Could someone please mark my Medea essay out of 10? Thank you :)

[jaimeb0810]

Medea is ‘no ordinary woman.’ To what extent do you agree with this assessment of Euripides’ character?  |
Euripides’ play Medea focuses on a female character who is, arguably, one of the most controversial of all in literature – shocking to audiences both then and now for her capacity for violence as we witness the last hours of her former love match with Jason. Euripides presents a character who is considerably unordinary, defying the boundaries of the social concepts of a typical “woman in [431BC] Greece.” Some scenes in Medea reveal moments in which we, the audience, can see elements of Medea’s persona as ordinary, in particular, through her femininity and feelings. However, it can be ultimately concluded that she is not ordinary through her quite particular choices over the course of the day, when the play takes place.

Medea’s femininity is one aspect in which she meets the typical social norms of her era. Her feminine thoughts, feelings and behaviours, to a limited extent, can be attributed to those of all “womenfolk,” particularly in her “caus[ing of] troubles” in response to Jason’s “deal[ing] in contraband love.” Medea is described to originally be “seek[ing] to please her husband in all she does,” as any other woman in 431BC Athens would too be seeking. This visible normality is evident through the arguable assumption about the lack of empathy the Athenian audience would have had, due to the belief of some historians that the audience was indeed wholly male. This willingness to “please” can also be seen as normal because we see the Chorus not only sympathise, but also empathise with her on this, giving them “no surprise” at her “grief.” However, it is important to note the events of stories previous, as through these it is also evident how different Medea is to women of Greece through her triumphant, powerful victories for Jason, as “no woman in Greece [431BC] would have ever dared” such a feat, or let alone a series of feats like Medea, such as mutilating her brother. We also know that in Ancient Greece, the only heroes who were idolised by the Greek were males, such as Ajax and Achilles. Females were not ordinary nor typical heroes for the Greeks, as their heroes were male, had to fight an “enemy” and used quite masculine, severe war language about destroying them- which Medea does. Heroes were also associated with the Gods and their side, which Medea is clearly on at the end of the play, when a chariot is sent to her aid. This causes complications for the Athenian audience, who can see the God’s evident backing of Medea and her actions and she is noticeably female. Medea is also believed by the Chorus to be a heroic instrument through which “recompense…for the female sex” can be gained. But, it is questionable whether this is what the Chorus has wanted the entire duration of the play, or whether Medea has manipulated the women and hijacked their “weak” and “feeble” beliefs to mirror hers to a certain extent. From this interpretation, there is the ability to draw the conclusion that Medea varies immensely from the Chorus (who represent Athenian women), making her no “feeble woman.” Another way in which Medea is somewhat considered to be ordinary is through her maternal love, which is compared to as “a lioness with cubs.” In Medea’s displays of love for her children, like any other woman from 431BC or 2017 also shares, this draws sharp similarities between her and all women of all times and eras, including today’s modern audience. This maternal love is the only mechanism left for Medea that has the minute ability to even possibly prevent her from “[the] terrible yet necessary deed” of killing her children as an act of revenge and justice, in return for her “arch-enemy” Jason’s actions. However, her drive for the pursuit of justice and desire for revenge overrides this, leading to her committing a double filicide, separating her from any “ordinary woman.”

There is the knowledge that Medea is “no ordinary woman,” as she is a “foreigner,” from the ends of the Greek and civilised world, and is more of an “abomination” than being anywhere close to being a Greek citizen. This is possibly due to her sorceress nature she is well known for, which Creon is wary of in dealing and interacting with her. But, she uses feminine tactics and behaviours to influence and manipulate Creon- manipulation itself being a female attribute and power, in a sense. But the audacity of Medea to control a man is considerably completely outrageous for a woman of 431BC, and her demonstration of her power when used effectively. It can be noted from this demonstration that Medea is in part, a cautionary tale for Euripides’ Athenian audience about the dangers of women, who, when not “weak,” are immensely powerful. This first episode shows her as both somewhat ordinary compared to women in her tactical use of persuasive ability, but also not through her “working [of] evil” and the drive to achieve her end aim of persuading Creon. Medea’s persuasion shows us just a sample of the extent to which her feminine abilities are more powerful and honed than that of her 431BC female counterparts. Her dominant position she knows she has over Creon would make her un-ordinary, and this assertion of dominance makes her stand out from the submissive women of Ancient Greece. There are also suggestions about Medea being of divine heritage, with her having “special knowledge [but] this knowledge [being] limit[ed].”
Euripides here potentially hints that while Medea does not quite have immense godly status, she does have this “special knowledge,” making her quite unique, in vast comparison to any other Greek citizen, as wells as any of “mankind” who inhabited in 431BC. It is important to note that Medea’s actions would not be so shocking and extraordinary if she was a self-declared goddess.

But there is also the question to be addressed about whether Medea is not ordinary by modern standards for a 21st century audience reading Euripides’ Medea. It is visible by the social norms and reality of this century that women are much more powerful in not only their home lives, but the global and social arena at current. Divorce is accepted as not the fault of any party, and women (or men) are able to divorce a partner who has “deal[t] in contraband love,” like Jason, and they are not forced socially or legally to remain with that partner, unlike women in 431BC. Women also have much more of a voice compared to the women of Ancient Greece, as well as the ability to have their voice heard and recognised. This would make Medea’s “anger” and arguments with Jason fairly ordinary in comparison to modern standards, however, there is the “abominable deed” Medea carries out, which is still not considered by a modern audience as any means normal. Perpetrators of crimes of filicides, unlike Medea, are not only punished by the legal system, but they are shunned and denounced by society, with the inability of a 21st century world to comprehend the possibility of someone committing such an act-no matter if it is out of jealousy, revenge and justice, like Medea, or for any other reason. It would also, arguably, be inappropriate to label Medea as extraordinary due to the positive association with this choice of word. It would however, be much more appropriate to conclude that Medea is simply not ordinary, rather than identifying her as extraordinary.

Medea is a complex character not only by ancient standards, but also by modern standards, and is unable to be labelled as a character with an ordinary value to her name. She is, unquestionably, judged as unique and abnormal to all audiences, who lack the capacity to completely and entirely empathise with and understand her. This conclusion is ultimately evidenced through Medea’s decision in Euripides’ version of Medea to kill her own children, thus making this assessment of Euripides’ character completely accurate and wholly true to an immense extent.