Practice exam essay feedback plsss

[Ulynator151]

Hey guys! This is an essay that I just put together today, some feedback would be much appreciated, I got a 7/10 for my externally marked exam section A, and am hoping for a 9/10 on the final exam. Any feedback on this and how to improve in time for the 31st would be amazing

Section A: Medea.
Prompt: Is Medea an innocent victim?
In Euripides’ tragedy Medea, the eponymous protagonist is a victim, but not an innocent one. Although Jason’s and Creon’s treatment of Medea is unjustifiable - and in this circumstance she is an innocent victim - the nature of her response to this treatment, the murder of her and Jason’s children as well as the murder of Creon and Princess Glauce, make her a guilty party. However, the context of being an abandoned and exiled woman in the highly patriarchal society of Ancient Greece, must be taken into account when assessing Medea’s victim status.

Jason’s and Creon’s treatment of Medea throughout the play is reprehensible and unjustifiable, temporarily resulting in Medea being an innocent victim. Jason’s abandonment of Medea for the hand in marriage of Princess Glauce was purely in the pursuit of “liv[ing] in comfort”, thus confirming Jason to be a materialistic and self-serving individual. The ex-captain of the Argo also rendered the titular protagonist isolated and lacking in agency as a consequence of his leaving her without a male guardian. This is an abuse of the oaths of their marriage, as well as a betrayal the trust and loyalty of his wife and mother of children. Additionally, Jason’s indifference to the feelings of Medea, having dismissed her protests to his betrayal as “tongue-lashing”, establishes Jason as an overly-rational and unsympathetic abuser of Medea, who had at that point “done him no wrong”. King Creon’s preemptive banishment of Medea out of concern that she would act against the royal family following Jason’s marriage into it, was an unjust act inspired by fear. Banishment was almost always essentially a death sentence in the Ancient world, as life outside of the city-limits was rugged and lawless. This makes Creon’s decision an incredibly harsh and selfish one, especially due to the fact that Medea’s children were originally to be banished also. Medea, therefore, is certainly a victim of the Corinthian royal family’s despotism and cruelty, regardless of the fact that Creon allowed her “one more day” in the city, prompted by Medea’s pleadings. It is clear that, at least initially, Medea was an innocent victim of the abuse and cruelty of both her husband Jason, and the King Creon, both of whom behaved with the utmost selfishness.

However, Medea’s retaliatory actions against her “enemies” are of such a nature that they strip her of her innocent status, and render her to be a comparably guilty party. Medea’s anger and desire for vengeance against Jason, Creon, and Glauce is understandable in the context of her great suffering, however the manner in which she pursues such feelings is unjustifiable. Medea’s deception of Creon following his admission of an extra day in Corinth is warranted, as the potential consequence of his banishment of her would be death, making one more day in Corinth irrelevant. Consequently, Medea’s poisoning of Glauce’s gift-dress, causing the death of the Princess as well as the King, is understandable in the circumstances. The Corinthian royal family is partially to blame for facilitating Jason’s abandonment of Medea, as well as wholly responsible for her banishment from Corinth, making them valid targets for the “cunning woman” to take revenge upon, regardless of the fact that Aegeus later granted her refuge in Athens. Additionally, Jason’s disloyalty and lack of regard for Medea and their children’s wellbeing in allowing them to be banished, strips him of moral defence. Thus, Medea’s desire to exact vengeance on Jason is entirely understandable, especially when considering the utter lack of empathy displayed by him toward her. If Medea did choose to approach Jason in a similar manner to the royal family, killing him for her “thwarted bed” and lack of agency, it would be easy to sympathise with her still, but her actions in the pursuit of revenge prove unjustifiable. The extent of Medea’s self-destructive revanchism becomes clear when she commits the crime of infanticide, killing her “own flesh and blood” in order to make Jason suffer for his abuse. Infanticide is a crime that is widely considered to be so morally degenerate, and such a reprehensibly “evil deed”, that it is unlikely that any audience member could sympathise with Medea following her committing of it. Medea’s view that her own “pain’s a fair price to pay to take away [Jason’s] smile” may be valid, but this does not account for the pain of their children, who were innocent parties, murdered in the pursuit of one woman’s vengeance. Medea’s selfish act in murdering her children is such an “evil deed” that it counteracts the mistreatment that she had suffered at the hands of others, and renders the titular character to a status similar to Jason and Creon.

However, the context of Grecian society’s patriarchal and despotic hierarchy must be considered when evaluating Medea’s status as an innocent victim. While Medea’s infanticide can be rightly criticised, and greatly detracts from her innocence as a victim, it becomes more understandable when considering that all of Medea’s power as a woman and mother came from her having provided children to Jason. Women in Ancient Greece were not treated equally to men, and their value was based upon their obedience to their husbands, as well as their ability to birth and raise their offspring. By acting against Jason and by killing her children, Medea rejects the societal expectations imposed upon her and revolts against the “tyranny” of the patriarchal system that shackled her to “eternal misery”. This is highlighted by Jason’s claim that he “married a tigress, not a woman, not a wife” following her infanticide, demonstrating the inherent tether between womanhood and the traditional expectations of a mother and wife in Ancient Greece. Additionally, Creon’s treatment of Medea highlights the lack of power of a lone woman in the Ancient world. Medea is sentenced to banishment without a trial, without cause, and without sufficient time to organise a new home. The King of Corinth effectively steals Medea’s husband for his daughter, and then declares that the valid emotions that she felt were cause for banishment, as they spoke “against the royal family”. With this in mind, the murder of Creon and Glauce appears to be justified in the context of a reaction to an effective death sentence and veritable abuse of executive power. While infanticide may never be fully justifiable in any circumstance, the impact of the societal context of Medea is relevant and worth acknowledging when assessing her innocence in Euripides’ play.

Overall, Medea is unarguably an initial innocent victim in the play, but through her actions, challenges this status. While some of her behaviour can be justified by the abuse that she suffered from Jason, Creon, and Glauce, as well as the patriarchal and despotic hierarchy of Grecian society, Medea’s infanticide is effectively unjustifiable, and the cause of her loss of status as an innocent victim.