The Story of the Quest for the Golden Fleece focuses on the dangers of selfishness and jealousy one may have. In the Quest for the Golden Fleece, Medea played a huge role and left a huge impact in this popular myth. This tale focuses on Jason who sets out on a quest for the fleece by order of King Pelias. All set in order to place Jason on the throne of Iolcus in Thessaly. From the help of Medea, they acquire the Golden Fleece.
A Greek king named Pelias had stolen a crown from his brother. An oracle had told him that he would die at the hands of a kinsman and that he shall be wary of a man wearing only one sandal. His name was Jason, the king’s nephew. He came to visit to claim his rightful place as King. Pelias had told Jason that he would give up the throne if Jason would go out and retrieve the golden fleece. Jason had set off and overcame many obstacles and adventures on his way to Colchis. With the help of Hera, he finally reaches King Etes. Hera and Aphrodite had arranged for Cupid to make King Etes’ daughter, Medea, fall in love with Jason. Jason had asked Etes for the fleece, but Etes told him that he should plow a field of dragon’s teeth, which would eventually spring up into a crop of armed men who would be cut down as they advanced and attacked. Jason had agreed although he believed the task would result in his death.
Thanks to Cupid’s bow, however, Medea had given Jason a magical potion that gave him invincibility for one day. Medea had also told him to throw a rock into the middle of the army because it would lead the armed men to kill each other. The following day, Jason did as ordered. However, the treacherous king would not give him the fleece. He planned to kill Jason. Medea had helped him again. She had led him to the fleece, she charmed the serpent guarding it, and fled with Jason back home. On the journey home, Medea had killed her brother in the idea that she was protecting Jason. This, however, was just the first sign of her madness. When they returned to Greece, she arranged for King Pelias to be killed by his own daughters, which would fulfill the oracle. Later, Jason had married another woman, and Medea had became so angry that she killed both the bride and her own two sons fathered by Jason.
Some may argue that it’s Jason’s fault for what happened to Medea and her children. However, even though Jason married another woman, it was still Medea’s choice to kill her children. No feeling of jealousy, hatred, or sadness should be enough to cause a mother to kill her own children. However, for Medea, it was. Not only did she kill her children, but she also killed her brother as well. Medea was so stuck up with doing everything she could for Jason, that she didn’t realize that she was hurting her own family.
In conclusion, Medea was the villain in the Quest for the Golden Fleece. While some may say that it was right for her to do everything in her power to help Jason, it wasn’t. Medea’s family should have come first. She should’ve never hurt and killed her own family in order to help a guy.
Revenge is a significant theme in most Greek tragedies as it is perceived as a means of justice by the victimized protagonists. In Euripides’ ‘Medea’ (431 BC), revenge takes centre stage as it is foregrounded in an appallingly visible manner in the multiple murders committed by the eponymous female protagonist, Medea. This essay aims to present an argument on (i) the significance and construction of revenge in Greek drama, (ii) the motive for Medea’s revenge and, (iii) whether her acts of vengeance are justified.
Kurchaski (2013: 67) is of the opinion that a modern-day assessment of revenge in Greek drama would hardly label it as “pure”, as “in the moral world of modern narratives justice and vengeance are mutually exclusive.” This however contrasts when seen in the context of classical Greek philosophy and mythology, where “[v]engeance itself becomes the moral force driving the plot to its violent conclusion…to achieve an ethical katharsis”. The modern-day understanding of ‘catharsis’ is the process of finding relief and release from strong and repressed emotions like love, anger, jealously and hate. Aristotle in his Poetics/ De Poetica (335 BC), says catharsis is purification and purgation of emotion particularly, pity and fear. In ‘Medea, therefore, revenge, the theme of “venerable orthodoxy” (Kurchaski, 2013:67) in Classical Greece, is developed on a full-blown scale as we see Medea achieve her catharsis by purging her emotions of rage against her betrayal in marriage. Unlike, most Greek tragedies, where vengeance is often meted out by male protagonists and gods, in ‘Medea’, Euripides casts the heroin as the avenger and that too an extremely merciless and powerful one with powers of sorcery. Medea is also a descendant of the God Helios. This subhuman portrayal of Medea and her power to wreak havoc through vengeance leaves one with the question of whether she is the hero instead of the heroin of the play (Durham, 1984)
Burnett (1973:) discusses the portrayal of Medea as the vengeance drama hero/heroin in terms of Aristotle’s definition of the makings of a perfect tragedy which includes a personality of great stature coming to disaster because of a weakness in character. In ‘Medea’, however, the main protagonist, Medea begins from a point of villainy as she comes to Corinth having beguiled the daughters of Pileas to kill their father, betrayed her father, and having murdered her brother. Also, in ‘Medea’, the secondary player, Jason, is the one who falls to disaster instead of the main player, Medea, the heartless avenger. Euripides has thus moved Medea away from the ideal mould of the Aristotlean tragic hero to a one quite different. Sagel perhaps best explains this. He (1996:16) describes Medea’s character construction as having a parallel with the heroic ethos of Greek plays with regard to the extremity of her revenge. Segal refers to Bernard Knox’s excellent demonstration of Medea in which Knox says it “follows a pattern usually associated with the male protagonist, particularly the Sophoclean hero, who, like Ajax, cannot tolerate being shamed or dishonored…and reacts by taking a terrible revenge against his enemies, at great odds and with the risk of his own life”. In the case of Medea, she is recast into “a particularly feminine mode by using guile rather than open force” with those she considers her enemies. This very guile embodied in a woman (a wife and mother), the wolf in sheep’s skin, makes her by far the most monstrous heroin in Greek revenge plays; Euripides has indeed broken the mould in this distinctively different portrayal of Medea.
Kurcharski (2013: 83) rightly states that: “It is a truism to argue that the discourses of Greek tragedy are pervaded by the vindictive principle of “helping friends and harming enemies.” In ‘Medea’, friends are few and far between for Medea as she is a foreigner in Corinth but her enemy looms large in the form of her unfaithful and ungrateful husband, Jason. Jason becomes Medea’s prime enemy when he breaks his marriage oath to her by seeking to selfishly advance his political status by marrying Glauce, King Creon’s daughter. This hurtles Medea into a mad rage for revenge; the deep-rooted bitterness and fuming fury caused by her abject rejection by Jason can be seen in the lines, “I know indeed what evil I intend to do, But stronger than all my afterthoughts is my fury, Fury that brings upon mortals the greatest evils”. On hearing Medea’s words, the Chorus send a plea to God: “O heavenly light, hold her hand, Check her, and drive from out the house The bloody Fury raised by fiends of Hell”. But Medea continues by saying that “Anger, the spring of all life’s horror, masters [her] resolve’. Medea says she is “desperate for blood” as she is a woman grossly wronged by love which she had fought for to the point of betraying her father and killing her brother. Medea laments: “There is no bitterness to be compared/With that between two people who once loved”. Her heart betrayed in marriage leads her to plan to “turn three of [her] enemies/to corpses – father, daughter, and [her] husband.” Creon, getting wind of her thirst for revenge and being wary of her powers of sorcery exiles her but she buys time to execute her murderous plans.
Kurcharski (2013: 67) states that :“In Attic tragedy revenge quite frequently seems to be not the problem but its solution.” One may, however, equally frequently wonder about the exact motives behind this “solution.” Medea’s “solution” through revenge for catharsis therefore needs be assessed here. While Medea’s relentless anger is understandable, her deeds of barbaric revenge are unwarranted. Firstly, she was given a chance to live a better life when the King of Athens offered her refuge shortly after she was decreed into exile by Creon. Instead of taking up this offer of sanctuary, Medea seeks revenge as the “solution” to her betrayal. On the onset of the play, one does feel sympathy for Medea as she suffers the betrayal of a very callous husband who not only breaks the marriage oath but also is arrogant and belittles all her efforts in helping him procure the Golden fleece at the expense of being an exile from Colchis, her birthplace. However, “the motive for the act [of multiple premediated murders] and its intrinsic barbarity warrant our condemnation” (Reid & Gillett, 1997:19). The following paragraphs provide justifications for this.
Medea says: “Hate is a bottomless cup; I will pour and pour”. Bacon aptly states that: “Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more man’s nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out” (cited in Burnett, 1973:1). Medea has no law left in her feminine bosom, no milk of maternal kindness as her revenge reaches the climax of inhumanity when she kills her children. Medea betrays the trust of her innocent sons by choosing to commit filicide to fulfill her personal and private revenge. Her sons’ screams within the walls while she tries to stab them would have been heart-rending even for the Grecian audience of the past. The Chorus is confounded by Medea’s lack of maternal instincts: ‘Wretched woman, how then did you become rock or iron, you who killed with a doom from your own hands the fruit of children that you bore!’ Segal (1996: ) says: “Their language emphasizes the contrast between the creation of life by giving birth and its destruction by the hands of the same person. The agricultural metaphor for the two children as a ‘crop’ or ‘fruit’ of the earth suggests the destruction of the natural processes of fertility in nature and thus forcefully brings together Medea’s maternity and her murderousness.” But Medea has neither ears or heart for moral advice. Her intent to revenge is all-consuming.
Medea’s excuse that her children would suffer being scorned or killed if she were to leave them with Jason is a rather weak one; her very ranting in the beginning of the play where she wishes both her husband and children dead because of her pain of betrayal shows little care for her young sons. If she cared enough, she could have started a new life with her sons, away from all the cause of her distraught since she was given the opportunity to start afresh in Athens. But, she is blinded by her madness to see Jason left with nothing that her instincts of motherhood are compromised. Segal (1996: 18 ) states: “She uses the dead bodies of the children as a weapon to torture Jason, just as she used their living bodies as the instrument to kill Glauce and Creon”. “Medea herself implicitly raises the problem when she explains the workings of her poisonous drugs: ‘Everyone who touches the girl [Glauce] will perish miserably: with such drugs shall I anoint the gifts’ (Segal, 1996 : 18). This refers to the gifts of gold and garments covered in poison, that Medea sends to Glauce, tricking her into thinking that it is a peace offering. In doing this, both Glauce and her father, King of Creon die tragically, leaving Corinth without a ruler. When Medea says: ‘Everyone who touches”, Segal (1996:18) says that the generalization coldly includes innocent victims, a servant, or Jason, or even the children. Medea at this point does not care about innocent bystanders and her plans to use her children for evil show how she does not care about anyone apart from her own wounded heart.
After committing the series of heartless acts of revenge, she ends by declaring to Jason that “Yes, I can endure guilt, however horrible; the laughter of my enemies I will not endure”, implying that she is willing to be called a murderer as long as she knows she has won against her enemies. Segal (1996 :16) states that Medea’s “most powerful motive is to hurt Jason where he is most vulnerable and most dependent on her, the continuation of his line through his sons” and in order “[t]o obtain the fullest possible revenge Medea must also avoid giving her enemies the satisfaction of punishing her. She must escape while Jason suffers (1996:17-18). The play begins with us pitying Medea and being disgusted by a selfish and unfeeling Jason but the monstrosity that the play ends with, that is, the murder of the children, leave us appalled at the unnatural turn of events. We might still not pity Jason for the Chorus warns us of how the gods intervene in mortal aspirations and we are reminded of Jason’s greed but so is our initial pity for Medea completely vanquished.
In conclusion, the theme of revenge in ‘Medea’ is in keeping with an integral part of the plot of ancient Attic plays; acts of revenge take place in order to appease the troubled spirit or emotional state of a central character who has been unjustly treated; the acts of vengeance are also to restore justice and order for the general good. In ‘Medea’, we see that the portrayal of Medea as the vengeance heroin takes on different dimensions from other Greek heroes who do great deeds to achieve kleos or glory. In Medea’s case there is no kleos in her acts of revenge for they do not bring communal good or well-being to those under her influence; as a matter of fact she diabolically annihilates everything in her path that will deeply pain her abuser, Jason. Her revenge only satiates her own blood-thirstiness for private justice (as it only concerns her matrimonial security). Finally, of all the acts of revenge, Medea’s filicide expresses “the destruction of the most basic human bonds…it makes us suddenly strangers to our world and leaves us with the shock and pity at something irreplaceably lost in what we consider to be civilized life” (Segal, 1996:16)
Medea by Euripides is centered around a woman that ends up with a broken heart simply because she loved too hard. Medea, who is the protagonist in the play, gives up everything for Jason, who is her former husband and the man she was deeply in love with. However, her acts of love are only repaid with betrayal by Jason. This turns Medea into a woman scorned and she makes it her mission to seek vengeance against Jason. Consequently, this overwhelming desire to get revenge ultimately leads to her demise.
Medea is not capable of discerning the long-term consequences that she may face when making important decisions in her life. Consequently, she becomes fixated on what she desires by the moment. This is a recurring theme throughout the play. An example of this flaw would be agreeing to marry Jason. Medea was so blinded by love that she could not see beyond Jason’s ulterior motive for wanting to marry her. In the play, Medea even mentions how destructive love can be only after she realizes that Jason did not marry her for love. He married her because of what he would gain from the marriage.
Betrayal was another theme that I noticed in this play. All the violence and horrific acts that Medea commits is the result of Jason’s betrayal. Euripides depicts the pain that Medea is experiencing vividly. “There are no names for something as foul and spineless as you. A man who is no man at all. How dare you come to us here, where you are most despised. Is this your idea of courage or heroism, to wrong your family and visit them? Loathsome, shameless, evil man” (pg. 27)
His unfaithfulness drives her insane to the point where she wanted to seek bloody revenge. I found it very ironic that after Jason’s betrayal to her, Medea begins to use manipulation and deceitfulness, which is a form of betrayal. Medea’s actions taught me a lot about the severity of being betrayed. Not just in romantic relationships, but in any relationship that you have with a person in your life. Betrayal is a violation of your trust by a person who turns out to not be worthy of it. I will not say that her actions are justified because killing your children simply to get revenge on a man that does not love you is not morally right. However, I understand why she committed this horrific crime. When people get hurt by someone that they love or trust, they tend to not think rationally in the decisions that they make.
I think the most shocking part of this play was Medea’s decision to murder her own children out of spite towards Jason. I found it quite interesting that the children’s murder was foreshadowed at the beginning of the play by the nurse. “She loathes to have her children near and cannot bear to look at them. I am afraid some plan is already forming in her mind.” (pg. 7) It seems Medea never loved her own children as Jason never loved her. Then, my suspicions were confirmed when she decided that murdering her sons was the only way to make Jason hurt the way she was hurting. “I’ll escape from Corinth, fleeing the murder of my own dear sons the most unutterable of crimes.” (pg. 45)
Medea understands that murdering her children is an unspeakable and shameful crime. However, her desire to seek revenge is so strong that she has lost the ability to think rationally. She is numb with pain from Jason giving his love to another woman and believes that this is the only way to get revenge. This also made me come to another conclusion about betrayal in this play. I realized that Medea is betraying her children by murdering them. Her children trusted her to protect them and love them unconditionally and she did the complete opposite.
For 2,448 years, “Medea” has been a notable playwright and story, thanks to Euripides’ craftsmanship and eloquent characterization of the infamous main character, Medea. Even though Euripides writes Medea as a complex character having many characteristics, there is one characteristic that dominates all the others, and for a good reason. Throughout the entirety of “Medea,” Euripides depicts Medea as hopeless to enable the audience to empathize with her. Euripides portrays this feeling in Medea’s first line, where she is shown as depressed and having suicidal thoughts: “Ah wretch. Ah, lost in my sufferings. I wish, I wish I might die.” (4). This dramatic yet devastating statement indicates that Medea is so heartbroken and overcome with grief that it seems to her that the only alternative is death, albeit that she has other options to help cope with her sorrow. Without a doubt, seeing a once happy, wedded woman wishing for death in response to her husband, Jason, leaving her causes the audience to feel sympathetic towards her situation. Secondly, Medea is characterized as hopeless through her suffering and pain- both past and present. Before the events of this play, Medea kills her own brother to be with Jason, resulting in her domestic banishment.
Medea expresses her intense regret and pain: “But I am deserted, a refuge, thought nothing of by my husband, something won in a foreign land. I have no mother nor brother, nor anyone with whom I can take refuge in this sea of woe.” (Euripides 9.) Remorseful, Medea is reflecting on her brother’s death, which ironically turned out to be for nothing. Medea’s realization emphasizes the severity of her pain. Most of all, she contemplates about Jason leaving her to be with another woman- leading to Medea concluding that she is worthless in the eyes of her husband. This analyzation leads to Medea’s realization that as a result of her actions and Jason’s change of heart, she no longer has anyone in her life to depend on. Ultimately,
For 2,448 years, “Medea” has been a notable playwright and story, thanks to Euripides’ craftsmanship and eloquent characterization of the infamous main character, Medea. Even though Euripides writes Medea as a complex character having many characteristics, there is one characteristic that dominates all the others, and for a good reason. Throughout the entirety of “Medea,” Euripides depicts Medea as hopeless to enable the audience to empathize with her. Euripides portrays this feeling in Medea’s first line, where she is shown as depressed and having suicidal thoughts: “Ah wretch. Ah, lost in my sufferings. I wish, I wish I might die.” (4). This dramatic yet devastating statement indicates that Medea is so heartbroken and overcome with grief that it seems to her that the only alternative is death, albeit that she has other options to help cope with her sorrow. Without a doubt, seeing a once happy, wedded woman wishing for death in response to her husband, Jason, leaving her causes the audience to feel sympathetic towards her situation. Secondly, Medea is characterized as hopeless through her suffering and pain- both past and present.
Before the events of this play, Medea kills her own brother to be with Jason, resulting in her domestic banishment. Medea expresses her intense regret and pain: “But I am deserted, a refuge, thought nothing of by my husband, something won in a foreign land. I have no mother nor brother, nor anyone with whom I can take refuge in this sea of woe.” (Euripides 9.) Remorseful, Medea is reflecting on her brother’s death, which ironically turned out to be for nothing. Medea’s realization emphasizes the severity of her pain. Most of all, she contemplates about Jason leaving her to be with another woman- leading to Medea concluding that she is worthless in the eyes of her husband. This analyzation leads to Medea’s realization that as a result of her actions and Jason’s change of heart, she no longer has anyone in her life to depend on. Ultimately, Medea’s hopelessness might have caused the audience to feel sorry for her because she still displays normal “human” emotion at this point in the play. Lastly, Medea is shown as hopeless as she is hated by the Corinthians and even her own family.
After she kills her brother, she is no longer welcomed by her family. Her domestic exile is portrayed as Euripides writes: “No father’s house for a haven is at hand for you now.” (15). When this line is said, the audience is reminded that Medea can no longer find comfort in the house of her family, her own blood. Possibly, Medea’s status made the audience realize how harsh circumstances were for Medea as they might have imagined what it would be like to be unwelcome by their own families. Medea’s lack of popularity shows again as she is told by Creon, the King of Corinth, that she is to leave the land as an exile: “But I shall go from this land into exile, friendless.” (Euripides 19.) Even though Medea says this as she is attempting to manipulate Creon, it is still valid as she would be friendless had she been cast out from the Corinthian society.
Also, the hypothetical situation reminds Euripides’ audience that if she was actually forced into exile, she would not be missed by anyone, highlighting her loneliness. In summary, Medea portrays multiple characteristics, but most of all, she is written as hopeless. Euripides chose to characterize Medea as hopeless to allow the reader/audience member to empathize with Medea more, possibly making her seem more “human.” He does this by writing Medea as being depressed, by making her suffer, and by making her a social outcast. Even though Medea is, without a doubt, a psychopath, her hopelessness makes her more human, and one dare say, relatable.
Justice or fairness depends on the situation and also the person who viewed it. Just like how beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, the history books can be biased based on the perspective of the writers. It is hard to justify if specific situations if a person is wrong or right. Hence, human civilization has made laws to set a bar of a good morality and a defined line between right and wrong. Courts, laws, civil rights and human rights are some examples of the existence of social justice in modern community. I was not surprised that these kind of laws or rights have existed for centuries. For example, sharia law which exists in the Quran. (explain more – summary and one of the law). Medea, an ancient Greek mythology, was written in 431 BC by Euripides whereas Trifles was first performed in 1916 and written by Susan Glaspell. Both stories deeply uncover the social expectation towards gender role and the oppression on women in a patriarchal society. They were uniquely told in the way of the authors chose the form, the usage of symbolism, irony, themes, and the characters in building the tension and delivering the message.
Medea and Trifles were both written in form of drama. What makes drama different from other genres of literature is the nonexistence of narrator in the literary work. Thus, drama will leave more surprise and judgment of the characters to the audience. It is interesting that in Medea, the Chorus was used to aid the audience in understanding what was going on in the play due to the limitations in production at that time. In another word or interpretation, Chorus are another version of narrator. In fact, chorus keep on asking question to the characters in order to get into their mind and thoughts. On the contrary, Trifles did not have any chorus. The readers get to know the characters’ thoughts through their conversation with each other. However, Trifles gave more details on how the actors or actresses would act on stage. These details will give clear body languages which are as important as verbal communication. For instance, the moment when Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters were thinking of the evidence that can relate to Mrs. Wright’s motive of killing her husband, the situation was explained as “she puts her hand on the dish towel which lies on the table, stands looking down at table, one half of which is clean and the other half messy.”(Glaspell, 226). Personally, I feel more connected to the characters in Trifles as I can picture the situation more vividly including the emotional tension among the characters.
Another important thing to note is the era which these stories were written. This is a big influence on the writers as they wrote the stories based on the technology available to them at that time which subsequently can affect their choice of writing in a certain form. In Medea, chorus are important characters as they need to inform the audience the current situation on stage as we know that during the ancient time, the drama was acted in a large open space and there was no such thing as hand free microphones and speakers. For example, chorus were saying “I heard her voice, I heard that unhappy woman from Colchia still crying, not calm yet.” (Euripides, 200). Despite of giving a clarity, this will lead to a lot of repetition and might bore the audience. In a modern world, chorus are not needed as people can hear the actors and actresses clearly. Hence, it does not interrupt their understanding or ability to follow the stories. This is the reason why trifle was written by focusing more on the verbal and non-verbal communication among the characters. However, is the non-verbal communication really important? This is because, the audience may have sight limitation to see small movements of the characters. For example, “Their eyes meet. A look of growing comprehension, of horror.” (Glaspell, 227)
Next, symbolism is one of the interesting ways the author made in building up the tension in the story. Symbolism serves as a great punch line if the audience can grasp the idea. In Medea there is no significance symbolism whereas Trifles does have a few significance symbolisms that portrayed the themes and plot of the stories. The major symbols in Trifles were a jar of fruit, dirty towel, a loaf of uncooked bread, quilt and the dead bird. “Well, women are used to worry over trifles.” (Glaspell, 225) was said by Hale when Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters mentioned about the jar of fruits. Men also showed their superiority by judging Mrs. Wright for not being a good housekeeper as she kept dirty towel and a loaf of uncooked bread in the kitchen and mocking the way both of their wives were bothering about the quilt. These situations heavily demonstrated the oppression towards women and the expectation of gender role by stereotyping women to perform all the domestic duties. The jar of fruit and the bread meant more to Mrs. Wright as that was the only thing she was allowed to do for her happiness in the house. According to psychologist, cooking or baking are therapeutic as it can make a person feel happier and more excited for the next day. It is currently being explored to help people with depression and anxiety. (Lewis). By relating this new study to Mrs. Wright scenario, it can be concluded that Mrs. Wright has no longer expect a tomorrow and none of the cooking or baking are therapeutic anymore in helping her dealing with mental illness after being psychologically abused by her husband.
Meanwhile, the dirty towel showed that how men were not paying any attention to the amount of house chores that women need to fulfil in her daily life. This subsequently affect the women social life as how Mrs. Hales mentioned “I liked her all well enough. Farmers’ wives have their hands full, Mr. Henderson.” (Glaspell, 225) when she was asked about her current relationship with Mrs. Wright as a neighbor. With no social interaction, the wives would be more dependent on the husband and for Mrs. Wright, it will make her condition worse as there was no one that she can turn to. The most important symbol in Trifles was the quilt as its symbolized Mrs. Wright as the one who was responsible for her husband death. It also symbolized how women intelligence are belittled and not appreciated. It also indicates men’s pride and prejudiced towards women as they do not even respect others opinion rather than from their own gender. Women were not given any chance to speak up and that was how they should behave in society. Hence, the outcome of this case was in favor of one side as men held more power in determining Mrs. Wright’s innocence or fate. Ironically, it was the men who looked stupid because they were the one who were fooled by the women. This was proven at the end of the story when the county attorney asked Mrs. Hale about her findings at the house particularly about the quilt and she answer it with “We call it-knot it, Mr. Henderson” which denoted as the most powerful rebellious act in breaking the social norm and the law.
The dead bird in the story symbolized the oppression on women. It portrayed how powerful men in controlling women’s life by confining them into a house and restricting their social interaction or hobby, notably when Mrs. Hale mentioned that Mr. Wright was a hard man and Mrs. Wright used to sing and she was a cheerful person but, not anymore. Mrs. Hale highlighted the situation to Mrs. Peters that what they did was a crime too as they did not visit Mrs. Wright despite of knowing how hard her life was which the same things that they were experiencing as she said, “it’s all just a different kind of the same thing.”(Glaspell, 228). Mrs. Peters illustrated her empathy by saying “(in a whisper) When I was a girl—my kitten—there was a boy took a hatchet, and before my eyes—and before I could get there—(covers her face an instant)If they hadn’t held me back I would have—(catches herself, looks upstairs where steps are heard, falters weakly)—hurt him.”(Glaspell, 228). She completely understands why Mrs. Wright killed her husband because she almost did the same thing to a boy who killed her kitten too. This story created an awareness regarding domestic violence which can happen to anyone regardless of gender. Take an example of Johnny Depp who claimed that he was abused by his ex-wife, Amber Heard. It is important for people to stand up for themselves and seek the authority for justice.
Medea did not have any significance symbolisms, but it did share the same thematic with Trifles which act as the central idea that the author used in building up the tension in the story. That is people are not appreciating women especially their intelligence and expecting them to become submissive towards men. This can be proven when King of Corinth said “I fear that you may do to my daughter some irreparable harm. A number of things contribute to my anxiety. You’re a clever woman, skilled in many evil arts; You’re barred from Jason’s bed, and that enrages you. Of revenge on Jason and his bride and his bride’s father. I’ll act first, then, in self-defend. I’d rather make you my enemy now, then weaken, and later pay with tears.” (Euripides, 202). She was brilliant and that made men around him felt unease with her ability to turn the situation to another way around. Ironically, it was Creon who was crying over his daughter dead body not Medea. The other way to look at this situation was women were portrayed as an emotional, wilds, and reckless person which associated with feminine traits. However, I was interested with the idea from Carolyn A. Durham as she managed to look this situation differently. She mentioned how Medea appeared to be more masculine while Jason is more feminine. This is because, Medea was the who a person that fulfilled her words by actions even she was pathetic and hopeless. Throughout the story it was Medea who taking charge in getting the golden fleece and tricked Pelias’s daughter for Jason. This showed a reversal of sex role.
Moreover, in my personal view, Jason has taken an advantage of her cleverness in order to get the golden fleece and status from Pelias. He was someone who only care about his status or society impression towards him and he was the most manipulative person who good at playing victim until we felt sympathy towards him even what he did to Medea was as evil as killing his family. This is because, he betrayed Medea by agreeing to marry Creon’s daughter for status. What kind of husband or father that abandoned his wife and sons for another woman and let them live in exile? He started to care about his sons and asked Glauce to accept them only after Medea pleaded him to save them. Most importantly, the only part of this story that he showed his love towards his son was right after Glauce and Creon were dead by Medea mischievous plan. I believe he was acting this way to preserve his good image so that he appeared innocent. However, whenever his image was tainted, he would blame Medea. He did not love Medea or his children. If he loved them dearly, he would save his marriage and choose to be a good husband. Instead, he justified that he wanted to marry Glauce for the benefits of Medea and his sons. His ignorance to accept his own mistakes and infidelity backfired him as he lost all that he had which Medea has helped him to achieve without he even noticed. This was the effect when he tried to outsmart Medea. He was back to be a Jason who has nothing to be proud of. He lost the title as a husband and a father. The same goes to Medea. She also the same person before she met Jason. She lost her title as a wife and a mother.
Comparing both women characters in the stories, I adore Medea the most. This is because, she is intelligent, independent, heartless, has a long-term vision and decisive in achieving her objectives. I inspired to be a person like her. She is like another version of Voldemort in Harry Potter movie. Most importantly, she is very loyal to her beloved husband, Jason. This is proven when the Nurse said ‘Then neither would Medea, my mistress, ever have set sail for the walled town of Iolcus, mad with love for Jason: nor would she, when Pelias’ daughters, at her instance, killed their father, have come with Jason and her children to live here in Corinth”.(Euripides, 198) I respect her bravery in leaving her family, friends and country behind for Jason. However, I disagree with her decision of cutting ties with her family by killing his own brother and made enemies with Pelias’ daughters just for helping Jason getting a golden fleece and a status. This is relatable to the modern world where women were blinded by love and follow a man who has nothing to offer accept love. In my country, this once has been a hot issue and highly disputable. It also appeared in news where Malaysian women who willingly followed a foreigner, begged Malaysian government to bring them back to their family as they were suffering living in poverty and in unsanitary place. At the end of the day, it always the women whom will suffer just like Medea after being abandoned by Jason for a royalty. It is sad that these women have nowhere to return and no one to get comfort because of their mistake cutting ties with their friends and family.
The question that I have in mind is whether both of the women’s actions were a form of justice. Did their husbands deserve the punishment? Personally, I agree with the actions taken in both stories as it gives a sense of satisfaction towards me as a reader. Women were oppressed and have no voice in a men dominance society which led them to justify the situation with their own judgement. However, should the ends justify the means? To contemplate this again by considering moral values instead of having any feeling of empathy or sympathy, what Medea, Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale did were totally wrong. Furthermore, Medea’s sons were innocent. They could stay alive and have a full life ahead of them if they did not get caught in their parents’ vengeance. I believe that those who fight for justice would not get any harm in return and vice versa for revenge. Medea became an exile and suffered due to her lost as she has killed her sons while Mrs. Wright suffered by living in prison after being a suspect of killing her husband. This situation makes me believe that two wrongs do not make a right.
References
Durham, Corolyn A. “Medea: Hero or Heroine?” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 8, no. 1(1984), pp. 54-59.
Justice or fairness depends on the situation and also the person who viewed it. Just like how beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, the history books can be biased based on the perspective of the writers. It is hard to justify if specific situations if a person is wrong or right. Hence, human civilization has made laws to set a bar of a good morality and a defined line between right and wrong. Courts, laws, civil rights and human rights are some examples of the existence of social justice in modern community. I was not surprised that these kind of laws or rights have existed for centuries. For example, sharia law which exists in the Quran. (explain more – summary and one of the law). Medea, an ancient Greek mythology, was written in 431 BC by Euripides whereas Trifles was first performed in 1916 and written by Susan Glaspell. Both stories deeply uncover the social expectation towards gender role and the oppression on women in a patriarchal society. They were uniquely told in the way of the authors chose the form, the usage of symbolism, irony, themes, and the characters in building the tension and delivering the message.
Medea and Trifles were both written in form of drama. What makes drama different from other genres of literature is the nonexistence of narrator in the literary work. Thus, drama will leave more surprise and judgment of the characters to the audience. It is interesting that in Medea, the Chorus was used to aid the audience in understanding what was going on in the play due to the limitations in production at that time. In another word or interpretation, Chorus are another version of narrator. In fact, chorus keep on asking question to the characters in order to get into their mind and thoughts. On the contrary, Trifles did not have any chorus. The readers get to know the characters’ thoughts through their conversation with each other. However, Trifles gave more details on how the actors or actresses would act on stage. These details will give clear body languages which are as important as verbal communication. For instance, the moment when Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters were thinking of the evidence that can relate to Mrs. Wright’s motive of killing her husband, the situation was explained as “she puts her hand on the dish towel which lies on the table, stands looking down at table, one half of which is clean and the other half messy.”(Glaspell, 226). Personally, I feel more connected to the characters in Trifles as I can picture the situation more vividly including the emotional tension among the characters.
Another important thing to note is the era which these stories were written. This is a big influence on the writers as they wrote the stories based on the technology available to them at that time which subsequently can affect their choice of writing in a certain form. In Medea, chorus are important characters as they need to inform the audience the current situation on stage as we know that during the ancient time, the drama was acted in a large open space and there was no such thing as hand free microphones and speakers. For example, chorus were saying “I heard her voice, I heard that unhappy woman from Colchia still crying, not calm yet.” (Euripides, 200). Despite of giving a clarity, this will lead to a lot of repetition and might bore the audience. In a modern world, chorus are not needed as people can hear the actors and actresses clearly. Hence, it does not interrupt their understanding or ability to follow the stories. This is the reason why trifle was written by focusing more on the verbal and non-verbal communication among the characters. However, is the non-verbal communication really important? This is because, the audience may have sight limitation to see small movements of the characters. For example, “Their eyes meet. A look of growing comprehension, of horror.” (Glaspell, 227)
Next, symbolism is one of the interesting ways the author made in building up the tension in the story. Symbolism serves as a great punch line if the audience can grasp the idea. In Medea there is no significance symbolism whereas Trifles does have a few significance symbolisms that portrayed the themes and plot of the stories. The major symbols in Trifles were a jar of fruit, dirty towel, a loaf of uncooked bread, quilt and the dead bird. “Well, women are used to worry over trifles.” (Glaspell, 225) was said by Hale when Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters mentioned about the jar of fruits. Men also showed their superiority by judging Mrs. Wright for not being a good housekeeper as she kept dirty towel and a loaf of uncooked bread in the kitchen and mocking the way both of their wives were bothering about the quilt. These situations heavily demonstrated the oppression towards women and the expectation of gender role by stereotyping women to perform all the domestic duties. The jar of fruit and the bread meant more to Mrs. Wright as that was the only thing she was allowed to do for her happiness in the house. According to psychologist, cooking or baking are therapeutic as it can make a person feel happier and more excited for the next day. It is currently being explored to help people with depression and anxiety. (Lewis). By relating this new study to Mrs. Wright scenario, it can be concluded that Mrs. Wright has no longer expect a tomorrow and none of the cooking or baking are therapeutic anymore in helping her dealing with mental illness after being psychologically abused by her husband.
Meanwhile, the dirty towel showed that how men were not paying any attention to the amount of house chores that women need to fulfil in her daily life. This subsequently affect the women social life as how Mrs. Hales mentioned “I liked her all well enough. Farmers’ wives have their hands full, Mr. Henderson.” (Glaspell, 225) when she was asked about her current relationship with Mrs. Wright as a neighbor. With no social interaction, the wives would be more dependent on the husband and for Mrs. Wright, it will make her condition worse as there was no one that she can turn to. The most important symbol in Trifles was the quilt as its symbolized Mrs. Wright as the one who was responsible for her husband death. It also symbolized how women intelligence are belittled and not appreciated. It also indicates men’s pride and prejudiced towards women as they do not even respect others opinion rather than from their own gender. Women were not given any chance to speak up and that was how they should behave in society. Hence, the outcome of this case was in favor of one side as men held more power in determining Mrs. Wright’s innocence or fate. Ironically, it was the men who looked stupid because they were the one who were fooled by the women. This was proven at the end of the story when the county attorney asked Mrs. Hale about her findings at the house particularly about the quilt and she answer it with “We call it-knot it, Mr. Henderson” which denoted as the most powerful rebellious act in breaking the social norm and the law.
The dead bird in the story symbolized the oppression on women. It portrayed how powerful men in controlling women’s life by confining them into a house and restricting their social interaction or hobby, notably when Mrs. Hale mentioned that Mr. Wright was a hard man and Mrs. Wright used to sing and she was a cheerful person but, not anymore. Mrs. Hale highlighted the situation to Mrs. Peters that what they did was a crime too as they did not visit Mrs. Wright despite of knowing how hard her life was which the same things that they were experiencing as she said, “it’s all just a different kind of the same thing.”(Glaspell, 228). Mrs. Peters illustrated her empathy by saying “(in a whisper) When I was a girl—my kitten—there was a boy took a hatchet, and before my eyes—and before I could get there—(covers her face an instant)If they hadn’t held me back I would have—(catches herself, looks upstairs where steps are heard, falters weakly)—hurt him.”(Glaspell, 228). She completely understands why Mrs. Wright killed her husband because she almost did the same thing to a boy who killed her kitten too. This story created an awareness regarding domestic violence which can happen to anyone regardless of gender. Take an example of Johnny Depp who claimed that he was abused by his ex-wife, Amber Heard. It is important for people to stand up for themselves and seek the authority for justice.
Medea did not have any significance symbolisms, but it did share the same thematic with Trifles which act as the central idea that the author used in building up the tension in the story. That is people are not appreciating women especially their intelligence and expecting them to become submissive towards men. This can be proven when King of Corinth said “I fear that you may do to my daughter some irreparable harm. A number of things contribute to my anxiety. You’re a clever woman, skilled in many evil arts; You’re barred from Jason’s bed, and that enrages you. Of revenge on Jason and his bride and his bride’s father. I’ll act first, then, in self-defend. I’d rather make you my enemy now, then weaken, and later pay with tears.” (Euripides, 202). She was brilliant and that made men around him felt unease with her ability to turn the situation to another way around. Ironically, it was Creon who was crying over his daughter dead body not Medea. The other way to look at this situation was women were portrayed as an emotional, wilds, and reckless person which associated with feminine traits. However, I was interested with the idea from Carolyn A. Durham as she managed to look this situation differently. She mentioned how Medea appeared to be more masculine while Jason is more feminine. This is because, Medea was the who a person that fulfilled her words by actions even she was pathetic and hopeless. Throughout the story it was Medea who taking charge in getting the golden fleece and tricked Pelias’s daughter for Jason. This showed a reversal of sex role.
Moreover, in my personal view, Jason has taken an advantage of her cleverness in order to get the golden fleece and status from Pelias. He was someone who only care about his status or society impression towards him and he was the most manipulative person who good at playing victim until we felt sympathy towards him even what he did to Medea was as evil as killing his family. This is because, he betrayed Medea by agreeing to marry Creon’s daughter for status. What kind of husband or father that abandoned his wife and sons for another woman and let them live in exile? He started to care about his sons and asked Glauce to accept them only after Medea pleaded him to save them. Most importantly, the only part of this story that he showed his love towards his son was right after Glauce and Creon were dead by Medea mischievous plan. I believe he was acting this way to preserve his good image so that he appeared innocent. However, whenever his image was tainted, he would blame Medea. He did not love Medea or his children. If he loved them dearly, he would save his marriage and choose to be a good husband. Instead, he justified that he wanted to marry Glauce for the benefits of Medea and his sons. His ignorance to accept his own mistakes and infidelity backfired him as he lost all that he had which Medea has helped him to achieve without he even noticed. This was the effect when he tried to outsmart Medea. He was back to be a Jason who has nothing to be proud of. He lost the title as a husband and a father. The same goes to Medea. She also the same person before she met Jason. She lost her title as a wife and a mother.
Comparing both women characters in the stories, I adore Medea the most. This is because, she is intelligent, independent, heartless, has a long-term vision and decisive in achieving her objectives. I inspired to be a person like her. She is like another version of Voldemort in Harry Potter movie. Most importantly, she is very loyal to her beloved husband, Jason. This is proven when the Nurse said ‘Then neither would Medea, my mistress, ever have set sail for the walled town of Iolcus, mad with love for Jason: nor would she, when Pelias’ daughters, at her instance, killed their father, have come with Jason and her children to live here in Corinth”.(Euripides, 198) I respect her bravery in leaving her family, friends and country behind for Jason. However, I disagree with her decision of cutting ties with her family by killing his own brother and made enemies with Pelias’ daughters just for helping Jason getting a golden fleece and a status. This is relatable to the modern world where women were blinded by love and follow a man who has nothing to offer accept love. In my country, this once has been a hot issue and highly disputable. It also appeared in news where Malaysian women who willingly followed a foreigner, begged Malaysian government to bring them back to their family as they were suffering living in poverty and in unsanitary place. At the end of the day, it always the women whom will suffer just like Medea after being abandoned by Jason for a royalty. It is sad that these women have nowhere to return and no one to get comfort because of their mistake cutting ties with their friends and family.
The question that I have in mind is whether both of the women’s actions were a form of justice. Did their husbands deserve the punishment? Personally, I agree with the actions taken in both stories as it gives a sense of satisfaction towards me as a reader. Women were oppressed and have no voice in a men dominance society which led them to justify the situation with their own judgement. However, should the ends justify the means? To contemplate this again by considering moral values instead of having any feeling of empathy or sympathy, what Medea, Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale did were totally wrong. Furthermore, Medea’s sons were innocent. They could stay alive and have a full life ahead of them if they did not get caught in their parents’ vengeance. I believe that those who fight for justice would not get any harm in return and vice versa for revenge. Medea became an exile and suffered due to her lost as she has killed her sons while Mrs. Wright suffered by living in prison after being a suspect of killing her husband. This situation makes me believe that two wrongs do not make a right.
References
Durham, Corolyn A. “Medea: Hero or Heroine?” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 8, no. 1(1984), pp. 54-59.
Love continues through Euripides’s Medea. Euripides’s Medea is an ancient Greek tragedy based on the myth of Medea and Jason. The play that was discussed about in class is based on the actions of Medea who was a princess of the Colchis Kingdom. Medea can be described as a fine line just between hate and love but we wonder what one is more than the other. It seems as if she is loving wife but also a dangerous enemy at the same time in which the readers tend to discover throughout the play the real truths of Medea’s passion, murder and motherhood.
Medea fell in love with Jason from the first day she saw he. They were married after Medea had worked with Jason against Medea’s father in defeating the three tests. After the marriage, the King was against everything and Medea’s father send Medea’s brother to follow them and return Medea. With the assistance of Jason, Medea killed and scattered the remains of her brother in the sea. After giving birth to two children, Jason fell in love with another lady. Medea was infuriated and started to revenge. Her furious anger resulted in the death of her two children, Jason’s new wife, King Creon, while also breaking the heart of many more people. All the actions show infatuation, and revenge against the decision of Jason to marry another woman. Even though, Jason and Medea were in love, the story of love is evident in the play.
Medea fell in love with Jason, and she was determined to support any decision provided he would marry her. The first love was evident when Medea decided to fall in love with Jason. Medea played an important in ensuring Jason succeeded in the numerous tasks. It started with Jason been able to plow a field with fire breathing oxen. Medea used an ointment into ensuring Jason went through the flames. The second that assigned to Jason was to defeat the army of warriors. The warriors sprouted from the dragon’s teeth on the field. Medea was able to give special instructions that allowed Jason to become victorious.
The third task was overcoming the sleepless dragon, which had been tasked with guarding the Golden Fleece. “And I killed the dragon guarding the Golden Fleece, coiled up there/staying on watch and never going to sleep” (14). Medea gave Jason a potion that enabled Jason to defeat the dragon because the dragon fell asleep. These numerous activities show the determination and the expectation of persons in love. The decision was to take the Golden Fleece, which was possible because of the association of the two parties.
The love of Medea towards Jason is evident when they arranged to kill Apsyrtus. Apsyrtus was a half-brother to Medea and King Aeetes had requested Apsyrtus to follow them and return Medea back home. Jason and Medea wanted to stay together and the solution was killing the brother. In addition, the two decided to scatter the body parts of Apsyrtus in the sea. “You slaughtered your brother in your home, then came aboard our fine ship, the Argo. That’s how you began” (40). The objective was to distract her father, which allowed them to sail away. Imagining that someone kills a person because of love shows the determination to maintain the love. Thinking that an individual is ready to kill another person especially a family member shows the determination of love. Medea preferred the live to Jason compared to the love to her brother. Such behaviors and attitudes show the determination of an individual to influence the direction of the society, and other operational needs and requirements.
Love is also based on the long-term goals and objectives. In Corinth, Medea and Jason lived peacefully but Jason was determined to become King. Jason fell in love with Glauce with the objective to be a further King. King Creon of Corinth was determined to ensure Glauce got married to Jason. Jason was determined to marry, which shows a twisted form of love. King Creon says, “You there, Medea, scowling in anger against your husband. I’m ordering you out of Corinth” (8). King Creon shows the determination to ensure her daughter is married to Jason. Sending Medea away is an appropriate strategy to control everything including the aim to determine the direction of their marriage. Due to love, King Creon was ready to use his authority to assert his position in the society and marriage arrangements. Therefore, it shows the role of love that parents have for their children.
The play also shows Kings also love their children whatever the circumstances. King Creon push showed the role of love towards his daughter. The King knew that the future of his daughter would be guaranteed provided both married. The love was also evident when the King was burned when he tried to save his daughter. Euripides says, “onto his knees, but she held him down. If he used force, he tore his ancient flesh clear off his bones. The poor man at last gave up. His breathing stopped, for he couldn’t stand the pain a moment longer. So the two of them lie dead—” (36). King Creon held his daughter while they were burning. King Aegeus showed the ability of love and the determination of love to protect his son. Aegeus ensured protection of his son through sending away Medea: Medea fled back to Cochlis. Without the actions of King Aegeus, it means that Medea would have killed another person. Therefore, the love and aspirations of King Aegeus is to continue maintaining the relations with his son even through the son had originally left. Other parents might have not welcomed back the child but the actions of King Aegeus show the extent and limits of love.
The love of Medea towards Jason is evident in the decision to use her powers. For example, Medea gave Glauce a wedding gown with poison. The poison gown burned her alive while he wore it. Medea asks the Messenger who was running to her side what the problem was and the Messenger said, “The king’s daughter has just been destroyed, her / father, too—Creon. You poisoned them.” These are some of the expectations that Medea was expectation. After sometime, Medea replies, “I have some remarks to offer in reply. But, my friend, don’t be in such a hurry. Tell me of their deaths. If you report they died in pain, you’ll double my rejoicing” (34). The objective of Medea was not only the death but also the experience of the death. It means that Medea wanted the most painful death for the people who caused pain for him. The pain was only possible provided the death was painful. Therefore, the experiences and objectives of Medea were achieved through the painful death.
Medea loved her children. However, the love was divided because she knew the possible consequences of her action. Jason says, “When you married me and bore my children, in your lust for sex and our marriage bed, you killed them. No woman from Greece would dare to do this, but I chose you as my wife” (40). For example, she decided to kill her two children. Medea had initially said, “I’ve made up my mind, my friends. I’ll do it—kill my children now, without delay, and flee this land. I must not hesitate” (37). The decision to kill the children was because of perceived revenge. The perspective was that the children were to be targeted because of the crimes of Medea.
The love for children is inevitable pointing to the decisions of Medea. After Medea’s escape to Aegeus, she decided to marry King of Athens. She gave birth to a son but Medea was afraid of the position of Theseus who was the lusty song of the King. Medea believed that the return of Theseus would imply that her son would not become the King. The decision influenced Medea to push King Aegeus to send Theseus to kill a deadly beast. Theseus was able to return as a victor. She subsequently decided to poison Theseus to ensure her son become a King. However, she was not successful.
In conclusion, the topic of love is evident in the play Medea. Medea was determined to maintain the love at any cost possible. Media killed her brother and her two children provided she maintained the love with her husband. She went to the extent of killing the new wife to her husband. The determination is to measure the love continues at any possible costs. The two Kings indicates the importance of love. The Kings were ready to defeat their children and support the objectives of their children. These numerous decisions were aimed at ensuring the importance of love was championed and upheld.
A lady who has been harmed by the one she cherishes will look for vengeance until she never again feels for them. Ladies are brilliant and they know how to utilize what they have to hurt those who have harmed them. They will take the necessary steps to get and give retribution to the individuals who have treated them terribly. Medea is a lady who took drastic measures to get revenge on her husband but, in the end, it flipped on her and she lost the loves of her life. She feels as if she needs to bring the same pain she feels to the ones who brought pain to her. Medea is a savvy, vile, and hurt lady and it shows throughout the entire play.
She demonstrates her knowledge when she convinces the king to give her another day which leads him to his death. Medea says, “I’m not worried about myself, but I feel the hardship it brings to my sons” (448). King Creon gives her the extra day because he feels bad about exiling the two innocent boys. Medea knew Creon would fall for this plea because she says, “But he is such a credulous fool, when he had the chance to throw me out and foil my plans, he gave me one more day” (449). Despite Medea being a smart lady, she really lets her emotions govern her actions.
Her vile ways turn out when she slaughters her very own kids so she can hurt the man that hurt her. This is a serious step in her plan, and she wrestles with the idea of actually killing her own sons. While he’s talking to the boys Jason asks, “But you, why are your cheeks covered with tears?” she says, “Its nothing—just thought of these children” (461). When the tutor comes back with the news of the boys no longer being exiled and Medea is crying, the tutor wonders why and she says, “I can’t help it old friend. Terrible plans have been devised by the gods—and by me”(463). She is having an emotional conflict in her head over the thought of killing her kids for the sake of revenge and it shows as the moment approaches. Medea will take any necessary steps to get the revenge she seeks on her husband.
At last Medea did what she believed she needs to do to the man that broke her heart. She utilized her misery, brain, and wickedness to give Jason what she thought he deserved. She completed her whole plan without laying a finger on Jason, King Creon, or Princess Gluake. Medea took it too far with the murder of her sons but everything else is just a lady doing what a lady does best, returning a favor. Bringing me back to the statement that ladies are brilliant and will take the necessary steps to get and give retribution to the individuals who have treated them terribly.
Works Cited
Euripides. Medea. The Norton Anthology of World Literature Shorter Fourth Edition. Vol 1, edited by Martin Puchner, et al., W. W. Norton, 2017, pp. 441- 472.
Blindness is both physical and emotional or even intellectual, of which a person gets afflicted with it denoting not physical blindness but failure to see clearly on situations that may cause negative results if not addressed carefully. This kind of blindness is present in both stories of Medea and Oedipus. Medea, at most associated with the witch Greek goddess Hecate, is the daughter of King Aeëtes of Colchis, niece of Circe, granddaughter of the sun Helios, who fell in love with the hero of the Golden Fleece – Jason. Oedipus’ story is best known as a fulfilment of a prophecy: a banished son who soon killed his father and then marries his mother.
Oedipus’s story
Oedipus’s metaphorical blindness is one of the main themes concentrated in the Greek play. Oedipus at the middle of the story had the urge to free the citizens of Thebes from the threat of the Sphinx. On the latter part of his story, Oedipus would vow to do everything in his power to find the murderer of Laius, as the murder has caused the plague in Thebes. Oedipus firmly believed that, ‘The only way of deliverance from our plague is for us to find out the killers of Laius and kill and banish them.”
Oedipus believes that his propensity in solving problems would eventually guide him to the truth and subsequently, down the correct path. But in fact, Oedipus is a man who studies the ground in front of him so intensely he did not bother to look up and see other details. The irony of his situation is that his insight led him to a contradictory truth. As Teresias accused, “I say, you murdered the man whose murderer you require” referring to Oedipus himself who killed Laius his father.
However, Oedipus’s inability to comprehend Teresias’s riddles is a product of his hubris — pride and arrogance — which act together to figuratively blindfold him and make him incapable of acknowledging the possibility of being Laius’s murderer and marrying his own mother, Jocasta. Teresia pointed out, “You blame my temper, but you do not see your own that lives within you.” Teresias implies that Oedipus should be ashamed of his acts because he is metaphorically, blind to his wrongs. As Oedipus continues to mock him, Teresias specifies his prophecy and proves that Oedipus is “blind’ and cannot see the certainty of his downfall.”
Oedipus proves his blindness lies not only within the eyes, after all is said and done as he had to blind himself for the repercussions of all his actions, but also within his ears, he was deaf. He can listen carefully to others, but his ability to reason falls victim to his rage and anger. He refuses to acknowledge anyone else’s views and opinions except his own. Teresias, once again pointed out, “You are pleased to mock my blindness. Have you eyes, and do not see your own damnation? Eyes, and cannot see what company you keep?”
Teresias states that Oedipus, despite his fully functioning eyes, cannot see the truth that lies in front of him. Due to his cunning attempts to escape his inevitable destiny, Oedipus walks into the fate he was destined to have. Oedipus lets his own image overshadow the images, voices and acts of those around him. His extreme pride is his tragic flaw, and his blindness leads him to his own downfall, whereupon he physically blinds himself, replacing a previously symbolic impediment with reality. “How could I meet my father beyond the grave with seeing eyes; or my unhappy mother, against whom I have committed such heinous sin?” At this instance, he was able to finally see the ‘light’ – the terrible truth that he has been blinded all his life. “Oedipus, greatest of all men, he held the key to the deepest mysteries,” the Chorus laments.
Medea’s story
In Medea’s story, her own cunning and cleverness made her blind to a lot of good or positive things including her having two children sired by her love Jason. From the start, Medea has managed to slyly mask her true emotions. As the Chorus went, “Heaven-born light, restrain her, stop her, get her out of the house, the murderous accursed fiend of vengeance.” She has managed to fool Jason into believing her children are safe in her hands, but at the same time, plotting to kill them. “Miserable woman, you must be made of stone or iron, to kill the fruit of your womb, a self-inflicted fate,” the Chorus said.
The play opens with the nurse’s soliloquy about Jason forsaking her for a younger princess. “Jason has betrayed his own sons and my mistress – left her for royal wedding-bed,” the Nurse wailed drawing the audience to Medea’s side and induces it to emphasize with Medea. And yet, it is soon revealed that Medea left her native country and killed her brother to be Jason’s bride. This starts a blinded love for Jason.
Medea, for several occasions, has used cunning to mislead and blind her perceived enemies, including Jason, whom she offered to help with the capture of the golden fleece in exchange for marrying her. She put the sleepless dragon with her narcotic. She killed her brother Absyrtus to distract the kingdom of their flee, using once again trickery, a form of blinding and misleading. She drugged Apollodorus to slain Talos, among other deception and blindness.
In the end, Medea destroys Jason’s life by killing his new bride and his children, preventing any continuation of his legacy of which made her fail to achieve a greater understanding due to her suffering blown much bigger by selfishness.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that due to the strong persona that is flawed, thereby blinded, that caused the downfall of both subjects of these plays. Oedipus his blinding pride closed his eyes on Teresias and the messenger’s revelation. It took two messengers and Jocasta’s suicide to open his eyes to accept the truth. His very accusation of Teresias, an old blind man, shows how he has shut off any sense. He denies the wrongs he has committed with his own hands just as Medea is about the wrongs she resolved herself to commit. Medea, cunning and deceptive who not only causes blindness to her enemies, is enraged with vengefulness ended up not only killing her husband’s bride-to-be but also her own children. She asks, “Why should I try to hurt their father by making them suffer, and suffer twice as much myself? No, I’ll give up my plan. No, I must go through with it. What a coward I am, even to allow such weak thoughts,” Medea reflected, blindly. Her blinding others reflected back to herself.
The ultimate message, conveyed by Euripides’s tragedy “Medea” has been discussed from a variety of different perspectives; with most critics preferring to view Medea’s revenge on Jason as such that signified the strength of her resolution to address gender-based oppression. There is a certain rationale in this kind of suggestions – after all, Medea had gone about expressing her contempt with women’s lot on numerous occasions:
“The man who was everything to me, my own husband, has turned out to be the worst of men. This I know is true. Of all things with life and understanding, we women are the most unfortunate” (Euripides, 260).
Closer analysis
However, the closer analysis of motives, contained in Euripides’ tragedy, reveals the fact that, while proceeding with her plans to address Jason’s treachery, Medea was the least concerned with trying to appease her ego.
After having dealt with the experience of utter emotional distress, Medea became transfigured – the petty aspects of her ruined relationship with Jason had simply ceased to affect Media’s existential mode, with tragedy’s main character gradually assuming the posture of an unemotional enforcer of justice:
“Oh Zeus, and Justice, child of Zeus, and flaming Helios—now, my friends, we’ll triumph over all my enemies. The plans I’ve made have been set in motion. I’m confident my enemies will pay (Euripides, 910).
And, by doing it, Medea had proven herself to be more of a man than Jason, in the psychological context of this word, despite Jason’s pathetic attempts to rationalize his behavior logically. As it appears from tragedy’s context, Jason continued to remain a firm believer in his manliness, which is exactly why he thought that his seemingly logical argumentation would cause Medea to get back to her senses. Yet, unlike Medea, Jason had failed to realize that the notion of abstract justice serves as the metaphysical foundation for the concept of rationale – therefore, Jason’s logical appeals to Medea could not possibly have any effect, whatsoever. Being a woman, Medea was able to intuitively perceive Jason’s reasoning as utterly fallacious, even before he would open his mouth. Yet, it was not Medea’s emotional contempt with her former husband, which prompted her to consider subjecting him to the worst possible vengeance, but the fact that Jason had broken marital wows with her:
“The honour in an oath has gone. And throughout wide Hellas there’s no shame any more” (Euripides, 440).
The reason why people take oaths is to declare their willingness to address life’s challenges within a framework of law and order. Most human laws are exactly the laws because they correspond to the laws of nature. And, there is only one price for transgressing the laws of nature – death. For example, when a person tries to defy the physical law of gravity by jumping off the cliff without a parachute – he will inevitably fall and die. Therefore, the fact that Jason had broken up his oaths with such apparent ease can only have one possible explanation – Jason’s psyche has never been affiliated with the notions of law and order, in the first place. By betraying Medea, Jason has proven his inability to act like a man. We can say that figuratively speaking, he was nothing but a woman trapped inside a man’s body, which is why his relations with women could never last. Jason’s following words substantiate the validity of this suggestion:
“As for my children, I want to raise them in the proper way, one worthy of my house, to have brothers for the children born from you” (Euripides, 560)
Ensuring the well-being of his children constituted Jason’s foremost existential priority. However, it is only if he was born a woman that such his stance would make sense. Alternatively, despite being a beautiful woman, Medea never ceased perceiving objective reality through the lenses of rationale, which is exactly the reason why Jason’s infidelity was taken by her as the ultimate proof of his existential worthlessness. It is namely the sheer strength of Medea’s intellectual integrity, which provides us with the insight on why she tended to articulate her grievances in an absolutely logical manner:
“I have no city, and I’m being abused by my own husband. I was carried off, a trophy from a barbarian country. I have no mother, brother, or relation, to shelter with in this extremity” (Euripides, 300).
Moreover, such her tendency also explains how Medea was able to step over her emotional weaknesses, to enforce justice – unlike Jason; she was endowed with inborn respect towards masculine values:
“Let no one think that I’m a trivial woman, a feeble one who sits there passively. No, I’m a different sort—dangerous to enemies, but well disposed to friends” (Euripides, 960)
Medea was well aware of the fact that when the issue of protecting justice is being at stake, all other considerations become secondary. In its turn, this reveals Medea as being an utterly idealistic individual, who continuously sought the higher purpose in life, which again strengthens our thesis as to Medea’s psychological manliness. Whereas, at the beginning of a tragedy, Medea appears to be completely overtaken by her grief, while going as far as contemplating suicide, by the end of the play she transcends over her emotional anxieties – thus, proving the sheer strength of its analytical abilities.
It appears that, unlike Jason, Medea was able to detach herself from her own emotions when circumstances required, which can be thought of as yet another proof as to this character’s existential manliness, simply because it is men who are assumed capable of choosing in favor of acting “as necessary” while being tempted with the prospect of acting “as it feels like”. Even though Medea resisted the idea of killing its children to the very last, she nevertheless decided to proceed with such her intention. And, it is the only masculine mind that is capable of recognizing this Medea’s decision as being logical – after all, children can be made easily, but there is no point in having children in the world where there is no justice:
“I’ll never deliver up my children, hand them over to their enemies, to be humiliated. They must die— that’s unavoidable, no matter what” (Euripides, 1250).
Whereas in this particular Euripide’s tragedy, Jason is being presented as a down-to-earth individual, who could not possibly be concerned about anything but enjoying a secure and comfortable life, Medea’s foremost agenda appears to be nothing short of protecting the First Law of Thermodynamics, which implies that people’s activities cannot be thought of as “thing in itself” – the essence of individual’s every deed can only be discussed within a context of consequences, such deed had brought about. If Jason’s infidelity was left unpunished, it would violate the laws of nature. Therefore, the fact that Medea had decided to destroy Jason’s life in return for her life being destroyed, did not only make perfectly logical but also moral sense. She did something she was ought to do, which explains why Medea did not experience much guilt for killing her children:
“O my children, victims of your father’s evil actions!” (Euripides, 1620).
Being a weak-minded individual, Jason could not understand the full scope of its wickedness. However, this did not make his wickedness less acute. Nowadays, governmental bureaucrats often go about destroying people’s lives with the single stroke of their pens, while expecting affected individuals to swallow the “its nothing personal” type of justification for such behavior. Similarly, Jason strived to justify his infidelity to Medea by suggesting that by dumping her, he was being driven exclusively by considerations of their children’s well-being. Yet, Medea was not quite as gullible as he thought she was. Since Jason’s behavior had resulted in her life being utterly destroyed, she decided to pay him back with the same token of respect, while being the least concerned about listening to how Jason would try to justify his wickedness. And, by doing it, she had proven herself a truly admirable individual, because it is only intellectually and spiritually refined individuals who are being perfectly aware that evil cannot be left unpunished.
Conclusion
The foremost conclusion of this paper can be formulated as follows: Despite Medea’s gender affiliation, she had proven herself to be a much more rational, responsible, and intelligent human being, as compared to tragedy’s male characters. Moreover, unlike Jason, Aegeus, and Creon, she possessed an inner psychological strength, which is why Medea was able to achieve its ultimate goal of making sure that no enemies would laugh at her after she had left for Athens.
Bibliography:
Euripides “Medea”. 2009. Vancouver Island University.