Medea Discussion
Medea, a play written for the Dionyisan Festival by Euripides, starts off in media res. In the Prologue and Parados, Medea's childhood nurse, who has travelled with her from her homeland when she came to Corinth with her husband Jason, explains to the audience what is going on. Jason has left Medea for Creon's daughter, and Medea is absolutely distraught. She spends all day mourning and raging and even hates her children although they are oblivious to what is going on. The children's minder reveals that Creon is planning to exile Medea and her children, although Medea is unaware of that fact.
Something I immediately found interesting is how Euripides does not clearly take a side in the conflict between Jason and Medea, unlike Sophocles's unmistakable support for Antigone. He immediately paints Jason's infidelity as unforgivable but also points out the flaws in Medea's dramatic reaction. The nurse admits, "I'm afraid of her, in case she has some new plan in mind. She is a deep thinker, you know, and she will not put up with this kind of abuse. I know her and I am terrified that in silence entering the house where the bed is laid she might thrust a sharp sword through the heart or kill the princess and the one who married her and then suffer some greater tragedy" (36-42). Jason's actions may have caused the beginning of the tragedy, but the nurse foreshadows that Medea will exacerbate the problem and create further tragedy. This could be part of why Euripides begins the play in media res, because it illustrates that tragedy is not caused by one simple action and is instead furthered by inappropriate reaction. Medea does not take any action in this first section, but it is clear that she will do something to further the tragedy.
Why do you think Euripedes enforces this moral ambiguity from the start, although in the beginning it is only Jason who has done something wrong? Since the gods have not been mentioned as directly influential yet, aside from the chorus saying "Zeus will set this right" (157), do you think fate will play a role in this play, or will everything be a result of human choices?
Something I immediately found interesting is how Euripides does not clearly take a side in the conflict between Jason and Medea, unlike Sophocles's unmistakable support for Antigone. He immediately paints Jason's infidelity as unforgivable but also points out the flaws in Medea's dramatic reaction. The nurse admits, "I'm afraid of her, in case she has some new plan in mind. She is a deep thinker, you know, and she will not put up with this kind of abuse. I know her and I am terrified that in silence entering the house where the bed is laid she might thrust a sharp sword through the heart or kill the princess and the one who married her and then suffer some greater tragedy" (36-42). Jason's actions may have caused the beginning of the tragedy, but the nurse foreshadows that Medea will exacerbate the problem and create further tragedy. This could be part of why Euripides begins the play in media res, because it illustrates that tragedy is not caused by one simple action and is instead furthered by inappropriate reaction. Medea does not take any action in this first section, but it is clear that she will do something to further the tragedy.
Why do you think Euripedes enforces this moral ambiguity from the start, although in the beginning it is only Jason who has done something wrong? Since the gods have not been mentioned as directly influential yet, aside from the chorus saying "Zeus will set this right" (157), do you think fate will play a role in this play, or will everything be a result of human choices?
I think that Euripedes is setting up this moral dilemma from the start as a two-sided coin on purpose. In every single situation, there are two sides to every story. It is a lot easier to take sides when each side has been explained thoroughly and therefore, I think Euripedes wants to act as the messenger and not the judge in this divorce case. As far as fate goes, I think that it will be interesting to see how the gods play a role in the outcome of Medea’s threats. In this second section, she does not reference the gods and fate is not a theme. However, she makes very big claims as to how she will carry out her revenge. However, considering this is a Greek play, fate will most likely play at least some kind of role. It may take some time to figure that one out, though.
ReplyDeleteMedea is a structured almost like a trial in itself because in this second section, we are slapped Medea’s dramatic attitude towards the divorce. We discover a lot about her character, allowing the “jury” to make a more educated decision on which side of the fence to fall. Medea brings up women’s rights in this section at various points in an effort to prove her innocence and vulnerability in this matter. She wants to make herself out to be the victim, saying, “divorce is unsavory for a woman and it is not possible to say no to one’s husband” (235-36). She continues to complain about the hardships that women feel, saying, “Otherwise we are better off dead. But the man, when he is bored with things at home he can go out to ease the weariness of his heart” (242-44). Often women are seen as weak and are victimized by society, but she cries out that during this time, the best thing for her was to be the victim. She wants to show her strength against her ex-husband, but in an effort to do that, makes herself out to be whiny and desperate. However, that appeals to Creon who allows her one night before exile.
In this second section we learned a lot about the character of Medea. Do you think that Medea truly feels as though she has fallen under Jason’s fist, or do you think it is all a ploy to be able to enact her revenge? Also, what side do you think the Chorus is on, Medea’s or Jason’s? (In my opinion, I think the Chorus is on Medea’s side because in all their chants so far, she has been praised for how she has responded during the divorce).
I think Medea feels that her lot in life has been unfair and Jason's actions have had unjust consequences for her. She would not desire revenge had Jason not abandoned her, although she seems to be too eager to try and take revenge. A lot of her anger stems from her position in society and how she believes that Jason, as a man, can get away with abandoning her and her children while she suffers the consequences of his action. She does not really realize that the reason she is being punished is because of her declaration of intention of revenge. I agree with you that the Chorus is in support of Medea; in the third section, even after hearing Jason's (admittedly weak) defense of himself, they support Medea and tell him what he did was wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe second episode continues the trial structure, as it is set up as Jason's defense of himself and Medea's counterargument. Jason first chides Medea for not doing exactly what she is told, then tries to defend himself, saying that he only left her to marry the princess and try to make a better life for their children. Medea responds, "This is not daring; this is not courage, to abuse your loved ones and look them in the face, this is the most virulent of all human sicknesses,
shamelessness" (468-471). Medea is clearly not having any of Jason's excuses, and her mercilessness will likely sponsor her revenge. She articulates her position and her anger and makes herself sympathetic to the audience and to the chorus, which makes me think that Euripedes is taking her side. Medea's struggle would be unfamiliar to the typical Greek theater audience, so Euripedes has to make her more sympathetic in order to show the flaws on both sides; otherwise the theatergoers might take Jason's side unequivocally. Jason still tries to defend himself, with an eloquent but unconvincing argument. The chorus tells Jason that he is wrong, and Medea calls him out for trying to hide his flaws behind nice words, saying, "For in my estimation anyone who is dishonest, but speaks well deserves the greatest censure. In his confidence that he can conceal his injustice with rhetoric, he has the heart for any wrong" (578-581). It is interesting that Euripedes, as a writer, would point out the deceitful nature of eloquent words. Medea and Jason's fight does not get much accomplished but reveals a lot about their characters; Jason is good at saying what people want to hear but has little substance or meaning behind his words, while Medea is much more direct and will not put up with Jason's excuses or give him any mercy. This tension does not get resolved, which will likely cause further tragedy.
What sort of reaction do you think the typical Greek audience would have had to Jason and Medea, and how would that differ from today? Are Jason's excuses reasonable at all or is Medea right to not put up with them?
I think that an audience watching this play in the context that it was written would side with Jason because men naturally had more rights, like divorce. Unless they were much more progressive than much of society, they would probably not have an issue with what Jason has done. However, in the context of today, women know where they should have more rights and for the most part, they feel independent from men. I think that most people nowadays would have a serious issue with the way Jason has treated Medea; they probably wouldn’t care about the divorce, divorce being common and all, but they would probably have an issue with how Jason has handled the divorce. Now as for justifying the divorce, there are two ways too look at this issue: Christian lens and the worldly lens. From the Christian perspective, divorce is a sin, and a marriage is under an oath. However, the world says that divorce is totally okay, and if you don’t feel satisfied in any way within marriage, just get a quick divorce and do what is best for you. It looks that Euripedes is combining a bit of the lenses because the way he writes this play leave it up for interpretation, and argument for both lenses.
ReplyDeleteIn this fourth section, Medea’s friend Aigeus—who just happens to be the king of Athens—is introduced. I find it interesting that Aigeus is so eager to help Medea because as a king I would have expected him to think a bit more about the repercussions about aiding an exile. This quick decision, I think will come back to bite him. Fate is a bit more of a concern in this section because Medea and the Chorus discuss consequences. Medea’s plan to murder her own children, just to cause Jason the most pain possible shows her utter denial of the pain it could cause her. “‘Yes, this will cause my husband to feel the most pain’ ‘But you would be the sorriest of women.’ ‘Never mind. All other words are in vain’” (817-19). Medea is very stubborn, for now. I think that Medea is going to realize how drastic her actions are, but just too late. This section focuses on a universal truth: thinking before acting is always better. It doesn’t have to be a long thought process, but a thought process needs to exist before good decisions will result, because of sin nature. Medea is lacking a thought process, and this is leading her down a very dangerous road.
Why do you think Euripedes includes the Chorus’ opinion on such an intimate issue? Do you think that Medea will go through the murder? What do you think it would take to stop Medea from making these drastic decisions?
The Chorus in Medea represents the thoughts of the audience, and I certainly was thinking along the same lines as the Chorus when they pleaded with her not to kill her children, as it would not accomplish anything and would only cause more tragedy and pain for everyone. The entire play is a very intimate matter that normally the public would not have a voice in, but the Chorus is there to represent the feelings of the audience. I do think Medea will go through with the murder because it is a tragedy and there seems to be no other way to resolve the situation. I think she will realize that she has gone too far in her revenge but it will be too late for anything to get better. Medea's stubbornness is a defining trait so I don't think anything, at least not in the world that the play is set in, can stop her from making drastic decisions.
ReplyDeleteIn the fourth episode, Medea seems to completely shift attitudes. She speaks with Jason and seems to be willing to make up with him, and even tells her boys that they have worked out their problems. The Chorus, again representing the audience, is not so impressed although they are hopeful, saying "And for me too, tears well up in my eyes. I pray there will be no greater sorrows than the present ones" (906-907). This indicates that the Chorus, despite knowing that Medea is insincere, wants her ruse to be true, much like the feelings of the audience. Medea then breaks down into uncharacteristic tears and uses her gender to her advantage for once, making an excuse that women cry much more easily. For most of the play, Medea has been angry about her place in the world as a woman, but in this case she craftily uses it to deflect any suspicion and make up a story to get Jason to do what she wants. Medea asks Jason to convince Creon to allow their sons to stay in the country, and says she will send gifts with the children to convince Creon's daughter to fight for them. Jason is pridefully suspicious, saying "If my wife has any respect for me at all, she prefers me to gold, I'm certain" (961-962). Jason seems to have an inflated view of himself, and that proves to be part of his downfall; he thinks he can get away with anything because people like and respect him.
Why do you think Medea's ruse works so well on Jason? Do you think her plan will work out just as she thinks it will and cause her grief later, or will things go awry to make a greater tragedy?
We need to remember that Jason and Medea were married, and therefore share at least some sort of emotional connection. In previous sections, Jason makes excuses as to why he left Medea and married another woman, but whether they were just reasons or not, she is still abandoned. And however sexist it may be, the fact that she victimizes herself and breaks down is a very good way to get what she wants. A lot of times people will victimize themselves in order to play on the emotions of the other person. In Greek plays, nothing seems to work out as a character imagines, and I don’t think Medea is any different. Medea is stubborn, which is a trait that will not only cause her to finally do the deed, but also will cause a more horrific downfall in the end; pride and stubbornness are not traits the gods favor, and therefore, Medea is going down.
ReplyDeleteIn this fifth episode, Medea has a bipolar-like talk with herself regarding the murdering of her children. The uncertainty creeps into her mind and we see her talking herself in and out of the decision within a matter of sentences. In the beginning of her panic, Medea states, “Goodbye my plans of before. I shall take my children with me. Why should I abuse them to wound their father, and have twice as many woes myself? I will not do it. Goodbye my plans” (1043-47). This is very first sensible thing that Medea has said throughout the entire play. She is finally considering the consequences when she says, “and have twice as many woes myself” because she seems to understand that it would hurt her as well. However, that decision does not last long and in her final statement of the episode, Medea states, “I understand what evil I am about to do but my wrath is stronger even than my thoughts, which is the cause of the greatest wrongs of humankind” (1077-79). The point that Euripedes is trying to make with this seemingly bipolar monologue is that humanity will ultimately choose evil. Medea had so many opportunities to make the right decision, and even convinced herself of it at one point, but her humanity got the best of her, and will lead to her downfall.
Why do you think that this play is so heavy with Medea’s thoughts and words when she is alone, but not Jason’s when he is alone? Coming back to the issue of fate, how do you think fate will play a role in the final couple episodes?
I think Euripides wants to focus on Medea in this play to make a point about both oppressors and the oppressed; he does not excuse Medea for what she has done, but by following her thoughts more closely, he indicates that her reasons for her acts are a result of the oppression she has faced as a woman and a foreigner who is dependent on her husband. If Euripides had not expanded on Medea's thoughts, the audience of the time would likely side with Jason in the situation, which damages the point he is trying to make. I don't think fate will play a big role, or at least fate that is independent of actions. Medea may seem fated to take revenge, but ultimately, revenge is her choice and not because of the gods.
ReplyDeleteThe next section shows the Chorus as they talk about the perils of parenthood. The chorus is supposed to be only a group of local women, which is an interesting setup for a chorus. This makes it seem like Euripides wants to give women a voice in the themes of this play, and show the struggle from a woman's perspective. A messenger comes in and tells Medea that her cursed gifts killed Creon and his daughter, and Medea pleasures in this. She gleefully asks, "How did they die? You will give me twice as much pleasure if they died horrible deaths" (1134-1135). Medea is fully immersed in her revenge now and seems to feel no regrets. Her delight in this makes her far less sympathetic suddenly; she has gone too far to be redeemed. However, she at least feels some regret as she goes to kill her children, as she struggles, telling herself, "Do not be a coward. Do not think of your children — how much you love them, how you gave them birth.
For this one short day forget your children, and mourn tomorrow" (1245-1249). Her regrets make the story even more tragic; she is not without a heart, but has been driven mad by the desire for revenge.
Why do you think that Medea killing the children was necessary for the plot? The Chorus first remarks about how much better off women are without children, and then mourns the death of the children: are these two positions coexisting in the minds of the Chorus?
Medea is a tragedy. Tragedy cannot end without extreme pain. The deaths of the children were necessary for the play to end as a tragedy. There must be pain and corruption, lack of positive resolution, and horrendous amounts of grief. The audience would be dissatisfied if Medea had not gone through with the murder and instead had changed her ways. Although the Chorus is designed to be a unified voice, in this case a unified women voice, I think Euripedes wants to point out the controversy of Medea’s actions. The Chorus would be the only group that would see things from Medea’s point of view and somewhat agree with her. I think that the two positions within the Chorus represent the thoughts of the audience and continues to drive the dispute over this issue.
ReplyDeleteThis play ends with a blow to the heart strings. Jason and Medea go at it even after their children have been killed, pinning the blame on each other. The course of their relationship symbolizes both stubbornness and utter corruption because no matter what happens, they will still be at odds. During their final feud, Jason cries out: “Oh children, what a terrible mother you had” (1363); to which Medea responds, “Oh children, how you were destroyed by your father’s disease” (1364). Their bitterness for each other do not change, despite all they have lost; in fact, the bitterness only grows. The theme of their relationship does not change over the course of this play, but it quite relatable to the masses. When a tragedy strikes, often it brings people closer together, but in their case, it drives the farther apart; in the case of Medea and Jason, they were both too far gone to ever love anyone, let alone each other, again.
The Chorus ends the play with this line, “Of many things Zeus in Olympus is keeper, many are the things the gods bring about all reason, and what is looked for does not happen after all, yet a god finds a way for the unexpected. That is how this story has ended” (1414-18). The gods have not played a major role in this tragedy, mainly because Euripedes is trying to make it evident how personal choices DO cause consequences. The choices that both Jason and Medea make, change their lives drastically, leaving them broken, alone, and bitter. Euripedes allows the story to end on a low note to amplify the hurt in life, showing the utter depravity of the human heart.
Fantastic analysis of multiple levels--character, theme, fate, structure, function of the chorus, etc. I do wonder at your analysis of "tragedy," however. The hamartia(s) and self-caused pain seem clear here, but in traditional Greek tragedy there is also catharsis and new understanding of some sort, even by the main character(s). Do you see that here? Well done. Grade on PP.
Delete