(Line 1-445)
I knew I was going to read Medea when I first heard of the plot: extreme love turned into extreme hatred. This is just my type of story. And thank Jordan for reading with me again.
First an introduction of the first episode, this play starts with a nurse's monologue. She is the nanny of the protagonist, Medea, a refugee woman in Corinth from Colchis. Medea had a husband and two children, but her husband Jason then abandoned them and remarried into the royal family of Corinth. The wife was driven crazy because of this, and her nanny prays for Medea in the monologue. Medea cannot control herself and even shows intentions to harm her children. She blames her family tragedy on the burden society places on women, and she seeks to take revenge on Jason and the entire royal family of Corinth. This angers the king of Corinth, Creon (another Creon), and he demands the exile of Medea. Medea acts pitiful and begs the king to let her stay in Corinth for another day, but later she tells the chorus that she plans to kill them all that night.
Medea gathers all the elements that I love to read: love to hatred, dark side of humanity, poisoning, gender equality, etc. Among all these elements my favorite is the dark side of humanity. Medea the protagonist once loved her husband so much, that she even betrayed her own family and killed people for him, but all she got at last was nothing but abandonment. This basis totally provides for Medea's painful change and her determination to take revenge. If I were Medea I would definitely revenge on Jason too. However I agree that poisoning not only Jason but also his bride and the king sounds not that correct. Therefore I want to ask you Jordan, do you think Medea's revenge on the entire royal family is righteous? What about if she is only going to kill Jason? Do you think this revenge is more morally acceptable and correct?
I do not think the revenge is righteous, as she calls on the mistress of the underworld to help her in her task. Hecate is also the goddess of black magic, which is never a good thing in history. However, I also see the reasoning behind the need for revenge. Medea mentions bringing honor back to her family after Jason has shamed it. She has a right to be angry after Jason has so quickly abandoned her. However, she seems to be a bit mad in her thinking. She plans to kill the whole of Jason's new family, which is extreme as his wife and the king did not make the decision to abandon Medea. The decision was made by Jason alone. Therefore, while I can see the reasoning for revenge on Jason, the others do not deserve it.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I wanted to talk about is the end of this section. it is the part where the chorus describes this imaginary world, where roles seemed to be reversed from the standard Greek view. The play states, "For men's counsels are deceitful, and the pledge taken in the gods' name is no longer firmly fixed. New tales will give glory to my life; honor is coming to the female of the species; discordant rumors will let women go" (Lines 411-420). It seems as if the chorus is condoning the planned actions of Medea. In that case, could the Chorus be trying to sway the audience into feeling for Medea. If this revenge is as vicious as it sounds to me, then I would need to be convinced to feel for Medea, the planned killer. Do you think this is the function of the Chorus here? Do you need convincing to feel for Medea?
(Line 1-1000)
ReplyDeleteFirst to answer your question. I do see that the chorus is sympathetic to Medea's situation and they do not agree with the sexist Greek social system. However, I do not think that the chorus tolerates or tries to move the audience toward Medea. As we read deeper into the story, we can see the chorus does not agree with Athens' grant of protection to Medea and calls her a child-killer. In line 845, Euripides writes, "How then will the city of holy rivers, the land that gives safe-passage to friends, welcome you, child-killer." This shows that the chorus does not mean to justify Medea's actions. Therefore, I think the function of the chorus here is simply to reflect Medea's tragedy on the historical context of ancient Greece.
Then a brief summary of the middle of the play: Jason and Medea argue with each other fiercely, but then after being promised by Athens protection, Medea compromises and apologizes for her "rebellious" actions, in order to carry out her plan of killing the entire royal family, and her own children. She then sent her children to the princess, and thats the end of the fourth stasimon.
Medea's plan of killing everyone is definitely vicious and unjustifiable, but here I would like to discuss about Jason's arguments. Jason claims that his new marriage is for the sake of his children (and he implies that Medea has nothing to do with the children since custody is usually granted to the father in ancient Greece), so I would like to ask, do you think Jason's new marriage is actually good to the children? Both Medea and Jason are foreigners to Corinth and their children would definitely be bullied if Jason is not remarried, and as Medea said, she would rather kill her children instead of having them bullied in Athens (line 780), showing that Jason's self-justification is reasonable and somehow valid. And so, if you were Jason and you wished your children good, would you remarry into the royal family of Corinth?
If I were Jason, I would not remarry into the royal family. Jason had already made himself known through attaining the Golden Fleece. He had fame, and most likely could have earned a fortune from that fame, He did not need to marry into the royal family to make sure his children had a good life. Also, there was no guarantee that his children would inheret the throne after his death. Jason explains this reasoning when he says, "You may be certain of this: it was not because of the woman that I made the marriage into the royal family which I now enjoy, but just as I said before, wanting to give you security and to father royal brothers for my children, a support for my house" (Lines 593-596). He did not marry for love, he married for status. He seems to be using his new wife. Could this also be what he did with Medea? Jason could have married Medea just because it was beneficial to him, and as soon as she became a burden, he dropped her for someone more helpful for the time. Do you think this was Jason's intentions? Do you think he was just using Medea and that he is not really really in love with his new wife?
ReplyDeleteFinally, in the end of this section, Medea goes to Jason in a desperate attempt to seemingly reconcile and accept Jason's reasoning. Throughout this section, Medea plees with Jason to let her children stay, for there is no place else for them to go. Jason, feeling that she has accepted what he's done and is no longer a danger, says he cannot make that plea, but his wife could convince the king, her father, to convince him to let them stay. It is here that Jason unknowingly becomes a part of Medea's evil plan. He, his wife, and the king are all becoming pawns in the plan that leads to their eventual death. However they cannot see it, as they are blinded by pity. Medea is playing on their feelings to get her plan accomplished. What do you think of this? Do you think Jason, his wife, or the king will realize this?
(Line 1- End)
ReplyDeleteI like your reasoning. Seeing what he is doing and thinking about his new wife I think it makes sense that Jason only married Medea for social status and fame.
And no I don't think Jason, his wife, or the king will realize Medea's plan, because for sure this story will end in a tragedy (it is written by Euripides). However I do think that Medea's scheme was not that sophisticated. Her changes were so odd and unnatural, that she went from 100% hatred to 100% tame in her diction. Although the actress' acting may actually make Medea's changes look more believable, her dialogue were not written so well, that if I were Jason, I would not have believed in Medea.
Now the summary of the last part, the bride wore the poison clothes and clown, and died horribly, and so as Creon the king because he touches his daughter's body. Medea then slain her children to finish her plan. Before she fled to Athens, she and Jason had a short duologue attacking each other. Then the story ends.
For sure Medea's actions are unforgivable. But I would like to talk about Jason here. Jason said, "in the name of the gods let me touch the soft skin of my children," (Line 1401-1402) in the end of the story. Euripides definitely tried to make Jason look pitiful in the ending , but when compared with Medea's description of him, and seeing him abandoning his children, I wonder do you pity him at the end? I personally do not.
I do pity Jason. No father should have to bear witness to the death of his wife and children in one day, even more to the hands of his former wife. This is a cruel way to punish someone, and I feel that it goes way beyond the wrongs Jason has done to Medea. Medea even hurts herself in the process by killing her children, but she justifies this by saying, "Oh children, how you were destroyed by your father's disease" (Line 1364). She does not think that she has killed her children. Instead, it is the actions of their father that has brought about their death. Jason on the other hand, is remorseful for the death of his children, and his first thought is to just touch them one last time and to give them a honorable burial. He cares for his children. Medea on the other hand, once again, used them as pawns. Their purpose was to destroy Jason, no matter the cost. With this in mind, I cannot help but feel anger towards Medea, and a sense of pity for Jason, even with his past wrongs.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found interesting was the Chorus's final lines. Here they state, "Of many things Zues in Olympus is keeper, -- many are the things the gods bring about against all reason, -- and what is looked for does not happen at all, -- yet a god finds a way for the unexpected. -- That is how this story has ended" (Lines 1414-1418). It seems to say that the gods have brought about this ending. I know that these Greek gods often love to cause mischief and misfortune among humans, but this seems to be taken to a whole other level. They have caused the destruction of a man, and his life. They have allowed this, while also allowing the murderer to escape freely. They too seem to have overreacted to one wrong. Their punishment does not fit the crime. Also, Jason descends from the line of Hermes, another Greek god. If the gods took part in bringing about Jason's destruction, why would Hermes not step in and protect on of his descendants. This story seems to make the gods out to be cruel and uncaring. What do you think about the Greek gods based on this play? Did they bring justice to the crime, or were they just acting cruelly with their powers?
With great power comes great responsibility, therefore I do not like the Greek gods. They have the ability to make the world better, but instead they choose to bring sufferings to humans (to the bride, to the children, to Jason and Medea). And I do not think the gods brings justice to the crime, but only creates more and more crimes and leaved them unpunished. They were acting cruelly with their powers. I think one of the reasons Euripides portrays the gods in such an irresponsible ways is because he was liberal. Regardless of his original intentions, Euripides did unpopularize the Greek gods among his audience by showing the gods' wickedness and negligence for humans' needs. This can be seen in the chorus' words as you quoted before:
ReplyDelete"many are the things the gods bring about against all reason, and what is looked for does not happen after all, yet a god finds a way for the unexpected." (1415-1417)
Although the chorus' words show a pessimism about human's ability and struggles, I think Euripides tends more to provoke the Greek people's awareness of social injustice like sexism by displaying this tragedy instead of suppressing it.
Euripides mentions the inferiority of females in ancient Greece in this play for more than one time. For example, in the play Medea says, "Of all creatures that have life and reason we women are the sorriest lots. First we must at a great expenditure of money buy a husband and even take on a master over our body." (229-233) And later in the first stasimon, the chorus also says, "New tales will give glory to my life; honor is coming to the female of the species; discordant rumors will let women go." (417-419).
By these dialogue and the sympathetic portrayal of Medea (at least in the first half of the story), Euripides wants his audience to rethink about how the society mistreat females. However, one of the things that makes me wonder, is that did Euripides successfully convey this message? You and I pitied Medea (females) at first but then hate her misdeeds now, and her revenge is too over that it blurs the focus of the women's miseries. So, do you think Euripides' attempts of bringing up the gender injustice issues are successful? Or is it a failure because of Medea's wickedness?
If that is Euripides message to the audience, I think he does a pretty terrible job of getting it across. Euripides did no favors to help the Greek females in his story. While he had a strong, independent female as a role character, he made her evil. She was blinded by her emotions, as is the typical female in the Greek culture, and she acts evil because of it. If he is trying to show that females are strong, independent, and deserve more respect in the Greek culture, he is getting the completely opposite idea across. If anything, I would think this play would make people think less of females. They would not trust them as they could be taken to be blinded by emotions, which could only lead to harm to other people. They might also take this play as female are inherently cruel, as all Medea's actions were directed to hurt Jason and the ones he loved. With the in mind, I cannot say that Euripides had any hope that this play might change the social standings of women in Ancient Greece.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I wanted to finish with is how throughout the entire play of Medea, the plot is carried out almost entirely by chance. It starts out with the fact that Jason has managed to get himself in with the royal family. Although he is famous, I find it unlikely that a non loyal man would be permitted to enter into the royal family, especially to be married to a possible queen. Especially because of the fact that he was not afraid to leave his family for one wife, and then leave Medea for a new wife. The next chance I found quite unexpected, is when Aigeus comes to Corinth in search of a way to have children. This is only aided by the fact that Medea can fulfill this need, saying, "I will put an end to your childlessness and help you -- become a father. I know how to concoct a potent elixir" (Line 716-717). It is completely random that they found each other and Medea can fulfill his need, while obtaining a piece to her plan she might otherwise have missed out on. The final mystery for me was why the chorus at the end of the play states that it was by the gods that the unexpected happened. It does not explain what they did or how they caused it. It seems to be a weak ending to the play as it seeks to sum it up as all the randomness was caused by the gods. I could not get past the fact that the story was seemingly weak, as their was not much that happened reasonably.
Interesting last point, Jordan--do humans traditionally act reasonably at all when our strong emotions are involved? You two have done a fantastic job of pulling out many of the thematic tensions of this work (the chorus's double-mindedness, pity for Medea vs. revulsion at her deeds, anger at Jason vs. pity for his losses, feminism vs. female stereotypes, etc.) I guess the answer to "what did Euripedes intend?" is going to change based on what lens we're reading through. That's one of the marks of great literature--enough depth to bear multiple reinterpretatoins. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete