Category: Medea

As an introduction to this essay, it is important to briefly discuss the position of women in these societies. The status of these women in the society greatly influenced their behavior when pursuing love. In these societies, the main function of women was to do house chores. These functions included preparing food, giving birth to children and taking care of their husbands. Women could not have property, pick a husband, and they could not enter into any legal relationship. In a number of ways, women were considered as lesser beings. For instance, Jason makes a decision to divorce Medea and tie the knot with the princess of Corinth. This as a result he shoves Medea away as if she was never married to him. This kind of behavior was conventional by Greek principles. This depicts the subordinate status of the woman, who had no voice in such matters. Medea notes that average people are frightened by people with exceptional learning. It is worse if they are women, because women are always considered stupid. Medea’s cruelty is the consequence of oppression. When faced with this unwarranted treatment, Medea reacts with an appalling act of bloody resistance. This shows that she is revolting against the main role of women in her time. This role happens to be motherhood. In addition, one should take notice that the children she murders are both male. Layla was also a victim of the subordinate status of women. Layla was not allowed to choose a husband for herself. Instead her father chose for her a husband. This was without care of Layla’s feelings and happiness. Therefore, there is a strong connection between this subordination of women and their behavior in pursuit of love.

It is important to take note that the two stories have tragic endings. Both women did not end with the love they so desired to have. However, both women took different approaches when they were pursuing this love. All the women lived in an era when men dominated women. The paper will seek to discuss how these women behaved in pursuit of love. This essay is divided in three parts. The first part will analyze Medea’s character in her pursuit for love. In this part, I will discuss Medea’s assertive nature. The paper will continue by discussing Medea’s manipulative nature. This manipulative nature makes Jason fall in love with her. Her manipulative nature compliments her cleverness. The paper observes that Medea’s extreme passion for Jason makes her commit certain atrocious acts. The second part of the essay will discuss Layla. At this point, the paper will further contrast Medea with Layla who is a timid woman. Though passionate, she is not as assertive as Medea is. However, Layla is a patient woman. We note that Layla and Majnun are eventually together after they die. This paper will later discuss this. The third part of the essay will be a discussion of the poem Chastity. Here the paper will compare, contrast Medea, Layla and the woman from the poems of Chastity. The paper notes that the woman discussed in chastity is as assertive as Medea.

Medea is a woman of radical character and extreme feeling. She has an infatuated passion for Jason. In the quest of pursuing her love, she forfeits all. She commits atrocious acts on Jason’s behalf. According to Euripides, Jason notes, “Well, as far as I’m concerned it was… passion, that drove you [Medea] to save my life” ( Euripides,62). However, his unfaithfulness changes her love into anger. Her vehement and immoderate heart, previously dedicated to Jason, now is determined on his destruction. In the play, the leader states, “But, my lady, to kill your own two It is the supreme way to hurt my husband” (Euripides, 140-141). Medea is an illustration of infatuation carried too far. This is in a woman defiantly determined on choosing rage over compassion and logic. In illustrating her betrayal, Medea laments, “Woman, on the whole, is a timid thing: wronged in love, there is no heart more murderous…. I can unload some venom from my heart and… begin at the beginning, I saved your life” ( Euripides, line31, line 60). Medea’s anger at Jason’s disloyalty is worsened by the fact that she had scarified a lot for him. This includes Medea killing her own brother. Without Medea’s help, Jason would not have obtained the Golden Fleece. This as a result, he would not have accomplished his status.

It is important to keep in mind that the cause of all Medea’s rage is love. Medea had a strong passion for Jason since the Golden Fleece days. This intense passion is the stimulant for her heartless need for vengeance. According to Euripides Medea laments, “Love, did you say? It is a mighty curse” ( Euripides, 44). Medea phrase demonstrates that love can be destructive. Furthermore, the leader laments, “How frightening is resentment how difficult to cure, lovers hurl past love at one another’s hate” ( Euripides, 61). Again, we note that Euripides shows love as the cause for the most horrible kind of abhorrence. Jason and Medea’s hatred for each other is so strong. This is for the reason that their love was once zealous.

Medea is prepared to forfeit everything to make her vengeance complete. She kills her own children, ironically, to guard them from the counter vengeance of her foes. In addition, she murders them to upset Jason. However, killing them is destining herself to a life of regret and sorrow. However, part of Medea’s urge is the power of vengeance. Just like Medea, foes whose power is institutionally guarded have at one time or another overwhelmed all.

In her pursuit for love, Medea uses manipulation. She is a clever and cunning woman. All the major characters try their luck in manipulation. Jason exploited Medea earlier. Jason was now influencing the royal family of Corinth to guarantee his own achievements. On the other hand, Creon makes a gainful union between Jason and his daughter. He desires to gain from Jason’s prominence as the conqueror of the Golden Fleece. However, Medea is the queen of manipulation. Medea takes advantage of the flaws and desires of both her foes and her friends. Medea acts to Creon’s sympathy. In addition, she takes advantage of Creon’s misjudgment of her. Together with Aegeus, she uses her wit as a negotiating piece. She uses the king’s sympathetic heart to earn a binding oath from him. She takes advantage of Jason’s superficiality, his undeserved self-importance, and his longing for supremacy. She plays the flattering and obedient woman. This is to her husband’s happiness and satisfaction. Jason believes the act, indicating his lack of good judgment. Furthermore, indicating his readiness to be fooled by his own vanities.

Medea strongly disapproves of the male influenced society of her time. Its central character is a revolutionary brave woman who persists to encourage both respect and terror. We feel sorry for Medea’s broken state and admire her strength and astuteness. However, her gory and ruthless revolt surprises and perturbs audiences to this date.

Medea is a representative of the smart woman confined in a world of men. Her astuteness arouses both doubt and careful respect. In the end, her craftiness becomes her ultimate weapon in her pursuit for retribution. None of her opponents stands a chance against her great mind.

Medea is a very assertive woman. In her desire to love, she laments about the male dominated society. Medea’s starting words to the Chorus is the most articulate assertion about the injustices that happen to women. According to Euripides, Medea laments:

“Of all creatures that can feel and think, we women are the worst treated things alive. We [women] bid the highest price in dowries just… of our bodies […]. How that compounds the wrong! Divorce is a disgrace (at least for women), to repudiate the man, not possible: I had rather stand my ground three times among the shields than face a childbirth once” (Euripides, 31).

Medea acknowledges the place of women in the society, and their subordination to men. Other societies were more liberal in their handling of women than the Greeks were. Medea was concerned of these pretenses, and the injustice committed.

On the other hand, Medea is not precisely a feminist paradigm. Medea is perfect illustration the problems that happen to women. Medea is not an innocent virgin hero. She is a genuine woman, who has suffered in the name of love. As result, she has become cruel by her suffering. What we observe is not a tale of female empowerment, but a war of love and betrayal.

As noted earlier, Medea is a woman with great intellect. Her enormity of intelligence and vanity are beyond uncertainty. These qualities are the ones that make her have pride. Pride is strongly related to greatness. Likewise, pride also distorts greatness. Medea’s pride drives her to unreasonably evil action. There is a remarkable feeling of waste. She meticulously executes her vengeance, and then takes her cruelty to an extreme level. She demonstrates this by killing her own children. Hers is the dented and hazy pride of a woman. Her pride is patronized by her love and her barbarian origin.

On the other hand, Layla express her love and desires differently. Unlike Medea who is assertive, Layla is timid. She does not fight for her love. It is important to note that both women lived in a male dominated society. Layla’s father restrains her from seeing Majnun. She does not protest. Hence, she suffers silently longing for Majnun. Layla sits back and watches men controlling her love life. Medea on the other hand publicly expresses her dissatisfaction of living in a male dominated society. Majnun expresses his love to Layla. He does this by writing poetry. Majnun sings of Layla’s beauty and composes love poems for her. Nizami notes,

“Love was glowing in Majnun. When it burst into flames it also took hold of his tongue, the words streaming unbidden from his lips, verses strung together like pearls in a necklace. Carelessly, he cast them away … Was he not rich? Was he not free? Had he not severed the rope which keeps men tied together?” (Nizami,126)

However, Layla on the other hand was silent about her love. She was not expressive of her emotions. Nizami notes, “Layla holds their love quietly so none will know she lived between the water of her tears and the fire of her love….Yet her lover’s voice reached her. Was he not a poet? No tent curtain was woven so closely as to keep out his poems. Every child from the bazaar was singing his verses; every passer-by was humming one of his love-songs, bringing Layla a message from her beloved… Refusing suitors, she writes answers to his poems and casts them to the wind”(Nizami, 40).

We note that Layla is a passionate loving woman, yet not overzealous. Unlike Medea, she pursues love differently. It is important to note that Medea commits atrocious acts in the name of love. Layla on the other hand, does not desire vengeance. However, she defiantly refuses to love her new husband. She refuses to consummate the marriage with her new husband. Being in love, her partner agrees to her state of a superficial marriage only. She keeps her faithfulness to Majnun even when married. Layla demonstrates her defiance and her love for Majnun when her husband passes away. This author illustrates this after the death of her husband. During this time, she openly grieves for her love for Majnun. She passes away shortly afterwards.

Like Medea, Layla is a clever intelligent woman, but not manipulative. She uses an old man who helps her exchange letters with Majnun. The old man eventually helps them to see each other. Majnun unexpectedly sings his love poetry to her. Later at dawn, they go their different directions. Nizami asks:

“For how long then do you want to deceive yourself? For how long will you refuse to see yourself as you are and as you will be? Each grain of sand takes its own length and breadth as the measure of the world; yet, beside a mountain range it is as nothing. You yourself are the grain of sand; you are your own prisoner. Break your cage, break free from yourself, free from humanity; learn that what you thought was real is not so in reality….burn but your own treasure, like a candle – then the world, your sovereign, will become your slave” (Nizami, 148 )

In her pursuit for love, Layla is a patient woman. She does not push for love with Majnun. However, at the end she emerges the winner. After Layla and Majnun’s death, Zayd sees a vision of both them in heaven. In the dream an ancient voice tells zayd that:

“These two friends are one, eternal companions. He is Majnun, the king of the world in right action. And she is Layla, the moon among idols in compassion. In the world, like unpierced rubies they treasured their fidelity affectionately, but found no rest and could not attain their heart’s desire. Here they suffer grief no more. Therefore, it will be until eternity. Whoever endures suffering and forebears in that world will be joyous and exalted in this world” (Nizami, 176).

Layla maintained her loyalty to Majnun. Even after getting married, she did not give up on him. She remained faithful and she did not consummate her marriage. She refused to have intercourse with her husband. This was for the reason that she loved Majnun. Layla understood that the love on earth was perishable. She wanted her love with Majnun to be everlasting. At the end, she achieved that love. Zayd demonstrates this after he woke up. He realizes that:

“Whoever would find a place in that world must tread on the lusts of this world. This world is dust and is perishable. That world is pure and eternal…. Commit yourself to love’s sanctuary and at once find freedom from your ego. Fly in love as an arrow towards its target. Love loosens the knots of being, love is liberation from the vortex of egotism. In love, every cup of sorrow which bites into the soul gives it new life. Many a draft bitter as poison has become in love delicious…. However agonizing the experience, if it is for love it is well” (Nizami, 176-7)

Medea in comparison is an impulsive woman. Hence, the end was tragic. She did not want to hear Jason out, when she learnt of Jason’s betrayal. Jason tries to explain himself and he states, “I wanted above all to let us live in comfort, not be poor” (Euripides, 62). I suggest that Medea should have looked at the greater good of them all. Maybe the outcome would have been different. Even more, this would have justified Medea’s actions. This is in the event Jason does not keep his word.

Moving on I will discuss the third part of the essay. The I will discuss the poem Chastity. In this poem, we note that the woman is willing to give herself to the man. The narrator states, “She was a field of fruit and flowers offering one like me no other end of me than sight and scent” (Faraj, 3-4). The woman does this in the name of love. The narrator describes her as beautiful. The narrator states that the woman’s glance makes hearts turn. The society was very conservative, at the time these poems were being written. A woman’s reputation was very important. Society emphasized on a woman’s virginity. Yet, here is a woman who is willing to give up her virginity. One would ask why. The answer will be she did this all in pursuit of love.

This woman can be compared to Medea. As discussed earlier Medea is a woman of extreme passion. She is willing to do anything in the name of love. The woman in chastity is the same as Medea. She is willing to give herself to a man. She does not care of her reputation. Layla on the other hand is a reserved woman. She does not go to extreme measures in pursuit of love. Even with Majnun, she does not get intimate.

In conclusion, these women lived in different societies. Therefore, the way of pursuing love definitely was be different. However, the most common feature is that these women lived in a male dominated society. Hence how they pursued love varied from person to person. While Medea and the woman from chastity were assertive, Layla on the other hand was a patient woman.

Works Listed

Euripides, Mnesarchus. The Medea. Trans. Richmound Lattimore. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1958. Print.

Faraj, Ibn. Poems of Arab Andalusia. Trans. Franzen Cola. San Francisco: City Lights Book Store, 1989. Print.

Nizami, Ganjavi. The Story of Layla and Majnun. New York: Omega Publishers, 1996. Print.

How does Medea comment on the women’s situation in general? What makes her situation particularly bad?

Early in the play, Medea claims, “of all creatures that have life and reason we women are the sorriest lot” (Euripides lines 229-230). Proving it, she also gives strong arguments. For instance, a woman never knows what kind of husband she will get. Nevertheless, she has to dedicate her life and body to serve and satisfy him. If she is not good at playing her role, she can even be exposed to violence. All of these are justified by the fact that women are safe at home while their husbands often face battle.

However, Medea says, “I would rather stand three times in the line of battle than once bear a child” (Euripides lines 250-251). What makes it even worse for Medea is that she is a foreigner and has no family or friends to protect and support her.

What argument does Jason make in defense of his decision to marry Kreon’s daughter?

In defense of his decision to remarry, Jason states that it would be better for all parties, including Medea and the children. Since he is going to marry a king’s daughter, their children will have a better position in society, more money, and respect. Moreover, if Medea could be less selfish and put her pride and jealousy away, she would be thankful to him. As for me, I do agree that there is an element of truth in his words. However, I am sure that it is only an excuse, but not the reason for his actions. Besides, although the author lauds Jason’s reasoning, his decision is not fully justified.

Why Jason can abandon Medea and marry the princess of Corinth? Why is there no violation of the law on his part?

At the time when the play was written, only a child of an Athenian father and Athenian mother could be recognized as a new Athenian citizen (“Women and Family in Athenian Law ” par. 2). Moreover, marriages with foreigners were not considered as marriages at all. So, although Medea and Jason called each other husband and wife, there were no legitimate bonds of marriage. That is why Jason’s actions were not perceived as a violation of the law.

Analyze the formation of the decision to kill the children in Medea’s mind

There are several reasons why Medea decided that killing her children was the best possible option. First of all, she obviously wanted revenge. As proof of it, she states, “this will cause my husband to feel the most pain” (Euripides line 817). However, there also were other reasons that had nothing to do with revenge. She did not want to leave her children with Jason since they would be treated as second-rate because of their barbarian origins. On the other hand, she could not let them live with her since she had nothing to offer to them. Finally, she claims, “there is no one who will rescue them”, and decides to kill them for lack of a better option (Euripides line 793).

Some critics point out that Medea is just a witch who cannot be regarded as representative of Athenian women. Is such a view justified?

Yes, this point of view deserves to exist and even can be partly justified. Medea was a daughter of the god of the sun and could do spells. She had enough time to plan her revenge and she indeed escaped the consequences of her action. However, her character still can be regarded as representative of Athenian women. She proved that women could fight for themselves and were capable of acts.

How does the contrast between barbarian and Greek function in the play?

Besides Medea, there are several other women in the play, including Jason’s new wife (who does not appear on the stage but is described) and the women of Corinth. The main difference between those women and Medea who is non-Greek (a barbarian) is that she has skills in witchcraft and is willing to abandon her country or even kill people whom she loves. After finding out that his children are dead, Jason says, “there is no Greek woman who would have dared such deeds, any of whom I could have married” (Euripides lines 1339-1340). He also claims, “I brought you, so hideous a monster, into Greece” (Euripides line 1330).

Works Cited

Euripides. Medea n.d. Web.

Women and Family in Athenian Law 2003. Web.

Greek culture is one of the most ancient and unique cultures that exist in the modern world. The traditional beliefs, norms and separation of gender roles have been always prevalent. For a long time, there has been a gender difference between men and women in life and social environment. Even though there were times when women were an instrumental part of the world and family, they were still oppressed.

A play “Medea” has several major themes that describe the way women were treated in ancient society. Not only has there been a gender difference between men and women in life and social environment, but extreme discrimination and external conditions of the world and governmental ruling added to the role division.

It is made clear that women have realized their burden when Medea exclaims: “Ah, me! A wretched suffering woman I! O would that I could die!” (Euripides 8). The despair and helplessness are very obvious, as women were constantly oppressed and deprived of any rights. The factors could be seen in the community itself, as well as environmental factors, discrimination and segregation, as well as economical position of the society.

Not only did this life create a vicious circle where it became close to impossible to get rid of role division, it separated women from the rest of society. At the same time, there were those who believed that a strong nation could not have such separation between genders and people.

This is evident from Medea’s words when she says: “…Some think me clever and hate me, others say I am too reserved, and some the very reverse; others find me hard to please and not so very clever after all…” (Euripides 12). The passage is a clear example of how controversial the views were and what role women played in society. This divides the civilization and does not add to the greater good.

Another important theme is that women were boxed inside for seeming protection, but were really feeling like prisoners and objects of their husbands who were in reality “owners”. They had their wives’ pride, freedom and pursuit of personal goals under control and did not allow them to step outside their duties.

Not only is this a representation of the physical limitation, it is also a mental block that has been set up by society to keep women obedient and with no rights whatsoever. But more importantly, “Medea” tells a story of a personal character, in relation to family and changes that take place in social life. It illustrates the connection between family members and the relationship that shifts according to the country and the political matters that take place.

A family is an integral part of any society, but women were made unnoticeable being one of the most critical factors present. It is shown that the effects of the common beliefs and the movements that were going on in the country have engulfed the understanding and beliefs of all men and women.

For a very long time, Greece was somewhat torn apart, from a modern perspective. Men did not take proper steps to establish a unified world with women, using their power and abusing their control of the society and traditions. These historical lessons cannot be forgotten and future generations must realize that division will never be instrumental to progress and a better world.

Works Cited

Euripides. Medea. Irving, TX: Sparklesoup LLC, 2004. Print.

Introduction

Dramatic irony plays a major role in distinguishing both Oedipus and Medea as tragic heroes. The use of it acts as a tool to capture the notion of ‘tragic heroes’, as it allows the audience to apprehend the character’s fate even before the said fate occurs. The contrast between the audience’s knowledge of the tragic circumstances and that of the ignorant characters enhances the depth of the tragedy. In the particular plays of Medea and Oedipus, the irony is played out as the characters stubbornly disregard the signs that foretell their fate. In the case of Oedipus, he is blinded to the implications of his actions, while Medea in a stream of consciousness is aware of them but neglects them, thinking she is stronger than pain.

Oedipus

Oedipus thinks that he can circumvent a pre-written fate, which was foretold before he was even born. His decision to leave for Thebes in order not to fulfill the prophecy has been less ridicule than his stubbornness at believing the messengers, later on. Indeed, dramatic irony with regards to Oedipus’s character is best embodied in the disparity between his limited understanding of his own situation during the unfolding action, and how the audience is simultaneously aware of both perspectives. The audience from the onset is aware of his fate, but Oedipus thinks all throughout the plot, that he is above Fate.

He is spiritually blind to the power of prophecies and thus pays no heed to messengers. He is too complacent about what he can perform. Oedipus’s spiritual blindness results, in the end, in his own downfall. Oedipus’s urge to free the citizens of Thebes from the plague leads him to vow to do everything in his power to find the murderer of Laius. ‘The only way of deliverance from our plague is for us to find out the killers of Laius and kill and banish them.’ – Oedipus. He believes that his power of insight will guide him to the truth and subsequently, down the correct path. The Irony of the situation, this leads him to an unexpected truth. ‘I say, you murdered the man whose murderer you require.’ – Teresias. Ironically, by acting out as a hero, Oedipus is about to find that ‘he is looking for himself’, as Teresias puts it; he is the killer of Laius, his father.

Teresias words shed light on Oedipus’ abstract blindness; Oedipus is, metaphorically, blind to his own 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’s inability to comprehend Teresias’s riddles is a product of his 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. ‘You blame my temper, but you do not see your own that lives within you.’ – Teresias.

Oedipus proves his blindness lies not only within the eyes, but also within his ears. He proves himself to be a man who 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. ‘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. Teresias states that Oedipus, despite his fully functioning eyes, cannot see the truth that lies in front of him. Due to his attempts to escape his inevitable destiny, Oedipus lands himself 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 mental blindness leads him to his own downfall, whereupon he physically blinds himself, fusing 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?’ This is when he is able to truly 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’. – Chorus.

The play’s powerful use of dramatic irony emphasizes the limitations of human understanding and the high cost this lack of knowledge forces upon the characters. In the end, man must choose his fate, and it is the act of choosing that determines much of our humanity. The vivid portrayal of human frailty in the face of impending doom demonstrates the classic dramatic elements of a Greek tragedy.

Medea

Dramatic irony also plays an important role in distinguishing Medea as a tragic hero. Medea’s cunning and trickery are evident in her interactions with Jason, in which she pretends to have overcome her jealousy, whilst simultaneously planning his downfall. In spite of arguing with him at the beginning of the play, she later attempts to beguile him, claiming that she has reasoned with her soul and seen how foolish she was in her senseless enragement: ‘So I reflected and I realized how stupid I had been, how pointless my anger’.

With regards to Medea, the device of dramatic irony is played out as she is able to foresee the implications of her actions but thinks she is more powerful than pain. In a soliloquy she briefly lets her heart guide her to the price to her actions: ‘I will bear off my children from this land. Why should I seek to wring their father’s heart, when that same act will doubly wring my own?’.However, she immediately resolves herself to do it: ‘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.’ Her downfall lies in her thinking that she is stronger than the pain she is about to inflict on her husband and children, and by extension herself.

Therefore, she slyly masks her true emotions. She is still indeed senselessly enraged, to the point of being unable to see the shortcomings of her own plans. ‘Heaven-born light, restrain her, stop her, get her out of the house, the murderous accursed fiend of vengeance.’ – Chorus. She manages 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.’ – Chorus.

The major element that makes Medea a powerful tragic hero is the fact that the many admirable qualities that she possesses are ruined by a tragic flaw- the blinding vengefulness. 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.’ – Nurse. This immediately draws the audience to Medea’s side and induces it to emphasize with Medea when it is revealed that Medea left her native country and killed her brother to be Jason’s bride. ‘She wails aloud for her dear father, her country and her home, which she betrayed, when she came here with the man who now dishonours her.’ – Nurse.

Medea’s tragic flaw leads her character to a greater understanding and experience through suffering. It is due to her tragic flaw that she loses many of the ones she loves, including her home, children and Jason. She destroys Jason’s life by killing his new bride and his children, preventing any continuation of his legacy. Medea never truly achieves a full understanding because her vengefulness prevents her from good judgement.

Conclusion

All in all, it can be concluded that Oedipus and Medea’s strong tragic personas that are flawed caused their downfall. Oedipus tragic flaw lies in his blinding pride that made him think he is stronger than Fate, and which closed his eyes on paying heed to Teresias and the messenger’s revelations. It took two messengers and Jocasta self-inflicted hanging to open his soul to accept the truth. His very accusation of Teresias, an old blind man, shows how he is shut off any sense. He is in denial about owning to the wrongs he committed with his own hands just as Medea is about the wrongs she resolved herself to commit. Medea, enraged with vengefulness, ended up not only killing her husband’s would-be bride but also her own children. The soliloquy at the middle of the plot depicts her as wrestling between sense and her wish to avenge her husband’s betrayal. However, her vengefulness wins over sense and she goes on with her destructive plan. Tragically, she overlooks her motherly feelings and disregards the call of conscientious reason and goes through with her plan. In the end, both protagonists fall victims to their overlooking ominous signs, the messengers’ revelations on the part of Oedipus, and conscience epiphany on the part of Medea.

The story of Medea will always stand apart from other women stories as it was a woman who married for love, who adored her husband but then killed her own children. Of course at once there arises question why she did it and what pushed her to commit such a terrible crime which deserves punishment not on the part of law but on the part of a woman herself. Her image is an issue of wide discussion for feminists and a mystery for people who just come across the myth about her. There exist a lot of interpretations of the myth about Medea. They all seem to be the same at the first sight but in fact even a slight difference changes the whole meaning of this woman’s life.

Medea of Seneca’s Medea and Medea of Euripides’ Medea have some evident differences though both the poets retell the same story. Nevertheless, each of them adds something new starting from the main events the story consists of and ending with changing the Medea’s personality as such. As for the general differences between Seneca’s and Euripides’s Medeas one of the first to note is the wedding of Jason and Creusa. Seneca describes the wedding in details and on this stage Medea already hates Creusa and Jason and starts thinking over her plans to take the revenge whereas in Euripides’s Medea the scene with the wedding is absent and the play begins when the wedding is already over and Medea is suffering and asking Gods for help. One more difference is that in Seneca’s Medea Jason leaves Medea with children and marries Creusa but in Euripides’s story he is forced to marry her and does that because he has no other choice. The presentation of Medea and her personality is one of the most important differences between Seneca’s and Euripides’s works.

There exists an idea that Seneca wrote his “Medea” relying upon Ovid’s work and this is why taking after him he presented Medea as an evil witch who is practicing some spells all the time. Medea indeed was a goddess and had a witch power. She was the granddaughter of Helius, the Sun god, this is why her ability to do charms was a part of her essence. Euripides does not deny Medea’s divinity and the fact that she was a witch. In his story she also has a divine origin but he does not pay so much attention to it. While Seneca resorts to descriptions of how Medea was using her charms in details in Euripides’s version Medea is more of a human and more of a woman. Moreover, he does not try to represent her as an evil witch doing harm to people. On the contrary, she is presented as a woman who can heal and who can bring other people to life whereas in Seneca’s story Medea is portrayed as a woman who is seeking revenge all the time and uses her magical powers for the revenge. By the way, this is where contradictory themes arise. Medea, having a gift to return life to other people is killing her children, in other words she, having an ability to give lives she takes them away.

Another vivid difference is the characterization of Medea at the beginning of each story and throughout the stories as well. Euripides does not start the poem with Medea telling about what happened with her but with a Nurse laying out the details of Medea’s story. Thus not making Medea the central figure at the beginning he turns more attention to her as the events start developing. Besides, with the Nurse telling the story Euripides represents Medea as a victim, as a woman who loved her husband but who betrayed her by marrying another woman. With this the poet evokes compassion and tries to win the reader’s disposal which further would be changed into indignation and hatred when Medea will be killing her children. In contrast, Seneca represents Medea from the very beginning not as a woman who experiences the biggest tragedy in her life, but as the one who blindly hates her husband and the father of his new wife and is building her plans to take the revenge and to punish them all for hurting her. Seneca shows Medea’s hatred at once and lets everybody see how evil she is and how strong is her desire to respond to evil with doing evil back.

One more difference is in organization of the story as such regarding representation of the facts. Seneca gives the story of Medea’s life just enumerating the events which happened with her. At this he gives the poem emotional coloring by portraying Medea as an evil witch and as a woman who is angry with the whole world by treating her so badly and who is seeking revenge and ends up killing her children thus he represents her as a negative heroine from the very beginning. Euripides, on the contrary does not just describe Medea’s life but tries to understand and take guilt off her by reasoning what happened with her and why and what she has to do next. He states that Medea killed her children not intentionally but because of the anger she was obsessed with like a lot of other mythical characters. In his version there is also an idea that she tried to give to her children immortality but her charms let her down and she killed them whereas Seneca’s version has a clear description of how Medea kills one of her sons with her husband looking at this.

Medea is described as a victim by Euripides and as a victimizer by Seneca. Being the heroine of Seneca’s story Medea definitely lacks humanity and ability to forgive as well as common sense. She also does not have qualities which each woman is supposed to have, mercy and love for her children being among them. There is no doubt that any woman would prefer to sacrifice her own life in order to save her children and none of the women of the world would think of killing her children in order to show her husband how much she is angry with him. What Euripides’s heroine lacks is the strong will. The mystery of woman’s character lies in the fact that being a tender wife and a loving mother of her children she is very endurable emotionally and is able to cope with such problems by facing which men would never know what to do. By her complaining about her destiny Euripides’s Medea surely awakes pity and compassion but this is not what in her situation a woman should do. It is worth mentioning that Medeas from Euripides’s and Seneca’s versions area great example of going to extremes. The one portrayed by Euripides is whining and complaining about what happened to her whereas the one portrayed by Seneca does not seem to care about the fact that her husband left her all alone with children because she is blinded by anger and desire to take revenge. It seems that Medea who would be able to balance between two of these would be an example of a perfect woman who would have taken revenge on her husband not with killing her children to show her anger but in another reasonable and worthy way.

To sum it up, having some differences in the context Medea, the one by Seneca and the other by Euripides tells the story of a woman who stood up for her rights and who did not want to share the destines of other women who were abandoned by their husbands. Before the Feminists Movement started Medea caused nothing but aversion in hearts of people because this is what woman who dared to kill her children just to make her husband suffer deserves. Becoming the subject of feminists’ discussion Medea’s story acquires new meaning which is the meaning of fighting for one’s own rights. Her story has a significant educational value of both how to fight for the rights and what it can lead to if one gets too much involved in this. Medea, Seneca’s and Euripides’s, was an example of womanhood before the essence of her womanhood, her pride, suffered from the husband’s betrayal which proves that for a woman to be perfect her husband should treat her in a way she would want to be perfect for him.

Introduction

Choephori and Medea are the performances presenting the professional acting skills of their actors and differing from all others by their emotionality and deep psychological sense.

Description of The Choephori

Choephori directed by Peter Hall impresses by its expressiveness. Appropriate atmosphere reflected by the actors coincide with the style of the performance. One cannot but pay attention to the make-up and clothes of the actors. Ancient masks hiding the faces of the actors make the whole atmosphere mysterious and threatening at the same time. The basic element of the performance is psychological complexity presented by the actors. They managed to create tense and involving participation of the audience in the action. One of the strong points of the performance is the vocal quality; emotional, expressive and rhythmical pronunciation of the utterances transfers the mood of the actors to the audience. It is important to stress the significant role of the music which underlines a “blood for blood” atmosphere.

Comparison of two plays

The performance Medea presents a different from Choephori style. This performance was directed by Mark Cullingham and Robert Whitehead in 1982. The actors of this performance transfer the audience in to the time of ancient Greece. In comparison with Choephori the actors of this performance are made up more realistic and their eyes are open to the audience. Their play causes trust and sympathy for the leading performer of the story.

Though the years of both performances almost coincide, one can notice a vivid difference in the manner of presentation. Medea is an example of a depressive story which is concentrated on the sufferings of a miserable woman. The involvement of children into the performance says about the necessity of atmosphere change.

The mood of the Choephori is showed from the very first scene of Orestes whose emotional and tragic address to his father impresses greatly and makes the audience be involved into the deeply moving scene. Prays, oaths and threats of a brother and a sister provide tragic and terrible reality of ancient times showed by the actors. The mixture of additional voices presented by performers makes the scene more real and three-dimensional. It seems as if the actors address the audience rather than each other and call for participation, but they do it indirectly; while in Medea one can observe the direct address of the nurse to the audience from the very first scene of the performance.

To contrast both performances it is important to stress that vocal in Medea differs a lot from Choephori. It is a combination of quiet and loud cues showing the mixture of positivity and negativity performed by the actors. Medea as well as Choephori is very expressive and emotional and the quality of the actors’ play can be evaluated as very high and professional because they managed to disclose their time in all details and make the audience believe them and trust.

The vocal of the leading actress is psychologically deep and involving; it distinctly reflects all her emotions and sufferings and shows the dullness of her existence. It is not the music that makes the mood of the scene but the rhythmical way of presentation. Medea covers the play of many actors while in Choephori important roles are given only to several actors and the most of the performance is concentrated only on them.

Choephori is more symbolic performance: sand, masks, clothes, decorations are the center of the scene. In comparison with it, Medea focuses more on the play of the actors, on their ability to communicate with the audience and provide direct participation of the viewers. Medea and Choephori are reflections of different epochs and different nations. The actors managed to express all the peculiarities of their texts with the help of strong vocal and professional acting skills. Both performances make the audience believe in the events and suffer the tragedies together with the performers. They managed to establish rapport with the viewers and involve them into the time they reflected in their scenes.

References

Mark Cullingham & Robert Whitehead. Medea. John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Eisenhower Theater, Washington, DC, 1982.

Peter Hall. Choephori. Channel Four, London, England & National Theatre of Great Britain. Oresteia Company, London, England, 1983.

Euripides’ Medea reflects a woman’s inner world and addresses the troubles of females regarding their freedom. The given speech demonstrates Medea’s history of struggle with members of the opposite sex. She emphasizes that a woman’s happiness or well-being in life is highly dependent on the chance of getting a decent and good man. Throughout the text, she claims that being a man is far better than being a woman.

However, it is critical to address that Euripides does not imply that women are unfortunate. On the contrary, he wants to illustrate how they perceive their existence and do not understand the hardships of being a man. Euripides aims to show women’s perspective and demonstrate that they underestimate men’s issues.

The speech given by Medea can be interpreted as an opinion of most women about the patriarchic system and how their liberty is reliant on the other party. In the beginning, she highlights the fact that a woman can only be happy if she meets a decent man. It is important to note that Medea says, “And he, my husband, has turned out wholly while” (Euripides et al. 8). She wants to point out that her circumstances were not positive.

Medea says, “take for our bodies a master; for not to take one is even worse” (Euripides et al. 8). Here, Euripides attempts to show how women feel trapped and dependent on men in order to survive and feel protected. In addition, she states, “A good one or bad one; for there is no easy escape” (Euripides et al. 8). The author tries to illustrate that a woman cannot leave a marriage, even if it does not bring satisfaction or happiness. Therefore, Euripides demonstrates that females are forced to be with a male, and once she is bound to a companion, she cannot get out of this partnership.

Moreover, the speaker addresses the privileges and freedom of being a husband, whereas a wife is not able to do the same. Medea says, “But we are forced to keep our eyes on one alone” (Euripides et al. 9). She claims that a man can enjoy his spare time with his friends and colleagues, whereas a woman is socially restrained. Later, she states, “But I am deserted, a refugee, thought nothing of by my husband” (Euripides et al. 9). Medea is trying to compare herself with a prisoner, chained to her male master. Lastly, she says, “I would very much rather stand three times in the front of battle than bear one child” (Euripides et al. 9). In other words, she is trying to claim that a man’s struggles and duties are not as difficult as a woman’s hardships.

In conclusion, it is important to note that Euripides had two goals in the given piece of speech, which is to show women’s perspective and how they underestimate the hardships of men. The given statement is an honest expression of Medea’s thoughts and opinion on patriarchic inequality. However, Euripides is attempting to convey a different message, where he shows the females’ perspective and how they dismiss the struggles men are forced to go through.

The state of affairs during that time was in favor of men, but the current circumstances are significantly better. Nevertheless, it is also true that previously, males had more problems than now, which means that women are not unfortunate, but all people had troublesome lives. A female cannot comprehend the realities of war and battles, where people express the most violent and merciless behavior. Thus, she cannot compare it with a naturally occurring activity, such as giving birth.

Work Cited

Euripides et al. Euripides’ Medea. GreekDrama Co., Ltd, 1985.

It is hard to tell if treachery and trickery go hand in hand, given the circumstances that the trickster has undergone. Perhaps relating to Apate, the goddess of deceit in ancient Greek mythology, one can understand why trickery is so gross and what leads it. This notion brings to light the premonition that trickery is associated with women since one of the tricksters is a goddess. In Euripides’ play, the main trickster that suits the current time is Medea, although there are other tricksters. The main reason for choosing Medea aligns with Hyde’s definition of a trickster that of a ‘boundary crosser.’ As a woman of their time, Medea dares to cross into a world where no woman during that time would have. Medea, therefore, typifies Hyde’s trickster by betraying her family for her husband, using her enchanting power, and then living the betrayal of her husband through revenge.

The boundaries crossed by Medea cannot be underrated, given the position of women in ancient Greek. This society views women as conniving and deceiving whisperers who should not be trusted at any cost. Ancient Greek appears to be a patriarchal society where men are predominant and rule over their wives and society; they are above the law. Medea says that:

Many men, I know, become too arrogant, both in the public eye and in their homes. Others get a reputation for indifference because they stay at ease within the house. There’s no justice in the eyes of mortal men. (Euripides, 2008, p. 10).

This statement shows how men belittle women since they are perceived as superior creatures. Medea to step up and be treacherous is a massive task that shows how she has traversed the boundaries of a patriarchal society bent on belittling women.

Medea’s embodiment of trickster nature starts from her home, where she abandons all the principles she stood by to marry Jason, the love of her life. Medea rants, “For you, I raised the light which rescued you from death. I left my father and my home, on my own, and came with you to Iolcus, beneath Mount Pelion” (Euripides, 2008, p. 20). Being a princess, Medea has a duty to the people of her kingdom, and marrying Jason would destroy all this. However, she is yearning to escape from this responsibility and is willing to use trickery. It is quite easy to comprehend that Medea is a trickster since she is an enchantress who uses magic. The use of magic requires tricks as they are not real but illusions created to make them appear real.

Medea continues to typify Hyde’s’ trickster by tricking his ex-husband Jason that she has moved on from the relationship and the divorce. She then plots to kill Jason’s children and his new wife. She then tricks them by escaping using a golden chariot belonging to her grandfather, the sun god Helius. This element of trickery is consistent with what Hyde earlier states about tricksters being able to cross boundaries not expected for them to cross. She betrayed her family when she married Jason and killed her brother to slow down her father’s army. Yet, it is the same family that she runs to for help when she wants to escape from Jason; her family had already disowned her. The trickery in Medea keeps to evolves and shows that friends and enemies can all be tricked.

Medea’s trickery indeed knows no boundary as she tricks King Pelias’s daughters into murdering their father. Medea carries out this task in a cunning way; King Pelias was sick and required certain medication. Medea then tells Pelias’s daughters that their father’s medicine is ineffective and cannot help him cure the disease he is suffering from, sterility. Instead, they should use another medication provided by Medea. Medea’s medication turns out to be poison which ends the life of King Pelias. The weight of murdering a parent and the guilt that comes with it is something that no child should have to face the consequences of doing. Medea crossed a boundary that she should not have as people’s consciences are never the same regarding the parent’s death.

Hyde also states that tricksters often find themselves in trouble after their actions of trickery which Medea did. The first trouble that she felt was that of her hand in the death of King Pelias through her trickery. Pelias’s death ensures that Medea has to escape to save her life and that of Jason. Medea also finds herself in double trouble when she murders her children and that of her new wife. She is not only guilty of murder but has also lost her flesh and blood through the death of her children. Throughout the rest of the play, it is not mentioned if Medea had any surviving children after the death of her two sons. The trouble that Medea falls into due to her trickster nature is that she is constantly on the run, fearing for her life, losing her children, and not being welcome back home.

Before Medea murders Jason’s new wife, she tricks them into thinking she has forgiven them and is on good terms with them. Medea says to the children, “You and your mother will end the bad blood in this family. We’ve patched things up, and no one’s angry now” (Euripides, 2008, p. 37). The aim of this pretense is that Medea wants Jason to come with the children to spend a night with them. Medea goes further in her plot to commit revenge by offering gifts to Jason’s wife, Glauce. The gift package is a dress and a coronet laced with a deadly poison that, when worn, takes little to kill. Glauce dies during the delivery of the death as the children are also murdered. Jason is left to recount his life decisions as the trickster carries the day in her plans.

In conclusion, Hyde’s trickster is fully typified by the character of Medea, as Euripides puts it. Medea exhibits core definitions of and characteristics of a trickster as described by Hyde. Medea is a boundary-crosser as she knows no boundaries both with her family and then with her children. She also defines the norms accustomed to being a woman in Greek society, where women are seen as weak and less powerful than men. Her power is seen in how she uses her enchanting tricks to help Jason acquire the Golden Fleece and how she helps Jason defeat her father’s army. Her trickery is concluded in her plot to avenge Jason by killing her children and Jason’s new wife when she gifts her a coronet and dress laced with poison. Trickery is therefore showcased in the acts of revenge and betrayal in the play by Euripides.

Reference

Euripides. (2008). Medea(I. Johnston, Trans.).