.
What is Euripides trying to do? During the first half of “Medea,” Euripides uses Medea to announce the difficulties women are faced with and the injustices they encounter in Ancient Greece. Euripides references the forced divorces that men can enact against their wives and the common attitude that wives are property. Forcing a reader to understand this, Euripides comes off as a feminist. He is acknowledging the inequality that his contemporary female Greeks face and he is doing this publicly in a play seen by his fellow citizens.
Euripides also spends time comparing Jason to the hero he is supposed to be. Jason began the mess by divorcing Medea after using her powers to get the Golden Fleece, she killed her own brother, and then Medea tricked a man's daughters into killing their father. She did all of this for Jason because she loved him. This divorce makes Jason seem like a complete jerk and the arguments that he wanted to better support his children and create a better life for them seem false considering how his actions seem to only help himself.
The second half of the play show Medea's indecisiveness and her continued mental breakdown. It was easily seen in Medea's first lines in the play that she was contemplating suicide with her screaming, “I wish I could die!......Oh my children, cursed children of a hateful mother— may you die with your father,(Euripides line 97, 112)” and continuing with wishing her own children dead. It's unpleasant for anyone wishing the death on children, but Medea's rage makes sense for what she's gone through and I didn't expect that rage to actually come to fruition.
Her murder of the King, his daughter, and her own children were done to injure Jason. She spit in her own face and then continued to speak in an illusion of grandeur about her true love for her children and blames the entire situation on Jason telling him, “What god or spirit listens to you, a man who doesn't keep his promises, a man who deceives and lies to strangers? (Euripides line 1440)” Euripides concentrates on Medea's cunning and wickedness during the second half of the play, and uses this to explain that the individual, not the events or injustice they face, is responsible for their own actions.
I agree that Euripides does come off as a feminist as well. By revealing to the audience that women have unequal rights in the first half of the story, and that men can throw around woman like a piece of meat if they want to shows this. Women used to not voice their opinions at all back in Ancient Greece and listened to whatever their husbands told them to do. Medea however completely changes this view point of woman. She wants to show the world her views and I think she wants to show other woman that they don’t have to stand for this inequality, and that they should do something about it like she has done. I wouldn’t go as far as she did and kill her own children and the hierarchal leaders, but she made her point either way. Medea did show indecisiveness in how she is going to act as seen on page 78. But in the end, she decides to go through with killing her children and forcing the blame on Jason and his actions.
Several times in the text, it seems as though the play is taking a misogynistic point of view. The text associates women with witchcraft, and depicts women overall as cunning, conniving, and scheming. However, the character of Medea is portrayed in such a way that it could be fairly easy to argue that the Medea is overall a feminist work. I think the simple fact that the main character is female is a testament to this. Medea is a prime example of an independent female character with a strong will, traits that are admirable despite her terrible actions. It is possible that Euripides wrote Medea with proto feminist intentions, but fell victim to the general misogyny of the time.
Who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist?
It is difficult to identify whether Jason or Medea is the antagonist of the play. In the beginning of the play, it is easy to take the side of Medea, who was left by her husband for a more powerful woman. However, as the play goes along, Jason is allowed to explain his motives. For some, this may paint him in a more favorable light. Others will still see him as selfish. While I personally do not believe that Jason is ever the protagonist of the play, I believe that Medea, rather than Jason, is the play’s antagonist. While it is undeniable that Jason wronged Medea, the actions that she took in extracting her revenge were unjustifiable.
What is the role of the Nurse?
The Nurse serves an interesting purpose in the play. While some would argue that she could fairly easily be replaced by the Chorus had Euripides chosen, the background offered by the Nurse is critical in our understanding of Medea. Her exposition at the opening of the play is an invaluable view of the types of people the characters of Jason and Medea are. Along with this, the Nurse offers background information on how Jason and Medea came to be together and in Corinth. While this exposition could easily be offered by the Chorus, I believe that her emotions and feelings towards the characters she describes are a more valuable point of view than that which the Chorus would have offered.
Is Medea a proto feminist text? Medea is a strong character. She is an individual, which goes against what females were supposed to be like during that time period. This view of her actions being equal to a man is false for my view of feminism today, but Euripides allows her to talk and gives her actions so I do believe it is protofeminist.
Who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist? I agree with your viewpoint of Medea being the antagonist because she is the obvious outsider whose viewpoints do not match the general views of Greek society. Medea's actions are evil, but then there are no real protagonists in the story to counterbalance her evil. The closest we come to is the chorus, who are shouting their disagreement with Medea's actions, but as women they do nothing.
What is the role of the nurse? I feel like the nurse is only around to give a small history of the characters and act as a comfort for the nurse. The nurse is the voice of reason and is basically ignored by the other characters.
My response is in regard to the question of who is really the protagonist/antagonist in this work. I felt that this play was unique in that it switched the roles in the middle of the plot, which is not something I encounter frequently in literature. Generally, I understand a protagonist to be someone I side with throughout the events they experience. When they are in peril I hope for their success, and when they are successful I feel some of their positive emotion. An antagonist, then, is someone I am always rooting against, someone who is constantly trying to break down the character that I feel should ultimately be successful. This work plays with those assumptions and, while only 1400 lines long, is quite successful at it. This brings into light the concept of Catharsis. In this Greek tragedy as well as others I have read, protagonist vs. antagonist is rarely this simple. This is the work of Catharsis in that the goal is to not walk away feeling happy. Catharsis is an emotional roller coaster of sorts that can often leave the audience with a bitter taste at the end of a production. The end result is a feeling of emotion the audience might not typically have, or one that society would not look positively on.
Reading the first half of this play was very enjoyable to me. I found myself very interested in the story and wanting to read more and more. Being a female myself, I felt very sympathetic to Medea and her situation. I probably would not have acted as psychotic as she did, but I definitely would’ve complained for a long time, as she did. It really hurts when your partner leaves you for someone else, especially in her situation. She went out of her way for him; she worked so hard and went against her own family for him. I find Jason to be a complete jerk. I think that he completely used her for The Golden Fleece and then left her because he didn’t want her anymore. I don’t believe for one second that he only left her because he was thinking of his children and wanted them to have a better life and not to live in poverty. A person can’t just force their self into a relationship and get married like he did just for their children. He obviously must’ve loved her. I really felt bad for Medea, however, she may have gone a little too far with some of the things she said, especially about not caring if her children died, “Oh my children, cursed children of a hateful mother—may you die with your father, all his house, may it all perish, crash down in ruins.” This just made me think she was crazy, to be completely honest. I realize her heart was broken and the man she loved more than anything had left her for a wealthier woman, but that’s no excuse to say you wouldn’t mind if your children died. That was pretty extreme. I also thought it was quite extreme how Medea wanted to poison her husband, his new wife and Creon. A broken heart is almost the worst thing that can happen to a person but murder is never the answer. It will only make things worse for Medea. I can't judge Medea too much, however, because I can't begin to understand how she must've felt.
I also can understand Medea's distress, and I can also agree that despite this distress, her actions were inexcusable and extreme. The sacrifices she made for Jason warranted much better treatment than he gave her.
While I agree that Jason is definitely a "bad guy" and not the protagonist of the story, I think he is very clearly also not the antagonist. I believe that role is filled by Medea, at least after her murderous actions. While one can start the play with feelings of empathy for Medea, it is hard to make excuses for her by the end of the play given the actions that she takes.
Is Medea representative of Greek women? No, I don’t think she is. When Euripides wrote the play, he was one of the pioneers of having women in plays, and I think he was off in capturing the woman psyche. Women of ancient Greek times were seen, not heard. They weren’t overtly talking against their husbands, or to any man. They were expected to be submissive and obedient. But in Medea, we find that this is not the case. Medea feels wounded by her husband. But, instead of simply accepting this situation, like you would think a Greek woman would, she asserts her own power. When the King wants to banish her, she goes right ahead and argues with him, even openly going against his word. She is given the right to speak as a man would. Even though if this were really the case, I’m sure she would’ve been sentenced to death. These things are more the characteristics of a man that a woman. I think that the character is a man in a woman’s body.
Is this play proto-feminist? I think it can be interpreted like that if you’re looking at the right thing, it is. Reading above, those examples could easily be taken as Medea being ahead of her time, asserting herself at the same level of the males in the play. If you look at everything she says she has done for Jason, it is also leaning towards the strong, independent woman of today. It defiantly voids the normal gender roles that we would expect to see in Greece, and I think this can be interpreted as such.
Did Medea overact? I’d say so. She killed her children. She also refused help from Jason, even though he basically said, that if she apologized to the king, she’d be free to stay in his country. She also won’t listen to reason at all, and comes up with an elaborate plan to kill people.
I do agree with your first paragraph. I find that Euripides went against the idea of how women were and how they were supposed to act back in this day and time. Medea was certainly not he typical Green woman. I find it interesting that he chose to do this though, because I think it makes the story so much better. Having a woman like Medea act the way she did and put on such a scene really brought drama to this play because this was not at all how women were expected to act then. I think it really makes her stick out and seem very strong and risky. Obviously it's not very realistic since this isn't how women behaved and if any woman were to behave in this manor, they would've been punished severely, but in movies or plays, it ruins the feeling when you try to analyze what's going on if it doesn't seem realistic. It's good drama and that's what people like. I also did agree that Medea did overact. She went over the deep end when she murdered her children. She had definitely snapped. Also, how could she not have accepted help from Jason? She seems to have only made things worse for herself.
I can see where you are coming from with your interpretations of the play when looking at it with the mindset of it being a statement of either feminism or misogyny. But I think we should look at it through the lens of xenophobia. By looking at it through this point of view, the play does not seem as confusing as we see it, not as divided in it's meanings. Medea throughout the play said things that we all questioned, whether it was in the beginning of the play with her hating her life and her children, or towards the end, where she kills most of the royal family, and her own children. By taking this lens, we can see a more clear picture of what Euripides meant fo the play to do. He wanted Greeks portrayed as the kind people that they were to believe they were, and outsiders as barbarians and murderers. Even the women in the barbaric society could stoop down to such levels of evil.
How are Jason’s actions justified? In the play, most people would describe Jason as greedy, selfish and condescending. Jason uses Medea to escape from poverty and gain success. All Medea’s efforts to help Jason only lead to the man she loves leaving her and their children for a woman who is richer and more successful than Medea. Jason leaves Medea for the king’s daughter. In doing this, Jason believes he is closer to becoming king. Jason justifies his actions to Medea in hope of her forgiving him. He left Medea in order to benefit his children and Medea herself, so he claims. Personally, I believe that Jason was just trying to protect himself and didn’t really care about Medea and his children. I think Jason was only giving Medea what she wanted to hear. Jason is very good at getting what he wants and is not afraid to go the lengths.
Is the Chorus really the voice of reason? To a certain extent, I believe the Chorus is the voice of reason however, there were points within the play in which the Chorus agrees with the characters and takes sides. There was a part in the play in which Jason is expressing his plans and his thoughts and the Chorus agrees that Jason’s plans and ways of thinking are logical. I’m not sure that this qualifies the Chorus as the voice of reason or common sense. Although the Chorus fills in the blanks of the story that we might not get from the characters, it also provides the audience with an opinion, which in most cases is not the voice of reason, but a more persuasive voice in order to push the audience to take a certain side.
What is one of the messages of Euripides’ Medea? When I was reading the first half of the play, my first reaction to Medea’s actions and the plot of the story was that Euripides was trying to demonstrate the power of women. I believe this story is very much about women and the things they are capable of. During his time, women were living during a patriarchy. When comparing Medea to a woman in today’s society, she seems crazy and out of sorts but in the context of a play made for entertainment, I believe that Medea embodies strength and determination.
I think that Jason does have a point to his justification of his actions. But at the same time, he promised himself to Medea in marriage. Now, I don’t know much about ancient Greek marriage, but normally when two people are married, it is for the betterment of both, and there’s a mutual consent to ride out everything, thick and thin. I think Jason’s actions aren’t justified because of this marriage. If he was on his own, the betterment of himself, regardless of anyone, would be the best thing for him. Also, I look at the chorus as a separate character. When we see chorus characters in a theater, we see them as a separate entity. The mood and outlook of the chorus changes depending on the main characters. I see them as a large child, being convinced by older kids of what they should do.
What is the role of foreigners in this society and why is it important to the Jason and Medea? Greece is a society that uses slave labor, it constitutes slave labor to support society and these slaves are primarily from other countries. Exiles are also considered a foreigner and they are usually not welcomed with open arms by other places. Exile is a severe punishment and not one given lightly, it is a description that is synonymous of bad news. I wouldn't willingly invite a known criminal home if I didn't know their back story and probably even if I did.
What is Medea's life like? Exile is very similar to the way women are treated in this Greek society. For women, they leave their family, and join another with very little chance of every feeling the same attachments to their birth home and have to take up an entirely new life. According to the Oeconomicus, women must take care of many of the manual labor of the family, weaving and sewing and they had more onorous duties than slaves, since they bear the responsibility of caring for the household. She was in an even more delicate situation from the average women because she had more power than most. She was from a powerful family and was a strong and capable woman in her own right. In the story, her role is at the same time empowering to women and shameful because Medea represents all that women wish they could have and all they can lose by having too much hubris and being too strong.
Why is Jason an acceptable man to the Greeks but unacceptable as a human-being? Jason's accomplishments are due to Medea. Because of her he wins the golden fleece. He gets money, children, and a wife because of her. All of his blessings are from her efforts and her pain. Yet, when he chooses to abandon her for better pastures, he feels no shame and tries to explain his unexplainable actions. I can't imagine that he would act as he does and that the Greeks would feel sympathy with him. He is very much like the character Odysseus. He seems like a hero but at the same time is a icon for the very opposite. Odysseus goes on an epic journey but the fact the real hero is his wife and son at home is a baffling concept. Jason isn't worth the ground he stands on and Medea is brought down to his level and below it because of his betrayal of her and her absolute love for him.
I agree with your opinion about what Medea's life was life. I too think that she is very strong and powerful. She has the power and the traits necessary to a be a powerful woman in society. At times, I did think that she was crazy and psychotic however, from a feminist perspective, I think that she is very strong and doesn't let a man have control over her and do her any wrongs. I think it was because she wasn't the typical woman during this time; she didn't do manual labor for the family, weaving, sewing and slave jobs, that made her this strong character in literature. I do not believe that women today look to Medea and feel shameful, rather inspired. I feel as though women today can look to Medea and learn from her. Obviously, society today is much different than this time period however, a modern woman today may look at Medea and admire her strength to stand up for herself. There are absolutely things that women today can take away from the story of Medea in terms of what not to do in a given situation as well.
Jason as a misogynist, Medea as a misandrist, and how the proto-feminist potential is destroyed by lack of wise judgment and morality.
In Medea, Medea can be seen as a misandrist, Jason can be seen as a misogynistic and the proto-feminist actions of Medea are discredited because of her unjust and psychopathic actions that she takes in the play. Her actions did nothing but inhibit it's potential to be an example for women's rights in a time where vast majority of societies, especially Greek society, was patriarchal.
It is clearly a misogynistic play based on the actions and attitude of Jason. The first and most obvious one being that he marries a second wife (the princess of Corinth) while still married to Medea after all the things that Medea had done for Jason, including saving his life. This shows how little regard and respect Jason has for his wife and the concept of loyalty and honor of the union of marriage. Furthermore, in sections 670-680 (1) Jason makes the most blatant misogynistic comment in saying “But you women are so idiotic- you think everything is fine in bed, you have all you need, but if the sex is bad, then all the very best and finest things you make your enemies. What mortals need is some other way to get our children. There should be no female sex. With that, men be rid of all their troubles.” Jason basically reduces all women into base, carnal driven creatures who only care about sex. If that is not a misogynistic statement, then I don't know what is.
Medea to a degree is guilty of portraying the opposite sex as being inferior, and thus, acting as a misandrist. One example of this is when she says that “There's no justice in the eyes of mortal men” in section 250, making it out like all men are unjust and only women are capable of comprehending justice, and following through with it. As the story goes on though, we see that Medea's comprehension of what is just is not sound by any means.
Medea's lack of wise judgment and a sense of justice is what ends up being her undoing, and the undoing of the potential of this play for being a more positive promotion of feminism in a society of male domination. Medea from the very start acts like a crazy lady with all her screaming, her intolerance of her children, and her blood lust. Yes Medea is in a way a stand up lady during a time when women don't stand up all too often, so to speak, but she ends up standing up for some twisted stuff which only tarnishes her feminist stances. Surely her madness and injustices she wrought in the play at that time in Greek society were used by misogynists as an example of how women are corrupt and unjust, to further their misogynistic beliefs and stance. This makes one wonder why Euripides chose to play things out in this manner. Perhaps he himself was neither a misogynist or a feminist? Perhaps he was trying to show that women tend to be more emotional oriented at times, as Medea clearly was, and men as more rationally oriented, which Jason was as he was acting more on tactics to acquire wealth and status for his family and him than his emotions for any woman (and FYI, I AM NOT saying that women cannot be rational and men don't act on emotions at times, or that women cannot be as rational as a man, but I am using a generalization used many times in psychology which happens to be transpiring in this play; I think everyone can agree that in general the average woman is usually more emotional, and in touch with their emotions more than the average man).
I believe that the lack of common sense by these characters means that they cannot be seen as real people but just projections of real people. Which makes it so that there is no sense using them as an example of the society as a whole. I don't believe that Medea is a misogynistic example of how women are corrupt but an example of how a women are not. Medea is obviously what women could be if they wished but from the reaction this play had when it was introduced to Greek society, I would say they don't believe women are like Medea either.
I don't believe you can assume the play is misogynistic based on one of the characters being misogynistic. This character is condescending, and the chorus, which can be used to voice the author's opinion, tells him that he was wrong to leave Medea. Any misogynistic statements made by Jason were more than mitigated by the points about women's treatment in society made by Medea. Conversely, I don't think this play can conclusively be considered proto-feminist when the character making these points is a barbarian-witch who murders children. Whether or not one believes Medea was driven to murder by her feminist beliefs or because society pushed her to the brink is what determines the interpretation of the play, in my opinion.
Medea was brought to Greece by Jason after she helped retrieve the Golden Fleece and saved his life. For Jason, bringing back the princess of a foreign kingdom, can be almost seen in the context of ancient greek culture as a luxury. It wasn't common back in ancient Greece to travel to far away lands and bring back a woman from another land to make her your wife. This can be looked at as an interest in exoticism, similar to one bringing back the treasure from a far away land. Jason could have seen bringing back Medea, his barbarian witch princess bride, as an added object to his glory and treasures to show for his adventures. This however, to many of the Greek people, creates an uneasy or even fearful feeling toward someone who may be different than themselves.
The xenophobic ideas of the greeks can probably begin to be explained by the idea that in the ancient times much of the greek population never adventured or left their own islands or city-states. This could create an uncomfortable feeling to many citizens when they are exposed to people from foreign lands. Medea is explained in the beginning of the text by the Nurse as a "dangerous women." The way she is introduced to the audience already makes her seem different than the average woman of Greece. In ancient times, when this would have been performed, the opening lines of the Nurse would evoke the connotations that come with foreigners and barbarians in the minds of the Greek audience. So even when most people would feel bad for Medea and her misfortune, the Greek audience already might be against her. She could be seen as an anti-hero from the very beginning.
These xenophobic connotations are not immediately triggered when read by most 21st century readers. In present times, especially in America, we are exposed more often to people from other countries and cultures different than our own. It is not totally unheard of to bring back someone you fall in love with from another country or even continent in the 21st century. So without these connotations, we just see that she did help Jason, she is capable of dangerous things, but still show sympathy when hearing that her husband has left her and the children to live on their own.
Did the author, Euripides, write this knowing of the xenophobic culture of the Greeks? Did he intentionally write it so that the hero or anti-hero Medea is a victim of xenophobia throughout the play?
We can also connect the Greek xenophobic tendencies to a lot of the cultural traditions and accomplishments of ancient Greece, and a strong sense of nationalism that may come from that. The Greeks were considered one of the smartest cultures of antiquity having paved the way for various advancements in science, medicines, and especially mathematics and philosophy. They also had one of the strongest armed forces in the ancient world, with some of the best warriors, tactics, and weaponry throughout the various ages of the ancient world. They also had one of the biggest empires in the history of the world under Alexander the Great. Furthermore, they considered themselves much more civilized with their advanced forms of government, as the Athenians are credited as the creators of democracy. Such great advancements in ancient society as compared to other ancient societies, coupled with strong traditions of Greek pride, would definitely make the average Greek citizen very nationalistic, and thus, naturally weary of foreigners.
When we discussed this question in class, it seems as though we looked at these two interpretations of Medea as being in opposition to each other, as if this were an either/or situation. I do not believe it is. I don’t think the designations of misogynist and proto-feminist are mutually exclusive, at least in the context of Medea, and in fact I believe misogyny and something approaching feminism are both on display in Euripides’ writing. There are definitely portions of the text that reflect Euripides’ progressive view of women, especially when he has Medea declare “They say that we have a safe life at home, whereas men must go to war. Nonsense! I had rather fight three battles than bear one child” (If the translation seems odd, it’s because I have an older edition of the play). The idea that a woman might not want to have children, that raising a family is not the sole ambition of every woman must have been unheard of and extremely progressive in 5th century BC Greece , when women weren’t even allowed to participate in theatre, hence Medea’s possible categorization as a proto-feminist play. However, even by using the term “proto-feminism” we’re acknowledging that what Euripides is getting at isn’t quite yet feminism; it’s almost-feminism. And what keeps it in the realm of almost-feminism are the unfortunate, backwards ideas about the essential nature of women that are on display in Medea. Medea herself, who had previously let loose a righteous lament of the hardships placed upon women, at one point states “by our mere nature we women are helpless for good, but adept at contriving all manner of wickedness.” So even though Eurpides posits women as being much more sympathetic and unjustly treated in Greek society than the average man may have, he still backslides and portrays women as creatures that are at their cores, conniving and troublesome. So even though Euripides is forward thinking for his time, a proto-feminist, he is simultaneously a misogynist, unable to fully leave behind his problematic socialized notions of women.
-How does Creon function in the text?
Our class discussion focused mostly on the characters of Medea and Jason, and how their characteristics and actions reflected on their respective sexes. But what of Creon? If Jason is a possible representation of the ugly, selfish, unthinking side of the male sex and its cruelty to women, how do Creon’s words and actions reflect on the totality of men in ancient Greek culture? It could be argued that Creon’s banishment of Medea and her children in the face of the blows she has already been dealt serves to reinforce the portrayal of men as obliviously cruel and condescending seen in Jason’s actions. When Creon states “I am the absolute judge of the case, and I shall not go back to my palace till I have cast you over the frontier of the land” to Medea, he comes off as unreasonably harsh and arrogant, a possible commentary on men in Greece at the time. However, Creon eventually compromises slightly and allows Medea one day to prepare for her exile, stating “my mind is not tyrannical enough; mercy has often been my undoing.” This could either be taken as a laughable attempt at mercy, giving a person a single day to prepare to be thrown out of their home along with their children, or it could be intended as a legitimately merciful gesture, showing the benevolent side of men. Since Creon is later killed, his words could even be seen as prophetic; he should have, in fact, been sterner and cast out Medea the conniving woman when he intended to, as this way he would have survived.
One question was on my mind from the beginning of the play: was Medea meant to be evil? Based on the literature I’m familiar with from the time period, witches weren’t usually positive influences on people. She is angry, pathetic, and worst of all; she isn't Greek (at least, the original audience would think). The way in which she enacts her revenge involves deceit and kills many innocent people, leaving alive the one person might have deserved some form of retribution. This all adds up to an inevitable conclusion: Medea was written to be a bad person. But why? Medea stole the golden fleece from her father, left her home, and killed her brother to help Jason in his quest. She was the only one who knew how to acquire the Golden Fleece; if she hadn’t helped Jason, he would be dead and she would still be royalty with her family in her homeland. In return for all she has given, Jason gave her children to look after while he marries into a royal family. This same royal family, as a result of her understandable frustration with the situation, exiles her and her children. A more sympathetic character would be hard to create. The chorus in the play, usually a reliable source of wisdom, deems Jason’s ethnocentric explanation of his actions “logical,” and bemoans Medea’s desire for revenge. Perhaps my question is silly. It is wrong to group people into groups of good and bad, but in my experience major characters are usually easy to categorize. It is possible that the “good vs. evil” duality was not as prevalent in the culture as it is today, or perhaps I’m missing the point: maybe the audience is supposed to be horrified as we watch a character we sympathize with so much commit unspeakable atrocities. Is Jason a hero? The audience would have been expected to know Jason as a hero who obtained the Golden Fleece, but in the first part of the play it was difficult to sympathize with Jason whatsoever. Even if the reader had not been biased against him from the beginning, he would have a misogynistic and xenophobic first impression. The one “logical” argument he makes on his behalf is that he is trying to help Medea and their children by marrying into a higher status. The problem, of course, is that he has confused doing what Medea wants and doing what he wants. Medea vocalizes her opposition to the point where if Jason cared about her thoughts at all he would stay with the woman he supposedly cares about. In fact, if he cared about her and his children, he would be willing to leave with them when they are exiled. Instead, Jason tells Medea that she is lucky she won’t be killed, as if she should thank him for all he’s done. In the second part of the play Jason becomes somewhat sympathetic, portrayed as a grieving father at the mercy of a cruel woman. But even then his sudden concern about the fate of his children seems like a concern for his bloodline rather than the deaths of human beings he supposedly loved. If Glauce had still been alive I doubt Jason would have bothered showing any concern for his children because he could simply make more with his new Greek wife. It is possible that the play’s lack of popularity had less to do with Medea and its feminist implications than its transforming a respectable Greek hero into a powerless sociopath.
I definitely think you're onto something in questioning how prevalent or culturally important the "good/evil" binary was in ancient Greece. I think a large part of our understanding of good and evil comes from the Abrahamic tradition, in which there is one God who represents morality and righteousness, and then there's the Devil who stands for all things evil and bad. The Greeks didn't have this. They had a pantheon of Gods, none of whom could really fit neatly in the categories of totally good or totally evil. Zeus himself, the king of the Gods, the supreme God, was a well known adulterer and is the God who punished Prometheus, the creator of man, for giving man fire, which would actually put him in opposition to the interests of humans. Yet he's still the supreme deity, even though he does bad things. He's supreme because he's the most powerful. So I think it could be argued that Greek society prioritized might and power of morality or righteousness. That's why I interpret Medea not as a morality tale in which Medea is the villain for murdering her own children, but an empowerment fantasy in which Medea is a hero for all women for taking the power back from her husband, who had previously held power over her in his ability to cause her great emotional distress.
I think that the concept of good and evil have always existed, no matter how long you think back to. It is just simply easier to side with one side of a story, and this happens throughout human life. We hear the latest gossip about two people you know, and although we may try to be as on the fence as possible, we, as humans, always pick a side. This is our inherent nature, and I don't think your grouping of people is in anyway wrong. When reading your response, I can clearly see that you want to take a certain stance, but some part in the story stops you from doing so because of the play's wavering from feminism to misogyny. When I read the play, I read it through the lens of a xenophobic story, and by doing so I could not seem to find a way to dispute that theme. Creon was kind because Euripides wanted to show Greeks as kind. Medea was a character we sympathized with, but then showed her real colors because Euripides wanted to show us how a real woman SHOULD act, then he shows what a barbaric woman would do in her place. The play is fraught with xenophobic messages, and I feel the play is much easier to understand using that lens.
I believe that you are correct in saying that Medea is evil. I feel this creates a strong story that makes you feel sympathetic towards her and then destroying this sympathy allows you to recognize that victims of any gender can be evil. Euripides ability to make his readers see the blurred lines between evil and good, forms a controversial and engaging play that is riveting. The people who originally saw this play probably already knew her back story and recognized the hardships she went through to be with her love. She had to kill and chop her brother to bits in order to escape her home to be with Jason. She then helped the King's daughter to commit patricide. To have Jason then say he wants to marry someone new after having two children with Medea probably made her even crazier then she was. Watching her commit these horrifying acts, especially prolicide cause the reader to hate her. I do not view Jason as a hero. He is a powerless man which is completely against what the Greeks believe a man should be.
Why does Medea seem to be this character with two sides? The character of Medea is very controversial. When reading the play, the character of Medea is portrayed in two very different lights. Her situation and her past actions show a side that one would root for, a side that shows both devotion and love. This is starkly contrasted in the second half of the play, with her actions and decisions showing a ruthless and vengeful side that can barely be compared to anything else but psychotic. She turns into this merciless monster that stops at no ends to get what she wants, revenge. She even kills her own children in her murderous plot. When Medea is given the information of the death of the princess and the king, she revels in the knowledge of their deaths. I believe that the character of Medea contrasts this way because it shows the severity of the actions she has committed at the end of the play. By allowing the audience to buy into her story and her kindness and compassion at the beginning of the play, Euripides sets his own character up to fall. He brings such a dramatic change to the play, and thus he dramatically changes the meaning of the whole play in it of itself. By doing this, he does not just make his statement, but he proclaims it with authority by giving this contrast.
What does this contrast show about the time Medea was written? Knowing that Euripides shows such a barbaric character in Medea gives us a very clear insight of how the Greeks were thinking at the time. By having this proclamation that Medea is not only barbaric, but borderline psychotic, Euripides paints a picture in the audience’s head of the kind of people who commit such crimes. She is a foreigner from a barbaric civilization, and she is also a woman. I believe that Euripides was clearly trying to portray the message of xenophobia and misogyny through the play. He builds the character of Medea up as a very passionate and caring mother and wife, an image that many opponents of xenophobia and misogyny would like to imagine a foreign woman. He then proceeds to tear down this image of her by portraying her as the opposite of all these characteristics. Euripides used the platform of theatre to portray the themes of xenophobia and misogyny, values that may have been overwhelmingly popular at the time.
After so much debate about whether or not this play is proto-feminist or misogynistic, it is nice to see a well supported position about how to view Medea. You didn't even need to mention the chorus agreeing with Jason's xenophobic arguments to demonstrate the way Medea was likely viewed by the Greeks. The only aspect of the play not consistent with this view is the intervention of the Greek Gods on behalf of Medea, but it pales in comparison to the support you've brought.
How did the evolution of theatre effect the stories effect on the world and why has this play survived throughout the ages?
The controversial issues of gender roles and feminist interests that arise in Euripides' Medea are an obvious reason why it became popular. In a world ruled by men this was of interest to both men in power who wished to keep it and to women who sought more power, but what other elements contributed to the survival of the performance? Medea was first performed in 431 BC, a time when Athens was at the height of her power during at which the time Athens was at war with Sparta, this contributes exponentially to how renown the play becomes. With a growing economy and enemy focused on their every move it was now the time for great things to happen. The new styles of performances were enticing to the audiences of the time frame and the stories spread quickly throughout the land. The new stage developments and and costume designs provided an attractive attribute to the theatre and with just the right plot the people of Athens will be not only confronting the issues of the play with each other but with neighboring countries. Even the Spartan enemies would here of the performance and would begin to discuss it amongst themselves. With just the right recipe the entire world would eventually come to know the story. The effect the story has on the world is profound. Questions that arise in this play began to be answered by the people and suddenly women's rights and patriarchal laws begin to unravel. Though it will take years yet for the transformations of sexism to fade, the questions had now become asked and the change was underway. Morally and ethically humans know right from wrong, maybe not at first but over time and with some help from each other we normally come around to thinking logically and understanding the errors of our ways. The results this play had on the world were inevitable.
What is Medea's right for revenge as a human being in the story of Euripides. Everyone has been hurt heinously by a lover, but Medea certainly received more betrayal and danger by Jason's adultering exploits than the average broken soul. But is killing her children worth the treasure of ruining Jason's life? Through a humanist perspective, Medea could not be more in the wrong, sacrificing the lives of her children for vengeance. Worse off, she was not killing her kids to save them from horrid lives, but states to Jason multiple times that she did it to "injure him".
What were the impact of Medea's actions through a feminist lens?
This caused a fierce debate in my dorm room to be honest, and one that I can easily say I lost. I originally did not agree with the fact that Medea's actions were an empowering in any way for women, that just how horrid they were betrayed any movement forward for women. But what was argued out of my roommate was the fact that this fictional character directly opposed patriarchy in almost every way. Destroying the lineage, preventing his right to the throne in Corinth, Medea absolutely eradicated the presence of Jason's dominance in his relationship with her. What I needed to understand was that this event did not happen, so Euripides in his play just presented a story where patriarchy was utterly dismantled. I wish I had come to this realization on my own, but luckily had it beaten into me.
Is Medea comparable to Eve?
I think that Medea has some very strong similarities to Eve. In one sense, Medea is responsible for bringing some unspeakable evil to everyone involved in the play (it could be argued it was actually Jason). But in another sense, she did this almost totally on her own accord, not being beguiled by some evil serpent, but by actually being the beguiler. I think the interpretation could go either way, only due to some of the reasons that are given for Medea's actions. Creon and Jason approach Medea asking her not to do anything rash, and that if she does it is due to the inherent evil traits in all women. In that sense, she has proved the standard evilness of women and all of that nonsense. But of course, the fact that she acted in her own interest cannot be ignored, and that is a very different trait in comparison to Eve.
I am glad you brought up the comparison between Medea and Eve, as it is not something I had considered before looking through the blog. I am unsure why this did not seem obvious, however, because these really are the two strongest female characters we have encountered this semester. Sure we had Sarah, Lot’s wife, etc. in the bible, but they were hardly more than footnotes. And the Qur’an is almost completely void of strong female characters, or any female characters for that matter. I believe they are comparable in that they both set into action this hideous chain of events that have serious repercussions for those involved. Also, both actions have negative externalities for future generations, humanity leaving the Garden of Eden and Corinth being without a ruling family. Both women, as well, were tempted or at least encouraged by an outside force to act as they did. If these characters existed independently of the situations they are placed in, their fateful deeds would most likely have not occurred. Another interpretation to close with is Medea vs. Old Testament God. Think about Noah’s Arc, God destroying his creation as punishment for behavior he did not approve of. Sounds at least slightly similar to Medea destroying her offspring as innocent life is lost in both cases.
Is Madea in the right? No, clearly she is not in the right when she murders her children. Another view of this would be to examine what the character represents, it seems Madea is a vengeful hero who goes too far. Women were not portrayed as strong and violent people, qualities that were considered positive for men who filled the role of warrior. Men who would kill their opponents loved ones and ensure the suffering of their enemies were viewed as righteous and powerful individuals who did what needed to be done. So in this context Madea could be viewed as hero who went too far and an example of the possibility of women standing up for themselves.
Do the reasons Jason gives Medea, for leaving, justify his actions?
Jason reveals his reason for leaving his wife Medea to be in the best interest for he and his family. He argues that climbing the social caste, by marrying King Creon's daughter Glauce, his children, and even Medea, will live a better life. Now, although Jason's decision was based on logic, it was an obscure logic. I believe that, as a father, Jason felt that the decision to abandon Medea and marry Glauce was the proper one. By advancing his station, Jason would be able to provide a life full riches and fortune, both physical and experiential, for his children. However, naivety is not an excuse for absurdity. Marriage and children are an "all in" commitment. Jason's abandonment is a sign of weakness more than anything else.
Is Medea a champion or antagonist?
Madea's character changes throughout the progression of the story. She is cunning, devious, and cutthroat in the events leading up to she and Jason being exiled as murderers. Yet, everything she did was for the love she had developed toward Jason. She eventually bears two children, both of whom belong to Jason, and gain a favorable reputation. Medea, though, is then subjected to a trial as tough as anyone can imagine. The man she loved so dearly, Jason, has abandoned her in favor of King Creon's daughter, Glauce. At first, Medea is wrought with agony and despair, however, that agony is eventually transformed into a sadistic fury. She avenges her betrayal with a series of murders. She gifts a poisoned dress and coronet to the princess, Glauce. More notably, Medea murders her own children. She receives so much pleasure in the pain it brings Jason, than the fact that she had just killed the children she birthed. Medea's actions were, at least, on an understandable level, up to the point of murdering her children. However, the fact that she killed her own flesh and blood cannot be overlooked. Medea is no hero.
What was Euripides trying to convey about gender in the play?
Euripedes does highlight injustices that women faced at the time Medea was written, such as, men being able to remarry on a whim. Medea argues that women are bad, but are made so by circumstances they cannot control. Jason, the male antagonist, exercises his right to remarry by abandoning Medea. However, in this circumstance, Medea chose not to accept the fact, and instead, she defied social norm. In contrast, Jason, as the play went on, became more and more emasculated. So, it's as if there was a reversal of natural order.
I think the most interesting thing to consider here is when you say: "Medea is no hero." I would agree, she doesn't really exhibit the qualities of a literary hero, but was she ever really supposed to in the first place? I would say the answer is no. Medea was never meant to be read as a 'hero' in the first place, and we make a mistake in judgement about the whole play when we do so. If we take this play as Greek Tragedy, then Medea functions solely as the agent of change for Jason's fate reversal; everything seemed to be going great for Jason, until, his fate gets completely changed around because of Medea (what's ironic about this play is that Jason, in a sense, reversed Medea's fate as well, in the beginning of the play, by remarrying.) Now, if this fate reversal means that Medea has to do something horrible and really immoral and absolutely non-heroic then that's fine, we as readers shouldn't have to worry about it. If Medea HAD acted heroicly, then maybe we could say nicer things about her character, but who cares? The play wouldn't have been a tragedy, and as such there isn't really any point in saying something like "Medea isn't a hero." It's preaching to the choir; it's exactly the point, Medea isn't a hero.
The appearance of gender in the play can have to distinct interpretations. One being Euripides is further exposing the insanity of women, or that he is exploring the abilities that women have to change the world around them. The play can be viewed from those two different perspectives, each being correct through their own lens, but I feel as though you need to make a decision on your own personal feelings toward Medea and her actions. I feel that your last two questions and responses are well thought out, but clearly contradictory, so maybe this should be asked, is Medea a hero to you. In your third question, you outlined the power Medea had to change the world around her, even though women at the time supposedly were believed to be powerless(I have an opinion that that view generalizes a bit, but it digress's). Perhaps the consequence of upsetting the social order gave justification to Medea's heinous crimes, which were this fictional character's triumph over the tyrannical patriarchy. But I can sympathize with the fact that the brutality of her crimes may upset that fact, her leap away from humanity usurping any gains to female power and identity. What it comes down to is how the audience who first saw the play interpreted the events, I am sure Euripides intentions for the perception of Medea lie in there. Personally, I think that because these events did not happen, the play presents a radical view of a woman overcoming the boundaries set around her by society, and taking her fate into her own hands.
1) Is Medea a hero? Greek tragedy functions in terms of ironic reversal; that is, one character has to experience a total reversal of fate. The play Medea is interesting in that there are two examples of this, one of which occurs in medias res. The first one is when Medea's fate is reversed by Jason, who betrays Medea. Medea then goes about reversing the fate of Jason, by exacting her revenge upon him. This doesn't offer any kind of redemption for Medea, or serves the purpose of reclaiming any of her lost pride, but only completes the plot structure of Tragedy in that it is an ironic reversal of Jason's fate.
2) How can we rationalize Medea's actions? Medea's actions are completely over the top, and if we think about it in one sense, completely immoral. However, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to think about her actions in terms of morality. Medea has to be immoral to function within the play, and as such it's unfair and non-sensical. If we look at Medea in terms of being a strong female character we won't be able to complete our feminist reading of the play if we get caught up in the morality of Medea's actions; Medea's actions are immoral, and if we can't step beyond this we won't be able to see the deeper meaning/messages of the play.
3) How does Xenophobia function in this play? Xenophobia is one of the easier elements to ignore in this play. One of the primary reasons that issues in the play occur is because of some degree of animosity between the races, notably against Medea. This play doesn't really offer any kind message concerning the ramifications of xenophobia, as in, oh this is bad or immoral, but I feel as though it is more just something that exists a priori in the play. There are a lot of moments where I feel as though things just get by just because this is a 4th century BC play.
I am going to play as devil's advocate, only because of the new information that was presented by Akman in class. Concerning question #2, if Euripides is pretty much confirmed as a misogynist, due to the ideas of not having a female gender that were in that second play. That whole text has to be read, but if we continue the reading of Medea with Euripides as a confirmed misogynist, than Medea could not have been a strong female character. With this information, the actions that Medea takes are not presented to showcase the ability of women to gain power, but to show the disaster that can occur when you put your trust into the most evil and cunning gender. In modern reading of the text, we are capable of looking through different perspectives to gain different meanings from the text, but during the era the play was initially performed, I doubt there were that many interpretations around. I agree that the actions taken by Medea were the only strong actions she was capable of making, making her a strong female character, but the fact remains that the words weren't written or probably interpreted that way. But then again, art does exist outside of the artist...
In regard to question number three, I completely agree. Xenophobia definitely exists within the play, however, I feel that it is just a product of the time and society in which it was written. I don't believe Euripides had much intention, if any, of making Xenophobia prevalent in the story. It seems, to me, more of an indirect inclusion. With other, more pressing ideas going on in the play, I find Xenophobia to be nothing more than a window that reveals to us an example of how ancient Greeks viewed the rest of the world.
Denis Jekić Dr. Akman HUMN 220 12th of February, 2013 Blog Entry: Week Four
1. If roles were reversed, how do you think reactions towards Euripides’ characters Medea and Jason would have differed in society’s point of view at that time?
At the time, the general Athenian society (as would be expected) had rather low standards and expectations for women. Not only that; women pretty much had no rights and were completely unequal. As was so, it is natural to assume that most Athenians would react the same way when watching the performance of Euripides’ tragedy Medea. Although many people, myself included, can interpret the play in many different ways (ways in which one could see the tragedy portraying women in a positive light/feministic), I still believe that society at that time had a general negative view towards this positive light that might have been trying to break through. Although this tragedy is fictitious and the roles and events (those which are realistic like the murder of the children and other characters by Medea) that occur within the play are not based on anything true, had they been acted upon by Jason rather than Medea, I feel as though it would not have been viewed and criticized as severely as they were for Medea. These events are tragic and shocking, but in my opinion, because of the position Jason held within the society in which he lived as well as the fact that he was male, they would not be viewed so harshly. I feel as though the only way in which society would have played a different part in the way they perceived the play as well as how they reacted would be if there was a sudden and massive period of social reconstruction (which would have to be impossibly drastic) so as to basically change the views of the society and become accepting. Even if the people felt empowered by the play and viewed it as being feministic, silence would still have been kept.
2. During the second part of the play, the character Jason receives pity from the audience while Medea loses the audience’s sympathy due to her actions. Do you believe this could have been prevented in any way?
I believe that the roles Euripides chose for both Medea and Jason were intentional and were not meant to have been prevented. I believe that while creating this dramatic twist in the plot in which Medea performs these awful acts, Euripides knew exactly what to expect out of society and he knew that it would create an impact. However, in order to make an impact that was safe and could provide him with a chance to not only possibly win a competition against other writers of tragedies, but to also present a possible secret agenda, he had to somehow create a splash rather than an explosion. One must remember that these were conservative times in which little change occurred for those viewed as lesser by the general populous. I am positive that this change of character portrayal and sway of audience opinion were done to negate the previous part of the play in which one might sympathize with Medea rather than Jason. Even though there may possibly be positive inclinations towards women and their role in society, the actual society at the time was not as accepting and would need to be persuaded, and Euripides could have been completely disregarded as a writer of tragedies (which some might view as selfish of him to create this twist) had he gone completely radical and portrayed the female characters (and Medea herself) as strong and as humans with free-will and rights.
3. If Euripides had to choose either Jason or Medea to represent as “acting righteously for their cause”, who would he choose and why?
In my opinion, it is rather difficult to understand who Euripides is “rooting for” in his own play. As previously stated, society at the time had a different viewpoint on women and what they represented. Euripides seems to have a sympathetic view towards both of the characters in Medea and there are many different ways in which one could debate who Euripides saw as the righteous character and the one who had been wronged. One could see Euripides being empathetic towards Jason, since he “had” to leave his wife Medea in order to bring about a “better life” for his children and wife. At the same time, the way Euripides seems to imply that Jason is a selfish and used/exploited Medea is a good enough reason for her to become empowered and enact revenge. But then one is forced to ask themselves what the point of killing her children had been, since this event immediately puts Medea in the wrong spotlight, whether she deserved it or not.
I think it is important to distance ourselves from these characters and realize it was just a play, with intentionally thrilling and shocking dialogue. That means that this play was overly dramatized and that it was meant to rile feathers and annoy the audience. Our class is proof of this. We argue over the abstract details of these characters expecting them to divulge some important information when all they are there for is to mess with our thoughts and make it so that we are emotionally involved. Not a state to make judgements about Greek society or even about the characters.
Protagonist or Antagonist?
ReplyDeleteThroughout the play Medea, Medea is the main character who is looked at as the protagonist. She has more than enough reason to be upset with her husband, Jason, and to be seeking out justice for what he has done to her. She left her home for him and helped him in finding the Golden Fleece, which has made him famous. As a reader I started off feeling bad for Medea and hating Jason, but as the play went on, I started to slowly shift in the other direction.I became less sympathetic towards Medea once she started to take her plot for revenge too far. The idea of her killing her own children to upset her ex-husband is some really dark actions to take.
This ultimately leads me to question, is Medea really the protagonist? Should I be rooting for someone who has gone so far as to kill her own children to seek out revenge on her ex-husband? At the second half of the play I start to not even like any of the characters. Jason has clearly been depicted as the villain throughout the entire play, and I still do not like him for what he has done to Medea. Medea has overreacted completely about Jason's previous actions and has taken her revenge way too far. After reading this play I felt no satisfaction for any of these characters. None of them do good, and the end is just pure misery.
Denis Jekić
DeleteI feel as though many people are missing the point behind the actions of each of the characters within the play. Everyone is extremely focused on each individual deed that each individual character had done within the play. Although these deeds may seem vicious, cruel, wrong, immoral,and whatever other negative connotation that one can come up with to describe the actions of the characters, that is not the point of these individual deeds. In my opinion, these deeds must be viewed through a lens that incorporates that larger picture that each deed represents and then what the totality of all of the events means. Sure, these awful deeds create reactions and perceptions on characters and basically make us biased, but we need to understand what is meant by the hidden meaning within each of the deeds. These are characters that are each fighting for their own purpose and goal. Each of them represent a larger idea. Medea's actions can be viewed as having a feminist cause/negative portrayal of women and exiles, etc. and Jason's deeds can be viewed as misogynistic, and that's what we should be looking for when interpreting the text. Not the fact that the fictional event that is described is so wrong and immoral that we cannot even begin to see past it and get stuck on it. It is difficult because they pull on the strings of our emotions and it gets the best of us, but there are other intentions behind the action.
Medea is seen as the protagonist at first but then she reveals her dark side and starts to seem insane. Even though she did all of those things for Jason she was still unjustified in acting the way she did when he chose to marry someone else. The whole situation could have been handled better by both Medea and Jason. I agree that Medea should not be seen as the protagonist because she has not done anything worth supporting throughout the entire play. But on the same note, neither has Jason, or anyone for that matter. So I also agree with you when you say that you did not like any of the characters. Whether it be Medea's killing spree, Jason's leaving his wife and kids, or Creon's exiling Medea, every character did a major wrong somehow.
DeleteDoes the chorus represent the voice of reason?
ReplyDeleteIn the first half of the play, the roles of the chorus have been to interact with Medea and Jason as well as to provide additional background chorus help to keep an objective perspective during a heated argument of irrational characters.
What is the role of the Gods in the first half of the play?
The Gods and religion played a significant role in ancient information and context for the audience. Since this is a play, the role of the chorus is solely for the audience that would be attending the performance. The chorus is important in this particular play because Medea and Jason are relatively crazy characters who do not always display common sense and reason. It is not necessarily the place of the chorus to play a key role in the events in the story; rather, the chorus serves somewhat as an intermediary between the other characters in the play and the audience. Passively, the chorus agrees with Medea that she has been wronged and has the right to be vengeful. This objective perspective gives the audience a more moderate outlook on Medea’s situation. Likewise, the chorus breaks up the argument between Jason and Medea in order to present a more moderate, objective outlook. Line 520 says, “When members of a family fight like this, rage pushes them beyond all compromise.” The chorus then praises Jason’s logical argument but reassures the audience that he is in the wrong. These little additions from the Greek theater. Is this the case in Medea. In the first half, the Gods are referenced many times. When Medea plans her revenge, she calls upon Hecate, the Greek Goddess associated with witchcraft and sorcery among other things, to assist her in her vengeance. Aphrodite is a key figure in the play. During Jason and Medea’s heated conversation, Jason contends that it was Aphrodite who saved his life in Colchis, not Medea. Loyalty to Aphrodite could possibly relate to the conversation in class about specific virtues that could make Jason a more admirable character. Overall, the Gods are frequently referenced in the first half of the play. I think that this frequency represents how immersed religious values were in Ancient Greek theater. It seems that the references would be a given in any play of this period.
Is Medea inherently unstable?
Jason’s betrayal and treatment of Medea give plenty of good reason for Medea to be upset and vengeful. However, based on the background information, she has murdered before and displayed wild behavior. She is a witch, she murdered her own brother and she had King Pelias’s daughter murder him. Jason’s treatment of her is in no way justifiable but her past raises some questions about how innocent she really is. Right from the start, the audience knows what Medea is capable of. Instead of being a passive housewife who undergoes a dramatic transformation and murders her children, she is a witch who does not take kindly to being betrayed. Her actions are extreme, but her past adds a more dramatic element to the plot.
Initially, I was prepared to disagree with question number three, however, reading your response has caused me to pause and think a little harder. At first, I wanted to justify all of Medea's actions, post abandonment, simply based on the trauma it must have caused her. That thought though, was made without considering Medea's previous track record. I'm willing to allot some leeway for someone in Medea's circumstance, provided they're a first time offender. Medea, on the other hand, seems to lose her composure every time something goes wrong. In order for one to be stable, they must be able to handle adversity. Medea proved time and time again that she is unable to handle adversity as a stable person would.
DeleteAmanda Thomas Humn 220 Akman Blog #4 What is the main role of women according to Medea? The role of women throughout ancient Greece was to be a property of men and take care of the house and raise children. Medea can be seen in these roles as she loves her children and does not want to be exiled and leave them from the place they call home. All women want best for their children and she fell that they have done nothing wrong. In the beginning she is only heard crying but not seen. This can show a sense that women cannot be seen upset or angry and must hide as they are seen to have strong wills. Medea fits this but when she comes out she begins to plot her revenge against what Jason has done by marrying another princess. This can show a role of Medea as a woman that what she had she liked and what Jason did is not allowed and she does not want him to get away with it. Medea can set an example in that she wants to be a good mother for her children but knows she cannot do it when they are not in an environment that they know. Why take blame out on her children? Medea sets the stage as her plan to kill her children and Jason’s new wife, the princess. One may ask the question why does Medea want to kill her children. They have nothing to do with the fact Jason has married another women. Medea may think that by killing her children she would get sympathy from Jason. I believe that Medea is looking for revenge and she feels that if she kills her two children she will get what she wants. I believe this is wrong in that the children did nothing wrong and she take more of her blame towards her husband Jason and try to understand why he did what he did. Killing innocent children will not fix the problem it could in fact add more to the situation. I also think that she as a mother of two children she wants to do what she feels is the best for her children’s life.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the role of the chorus play for Medea herself? I believe that role of the chorus in Medea is to all the reader or audience a better understanding of what is really happening and to connect with the story better. As for Medea the chorus at some point has different views on how they want to take what she is saying. They interpret what they here in a way for the audience to better understand and then reply. The way they reply to her can be seen as calm relax way. They really do not take her side or the others side. They in a way accept what is happening but try to see both the good and bad of what Medea wants to do.
I think you have an accurate interpretation of the role of the chorus in regards to Medea. The chorus has a very passive stance on issues and never stand firm against Medea's rage driven thoughts. When she decides that she must kill her children the chorus speaks of how much of a burden raising children can be. I think that the role of the chorus is to put all of the intense emotions of the play into perspective. Both Medea and Jason are irrational and crazy at times, so the chorus presents all sides of the issue in order for the audience to have an idea of what is truly going on.
DeleteYour first point of discussion is relevant to today's discussion in class about proto-feminism vs. misogyny. Medea, by being so bold and outspoken, is stepping out of the traditional role that women played in ancient Greek society. Medea points out during the play that both the wise and the foolish fear her because of her wisdom. Even though she is an intelligent woman, she automatically is disregarded by the men in society solely because she is female. I personally think that her decision to take vengeance on Jason supports the pro feminist argument. The fact that she kills her children makes the debate much more complicated.
"Old ties give way to new, he bears no longer any love to this family" is a ling by the attendent that says it all. Jason has terribly wronged Medea and does not care for his family regardless of the claims he makes otherwise. His claims are a means of justifying his actions not only to Medea but possibly himself due to any form of guilt or fear he may have. He is aware how terribly Medea has taken this affair and is afraid of her. He knows her capabilities and knows that she is a strong woman. There is a really psychological basis to Jason's actions. Jason has two main goals that are to be wealthy and a part of a great nation. He first uses Medea for the golden fleece to obtain wealth, and thinks that he has aquired what he longs for. Then when he realizes this, he quickly makes another goal and fall into the arms of the princess. He doesn't, however, want to give up Medea completely, so he has children with her, believing that these children will keep her with him. He believes he can have all his trophies at once, but as the nurse points out, "and she hates her children now and feels no joy at seeing them..." She could care less of the children now, and this actually happens. All those children serve as now is a reminder of what she has lost. Not only does Jason take her away from her homeland but makes her betray her family. She now has nothing left and no love for the children. It is Jason's fault that she kills her children.
ReplyDeleteI think the Attendent is an important character that really isnt mentioned. He serves as a part of mimesis by putting some background into how men in society act. He speaks of their ways of being greedy and doing solely what can make the indvidual excel. Medea speaks of the women's role as well comparing childbirth to battle in a hyperbole of the woman's forgotten importance and her required roles in life. Men are required to go to battle while women are require to have children. It is society that puts the pressure on people to act the way they do. Medea is fulfilling her role by doing whatever she can for her husband and Jason fufills his role by only bothering with his own needs and wants and doing whatever he needs to to fulfill his goals.
If Jason is trying to prove his wrong doing to Medea then why did he not try and reason more with her as to why he left her for a new wife. I believe Jason is a guy who can not settle down and has to keep new things in his life in order to stay happy. Medea in a way was forced to have children because of what the society sees as a role of a wife and women but she can not put the blame on Jason as to why she kills them when he leaves her. She should still love them and accept what has happened and place the blame on them. If she kills the children what joy does she get out of seeing Jason upset. She might get some revenge but I believe she hurts herself more then Jason by killing her own two children. I do agree with the fact that society turns people into who they really become by pressuring them. Medea in a way is pressured because of being an outsider and the fact that her husband left her and their children and being exiled. She has to prove a point that women cannot just accept this kind of treatment and move on like nothing never happened.
DeleteMedea and Greek Theater
ReplyDeleteWas Medea more of a feminist writing or was it more misogynistic?
In my opinion, I see Medea as a misogynistic tale. I see it this way for a number of reasons. The first and most important reason is that the character of Medea is portrayed in such a way that almost makes her seem crazy and unbalanced. The first time we hear Medea she is screaming and yelling about how distraught she is about how Jason left her for the princess of Corinth despite of everything they had together. In these moments some would say that she is portrayed as a crazed woman. Throughout the story she continues on her pursuit of revenge on Jason, King Creon, and the king’s daughter who Jason plans to marry, Glauce. Medea is successful in killing Creon and Glauce, but she chooses not to kill Jason. Instead, she chose to do something much more radical. She decided to kill her own children because the satisfaction from the pain Jason will receive from the murder of their children would be greater than the pain she would feel. This play seems misogynistic to me because Medea is portrayed in a way that almost makes her the villain at the end. Although it is pretty clear that Jason is the villain in the story, Medea basically becomes the villain because she was so greedy for her revenge that she found a way to justify murdering her two children. In the end, I pictured Medea as an unbalanced and a rather evil character for murdering her children instead of murdering Jason. It was an important part that really left a lasting impression of what kind of character she was. Also, this play was written in a society which was very misogynistic in its views. Women in Athens were not respected in the least and were treated poorly. I highly doubt that Euripides was ahead of his time when it came to respecting women. All in all I feel that this book is misogynistic in a way because of the time period it was written in and how Medea is portrayed.
What kind of person was Jason?
From the way Jason acted in Medea I came to the conclusion that Jason was a weak and greedy man. Jason is weak man because he used Medea to get what he really desired. Jason used Medea and allowed her to give up her homeland and kill her brother so he could obtain the Golden Fleece. Jason really desired to make a name for himself in Athens, since he was not originally from Athens. He planned to marry the king’s daughter Glauce even though he was married to Medea and had two kids with her. He was also weak because he could not even apologize to Medea. Instead, he tried to justify his actions. He justified himself by saying that he was giving his children a better life and that she should be happy that he took her away from the barbarian lifestyle she grew up in. I believe it is pretty clear that throughout the story Jason was the main villain and rightly so. He was greedy for a new and better life, and in the end he paid for it.
Who was Dionysus and how was he important to Greek plays/Medea?
Dionysus is the Greek god of wine and he is an important symbol for Greek theater. Without Dionysus there may very well be no Greek theater. Theater was one of the new, up-and-coming forms of entertainment around 500 B.C. and much of it had to with Dionysus. People would throw festivals where they would watch several plays in a row and drink and enjoy themselves. They would sometimes sacrifice a goat to Dionysus because the Greek people loved to please their gods. Dionysus was really a center figure that people could focus their activities around. He represented the cultural prowess of Athens, and he inspired people to create plays and especially tragedies. Dionysus most likely inspired Euripides and his story about Jason and Medea. Overall, Dionysus was an important symbol at the time when Euripides wrote his plays. He was the most important symbol for Greek theater.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe first arguement mentioned about Medea wailing I can fully relate with. I would certainly not take it lightly if I had just heard that the man that I had had 2 children with was married to someone else. It's almost as bad as finding out someone is cheating on you on facebook for today's standards. It was such an informal means of her finding out that her life as she knows it is over that I can completely understand her reaction initially. Now knowing that in the myth of Medea she didn't kill her children, I beleive that Euripedes could have been ahead of his time as unlikely as it seemed, and put that she did kill her children so that maybe he would not be ridiculed for his diverse perspective. He could have been trying to save himself by have her do something immoral for hopes of authority getting completly wrapped up in that and not reading between the lines.
DeleteI agree with your argument about Jason. I too thought that Jason was trying to justify his actions, resulting in him coming across as selfish and greedy. One point that you brought up that I had never thought of before was calling him weak. I never saw him like that but I agree with your reasoning behind that. I think that Jason was just trying to give Medea what she wanted to hear, to almost get her out of his face and on with her life. Jason was greedy for a better life; he used Medea for all she could provide him and then left her to better himself. He claimed it was about his children and a better life for their family as a whole, however I believe his was selfish and weak. I liked your argument about him being the main villain of the play. This was also something I never considered.
DeleteI agree that this story makes Medea look like a villain in the end of the story and that it certainly has misogynistic parts. But I feel that because Euripides had no tales to pull from he had to go into the dark writing this play. He broke the idea of the typical woman, which we are just really starting to do in this modern era. Women were seen as fragile, passionate, inferior creatures in Greek society, so he really went to the extremes to break this caste. He made her cunning, devious, and willing to do anything to achieve her goals. This was very original to people. He also made her surprisingly helpful to Jason, in a time when the biggest ways a woman could help a man was producing a son or marrying him with a rich family. She played a very active role in Jason’s success and without her he surely would never have accomplished anything.
DeleteI agree that in the end Medea does become a villain. To kill your own children is a heinous crime in almost any society, and even more so if you’re a woman because women are often seen as being closer to their children than the father. To me it seems that Euripides made Medea a woman controlled by passion who had cunning to go with it. It seems that if Medea fell in love with a better man she would have been an ideal wife. Her great love of a weak man caused her to become “evil”.
Jason really was a weak man. His only true goal was advancing in life no matter the cost which is disgusting considering he would abandon his children and wife to achieve it. I would not describe Jason as a hero but as an opportunist. He really believes he has done nothing wrong by abandoning Medea and thinks that she should be happy he gave her a chance at not being a barbarian, even though he himself is one.
During the time this play was written women were seen as inferior to men in every way possible. Equality among the sexes was not even foreseeable at this point, so for anyone to try and portray women positively it would be breaking new ground. And with breaking new ground the action sometimes does not always go as smoothly as if a person was doing it for the hundredth time. Euripides tried to show a different side of women by portraying Medea as a strong, independent woman. In many stories woman are portrayed as helpless, dainty, and soft. Euripides takes a whole different approach in Medea. Medea plays an essential role in the advancement of Jason’s fame, in a way that many would consider brutal for even a man let alone a woman to commit. The character of Medea broke the norms of what a woman should be, which is why this play was not greatly appreciated during the time. When Medea knows Jason is going to try and marry another woman she is furious to say the least. This is very common and considered a norm for almost anyone regardless of sex. This part helps the audience relate to her until they learn she is going to kill her own children. This act greatly alienates Medea from any of her past supporters. For a mother to kill her own children just to spite the father is truly a disgusting act, that is frowned upon in any society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Euripides makes Medea look like a strong, independent woman. Medea was certainly independent since she made the whole plan to murder everyone who wronged her all by herself. This was new for the people in Athens, who were not used to strong and cunning women. However, I tend to believe that the Euripides also makes Medea seem like an evil woman since she does kill her own kids. This is why I feel the play is misogynistic at heart, because the woman in the story is ruthless and manipulative. She shows no mercy and I do not see her as a feminist character at all.
DeleteI agree completely that surely this story was a break from the normal perception of women in ancient Greek society, and displayed a strong, independent woman. The play is definitely a proto-feminist one, however, as I said in my original post, he craziness and injustices that she wrought definitely tarnished her image, and how this play could be seen and used in ancient Greek society. I think it would be more of a tool for the misogynistic people of ancient Greece to use rather than the pro-feminists. I could just imagine a misogynistic guy saying “just look what happens when you give a women power, she goes off and kills a bunch of people!” With that said, I don't think Euripides made this play with the intent of making a feminist play to be used to further feminism or womens rights in ancient Greek society because of how badly Medea is portrayed by the end of the story; it would be counter productive to such a cause.
DeleteIt is true that women growing up during this time were seen as inferior and almost as if they did not exist. Euripides I believe was trying to break this barrier but in a way punish women for hiding from what a true society is about. He does portray Medea as a strong women but there is also a more sinister side of Medea showing that women can have different emotions and they are the same as men. Women for men sometimes are just a way to show off, especially for Jason as he leaves Medea for a better wife. I do agree that the play was not accepted due to the fact of the main role as a women and she is not following what a normal woman would have done in that society during those times.
DeleteEuripides definitely supports a feminist view on society. By going against the norm and developing a character such as Medea changes people’s perspective on norms of society. He made Medea into exactly the opposite of what people would expect a woman in her situation would do. She was a strong and powerful woman that took a stand and said how she felt and how she deserved to be treated. By being heartbroken by her cheating husband and exiled from the land she reached the bottom of society in her own eyes. The only way push through was to murder the higher government officials the King, and the princess. However, that was not even enough. She went as far as killing her own children to get back at what her husband, Jason had done to her. This is like Reggie said a disgusting act that any society would look down on. But, this was the only way she thought she could show to other women women’s true potential.
DeleteHumanities 220
ReplyDeleteKyle Mardon
Medea
Were Medea’s actions justified?
While I understand her desire to get revenge on the man who betrayed her, and those who helped him do it, I do not believe her actions were justified. I think she was not entirely justified when she killed the king and the princess, because neither of them made her husband leave her. It was Jason’s decision to marry the princess and there is no one Madea can blame except Jason. Further, Medea’s decision to kill her children can in no way be justified. Medea’s children had never wronged her nor done anything in the story that could make me believe she was justified in killing them. To me her reasoning was nowhere near good enough to allow for justification, let alone understanding. It is my opinion that the only action she could have been justified in committing would be killing her husband, which she did not do.
How is Jason’s greed responsible for Medea’s actions?
Jason is very much responsible for Medea’s actions. It was because of him that the turn of events in the story came about. It is my opinion that it was greed that led Jason to Medea, searching for a golden fleece, and he used her to get it. This action cost Medea her home as she had to go into exile after killing her brother and convincing Pelias’s daughters to do the same (pg. 52). I believe it was greed that led Jason to leave his wife for the princess and all of her riches. This act of greed and betrayal is what led Medea to seek vengeance, since by Jason’s actions Medea had no other home to go to. It was Jason’s desire for wealth that led to Medea’s actions and it is likely that if he had never given into his greed then none of these events would have happened.
What could Creon have done to prevent Medea’s actions?
I believe that it is also possible that Creon’s actions could have prevented some of Medea’s actions. For instance if Creon had not approved the marriage between Jason and the princess without Medea’s consent that her marriage to Jason was over then her actions might have been prevented. Part of what led to Medea’s actions was the fact that her husband suddenly left her and married, sending her into depression and giving her a desire for vengeance. It is also possible that if Creon had not banished her then perhaps she would not have been rushed to kill him and his daughter; instead she might have focused her vengeance solely on Jason for his betrayal. I believe at the very least had Creon not exiled her then she would not have killed her children; I think it was her exile that caused her to rush her plans that resulted in her killing her children. So I do believe, at the very least, that Creon may have been able to prevent Medea from killing some of the people that she did.
I agree with what you said in response to your first question, however the second response I disagree with. I do not in anyway believe Jason to be responsible for Medea's actions. Yes, Jason is a bit of a jerk, and he is very selfish, but no one made the decision to do what Medea did for her. She made those choices herself. This makes her responsible and her alone. I'm sure if things went differently, such as Creon not banishing her or Jason's greed, then Medea may not have made those decisions, but she was the only one who could make these decisions to kill and take her revenge. Nobody made her do it. Therefore, I disagree with you, and think no one is responsible for what Medea did but herself.
DeleteI think the point about why Medea didn't choose to just kill Jason is a very interesting one. In a sense, it would be the ultimate incarnation of tragic reversal of fate; Jason thought he could do whatever he wanted, everything seemed good, and then he just dies. It does seem strange that Medea would decide to do all the other things that she does, but in a sense maybe the things she does are far in a way worse than just straight up killing Jason. It would certainly bring a lot more emotional pain to Jason, and maybe give the audience a lot more of an extreme emotional response if she were to kill her own children instead. I think it's very important, actually it's absolutely integral, to always consider the fact that what we're reading is fiction, and that the author has to consider a lot of things, and that a lot of times character's actions need to be thought about in terms of plot, not just morality. In this sense, it does make a lot more sense why Medea did the things she did, and not just go and kill Jason instead.
DeleteI agree the Medea’s actions were in no way justified. There is no reason for her to kill her children. If she wanted to take revenge on Jason she could have done something to him instead of killing her innocent children and the princess.
DeleteJason greed was definitely the cause of Medea’s actions. If he really wanted to leave Medea, he should have had a different approach. He knows what she is capical of when she helped him with the Golden Fleece. Maybe if he had a different approach she would not have been so determined to seek revenge.
I think that both Jason and Creon could have prevented Medea’s actions. Both of them know that she has murdered for love, so did they think about what she could do to someone that she hates. If she wasn’t suddenly given the news that her husband was leaving her and then she was exiled, she could have had a different approach of dealing with it.
Why is Medea so upset with Jason?
ReplyDeleteMedea is angry with Jason because he deserted her and their children to marry another woman. She feels like she has done nothing to him to deserve this. Medea talks about how she has left her own country, her father, and how she has killed her brother all for Jason. She has created a whole new life for herself so that she can be with him in Corinth. Medea also says that she saved Jasons life. She can't understand why her husband would leave her after all that she has done for him. Not only has she left him, but he has left her for another woman which makes Medea jealous.
How does Jason justify leaving Medea and their two sons?
Jason begins his defense by saying that Medea did not do as much for him as she claims, and that she is overestimating her favors to him. He says that he owes it to the goddess Aphrodite for saving his life because she and the god erros were the ones responsible for making Medea fall in love with him. Jason continues on to say that Medea got more out of their marriage than she admits, such as living a greek life instead of a barbaric life. Jason says that he is not marrying another woman for selfish reasons, but that he is doing it with Medea and his sons in mind. He says that if he marries the kings daughter then he can unite their families and his children with Medea will also be able to prosper because their new siblings will be part of the royal family.
How does Medea "solve" her problems with Jason?
Jason comes to Medea after he finds out that she and their sons have been exiled by King Creon due to the fact that Medea had been saying bad things about the royal family. Medea and Jason argue about their separation and Medea makes it blatantly obvious that she is angry with Jason. Late on, Medea asks Jason to come back so she can talk to him. Medea talks to Jason and apologizes for being so angry. She tells him she was wrong and that she should have supported his decision. All of this was a lie. Medea is not sorry for how she feels, she is only setting Jason up for a lifetime of sadness. Medea then calls her children out and tells them to bring gifts to Jasons new wife so that she might convince her father to let them stay even though their mother is exiled out of the country. The children bring the gifts to the new wife. Jasons new wife accepts, but then is struck by the poison that has been put on the gifts by Medea. Jasons wife dies a horrific death. When her father, King Creon, finds his daughter he foolishly throws himself on her only to die as well. Jason goes to Medeas house shortly after she kills his new wife. He finds out that Medea has killed their two sons, only to hurt him. Medea then appears in a flying chariot and tells Jason that she has killed their two sons because she wanted him to suffer. His whole life has now been ruined. He has nobody left and nobody to carry on his name.
I agree with your reasons for Medea being so angry with Jason. She gave up so much for him and in the end he left her in a foreign land with two sons, while he runs off with the princess. Not only was Medea angry with Jason because he was leaving her, but he did not even tell her until after he had already married the princess.
DeleteThe excuses Jason made for leaving Medea were simply that, excuses, and Jason used Medea to get what he wanted and discarded her as soon as he was finished. One of Jason's justifications that was mentioned was that he would be giving his sons a better life by giving them siblings in the royal family. But I can't help but wonder how is having a royal sibling going to help the boys at all, I do not recal any mention of the boys getting a share of the wealth of their father or their royal siblings. Therefore Jason's justification is flawed in this.
Medea solution to her problem with Jason can also be interpreted simply as a desire for vengance. Everything Medea does is out of her need to get revenge on Jason for his betrayal. She wants to hurt Jason for what he did and she goes so far to accomplish this that she kills his wife, the king, and their children. I think all this is more than simply solving a problem, to me solving Medea's problem would be killing Jason. But what she did goes way beyond that.
At the tragic end of the play, Medea murders the Corinthian princess, the king and her own children for her revenge. In mourning, Jason cries out "My sons, mine own" and Medea responds "Not thine, but mine".
ReplyDelete{I should stress here that I'm am not condoning child murder and am staunchly opposed to people murdering anyone, especially children)
But what does that mean especially in context of a deeply patriarchal society that sees women as good for only having (male) children. Medea compares childbirth to being braver than fighting on the frontlines - after all, women did (and still do) die in childbirth.
In the context of a patriarchy, children are seen as belonging to the father more than to the mother. Medea is the barbarian princess in a deeply xenophobic Greece. She was not quite as much as a prize as the Golden Fleece but certainly -was- a prize to the civilized Greek Jason.
Emma Jean Liberman
In the play Medea, I feel as though Medea is portrayed as a strong (psychotic) woman. She is not submissive to her husband and does not support his decision when she knows that he is wrong. I find it extremely interesting that when Jason says to Medea "my sons, mine own" Medea replies with "not thine, but mine" especially since she had mentioned the pain of childbirth in comparison with being in battle three times. From what I gathered, Medea feels like she owns her children since she gave birth to them, and in a patriarchal society this was not the norm. In this play, Medea shows that she was a very opinionated woman who did what she wanted and didn't answer to anyone except the gods.
DeleteI really like this response and completely agree with it. I think people get too caught up in the fact that she murdered her children to see the bigger picture. Not only did she want to cause him harm, but she wanted to show him not only what she had given him but what she could take away. She wanted to show him that she could not just be used to give him sons and then tossed away when he found someone wealthier.
DeleteI think that definently the point you made is the reason Medea kills her children. The sons really aren't mentioned a lot in the play other than when Medea speaks of using them or hurting them, so the audience is completely prepared for their deaths and the son characters are not played up in a way that an audience could become attached to the character so it really shouldn't have come as a shock when Medea killed them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDenis Jekić
Delete"In mourning, Jason cries out 'My sons, mine own' and Medea responds 'Not thine, but mine'."
Excellent usage of the quote to show how Medea feels about all of the events that had occurred in total and especially how strongly she felt about her position and her views about society and life at the time that the play takes place.
In response to the above comment though: I do not believe that the quote is trying to show a Medea who is stubborn and one who believes she owns her children in a way in which they appear to be her property rather than Jason's. This quote in my opinion is a perfect example of the immense and almost never-ending ability to use self-sacrifice and to fight for a belief which is viewed as completely negative by everyone else surrounding Medea (all the men, basically). It is a testament to how far this woman was willing to go for what she believed in and what she was fighting for. She loves these children, no doubt about it. However, she views them as something that she is willing to sacrifice for the long-term and possible future goal that could be brought by the fight that she persists on following through. It is a sacrifice that must be made for the (unfortunately unlikely) fight of Medea, her position in society, and in general everyone else's position in society (mainly the females). She knows that in this patriarchal society that she stands no chance in ever being heard, let alone seen. What better (not condoning murder, but rather viewing the large scheme of the events unfolding within the story) way to shock society and the men who silence her than taking away something that is important to Jason, the man and father, and something that others view as important, the birth of male children? She's willing to sacrifice her loved ones multiple times for the ideas that she believes in. This shows more strength on her part than any man can provide during a war or any other activity viewed as something only men can do. She is fighting for growth, while everyone else is in it for selfish reasons or glory.
EDIT: In response to the first comment, not the second.
I agree with this response. I think that throughout the whole play Medea showed a type of rebellion to the patriarchal society she lived in. When Medea addresses a man in the story she speaks to them in a manner that says they are not above her.
DeleteWhen Medea killed her children she proved that she had the power to take away that which society said belonged to the father. Medea refused to give in to the rules of patriarchal society and when Jason crossed the line with her she lashed out in a way few other women of that society would.
How are women portrayed in Medea?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the play itself is called Medea instead of Jason shows that the emphasis is on Medea even though she is a woman. At the beginning the audience feels sorry for Medea. She has saved Jason’s life and helped him get the Golden Fleece and now he has betrayed her for Creon’s daughter. Unlike the normal weak image of a woman Medea doesn’t go on crying throughout the whole play. She is distraught at first yelling out to the stage but later she decides to take her revenge on Jason. Many times throughout the play women are depicted negatively. One example is when Jason says “If only children could be got some other way, Without the female sex! If women didn’t exist, Human life would be rid of all its miseries.” (line 573-5) Even Medea states “We were born women- useless for honest purposes, But in all kinds of evil skilled practitioners.” (line 412-413) Along with these examples though we see the strength of women when Medea says “We wives are forced to look To one man only. And, they tell us, we at home Live free from danger, they go out to battle: fools! I’d rather stand three times in the front line than bear One child.” (lines 247-50)I would say for most of the play though the emphasis is that women are weak. Medea says “A woman’s weak and timid in most matters.” (line 260) and Jason believes that his new bride will yield to him and do as he asks even without Medea’s gifts. Woman are shown as inferior and are easily overcome by sexual jealousy. By the end the audience sees the crazy side of Medea and no longer have so much pity for her.
Are Jason’s actions justifiable? Is it better to be rich?
Jason says he wanted to marry Creon’s daughter in order to not be poor and give his sons the honor they deserve. “To be rich and powerful brings no blessing; Only more utterly Is the prosperous house destroyed, when the gods are angry.” (Line 127-9)Jason wanted to become rich and powerful and in the process everything is destroyed. His new wife is murdered along with his two sons by Medea, who he claims he still loves. He might have been better off just living his life as Jason who retrieved the Golden Fleece and shouldn’t have looked for any more power. It is because of his greediness that his family is destroyed and he is left to suffer. His sons die all because he was trying to give them a better life. Perhaps it was the gods that created this fate because Jason had done wrong by trying to become rich.
What is the importance of children in Medea?
Medea states “Even after I had borne you sons! If you had still Been childless I could have pardoned you for hankering After this new marriage.” (line 490-2) Having a legacy such as a son is so important that it’s a justification to leave your wife if she can’t provide you with children. Aegeus is so distraught because he can’t have children. He agrees to protect Medea partly because she promised him that he “shall beget children.” Children are so important to him that he’s willing to help Medea. The chorus talks about childless people and how they “have no means of knowing whether children are A blessing or a burden.” (line 1093-5) They then go on to say that people with children are always worried and anxious and “they can never know whether all their toll Is spent for worthy or worthless children.” (line 1102-3) Medea spent all that time raising her children and went through the pain of giving them life and now she has to kill them to get revenge. It was “All was for nothing, then- these years of rearing you, My care, my aching weariness, and the wild pains When you were born. Oh, yes, I once built many hopes On you; imagined, pitifully, that you would care For my old age, and would yourselves wrap my dead body For burial. How people would envy me my sons!” Children play a key role throughout Medea. It’s Medea’s son that ultimately help her get revenge on Jason and create the biggest conflict of the plot. It seems insane to most people, such as the chorus, that Medea could ever kill her sons and yet at the end she does it.
Nicole Pfister
ReplyDeleteHow far would you go for revenge?
When Medea finds out that her husband Jason is leaving her for the Corinth princess, she is furious. She develops a strong hatred for him and wants revenge. She comes up with a plan to get back at Jason that involves killing the princess and their children. “Will you dare to kill your own flesh and blood, Medea? Yes, this will cause my husband to feel the most pain.” Medea thought that their children strongly resembled Jason and since her hatred for him was so strong, she ended up hating her children too. This is why she included them in her murderous plan. The fact that she murdered her children because her husband was going to marry someone else is absolutely absurd. The children were innocent and if she really wanted revenge she could have done something else besides murdering them.
Is there sympathy for Medea and are her actions justifiable?
Initially when the play began, I did feel some sympathy for Medea. I felt sorry for her. She loved Jason and gave up everything to help him find the Golden Fleece then he leaves her for the princess. So I could definitely understand her frustration and being upset with him. However, when she was planning her revenge that included murdering her children, I lost all sympathy for her. “For I shall kill my children. There is no one who will rescue them.” There is absolutely no circumstance where it is ok to murder children just to get back at your husband. Therefore her actions are in no way justifiable.
Is there sympathy for Jason?
Through out the whole play I did not feel sorry for Jason. He was greedy and uses women to improve his social status. He gets Medea to leave everything behind and she helped him find the Golden Fleece. After this they became well known. When he wanted to improve his status even more, he decides to leave Medea for the Corinth princess. Therefore, he is greedy and cares more about his status than his family. However, I showed a little sympathy for him when he found out that his children were murdered. “You had the heart to take the sword to your own children to whom you gave birth, and you have left me childless and devastated.” After knowing how Medea will do anything to get what she wants, he probably should have made sure his children and his new wife were better protected. Therefore, I was only sympathetic for Jason when he found out his children were murdered.
I believe that there is sympathy for both Jason and Medea, although this sympathy rarely overlaps. At the beginning of the play, it was easy to sympathize with Medea; she had just been left by her husband, who she sacrificed much for, and was told that she was to be exiled from her country. Her misery at the time was completely understandable, as was her hatred of Jason. However, as the play progressed and her intentions to commit infanticide became clear, it became much harder to find sympathy for Medea, and much easier to find sympathy for Jason. While I believe that it would be incorrect to call either of the two the protagonist of the play, it is my personal opinion that Medea could be considered the play's antagonist, given her extreme and cruel actions.
DeleteI agree that what Medea did was insane. They were completely innocent but I do think that it might have been one of the best ways to get revenge on Jason. I mean what better way to hurt someone than to kill their children. When you take into account that they were his only children and were sons makes it an even bigger deal. After killing his bride he has no hope there for better off children and the sons that he had to carry on his name are now gone. Jason is left completely alone. You can’t get a better revenge than that.
DeleteI also felt pity/sympathy for Medea in the beginning. She helped Jason out with getting the Golden Fleece and even killed her brother in order to help him and then he ends up leaving her for a princess. My sympathy waned when she decided that murdering her children would be the best solution. She should have just left with them and made a better life without Jason. I feel that on some level Medea’s actions were justifiable. They certainly would have hurt Jason which was the whole point. She looked at her children more as pawns than as human beings which isn’t right.
I think Jason got what was coming to him. He couldn’t have expected that Medea would be fine with him marrying someone else just to get rich and powerful. He should have known that Medea would be upset and possibly try to kill the princess. There is a little sympathy that his children are dead but he is the main cause of that.
I agree with you that sympathy transfers from Medea to Jason throughout the play. Overall, I think that Medea ends up being the true antagonist in the play, as opposed to Jason. Jason's actions were unjustifiable but murdering one's own children is a far greater crime. It is common for certain audiences to support a quest for revenge during a work of fiction; in this case Medea had every right to feel hurt and seek revenge. If she had only murdered Jason's new bride or Jason himself, I don't think I would lose as much sympathy for Medea. Murdering innocent children is hardly fair punishment for being cheated on and betrayed. I think it can be argued that the children being murdered at the end implies that Medea is the antagonist in the play. She goes from being rightfully upset to becoming mad and murderous. I can't imagine a worse pain for a parent than seeing their children murdered. Jason certainly feels the same way. On the other hand, Medea seems to think that Jason's betrayal is worse. She kills her children solely to anger Jason. I don't think Medea can be categorized as a good mother at all if getting revenge on Jason is more important to her than her than the lives of her children.
DeleteHow should a reader feel about Madea?
ReplyDeleteThis is the most important consideration for any reader of the play, it allows the audience to take into consideration what Madea is going through and empathize with her. Madea has suffered a horrible betrayal from Jason at the beginning of the play; he has brought her from her homeland and had two children with her before he left her for another woman. Madea has been put in a situation in which she has no options, she has left her homeland and family for a man who has now abandoned her. When the King banishes her it is a situation that will most likely lead to her death because she is a woman with no family or husband to rely on. How much the audience empathizes with Madea is also important when the conclusion comes and we find that she has not only killed the woman who married her husband and the King, but also has killed her own children to exact revenge on Jason. Will the audience view Madea as a villain who could not control her rage and committed the worst crime possible, or is she an early feminist hero who refused to be used and abandoned by her husband. Obviously, killing her own children makes her an unsympathetic character, but Greek mythology is filled with fathers consuming children and sons overthrowing fathers for power and justice. This may suggest Madea was really an extremely early portrayal of a strong woman who was wronged by a greedy husband and went to great lengths to exact revenge.
What is the difference between the understanding of the modern audience and the audience of Euripides time?
One question I had when reading this text was how the audience would have understood this play during Euripides time. Clearly, the mindset and morals of people in modern America will be very different compared to the mindset and morals of ancient Greek people. One example would be the lines around 550 when Jason states that Madea should be thankful that he brought her from a barbaric land to the civilized Greece and this was enough for her to be thankful for even though he left their marriage for another woman. When the modern American hears this statement they would think that Jason is an ignorant and unfaithful man who would abandon his family for a better wife. It would be hard to know for sure how the average Greek would feel about this action, would they feel that this was justified, or would they feel that this was the action of a greedy scoundrel. Ancient Greece did feel superior to the surrounding areas that they labeled as uncivilized and barbaric, also at this time ensuring wealth and safety for yourself by marrying royalty may have seemed like the most intelligent and logical move. Considering not only the text of ancient civilizations but also the culture and society of ancient civilizations is important.
How are women portrayed in this text and what can the reader assume from this portrayal?
From the beginning of this play a woman’s obedience to her husband is emphasized as important in marriage, implying that men are the stronger more important sex and that women should be secondary to their husbands. Madea does challenge this notion when she states in the part around line 250 that she would rather fight in the front lines of battle than bear children. This essentially takes the accepted stereotype that men doing battle is more important and noble than anything a woman does and rejects it completely stating that childbirth is more difficult as well as more important. She continues in the next paragraph that women stay away from battle, but when their marriage is threatened or betrayed women will become angrier than any warrior. So really this text gives two sides of an argument, one that women should ultimately be obedient to men, another that women have the right to exact revenge when their marriage is threatened.
I liked the parallel drawn at the end of the first statement about how many male Greek gods consumed their offspring. It does seem like Medea follows in their footsteps and is depicted as a man in a women's body for that time period. But biologically speaking it is much easier for males to kill their offspring than it is for females. Although it is the fathers own genetics passing through to his child, the mother invests much more energy into the offspring endangering her own health to conceive. Infant mortality was very high before modern medicine and even mothers were significantly more challenged to survive the birthing process. In this way I believe Medea is actually insane and is the antagonist. It is interesting to think about how the play was received by the audience in Ancient Greece although we can draw parallels there could be other significant differences in culture that change their perspective completely.
DeleteI agree with all the responses to the questions. There are many ways in which people can interpret this play. I believe the way people interpret this play has a lot to do with their background or time period. As stated in the second question, people in modern times would think of Jason as a jerk for leaving Medea, where as in Euripides times they might not see anything wrong with it.
DeleteAlec Wolsiefer
ReplyDeleteHum 1
Blog Post #4
2/12/2013
Medea
I liked reading Medea much more than either the Qur’ran or the Bible. It was much easier to read and follow the storyline, it doesn’t skip around and the footnotes are actually useful. The play is very interesting and different than many other plays of its time in having a female lead character. What is even more interesting is the question of whether she is the protagonist or antagonist.
I personally think Medea is the antagonist, not to say that Jason is the protagonist for he is equally to blame for the situation. The first lines we here from Medea are her disembodied voice calling out her woes and crying. This gives an eeiry feeling and makes you think about Medea as an unpleasant character right off the bat. We learn of her struggles with Jason and how he plans to marry another woman for power. Here Jason is in the wrong and despite the excuses he uses later to attempt to reason with her, Medea sees right through them. You can tell that she is desperate and angry when she calls upon the gods to right the injustices but they do not answer. This is when Medea takes it upon herself to plot against Jason, his new wife and King Creon.
Medea is right to want revenge but she takes it to far when she involves her children. They are innocent yet she hates them because of their connection to Jason, Medea sees him in them and it drives her mad. This is where she becomes an antagonist, when she will do anything just to get revenge.
I agree with your statement that Madea is difficult to classify as a character, clearly she is difficult to call a protagonist considering she murdered her own children, although I think she is a tragic protagonist. she is clearly the individual in the story that the audience can empathize with in the beginning and all members of the audience can think of being betrayed. After leaving her home and bearing Jason two children Madea was abandoned in her new home. This makes her the protagonist trying to solve her personal issues and find safety in the Greek world. Madea becomes an unsympathetic character when murder becomes her method of revenge and once she kills her own sons the character completely loses the audience. But, if she is the antagonist at this point then who becomes the protagonist? If it is Jason that means the protagonist is a man who left his wife and children to marry royalty. Really this is a tragic story of revenge taken too far, and the result of unfaithful husbands.
DeleteYou pose a great question! Which role does Medea fill? Protagonist or antagonist? I personally see her as both. We see her struggle and her pain. We see everything from this woman's viewpoint. We feel for her. At least I did. In this sense, she would be the protagonist. However, when she starts plotting and making horrible choices, she also becomes the antagonist, and someone we hate. I agree with all of your points about Medea being the antagonist, but keep in mind that at first, we see Jason as the bad guy, treating her unfairly, and we feel for her. (By saying "we" I actually speak for myself).
DeleteOne of the interesting parts about this story is that there is no clear antagonist and there is no clear protagonist. I like to think that both Jason and Medea are both antagonists. They both have done horrible things, such as adultery and murder, yet I find it difficult to side with either one of them. It is easier to side with Medea in the beginning but by the end I see her as a crazed child killer. I also don't believe that killing her children was her only option, she could have spared them. No character in this play is a saint.
DeleteI think, just like most things in life, this isn’t all cut and dry. Both Jason and Medea are in the wrong at some points. When Medea kills her children and the King and his daughter, and when Jason leaves Medea to better himself. In most stories, the character isn’t perfect, and I think we see this here too. Medea goes back and forth on her decision to kill her children, and Jason is still willing to support Medea and her children (before she went all crazy). I think the role of Protagonist and antagonist fluctuates between the two of them.
DeleteI agree with what you said about this being much more interesting and easier to understand than The Bible and Qur'an. I found myself actually enjoying reading it and it was almost like I was at the actual play. I had a love/hate relationship for Medea. I felt in a way she was both the protagonist and the antagonist. I pitied her when reading about how hurt she was after Jason left her for another woman, a wealthier woman at that. I did feel bad seeing her in so much pain, but when it came to her talking about killing her own children, I very much disliked her and considered her a very bad person. What kind of mother would do that to her children? That's screwed up in any time period. She is right to want revenge, like you said, but revenge does not mean murdering your own flesh and blood. These poor children never did anything to deserve this. They were born and then murdered because of who their father was. It's just wrong is so many ways.
DeleteWho is the Chorus in the play and what is the role of the Chorus?
ReplyDeleteThe chorus represents the women of Corinth. They have an important role in this play because they try to fill in the blanks when the audience needs more information. They also set the stage for the next scene of events or dialogue between two people. Sometimes they are just talking to the audience but sometimes they do interact with certain characters one on one. The Chorus likes to comment on actions and is the voice of reason or common sense.
Why does Jason think that he is doing the right thing by leaving?
Jason thinks that he has put Medea in a good situation. She used to be a uncivilized barbarian witch and he helped her earn her place in Greece. She now has her own home to raise her children and all the wonders she can possibly want, in his mind. Also, he thinks he has pushed Medea to her limits and needs to move on to something better than will get him further up in society, that is why he goes off with the princess. He can’t let his only chance to royalty run away from him.
Medea – a crazy witch or a just woman trying to get by in society?
By only reading half of this story I don’t have the juicy details that are part of the finale to this play. However, by critical thinking I can figure out what happens either way. Were her actions of killing her children and husband the right thing to do? Well in her situation she started out as a power hog, she wanted to show the world she lived in that women can take control of their own lives that they don’t have to follow the traditional society of getting married and having babies and being a stay home mom. She didn’t want that life at all. So by starting out as a barbarian and then becoming this ruthless killer I think she had the killer inside her all along and was just waiting for the chance to show the world. She was definitely a power player but in this time woman usually did as they were told by their husbands, it is nice to see someone fight back towards the man. Other woman should follow in her footsteps just not murder their families they should find other actions equally powerful that show their thoughts on society.
I agree with the points you made in the first two questions but I disagree with the third statement. First off I don't think she started off as a barbarian, that's just the xenophobic view of Jason being portrayed in the bool. She is very clever and that particular characteristic is mentioned time and time again in the play. We know that she is ruthless from the beginning when the nurse gives her speech filling us in on the backstory, in particular the part where she mentions that she killed her brother for Jason. This does seem harsh but she is just the type of person who would do anything for someone she loves. This isn't a testament from what culture she was brought up in, it's more of a statement of her character. Her actions later are extreme and at no point in the play does anyone act logically, but hey if nothing crazy happened it wouldn't be fun to read or watch.
DeleteI agree that the chorus plays an important role in the play. It’s the voice of reason and helps the audience understand certain parts. The chorus is horrified when Medea is going to kill her children and voices that concern but it ultimately doesn’t change the outcome.
DeleteI do think that Jason thinks he has helped Medea. He’s brought her to a more civilized place and away from her barbican homeland. He thinks that he is helping her by marrying the princess. He will gain riches and power and in turn that will make his sons more powerful. This would be beneficial to Medea. But that’s not the way Medea wants it and he should have realized that.
I agree that Medea shows how powerful women can be. She goes against the traditional role of women and fights back. She’s not afraid to do whatever she wants. She kills her brother, saves Jason, and kills the king, princess and her sons. She’s in no way weak, she’s a strong fighter. There’s some debate on whether these things were the right thing to do but she didn’t just idly stand by. She took action and did something that most women probably wouldn’t have done. She didn’t just leave when Creon told her to, she formulated a plan and took her revenge.
The Chorus is definitely the voice of common sense in this play, but after our discussion in class today I've begun to question whether or not Euripides actually likes common sense. The Chorus, comprised of the combined women of Corinth, spends the second half of the play chastising Medea and begging her not to kill her children, making the chorus the voice of traditional morality in the play. This also puts the Chorus in opposition to the protagonist of the play. I've come to believe that Medea is not really a morality tale, since Medea is our hero, yet she does what could be considered immoral things. Rather, the play is an empowerment fantasy for women. In that context, that would place the Chorus in the position of trying to hold back Medea from obtaining the ultimate power over her condescending husband. Essentially, the Chorus represents all the women who would advocate staying in their traditional role as care takers of children, where as Medea is the transcendent woman who chooses to throw off the shackles of patriarchy by doing the opposite of what is expected of her by society and murdering the children she is supposed to protect and raise, even if this is painful for her.
DeleteThe chorus plays a very important part in this play. I agree that they do help to fill in the gaps and they sometimes they are agreeable to the characters feelings, like when they are sympathetic to Medea about her feelings of anger towards Jason.
DeleteI agree with the second statement of Jason taking her as far as she could get him. Jason only serves Jason and whenever there is a better chance for him, he will surely take it. He let Medea ostracize herself from her people so he could gain fame and now he says the next ladder up and will not stay on a lower level.
I don’t believe Medea was setting an example for other woman, I believe that she was just trying to carry out her own vengeance. I agree that women should follow in her footsteps, besides the murdering, and craziness.
What is Euripides trying to do?
ReplyDeleteDuring the first half of “Medea,” Euripides uses Medea to announce the difficulties women are faced with and the injustices they encounter in Ancient Greece. Euripides references the forced divorces that men can enact against their wives and the common attitude that wives are property. Forcing a reader to understand this, Euripides comes off as a feminist. He is acknowledging the inequality that his contemporary female Greeks face and he is doing this publicly in a play seen by his fellow citizens.
Euripides also spends time comparing Jason to the hero he is supposed to be. Jason began the mess by divorcing Medea after using her powers to get the Golden Fleece, she killed her own brother, and then Medea tricked a man's daughters into killing their father. She did all of this for Jason because she loved him. This divorce makes Jason seem like a complete jerk and the arguments that he wanted to better support his children and create a better life for them seem false considering how his actions seem to only help himself.
The second half of the play show Medea's indecisiveness and her continued mental breakdown. It was easily seen in Medea's first lines in the play that she was contemplating suicide with her screaming, “I wish I could die!......Oh my children, cursed children of a hateful mother— may you die with your father,(Euripides line 97, 112)” and continuing with wishing her own children dead. It's unpleasant for anyone wishing the death on children, but Medea's rage makes sense for what she's gone through and I didn't expect that rage to actually come to fruition.
Her murder of the King, his daughter, and her own children were done to injure Jason. She spit in her own face and then continued to speak in an illusion of grandeur about her true love for her children and blames the entire situation on Jason telling him, “What god or spirit listens to you, a man who doesn't keep his promises, a man who deceives and lies to strangers? (Euripides line 1440)” Euripides concentrates on Medea's cunning and wickedness during the second half of the play, and uses this to explain that the individual, not the events or injustice they face, is responsible for their own actions.
I agree that Euripides does come off as a feminist as well. By revealing to the audience that women have unequal rights in the first half of the story, and that men can throw around woman like a piece of meat if they want to shows this. Women used to not voice their opinions at all back in Ancient Greece and listened to whatever their husbands told them to do. Medea however completely changes this view point of woman. She wants to show the world her views and I think she wants to show other woman that they don’t have to stand for this inequality, and that they should do something about it like she has done. I wouldn’t go as far as she did and kill her own children and the hierarchal leaders, but she made her point either way. Medea did show indecisiveness in how she is going to act as seen on page 78. But in the end, she decides to go through with killing her children and forcing the blame on Jason and his actions.
DeleteMichael Gole
ReplyDeleteHumn 220
Blog Entry 4
Is Medea a proto feminist text?
Several times in the text, it seems as though the play is taking a misogynistic point of view. The text associates women with witchcraft, and depicts women overall as cunning, conniving, and scheming. However, the character of Medea is portrayed in such a way that it could be fairly easy to argue that the Medea is overall a feminist work. I think the simple fact that the main character is female is a testament to this. Medea is a prime example of an independent female character with a strong will, traits that are admirable despite her terrible actions. It is possible that Euripides wrote Medea with proto feminist intentions, but fell victim to the general misogyny of the time.
Who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist?
It is difficult to identify whether Jason or Medea is the antagonist of the play. In the beginning of the play, it is easy to take the side of Medea, who was left by her husband for a more powerful woman. However, as the play goes along, Jason is allowed to explain his motives. For some, this may paint him in a more favorable light. Others will still see him as selfish. While I personally do not believe that Jason is ever the protagonist of the play, I believe that Medea, rather than Jason, is the play’s antagonist. While it is undeniable that Jason wronged Medea, the actions that she took in extracting her revenge were unjustifiable.
What is the role of the Nurse?
The Nurse serves an interesting purpose in the play. While some would argue that she could fairly easily be replaced by the Chorus had Euripides chosen, the background offered by the Nurse is critical in our understanding of Medea. Her exposition at the opening of the play is an invaluable view of the types of people the characters of Jason and Medea are. Along with this, the Nurse offers background information on how Jason and Medea came to be together and in Corinth. While this exposition could easily be offered by the Chorus, I believe that her emotions and feelings towards the characters she describes are a more valuable point of view than that which the Chorus would have offered.
Is Medea a proto feminist text?
DeleteMedea is a strong character. She is an individual, which goes against what females were supposed to be like during that time period. This view of her actions being equal to a man is false for my view of feminism today, but Euripides allows her to talk and gives her actions so I do believe it is protofeminist.
Who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist?
I agree with your viewpoint of Medea being the antagonist because she is the obvious outsider whose viewpoints do not match the general views of Greek society. Medea's actions are evil, but then there are no real protagonists in the story to counterbalance her evil. The closest we come to is the chorus, who are shouting their disagreement with Medea's actions, but as women they do nothing.
What is the role of the nurse?
I feel like the nurse is only around to give a small history of the characters and act as a comfort for the nurse. The nurse is the voice of reason and is basically ignored by the other characters.
My response is in regard to the question of who is really the protagonist/antagonist in this work. I felt that this play was unique in that it switched the roles in the middle of the plot, which is not something I encounter frequently in literature. Generally, I understand a protagonist to be someone I side with throughout the events they experience. When they are in peril I hope for their success, and when they are successful I feel some of their positive emotion. An antagonist, then, is someone I am always rooting against, someone who is constantly trying to break down the character that I feel should ultimately be successful. This work plays with those assumptions and, while only 1400 lines long, is quite successful at it. This brings into light the concept of Catharsis. In this Greek tragedy as well as others I have read, protagonist vs. antagonist is rarely this simple. This is the work of Catharsis in that the goal is to not walk away feeling happy. Catharsis is an emotional roller coaster of sorts that can often leave the audience with a bitter taste at the end of a production. The end result is a feeling of emotion the audience might not typically have, or one that society would not look positively on.
DeleteKelly Gilbert
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
Professor B. Akmen
2/12/13
Medea 1st Half
Reading the first half of this play was very enjoyable to me. I found myself very interested in the story and wanting to read more and more. Being a female myself, I felt very sympathetic to Medea and her situation. I probably would not have acted as psychotic as she did, but I definitely would’ve complained for a long time, as she did. It really hurts when your partner leaves you for someone else, especially in her situation. She went out of her way for him; she worked so hard and went against her own family for him.
I find Jason to be a complete jerk. I think that he completely used her for The Golden Fleece and then left her because he didn’t want her anymore. I don’t believe for one second that he only left her because he was thinking of his children and wanted them to have a better life and not to live in poverty. A person can’t just force their self into a relationship and get married like he did just for their children. He obviously must’ve loved her. I really felt bad for Medea, however, she may have gone a little too far with some of the things she said, especially about not caring if her children died, “Oh my children, cursed children of a hateful mother—may you die with your father, all his house, may it all perish, crash down in ruins.” This just made me think she was crazy, to be completely honest. I realize her heart was broken and the man she loved more than anything had left her for a wealthier woman, but that’s no excuse to say you wouldn’t mind if your children died. That was pretty extreme.
I also thought it was quite extreme how Medea wanted to poison her husband, his new wife and Creon. A broken heart is almost the worst thing that can happen to a person but murder is never the answer. It will only make things worse for Medea. I can't judge Medea too much, however, because I can't begin to understand how she must've felt.
I also can understand Medea's distress, and I can also agree that despite this distress, her actions were inexcusable and extreme. The sacrifices she made for Jason warranted much better treatment than he gave her.
DeleteWhile I agree that Jason is definitely a "bad guy" and not the protagonist of the story, I think he is very clearly also not the antagonist. I believe that role is filled by Medea, at least after her murderous actions. While one can start the play with feelings of empathy for Medea, it is hard to make excuses for her by the end of the play given the actions that she takes.
Mark Sledziewski
ReplyDeleteMedea Entry
Is Medea representative of Greek women?
No, I don’t think she is. When Euripides wrote the play, he was one of the pioneers of having women in plays, and I think he was off in capturing the woman psyche. Women of ancient Greek times were seen, not heard. They weren’t overtly talking against their husbands, or to any man. They were expected to be submissive and obedient. But in Medea, we find that this is not the case. Medea feels wounded by her husband. But, instead of simply accepting this situation, like you would think a Greek woman would, she asserts her own power. When the King wants to banish her, she goes right ahead and argues with him, even openly going against his word. She is given the right to speak as a man would. Even though if this were really the case, I’m sure she would’ve been sentenced to death. These things are more the characteristics of a man that a woman. I think that the character is a man in a woman’s body.
Is this play proto-feminist?
I think it can be interpreted like that if you’re looking at the right thing, it is. Reading above, those examples could easily be taken as Medea being ahead of her time, asserting herself at the same level of the males in the play. If you look at everything she says she has done for Jason, it is also leaning towards the strong, independent woman of today. It defiantly voids the normal gender roles that we would expect to see in Greece, and I think this can be interpreted as such.
Did Medea overact?
I’d say so. She killed her children. She also refused help from Jason, even though he basically said, that if she apologized to the king, she’d be free to stay in his country. She also won’t listen to reason at all, and comes up with an elaborate plan to kill people.
I do agree with your first paragraph. I find that Euripides went against the idea of how women were and how they were supposed to act back in this day and time. Medea was certainly not he typical Green woman. I find it interesting that he chose to do this though, because I think it makes the story so much better. Having a woman like Medea act the way she did and put on such a scene really brought drama to this play because this was not at all how women were expected to act then. I think it really makes her stick out and seem very strong and risky. Obviously it's not very realistic since this isn't how women behaved and if any woman were to behave in this manor, they would've been punished severely, but in movies or plays, it ruins the feeling when you try to analyze what's going on if it doesn't seem realistic. It's good drama and that's what people like. I also did agree that Medea did overact. She went over the deep end when she murdered her children. She had definitely snapped. Also, how could she not have accepted help from Jason? She seems to have only made things worse for herself.
DeleteI can see where you are coming from with your interpretations of the play when looking at it with the mindset of it being a statement of either feminism or misogyny. But I think we should look at it through the lens of xenophobia. By looking at it through this point of view, the play does not seem as confusing as we see it, not as divided in it's meanings. Medea throughout the play said things that we all questioned, whether it was in the beginning of the play with her hating her life and her children, or towards the end, where she kills most of the royal family, and her own children. By taking this lens, we can see a more clear picture of what Euripides meant fo the play to do. He wanted Greeks portrayed as the kind people that they were to believe they were, and outsiders as barbarians and murderers. Even the women in the barbaric society could stoop down to such levels of evil.
DeleteKelsey Davidson
ReplyDeleteHow are Jason’s actions justified?
In the play, most people would describe Jason as greedy, selfish and condescending. Jason uses Medea to escape from poverty and gain success. All Medea’s efforts to help Jason only lead to the man she loves leaving her and their children for a woman who is richer and more successful than Medea. Jason leaves Medea for the king’s daughter. In doing this, Jason believes he is closer to becoming king. Jason justifies his actions to Medea in hope of her forgiving him. He left Medea in order to benefit his children and Medea herself, so he claims. Personally, I believe that Jason was just trying to protect himself and didn’t really care about Medea and his children. I think Jason was only giving Medea what she wanted to hear. Jason is very good at getting what he wants and is not afraid to go the lengths.
Is the Chorus really the voice of reason?
To a certain extent, I believe the Chorus is the voice of reason however, there were points within the play in which the Chorus agrees with the characters and takes sides. There was a part in the play in which Jason is expressing his plans and his thoughts and the Chorus agrees that Jason’s plans and ways of thinking are logical. I’m not sure that this qualifies the Chorus as the voice of reason or common sense. Although the Chorus fills in the blanks of the story that we might not get from the characters, it also provides the audience with an opinion, which in most cases is not the voice of reason, but a more persuasive voice in order to push the audience to take a certain side.
What is one of the messages of Euripides’ Medea?
When I was reading the first half of the play, my first reaction to Medea’s actions and the plot of the story was that Euripides was trying to demonstrate the power of women. I believe this story is very much about women and the things they are capable of. During his time, women were living during a patriarchy. When comparing Medea to a woman in today’s society, she seems crazy and out of sorts but in the context of a play made for entertainment, I believe that Medea embodies strength and determination.
I think that Jason does have a point to his justification of his actions. But at the same time, he promised himself to Medea in marriage. Now, I don’t know much about ancient Greek marriage, but normally when two people are married, it is for the betterment of both, and there’s a mutual consent to ride out everything, thick and thin. I think Jason’s actions aren’t justified because of this marriage. If he was on his own, the betterment of himself, regardless of anyone, would be the best thing for him.
DeleteAlso, I look at the chorus as a separate character. When we see chorus characters in a theater, we see them as a separate entity. The mood and outlook of the chorus changes depending on the main characters. I see them as a large child, being convinced by older kids of what they should do.
What is the role of foreigners in this society and why is it important to the Jason and Medea?
ReplyDeleteGreece is a society that uses slave labor, it constitutes slave labor to support society and these slaves are primarily from other countries. Exiles are also considered a foreigner and they are usually not welcomed with open arms by other places. Exile is a severe punishment and not one given lightly, it is a description that is synonymous of bad news. I wouldn't willingly invite a known criminal home if I didn't know their back story and probably even if I did.
What is Medea's life like?
Exile is very similar to the way women are treated in this Greek society. For women, they leave their family, and join another with very little chance of every feeling the same attachments to their birth home and have to take up an entirely new life. According to the Oeconomicus, women must take care of many of the manual labor of the family, weaving and sewing and they had more onorous duties than slaves, since they bear the responsibility of caring for the household. She was in an even more delicate situation from the average women because she had more power than most. She was from a powerful family and was a strong and capable woman in her own right. In the story, her role is at the same time empowering to women and shameful because Medea represents all that women wish they could have and all they can lose by having too much hubris and being too strong.
Why is Jason an acceptable man to the Greeks but unacceptable as a human-being?
Jason's accomplishments are due to Medea. Because of her he wins the golden fleece. He gets money, children, and a wife because of her. All of his blessings are from her efforts and her pain. Yet, when he chooses to abandon her for better pastures, he feels no shame and tries to explain his unexplainable actions. I can't imagine that he would act as he does and that the Greeks would feel sympathy with him. He is very much like the character Odysseus. He seems like a hero but at the same time is a icon for the very opposite. Odysseus goes on an epic journey but the fact the real hero is his wife and son at home is a baffling concept. Jason isn't worth the ground he stands on and Medea is brought down to his level and below it because of his betrayal of her and her absolute love for him.
I agree with your opinion about what Medea's life was life. I too think that she is very strong and powerful. She has the power and the traits necessary to a be a powerful woman in society. At times, I did think that she was crazy and psychotic however, from a feminist perspective, I think that she is very strong and doesn't let a man have control over her and do her any wrongs. I think it was because she wasn't the typical woman during this time; she didn't do manual labor for the family, weaving, sewing and slave jobs, that made her this strong character in literature. I do not believe that women today look to Medea and feel shameful, rather inspired. I feel as though women today can look to Medea and learn from her. Obviously, society today is much different than this time period however, a modern woman today may look at Medea and admire her strength to stand up for herself. There are absolutely things that women today can take away from the story of Medea in terms of what not to do in a given situation as well.
DeleteJason as a misogynist, Medea as a misandrist, and how the proto-feminist potential is destroyed by lack of wise judgment and morality.
ReplyDeleteIn Medea, Medea can be seen as a misandrist, Jason can be seen as a misogynistic and the proto-feminist actions of Medea are discredited because of her unjust and psychopathic actions that she takes in the play. Her actions did nothing but inhibit it's potential to be an example for women's rights in a time where vast majority of societies, especially Greek society, was patriarchal.
It is clearly a misogynistic play based on the actions and attitude of Jason. The first and most obvious one being that he marries a second wife (the princess of Corinth) while still married to Medea after all the things that Medea had done for Jason, including saving his life. This shows how little regard and respect Jason has for his wife and the concept of loyalty and honor of the union of marriage. Furthermore, in sections 670-680 (1) Jason makes the most blatant misogynistic comment in saying “But you women are so idiotic- you think everything is fine in bed, you have all you need, but if the sex is bad, then all the very best and finest things you make your enemies. What mortals need is some other way to get our children. There should be no female sex. With that, men be rid of all their troubles.” Jason basically reduces all women into base, carnal driven creatures who only care about sex. If that is not a misogynistic statement, then I don't know what is.
Medea to a degree is guilty of portraying the opposite sex as being inferior, and thus, acting as a misandrist. One example of this is when she says that “There's no justice in the eyes of mortal men” in section 250, making it out like all men are unjust and only women are capable of comprehending justice, and following through with it. As the story goes on though, we see that Medea's comprehension of what is just is not sound by any means.
Medea's lack of wise judgment and a sense of justice is what ends up being her undoing, and the undoing of the potential of this play for being a more positive promotion of feminism in a society of male domination. Medea from the very start acts like a crazy lady with all her screaming, her intolerance of her children, and her blood lust. Yes Medea is in a way a stand up lady during a time when women don't stand up all too often, so to speak, but she ends up standing up for some twisted stuff which only tarnishes her feminist stances. Surely her madness and injustices she wrought in the play at that time in Greek society were used by misogynists as an example of how women are corrupt and unjust, to further their misogynistic beliefs and stance. This makes one wonder why Euripides chose to play things out in this manner. Perhaps he himself was neither a misogynist or a feminist? Perhaps he was trying to show that women tend to be more emotional oriented at times, as Medea clearly was, and men as more rationally oriented, which Jason was as he was acting more on tactics to acquire wealth and status for his family and him than his emotions for any woman (and FYI, I AM NOT saying that women cannot be rational and men don't act on emotions at times, or that women cannot be as rational as a man, but I am using a generalization used many times in psychology which happens to be transpiring in this play; I think everyone can agree that in general the average woman is usually more emotional, and in touch with their emotions more than the average man).
1.https://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/euripides/medea.htm
I believe that the lack of common sense by these characters means that they cannot be seen as real people but just projections of real people. Which makes it so that there is no sense using them as an example of the society as a whole. I don't believe that Medea is a misogynistic example of how women are corrupt but an example of how a women are not. Medea is obviously what women could be if they wished but from the reaction this play had when it was introduced to Greek society, I would say they don't believe women are like Medea either.
DeleteI don't believe you can assume the play is misogynistic based on one of the characters being misogynistic. This character is condescending, and the chorus, which can be used to voice the author's opinion, tells him that he was wrong to leave Medea. Any misogynistic statements made by Jason were more than mitigated by the points about women's treatment in society made by Medea. Conversely, I don't think this play can conclusively be considered proto-feminist when the character making these points is a barbarian-witch who murders children. Whether or not one believes Medea was driven to murder by her feminist beliefs or because society pushed her to the brink is what determines the interpretation of the play, in my opinion.
DeleteXenophobia and Medea
ReplyDeleteMedea was brought to Greece by Jason after she helped retrieve the Golden Fleece and saved his life. For Jason, bringing back the princess of a foreign kingdom, can be almost seen in the context of ancient greek culture as a luxury. It wasn't common back in ancient Greece to travel to far away lands and bring back a woman from another land to make her your wife. This can be looked at as an interest in exoticism, similar to one bringing back the treasure from a far away land. Jason could have seen bringing back Medea, his barbarian witch princess bride, as an added object to his glory and treasures to show for his adventures. This however, to many of the Greek people, creates an uneasy or even fearful feeling toward someone who may be different than themselves.
The xenophobic ideas of the greeks can probably begin to be explained by the idea that in the ancient times much of the greek population never adventured or left their own islands or city-states. This could create an uncomfortable feeling to many citizens when they are exposed to people from foreign lands. Medea is explained in the beginning of the text by the Nurse as a "dangerous women." The way she is introduced to the audience already makes her seem different than the average woman of Greece. In ancient times, when this would have been performed, the opening lines of the Nurse would evoke the connotations that come with foreigners and barbarians in the minds of the Greek audience. So even when most people would feel bad for Medea and her misfortune, the Greek audience already might be against her. She could be seen as an anti-hero from the very beginning.
These xenophobic connotations are not immediately triggered when read by most 21st century readers. In present times, especially in America, we are exposed more often to people from other countries and cultures different than our own. It is not totally unheard of to bring back someone you fall in love with from another country or even continent in the 21st century. So without these connotations, we just see that she did help Jason, she is capable of dangerous things, but still show sympathy when hearing that her husband has left her and the children to live on their own.
Did the author, Euripides, write this knowing of the xenophobic culture of the Greeks? Did he intentionally write it so that the hero or anti-hero Medea is a victim of xenophobia throughout the play?
We can also connect the Greek xenophobic tendencies to a lot of the cultural traditions and accomplishments of ancient Greece, and a strong sense of nationalism that may come from that. The Greeks were considered one of the smartest cultures of antiquity having paved the way for various advancements in science, medicines, and especially mathematics and philosophy. They also had one of the strongest armed forces in the ancient world, with some of the best warriors, tactics, and weaponry throughout the various ages of the ancient world. They also had one of the biggest empires in the history of the world under Alexander the Great. Furthermore, they considered themselves much more civilized with their advanced forms of government, as the Athenians are credited as the creators of democracy. Such great advancements in ancient society as compared to other ancient societies, coupled with strong traditions of Greek pride, would definitely make the average Greek citizen very nationalistic, and thus, naturally weary of foreigners.
Delete
ReplyDeleteLiam Enright
Humn 220
2/12/13
-Medea: Misogynistic or Proto-Feminist?
When we discussed this question in class, it seems as though we looked at these two interpretations of Medea as being in opposition to each other, as if this were an either/or situation. I do not believe it is. I don’t think the designations of misogynist and proto-feminist are mutually exclusive, at least in the context of Medea, and in fact I believe misogyny and something approaching feminism are both on display in Euripides’ writing. There are definitely portions of the text that reflect Euripides’ progressive view of women, especially when he has Medea declare “They say that we have a safe life at home, whereas men must go to war. Nonsense! I had rather fight three battles than bear one child” (If the translation seems odd, it’s because I have an older edition of the play). The idea that a woman might not want to have children, that raising a family is not the sole ambition of every woman must have been unheard of and extremely progressive in 5th century BC Greece , when women weren’t even allowed to participate in theatre, hence Medea’s possible categorization as a proto-feminist play. However, even by using the term “proto-feminism” we’re acknowledging that what Euripides is getting at isn’t quite yet feminism; it’s almost-feminism. And what keeps it in the realm of almost-feminism are the unfortunate, backwards ideas about the essential nature of women that are on display in Medea. Medea herself, who had previously let loose a righteous lament of the hardships placed upon women, at one point states “by our mere nature we women are helpless for good, but adept at contriving all manner of wickedness.” So even though Eurpides posits women as being much more sympathetic and unjustly treated in Greek society than the average man may have, he still backslides and portrays women as creatures that are at their cores, conniving and troublesome. So even though Euripides is forward thinking for his time, a proto-feminist, he is simultaneously a misogynist, unable to fully leave behind his problematic socialized notions of women.
-How does Creon function in the text?
Our class discussion focused mostly on the characters of Medea and Jason, and how their characteristics and actions reflected on their respective sexes. But what of Creon? If Jason is a possible representation of the ugly, selfish, unthinking side of the male sex and its cruelty to women, how do Creon’s words and actions reflect on the totality of men in ancient Greek culture? It could be argued that Creon’s banishment of Medea and her children in the face of the blows she has already been dealt serves to reinforce the portrayal of men as obliviously cruel and condescending seen in Jason’s actions. When Creon states “I am the absolute judge of the case, and I shall not go back to my palace till I have cast you over the frontier of the land” to Medea, he comes off as unreasonably harsh and arrogant, a possible commentary on men in Greece at the time. However, Creon eventually compromises slightly and allows Medea one day to prepare for her exile, stating “my mind is not tyrannical enough; mercy has often been my undoing.” This could either be taken as a laughable attempt at mercy, giving a person a single day to prepare to be thrown out of their home along with their children, or it could be intended as a legitimately merciful gesture, showing the benevolent side of men. Since Creon is later killed, his words could even be seen as prophetic; he should have, in fact, been sterner and cast out Medea the conniving woman when he intended to, as this way he would have survived.
One question was on my mind from the beginning of the play: was Medea meant to be evil? Based on the literature I’m familiar with from the time period, witches weren’t usually positive influences on people. She is angry, pathetic, and worst of all; she isn't Greek (at least, the original audience would think). The way in which she enacts her revenge involves deceit and kills many innocent people, leaving alive the one person might have deserved some form of retribution. This all adds up to an inevitable conclusion: Medea was written to be a bad person. But why?
ReplyDeleteMedea stole the golden fleece from her father, left her home, and killed her brother to help Jason in his quest. She was the only one who knew how to acquire the Golden Fleece; if she hadn’t helped Jason, he would be dead and she would still be royalty with her family in her homeland. In return for all she has given, Jason gave her children to look after while he marries into a royal family. This same royal family, as a result of her understandable frustration with the situation, exiles her and her children. A more sympathetic character would be hard to create. The chorus in the play, usually a reliable source of wisdom, deems Jason’s ethnocentric explanation of his actions “logical,” and bemoans Medea’s desire for revenge.
Perhaps my question is silly. It is wrong to group people into groups of good and bad, but in my experience major characters are usually easy to categorize. It is possible that the “good vs. evil” duality was not as prevalent in the culture as it is today, or perhaps I’m missing the point: maybe the audience is supposed to be horrified as we watch a character we sympathize with so much commit unspeakable atrocities.
Is Jason a hero?
The audience would have been expected to know Jason as a hero who obtained the Golden Fleece, but in the first part of the play it was difficult to sympathize with Jason whatsoever. Even if the reader had not been biased against him from the beginning, he would have a misogynistic and xenophobic first impression. The one “logical” argument he makes on his behalf is that he is trying to help Medea and their children by marrying into a higher status. The problem, of course, is that he has confused doing what Medea wants and doing what he wants. Medea vocalizes her opposition to the point where if Jason cared about her thoughts at all he would stay with the woman he supposedly cares about. In fact, if he cared about her and his children, he would be willing to leave with them when they are exiled. Instead, Jason tells Medea that she is lucky she won’t be killed, as if she should thank him for all he’s done. In the second part of the play Jason becomes somewhat sympathetic, portrayed as a grieving father at the mercy of a cruel woman. But even then his sudden concern about the fate of his children seems like a concern for his bloodline rather than the deaths of human beings he supposedly loved. If Glauce had still been alive I doubt Jason would have bothered showing any concern for his children because he could simply make more with his new Greek wife. It is possible that the play’s lack of popularity had less to do with Medea and its feminist implications than its transforming a respectable Greek hero into a powerless sociopath.
I definitely think you're onto something in questioning how prevalent or culturally important the "good/evil" binary was in ancient Greece. I think a large part of our understanding of good and evil comes from the Abrahamic tradition, in which there is one God who represents morality and righteousness, and then there's the Devil who stands for all things evil and bad. The Greeks didn't have this. They had a pantheon of Gods, none of whom could really fit neatly in the categories of totally good or totally evil. Zeus himself, the king of the Gods, the supreme God, was a well known adulterer and is the God who punished Prometheus, the creator of man, for giving man fire, which would actually put him in opposition to the interests of humans. Yet he's still the supreme deity, even though he does bad things. He's supreme because he's the most powerful. So I think it could be argued that Greek society prioritized might and power of morality or righteousness. That's why I interpret Medea not as a morality tale in which Medea is the villain for murdering her own children, but an empowerment fantasy in which Medea is a hero for all women for taking the power back from her husband, who had previously held power over her in his ability to cause her great emotional distress.
Delete*might and power over morality and righteousness, not of
DeleteI think that the concept of good and evil have always existed, no matter how long you think back to. It is just simply easier to side with one side of a story, and this happens throughout human life. We hear the latest gossip about two people you know, and although we may try to be as on the fence as possible, we, as humans, always pick a side. This is our inherent nature, and I don't think your grouping of people is in anyway wrong.
DeleteWhen reading your response, I can clearly see that you want to take a certain stance, but some part in the story stops you from doing so because of the play's wavering from feminism to misogyny. When I read the play, I read it through the lens of a xenophobic story, and by doing so I could not seem to find a way to dispute that theme. Creon was kind because Euripides wanted to show Greeks as kind. Medea was a character we sympathized with, but then showed her real colors because Euripides wanted to show us how a real woman SHOULD act, then he shows what a barbaric woman would do in her place. The play is fraught with xenophobic messages, and I feel the play is much easier to understand using that lens.
I believe that you are correct in saying that Medea is evil. I feel this creates a strong story that makes you feel sympathetic towards her and then destroying this sympathy allows you to recognize that victims of any gender can be evil. Euripides ability to make his readers see the blurred lines between evil and good, forms a controversial and engaging play that is riveting.
DeleteThe people who originally saw this play probably already knew her back story and recognized the hardships she went through to be with her love. She had to kill and chop her brother to bits in order to escape her home to be with Jason. She then helped the King's daughter to commit patricide. To have Jason then say he wants to marry someone new after having two children with Medea probably made her even crazier then she was. Watching her commit these horrifying acts, especially prolicide cause the reader to hate her.
I do not view Jason as a hero. He is a powerless man which is completely against what the Greeks believe a man should be.
Why does Medea seem to be this character with two sides?
ReplyDeleteThe character of Medea is very controversial. When reading the play, the character of Medea is portrayed in two very different lights. Her situation and her past actions show a side that one would root for, a side that shows both devotion and love. This is starkly contrasted in the second half of the play, with her actions and decisions showing a ruthless and vengeful side that can barely be compared to anything else but psychotic. She turns into this merciless monster that stops at no ends to get what she wants, revenge. She even kills her own children in her murderous plot. When Medea is given the information of the death of the princess and the king, she revels in the knowledge of their deaths.
I believe that the character of Medea contrasts this way because it shows the severity of the actions she has committed at the end of the play. By allowing the audience to buy into her story and her kindness and compassion at the beginning of the play, Euripides sets his own character up to fall. He brings such a dramatic change to the play, and thus he dramatically changes the meaning of the whole play in it of itself. By doing this, he does not just make his statement, but he proclaims it with authority by giving this contrast.
What does this contrast show about the time Medea was written?
Knowing that Euripides shows such a barbaric character in Medea gives us a very clear insight of how the Greeks were thinking at the time. By having this proclamation that Medea is not only barbaric, but borderline psychotic, Euripides paints a picture in the audience’s head of the kind of people who commit such crimes. She is a foreigner from a barbaric civilization, and she is also a woman. I believe that Euripides was clearly trying to portray the message of xenophobia and misogyny through the play. He builds the character of Medea up as a very passionate and caring mother and wife, an image that many opponents of xenophobia and misogyny would like to imagine a foreign woman. He then proceeds to tear down this image of her by portraying her as the opposite of all these characteristics. Euripides used the platform of theatre to portray the themes of xenophobia and misogyny, values that may have been overwhelmingly popular at the time.
After so much debate about whether or not this play is proto-feminist or misogynistic, it is nice to see a well supported position about how to view Medea. You didn't even need to mention the chorus agreeing with Jason's xenophobic arguments to demonstrate the way Medea was likely viewed by the Greeks. The only aspect of the play not consistent with this view is the intervention of the Greek Gods on behalf of Medea, but it pales in comparison to the support you've brought.
DeleteHow did the evolution of theatre effect the stories effect on the world and why has this play survived throughout the ages?
ReplyDeleteThe controversial issues of gender roles and feminist interests that arise in Euripides' Medea are an obvious reason why it became popular. In a world ruled by men this was of interest to both men in power who wished to keep it and to women who sought more power, but what other elements contributed to the survival of the performance?
Medea was first performed in 431 BC, a time when Athens was at the height of her power during at which the time Athens was at war with Sparta, this contributes exponentially to how renown the play becomes. With a growing economy and enemy focused on their every move it was now the time for great things to happen. The new styles of performances were enticing to the audiences of the time frame and the stories spread quickly throughout the land. The new stage developments and and costume designs provided an attractive attribute to the theatre and with just the right plot the people of Athens will be not only confronting the issues of the play with each other but with neighboring countries. Even the Spartan enemies would here of the performance and would begin to discuss it amongst themselves. With just the right recipe the entire world would eventually come to know the story. The effect the story has on the world is profound. Questions that arise in this play began to be answered by the people and suddenly women's rights and patriarchal laws begin to unravel. Though it will take years yet for the transformations of sexism to fade, the questions had now become asked and the change was
underway.
Morally and ethically humans know right from wrong, maybe not at first but over time and with some help from each other we normally come around to thinking logically and understanding the errors of our ways. The results this play had on the world were inevitable.
William Jockers
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
Week #4
2/12/2013
Is Medea in the right?
What is Medea's right for revenge as a human being in the story of Euripides. Everyone has been hurt heinously by a lover, but Medea certainly received more betrayal and danger by Jason's adultering exploits than the average broken soul. But is killing her children worth the treasure of ruining Jason's life? Through a humanist perspective, Medea could not be more in the wrong, sacrificing the lives of her children for vengeance. Worse off, she was not killing her kids to save them from horrid lives, but states to Jason multiple times that she did it to "injure him".
What were the impact of Medea's actions through a feminist lens?
This caused a fierce debate in my dorm room to be honest, and one that I can easily say I lost. I originally did not agree with the fact that Medea's actions were an empowering in any way for women, that just how horrid they were betrayed any movement forward for women. But what was argued out of my roommate was the fact that this fictional character directly opposed patriarchy in almost every way. Destroying the lineage, preventing his right to the throne in Corinth, Medea absolutely eradicated the presence of Jason's dominance in his relationship with her. What I needed to understand was that this event did not happen, so Euripides in his play just presented a story where patriarchy was utterly dismantled. I wish I had come to this realization on my own, but luckily had it beaten into me.
Is Medea comparable to Eve?
I think that Medea has some very strong similarities to Eve. In one sense, Medea is responsible for bringing some unspeakable evil to everyone involved in the play (it could be argued it was actually Jason). But in another sense, she did this almost totally on her own accord, not being beguiled by some evil serpent, but by actually being the beguiler. I think the interpretation could go either way, only due to some of the reasons that are given for Medea's actions. Creon and Jason approach Medea asking her not to do anything rash, and that if she does it is due to the inherent evil traits in all women. In that sense, she has proved the standard evilness of women and all of that nonsense. But of course, the fact that she acted in her own interest cannot be ignored, and that is a very different trait in comparison to Eve.
I am glad you brought up the comparison between Medea and Eve, as it is not something I had considered before looking through the blog. I am unsure why this did not seem obvious, however, because these really are the two strongest female characters we have encountered this semester. Sure we had Sarah, Lot’s wife, etc. in the bible, but they were hardly more than footnotes. And the Qur’an is almost completely void of strong female characters, or any female characters for that matter. I believe they are comparable in that they both set into action this hideous chain of events that have serious repercussions for those involved. Also, both actions have negative externalities for future generations, humanity leaving the Garden of Eden and Corinth being without a ruling family. Both women, as well, were tempted or at least encouraged by an outside force to act as they did. If these characters existed independently of the situations they are placed in, their fateful deeds would most likely have not occurred. Another interpretation to close with is Medea vs. Old Testament God. Think about Noah’s Arc, God destroying his creation as punishment for behavior he did not approve of. Sounds at least slightly similar to Medea destroying her offspring as innocent life is lost in both cases.
DeleteIs Madea in the right? No, clearly she is not in the right when she murders her children. Another view of this would be to examine what the character represents, it seems Madea is a vengeful hero who goes too far. Women were not portrayed as strong and violent people, qualities that were considered positive for men who filled the role of warrior. Men who would kill their opponents loved ones and ensure the suffering of their enemies were viewed as righteous and powerful individuals who did what needed to be done. So in this context Madea could be viewed as hero who went too far and an example of the possibility of women standing up for themselves.
DeleteDo the reasons Jason gives Medea, for leaving, justify his actions?
ReplyDeleteJason reveals his reason for leaving his wife Medea to be in the best interest for he and his family. He argues that climbing the social caste, by marrying King Creon's daughter Glauce, his children, and even Medea, will live a better life. Now, although Jason's decision was based on logic, it was an obscure logic. I believe that, as a father, Jason felt that the decision to abandon Medea and marry Glauce was the proper one. By advancing his station, Jason would be able to provide a life full riches and fortune, both physical and experiential, for his children. However, naivety is not an excuse for absurdity. Marriage and children are an "all in" commitment. Jason's abandonment is a sign of weakness more than anything else.
Is Medea a champion or antagonist?
Madea's character changes throughout the progression of the story. She is cunning, devious, and cutthroat in the events leading up to she and Jason being exiled as murderers. Yet, everything she did was for the love she had developed toward Jason. She eventually bears two children, both of whom belong to Jason, and gain a favorable reputation. Medea, though, is then subjected to a trial as tough as anyone can imagine. The man she loved so dearly, Jason, has abandoned her in favor of King Creon's daughter, Glauce. At first, Medea is wrought with agony and despair, however, that agony is eventually transformed into a sadistic fury. She avenges her betrayal with a series of murders. She gifts a poisoned dress and coronet to the princess, Glauce. More notably, Medea murders her own children. She receives so much pleasure in the pain it brings Jason, than the fact that she had just killed the children she birthed. Medea's actions were, at least, on an understandable level, up to the point of murdering her children. However, the fact that she killed her own flesh and blood cannot be overlooked. Medea is no hero.
What was Euripides trying to convey about gender in the play?
Euripedes does highlight injustices that women faced at the time Medea was written, such as, men being able to remarry on a whim. Medea argues that women are bad, but are made so by circumstances they cannot control. Jason, the male antagonist, exercises his right to remarry by abandoning Medea. However, in this circumstance, Medea chose not to accept the fact, and instead, she defied social norm. In contrast, Jason, as the play went on, became more and more emasculated. So, it's as if there was a reversal of natural order.
I think the most interesting thing to consider here is when you say: "Medea is no hero." I would agree, she doesn't really exhibit the qualities of a literary hero, but was she ever really supposed to in the first place? I would say the answer is no. Medea was never meant to be read as a 'hero' in the first place, and we make a mistake in judgement about the whole play when we do so. If we take this play as Greek Tragedy, then Medea functions solely as the agent of change for Jason's fate reversal; everything seemed to be going great for Jason, until, his fate gets completely changed around because of Medea (what's ironic about this play is that Jason, in a sense, reversed Medea's fate as well, in the beginning of the play, by remarrying.) Now, if this fate reversal means that Medea has to do something horrible and really immoral and absolutely non-heroic then that's fine, we as readers shouldn't have to worry about it. If Medea HAD acted heroicly, then maybe we could say nicer things about her character, but who cares? The play wouldn't have been a tragedy, and as such there isn't really any point in saying something like "Medea isn't a hero." It's preaching to the choir; it's exactly the point, Medea isn't a hero.
DeleteThe appearance of gender in the play can have to distinct interpretations. One being Euripides is further exposing the insanity of women, or that he is exploring the abilities that women have to change the world around them. The play can be viewed from those two different perspectives, each being correct through their own lens, but I feel as though you need to make a decision on your own personal feelings toward Medea and her actions. I feel that your last two questions and responses are well thought out, but clearly contradictory, so maybe this should be asked, is Medea a hero to you. In your third question, you outlined the power Medea had to change the world around her, even though women at the time supposedly were believed to be powerless(I have an opinion that that view generalizes a bit, but it digress's). Perhaps the consequence of upsetting the social order gave justification to Medea's heinous crimes, which were this fictional character's triumph over the tyrannical patriarchy. But I can sympathize with the fact that the brutality of her crimes may upset that fact, her leap away from humanity usurping any gains to female power and identity. What it comes down to is how the audience who first saw the play interpreted the events, I am sure Euripides intentions for the perception of Medea lie in there. Personally, I think that because these events did not happen, the play presents a radical view of a woman overcoming the boundaries set around her by society, and taking her fate into her own hands.
Delete1) Is Medea a hero?
ReplyDeleteGreek tragedy functions in terms of ironic reversal; that is, one character has to experience a total reversal of fate. The play Medea is interesting in that there are two examples of this, one of which occurs in medias res. The first one is when Medea's fate is reversed by Jason, who betrays Medea. Medea then goes about reversing the fate of Jason, by exacting her revenge upon him. This doesn't offer any kind of redemption for Medea, or serves the purpose of reclaiming any of her lost pride, but only completes the plot structure of Tragedy in that it is an ironic reversal of Jason's fate.
2) How can we rationalize Medea's actions?
Medea's actions are completely over the top, and if we think about it in one sense, completely immoral. However, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to think about her actions in terms of morality. Medea has to be immoral to function within the play, and as such it's unfair and non-sensical. If we look at Medea in terms of being a strong female character we won't be able to complete our feminist reading of the play if we get caught up in the morality of Medea's actions; Medea's actions are immoral, and if we can't step beyond this we won't be able to see the deeper meaning/messages of the play.
3) How does Xenophobia function in this play?
Xenophobia is one of the easier elements to ignore in this play. One of the primary reasons that issues in the play occur is because of some degree of animosity between the races, notably against Medea. This play doesn't really offer any kind message concerning the ramifications of xenophobia, as in, oh this is bad or immoral, but I feel as though it is more just something that exists a priori in the play. There are a lot of moments where I feel as though things just get by just because this is a 4th century BC play.
I am going to play as devil's advocate, only because of the new information that was presented by Akman in class. Concerning question #2, if Euripides is pretty much confirmed as a misogynist, due to the ideas of not having a female gender that were in that second play. That whole text has to be read, but if we continue the reading of Medea with Euripides as a confirmed misogynist, than Medea could not have been a strong female character. With this information, the actions that Medea takes are not presented to showcase the ability of women to gain power, but to show the disaster that can occur when you put your trust into the most evil and cunning gender. In modern reading of the text, we are capable of looking through different perspectives to gain different meanings from the text, but during the era the play was initially performed, I doubt there were that many interpretations around. I agree that the actions taken by Medea were the only strong actions she was capable of making, making her a strong female character, but the fact remains that the words weren't written or probably interpreted that way. But then again, art does exist outside of the artist...
DeleteIn regard to question number three, I completely agree. Xenophobia definitely exists within the play, however, I feel that it is just a product of the time and society in which it was written. I don't believe Euripides had much intention, if any, of making Xenophobia prevalent in the story. It seems, to me, more of an indirect inclusion. With other, more pressing ideas going on in the play, I find Xenophobia to be nothing more than a window that reveals to us an example of how ancient Greeks viewed the rest of the world.
DeleteSociety and the Causes & Effects
ReplyDeleteDenis Jekić
Dr. Akman
HUMN 220
12th of February, 2013
Blog Entry: Week Four
1. If roles were reversed, how do you think reactions towards Euripides’ characters Medea and Jason would have differed in society’s point of view at that time?
At the time, the general Athenian society (as would be expected) had rather low standards and expectations for women. Not only that; women pretty much had no rights and were completely unequal. As was so, it is natural to assume that most Athenians would react the same way when watching the performance of Euripides’ tragedy Medea. Although many people, myself included, can interpret the play in many different ways (ways in which one could see the tragedy portraying women in a positive light/feministic), I still believe that society at that time had a general negative view towards this positive light that might have been trying to break through. Although this tragedy is fictitious and the roles and events (those which are realistic like the murder of the children and other characters by Medea) that occur within the play are not based on anything true, had they been acted upon by Jason rather than Medea, I feel as though it would not have been viewed and criticized as severely as they were for Medea. These events are tragic and shocking, but in my opinion, because of the position Jason held within the society in which he lived as well as the fact that he was male, they would not be viewed so harshly. I feel as though the only way in which society would have played a different part in the way they perceived the play as well as how they reacted would be if there was a sudden and massive period of social reconstruction (which would have to be impossibly drastic) so as to basically change the views of the society and become accepting. Even if the people felt empowered by the play and viewed it as being feministic, silence would still have been kept.
2. During the second part of the play, the character Jason receives pity from the audience while Medea loses the audience’s sympathy due to her actions. Do you believe this could have been prevented in any way?
I believe that the roles Euripides chose for both Medea and Jason were intentional and were not meant to have been prevented. I believe that while creating this dramatic twist in the plot in which Medea performs these awful acts, Euripides knew exactly what to expect out of society and he knew that it would create an impact. However, in order to make an impact that was safe and could provide him with a chance to not only possibly win a competition against other writers of tragedies, but to also present a possible secret agenda, he had to somehow create a splash rather than an explosion. One must remember that these were conservative times in which little change occurred for those viewed as lesser by the general populous. I am positive that this change of character portrayal and sway of audience opinion were done to negate the previous part of the play in which one might sympathize with Medea rather than Jason. Even though there may possibly be positive inclinations towards women and their role in society, the actual society at the time was not as accepting and would need to be persuaded, and Euripides could have been completely disregarded as a writer of tragedies (which some might view as selfish of him to create this twist) had he gone completely radical and portrayed the female characters (and Medea herself) as strong and as humans with free-will and rights.
3. If Euripides had to choose either Jason or Medea to represent as “acting righteously for their cause”, who would he choose and why?
DeleteIn my opinion, it is rather difficult to understand who Euripides is “rooting for” in his own play. As previously stated, society at the time had a different viewpoint on women and what they represented. Euripides seems to have a sympathetic view towards both of the characters in Medea and there are many different ways in which one could debate who Euripides saw as the righteous character and the one who had been wronged. One could see Euripides being empathetic towards Jason, since he “had” to leave his wife Medea in order to bring about a “better life” for his children and wife. At the same time, the way Euripides seems to imply that Jason is a selfish and used/exploited Medea is a good enough reason for her to become empowered and enact revenge. But then one is forced to ask themselves what the point of killing her children had been, since this event immediately puts Medea in the wrong spotlight, whether she deserved it or not.
I think it is important to distance ourselves from these characters and realize it was just a play, with intentionally thrilling and shocking dialogue. That means that this play was overly dramatized and that it was meant to rile feathers and annoy the audience. Our class is proof of this. We argue over the abstract details of these characters expecting them to divulge some important information when all they are there for is to mess with our thoughts and make it so that we are emotionally involved. Not a state to make judgements about Greek society or even about the characters.
Delete