Hey all,
Just thought I would chuck a quick analysis I typed up in preparation for a set of practice mid-year exams this week. I would greatly appreciate any and all feedback as you see fit
(I forgot to type a conclusion :O better not do that in the exam)
This topic is from the 2016 Examination.
‘It is Jason, not Medea, who gains the audience’s sympathy.’ Do you agree?
“Where love was once deepest, a cancer spreads”, sending the world of irrationality to clash with that of the rational, leading to disastrous misery for both. Euripides’ Medea explores the impassioned feud that emerges amidst a culmination of both betrayal and societal burdens, and the sympathies that accompany. Euripides shows us that whilst Jason’s loss at the conclusion of the text may ultimately award him the audiences’ sympathies, Medea herself remains the protagonist to be empathised with. He shows us that Medea is a victim of both patriarchal and superstitious mentalities, and remains wretched in comparison to that of Jason.
The mental state of Medea is one of fierce confliction, whereas the mind of Jason remains unreceptive to the feelings that plague her mind. From the outset of the text, Medea ‘wails’ in the presence of her companions, and attempts to balance the onslaught of misery behind closed doors in light of her husband’s betrayal. The pitiful descriptors employed by Euripides in the monologues of his characters – constructing Medea as the ‘poor lady’ wallowing in self-pity – focalises the contrast between the spiteful couple’s natures. Whereas Medea is brought to ‘surrender’ herself to ‘anguish’ - a concept that bares much weight considering her fiercely proud nature - Jason remains stalwart in his logical and unfeeling mindset. Indeed, Medea is not constructed by Euripides as the spiteful and abhorrent mother many may perceive her to be, but rather a woman crippled with desperation and self-imposed duties of vengeance. The climax of the play’s tragedy, the ‘unheard-of scheme’ to sentence both Glauce and Medea’s children to death, is one that epitomises the grim hold upon her mind. Here, Euripides seems to show us that Medea carries the overwhelming burdens that shatters the “mother’s code” so sanctified within all societies. She is a woman of devout nature, where ‘love was once deepest’, brought to ‘utter ruin’ as her husband, Jason, warms the ‘royal bed’ of the Corinthian palace. The broken mindset of Medea is far cry to that of the un-phased Jason, and is a clear construction by Euripides to align sympathy with her.
Furthermore, it is through the plight of Medea as a foreign female, that Euripides expresses the overwhelming burden placed upon her. As a foreigner to the structured land of Corinth, a pronounced sense of stigma accompanies her presence. To the broader male population, she represents the ‘barbarian’ from an irrational, uncivilised land, immediately constructing a sense of distrust in her presence. Here, Euripides seems to challenge these pre-conceived notions of prejudice, especially through the coupling of Medea as an auspicious female. The simultaneous role of the unknown female, the ‘most miserable of specimens’, presents the struggle of Medea as one of towering heights. She is expected to remain the ‘timid creature’, the submissive ‘plaything’ to a ‘cruel husband’, and willingly comply with exile pronounced upon her by Creon. Such a plight – one that the broader Athenian male audience would not have experienced or perhaps even considered – is one deliberately constructed by Euripides to be overwhelming. This in turn, awards the sympathies of the Chorus, empathising with Medea’s situation as one not to be accepted, but rather hated and resented. Consequently, Euripides guides the audience to align their sympathies with Medea, the ‘dishonoured’ lady, ‘abandoned, homeless’.
Despite Jason’s ignorance to the emotions of Medea, Jason’s loss is paramount at the end of the text within the pendulum of sympathies. From the outset of the text, characters such as the Nurse and Chorus – seeing the merit and justice in Medea’s iron will to not stand so idly – condone her actions. Indeed, Medea is awarded sympathies through the role of the victim, and given support to serve ‘recompense for the female sex’. However, as Medea crosses the metaphorical threshold of morality – the boundaries dividing sympathy and disgust, justice and vengeance – those who had once supported her turn in dismay. Euripides constructs the deaths of Medea’s children as a most ‘bloody deed’, which in turn, drives the abandonment and raw resentment of those within the text. Jason’s rationality, while highlighted as unfeeling, appears minuscule to that of the pure sorrow he displays at the conclusion of the text; a father left with nothing in the wake of his spurned wife. In this way, Euripides seems to show that the ‘murderous deed’ of Medea is not in a bid for gender ‘recompense’, nor for the pursuit of marital justice, but is rather an act of selfish conquest. Medea’s feeling of ‘betrayal’ is one to empathise with undoubtedly, but she self-destructs her status as the victim through sparking Jason’s ‘utter ruin’. Consequently, Medea seems to lose all merit within the eyes of Corinthian women and the audience, ironically sparking their sympathies to align with Jason.
Home
Help
Search
Login
