So here's the deal. Medea proved herself to be capable of atrocities since the days of Jason and the Argonauts. She left a trail of victims that included family members, royalty etc. So was it really a surprise that she killed her own children out of nothing but pure and unmitigated spite? No. The death of the children by the hands of their mother could have forseen the minute Jason decided to leave Medea.
By Arostotle's definition Medea is not a tragic hero because she essentially is not basically good and her fortune goes from bad to worse instead of from good to bad. Medea represents a more modern of example of the flaws of ambition and vindictiveness. Let's look of a modern day scenario that could mirror Medea's actions.
Imagine a young woman whose father's business is successful and competitive. This woman falls in love with a young upstart of a rival company. She proves her love to him by betraying her family and offering the rival trade secrets, etc. The woman leaves her family and marries the rival and helps him ascend into power by sabotaging higher ups in his company. Finally the couple establish themselves with a new company, and she fulfills her role as the appropriate housewife by having children for the man. Then out of nowhere the husband leave the wife to marry a CEO's daughter of an even larger company. So at this point the woman experiences extreme rage and kills her husbands new love, her father and their children.
I wanted to put the story in a modern context so that we could see certain patterns of behavior. First off, Medea's power within the realm of society is always linked up through a man. Whether it be her husband or father. So in betraying her father Medea actually made a power play. Her access to power would be more immediate through being a wife rather than being a daughter. After all she had a brother (at least one) who would have had more rights and then the wealth and power would be passed through the brother's lineage.
The murderous deeds of Medea before the start of Euripedes' play were all moves to increase Jason's power and by proxy increase her own. The children were not an object of maternal love but rather a way to cement her connection to Jason and her place within the society of Corinth. So when Jason leaves Medea the children lose their value. Everyone and everything to Medea is a means to an end including those closest to her.
Euripedes' play basically could have been written in the twenty-first century. The pattern of behavior where women only see their value and power throught their relationships with men is still present. When the intensity of this desire towards power out weighs reason we see these extreme murderous actions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I do agree with the description of Medea as a woman of ruthless character and ambition and also that she lacks the characteristics of a tragic hero. However, I do not feel that her atrocious acts of her past can prepare us, or take away from us, the shock and horror that comes from the murder of her own children. One could conceive of the notion that she "might" do this act once Jason has left her, but the humanity and hope that is inherent in most human beings sets up the horrifying climax and dramatic conflict of this play.
I love the description of Medea making a "power play", because I also feel that it is Medea's lust for power and gain that fuels her heinous act of murder upon her children. Up to the beginning of Medea, she has been in charge of her life and fortune. She made decisions that even gave her power over Jason, since it was she who helped him achieve his earlier task. Medea is a woman who longs for power, and in many ways, shows she enjoys it more than love. I must agree with you Triza that Medea is one of the most selfish and ambitious characters in Greek literature. Indeed, the play almost seems modern in that it portrays a sickness that consumes many people in the world: lust for power. Some will stop at nothing to control others, even if it means hurting something he/she holds dear (not that I believe Medea loved her children...).
I agree with Both Conrad and Triza said about the power struggles.
What I want to look at is there anyone who had not read or heard the story before? For those of you had never read it before did you KNOW Medea was going to kill the children, we can infer from the Nurse's opening speech something in dead horrible is going to happen, but what?
I like to look at it through the eyes of the first audience, who many had heard the story, but then the story goes Medea leaves her children with Jason who are later killed by the Corinthians.
This summer was the first time i had read Medea but i was familiar with the legacy so it was hard for myself to separate from the early knowledge.
I like to think it was a huge surprise for the first audience to see the story told differently.
Excellent post, Triza. You should write the "corporate Medea" play! It's an apt and compelling translation, I think, to a contemporary parallel.
Did you hear about this version a few years ago?: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/movies/next-wave-review-a-medea-fit-for-the-world-of-today.html (I love Fiona Shaw).
Also useful is considering the way women are able to gain power in the socio-cultural environment of Ancient Greece: only through their relationships with men. Again, while women still have less power than men in general, it's very difficult in some ways for me to imagine a world where there would be no way for me to participate in society except through a husband: our world is very different in some ways.
I've mentioned before that I watch that show "Mad Men," and I hadn't before thought of the parallels. That show represents a time of transition, when women were still judged only by their usefulness to or relationships with the men around them, and how they negotiate that position, resist it, try to change it is very interesting. Don Draper's wife makes a compelling foil to Medea in some ways, as she is most certainly privileged and conventionally beautiful, but has no power outside of her home, husband and children. She can't provide for herself in the public sphere.
So I think what I'm saying, in response to Conrad's post, is that there's a different idea of "power" operating here. I wonder if it's possible to think of it as less than thirst for control over other people, and more the threat of not having her basic needs met. Having the power to feed and shelter and protect yourself from harm is different than needing people to do your every bidding. Which does it seem to be, in Medea's case? What evidence do you see for that in her back story/the script?
Post a Comment