If anyone could give some general feedback that'd be much appreciated, specifically about knowledge of the text and the way I've answered the prompt - I feel these are my shortcomings. If there are any glaring errors I've made, then also let me know.
Also, a score out of 10 would also be helpful.
Cheers.
----------------
Often tragedies have a heroic yet flawed central character, but in Medea no character has any admirable or heroic qualities.’ Do you agree?
Performed in the year preceding the Peloponnesian War, Euripides Medea explores the notions of heroism in times of conflict. Set in Ancient Corinth, the play chronicles the despair and retribution of Colchian sorceress and “sorrowful women” Medea, who has been abandoned by her husband Jason. Euripides employs the ‘heroic’ traits of the aforementioned characters and their subsequent downfalls to illustrate the dangers of so-called ‘admirable’ qualities. Medea is initially characterized as a strong female protagonist who has been wronged in the land of “men’s laws”, and is praised throughout the play for her ‘heroic’ desire to attain revenge. However, both she and Jason’s traits lead to their respective downfalls, allowing Euripides to comment on the value the Athenians place on so-called ‘heroism’ and where it potentially leads. Furthermore, the playwright highlights the dangers of Hamartia – a tragic flaw – and its ability to undermine the heroic qualities that Medea exhibits. Ultimately, Medea has characters that do posses admirable qualities, but t he respective fates of these characters allow Euripides to illustrate the dangers of so-called ‘heroism’.
Euripides challenges traditional gender roles of Ancient Greece through his initial depiction of Medea as a strong female protagonist in the land of “men’s laws.” In her monologue at the beginning of the play, Medea herself laments the plight of women when she states that “women are the most miserable of species” and that they must “buy a husband to play tyrant with (their) bodies”. Medea goes on to argue that she would rather “face the enemy three times over than bear a child once.” This is a direct challenge to the almost entirely male audience of the play, and allows Euripides to highlight the inherent strength and heroic qualities that women possess in Ancient Greece despite the pejorative views of them. This sentiment is echoed by the chorus – made up of entirely Corinthian women - who support Medea in her desire for revenge. They lambast Jason for his “breaking of oaths”, telling him that he “betrayed (his) wife and is behaving unjustly”. Furthermore, the chorus explicates their approval for Medea’s actions, saying to her that “it is just that you should take revenge on your husband”. The chorus could be reflecting the attitudes and resentment of women at the time, warning the audience that “recompense is coming for the female sex.” Through Medea’s subversion of the overriding gender roles in Ancient Greek society, Euripides characterizes her as a hero who does indeed posses ‘admirable’ qualities.
Through the depiction of the outcomes of the various characters as a result of their ‘heroic’ motivations, Medea extols the dangers of these so-called ‘admirable’ traits and the potential ruin they can bring. Medea, for her part, is motivated by the ‘heroic’ desire for renown and honour. In her monologue wherein she debates whether to kill her children, she states that she would be a “laughing stock” if “she let (her) enemies off scot-free”, and that she would not tolerate the “mockery of (her) enemies.” These traits of honour and renown were commonly associated with heroism at the time, and Euripides employs these as the motivations of Medea to illustrate how they can precipitate the downfall of both her and those around her. Likewise, Jason is motivated by another ‘heroic’ quality – avarice. He reflects the Ancient Greek idolization of wealth and status when he argues that his decision to marry Glauce (princess of Corinth) was based on a desire to “ensure his prosperity” rather than lust. Furthermore, Jason justifies his choice by arguing that it was a necessary one, as “an impoverished friend is shunned”. Both Jason’s and Medea’s motivations lead to their eventual downfall, as explicated by the concluding scene of the play. Jason is left with his “house in utter ruin”, as his fiancé and two children are dead. Similarly with Medea, as although she has exacted revenged it has come on a great personal cost. She has transcended “mankind’s laws” by killing her own children and even the chorus has ceased their support for her. They plead for her to “not do this terrible thing”, but it is ultimately in vain as she carries out the “evil” dead. Medea herself laments s the dastardly nature of her actions, stating that her “sorrows overwhelm (her)” and that she has brought “great suffering on (herself)”. Euripides employs the motivations and outcomes of the main characters in the play to illustrate the dangers of supposedly ‘admirable’ and ‘heroic’ qualities.
Euripides highlights the dangers of Hamartia and its ability to undermine the aforementioned heroic values. Medea’s fatal flaw is her excessive spiritedness and her lack of moderation, which drives her to break “mankind’s laws” by killing her children. In her monologue wherein she deliberates whether to kill her children, Medea acknowledges that her “passion is master of (her) reason” and that she is gripped by irrationality. This irrationality is reiterated in the exodus with Jason, where she states that “her beloved children” were “dear to their mother but not to you (Jason).” Furthermore, Medea acknowledges that killing the children will cause her “twice as much suffering” as Jason, and that she is a “women born to sorrow” because of this. This obvious and paradoxical contradiction is born out of Medea’s excessive passion that has clouded her judgment, as no logical person would commit an act knowing it would it would harm themselves twice as much as the person they were intending to spite. Additionally, the excessiveness of Medea’s passion is reinforced by Euripides through visceral and bloody imagery in Medea’s scene with the messenger wherein they discuss the murder of Glauce. He uses words such as “golden”, “gleaming” and “shining” are used to describe Glauce’s gift from Medea (a dress), before switching to phrases such as “blood congealed with fire” and “flesh melting from bone” when describing how the dress caught her ablaze. These diametrically opposed adjectives are juxtaposed to reinforced the brutality of Glauce’s death and hence reiterate the savagery of Medea’s excessive spiritedness, who for her part exclaims that she is “twice as happy” that Glauce died in agony. Euripides employs Medea’s fatal flaw to illustrate how Hamartia can potentially undermine the aforementioned heroic qualities.
Medea is chiefly concerned with the notions and interpretations of heroism in times of conflict. Through Medea’s heroic femininity and the downfall of the main characters as a result of her Hamartia, Euripides illustrates the dangers of so-called ‘heroic’ traits. Ultimately, it is evident that the main characters of the play do possess seemingly heroic and admirable qualities, but the fates of the these characters by the conclusion of the play present a confronting depiction of the potential dangers of such traits.
Home
Help
Search
Login
