From Laura H.: To understand Euripides’ intentions in Medea the background information which was presented through the interactive orals was necessary. Due to my contextual understanding of women’s social status and duty in ancient Greece I can appreciate Euripides' attitudes. Women were likely to be abandoned as babies, and if they weren’t life wasn’t much better! Girls were raised at home learning how to take care of the household. Later once they married they became legal property of their husband; this included the husband’s right to enslave his wife if she became adulterous. Marriage was also a political or economic issue, with the husband usually thirty years older than his wife. This is clearly visible in Medea; Jason initially marries Medea to get the Golden Fleece. Then when he receives an offer from King Creon to marry his daughter Jason promptly accepts, all due to his ambition for power. Medea does not fit this category, she is an atypical woman. The play ends with Medea successfully escaping; not only is she a woman but she is a foreigner and yet she is safe at the end of the play. Euripides’ views are admirable, especially for the time period which the play was written. Medea is a very strong willed woman which powerfully and brutally takes on her revenge. While at the time it was considered a shameful interpretation because it favored an immoral woman and foreigner it corresponds to the personage of Euripides which appears to have been an individualist. In another interpretation it is not Medea which kills her children; Euripides has her murder them, which increases the power and brutality of the woman. The strength of Medea is astounding and shocking today, therefore knowing the situation in ancient Greece it is not surprising that the reaction to Euripides’ Medea was horror. Even the chorus, which usually speaks the truth, tends to defend Medea again portraying the scandalous views of Euripides. Not only were the orals very informative and interesting, but they provided necessary contextual information to understand Euripides’ intentions.
Euripides’ “Medea” offers a modern view on contemporary issues of women’s rights, although it was written around 300 BCE. Despite my understanding that the Greeks only worshiped and venerated women if they were goddesses, Medea’s character is the exception to this rule. Being a barbarian from the mythical land of Colchis, she is equipped with both supernatural powers and a strong personality.
Euripides was the first to pose his female protagonist as a martyr, to be regarded with sympathy rather than anger in her quest for vengeance against Jason. Even in all other variations of the play, she is worshiped for her spirit and determination.
I believe that ancient Greek culture was only by Euripides’ era beginning to fathom the inner workings of a woman’s mind and her hardships that were quadrupled by the unjust laws against her. Euripides was a feminist long before the 1960’s movement, and it is inspiring to see how open-minded he was about a controversial topic in the 21st century. While his time period was archaic, his ideals were revolutionary as he favored women and throughout Medea explains his fascination and admiration of them. It is refreshing to see contemporary authors portraying a female protagonist as strong, independent and even a bit frightful. To have an author do so 2300 years ago is downright miraculous.
In some ways, however, Euripides exaggerates his plans to a psychotic extent. A woman would have to be pretty insane to murder her own children, even in ancient, non-civilized times. Women (like the infamous Casey Anthony) continue to repeat these incomprehensible and tormented actions. In “Medea” we are led through the treachery and betrayal she feels before her final explosive reaction, and thus are left feeling oddly proud of her although what she did would otherwise be condemned. If the reader can connect and relate himself or herself to Medea, Jason, the Chorus or any other role in the play even today, then I consider this play to be of tremendous literary worth.
“Medea” is therefore the pinnacle of a new perspective on women’s rights issues. It also explores to a psychological extent the emotional thought processes of a situation that is unorthodox and disturbing. In these ways, it offers an unconventional set of values that are to be weighed equally against those to which we conform everyday.
I thought it was interesting to find out about Medea’s origins since the information somewhat altered my perspective on her character. She was “victim” of several misfortunes, which probably caused her to build up implosive anger until she was given her ultimatum and finally exploded (by carrying her mischievous and meticulous plan). Although the resentful actions of the protagonist in Euripides’ play are not justified by any means, one can still realize the “reasoning” (or one might say the lack of reasoning) behind her decisions. Consequently, one cannot entirely judge Medea on her atrocious actions, for as can be seen in other works of literature and real life examples, unconditional love has the power to drive people insane. Can one truly define a person as being absolutely good or entirely bad? From the start, one could tell that Medea’s love for Jason was truly great, for she deceived her father and killed her brother in order to help Jason and keep him safe. By doing this, she betrayed her people and subsequently relinquished the possibility of ever being welcomed again in the land of Colchis. From this point onwards Medea’s life was destined for chaos due to Jason’s political aspirations and her vengeful personality. Additionally, Medea’s ascendance was also problematic for she was the daughter of Aeetes, King of Colchis. Even though she a princess in her land of origin, she was still considered a barbarian in Greece, which thereby confined her to being considered as inferior. Regardless of Medea’s astuteness, she did not completely integrate properly into Greek society as she probably inflicted fear in people (because of her knowledge in “magic” and potions) and she was regarded as different and lesser. Why is that humans have the tendency to treat those who are different (and usually a minority) as inferior when all that this ever leads to is violence? Overall, it is clear that Medea’s actions were not justified, but by analyzing what she did for love and the way that she was treated afterwards, one can recognize that the circumstances helped drive her insane. Initially Medea seemed to be a psychopath, but after learning about her story and particularly how she was treated, I modified my point of view of her. A crime of passion is considered as a less punishable instance of murder in today's world. Should Medea’s case be assessed any differently?
An interesting aspect that I learned about the play Medea is the reaction of the audience towards the play, considering the attitude of the Athenians towards women and foreigners. While there are various versions of the myth, most of them, especially Euripides’ tragedy, are written in a way that emphasizes the violence and cruelty of Medea. Bearing in mind that women in ancient Greece were looked down upon and the prejudice against barbarians existed, perhaps the play was relatively unsuccessful because Medea is both a woman and a foreigner and commits outrageously immoral crimes. Medea murders the princess and King Creon, and then kills her own children, and while it is still surprising for us, it seems to have come to a greater shock to the conservative Greeks, since the play was not so successful in competition. Women of ancient Greece were granted few rights, seen as inferior to men, even considered the legal property of their husbands, and their social status were determined by their husbands. Some aspects of the play do match these attitudes, including Jason’s lack of guilt toward betraying his wife because he has given more to her. According to Jason, Medea is honored by the Greeks because of him; he saved her from living among barbarians, and she learned from the Greeks “how to live by law instead of the sweet will of force”. However, Medea’s personality is clearly different from the common type of women of ancient Greece. She behaves even more cruelly than a man would by murdering so many innocent people just because of her desire for revenge. Moreover, I was able to link the discrimination against women and foreigners with information about Euripides’ career. Euripides seems to use the chorus to create sympathy towards Medea, despite her brutality and violence. The chorus, who usually represent society’s viewpoint, does not scold or disapprove of Medea’s behavior. Instead, they sympathize with her, and as we discussed, it might be because the chorus are also women and can feel and understand Medea’s pain. Overall, I was able to connect other aspects to the interactive oral and understand the reasons for the audience’s reaction towards the play, and thus expand my knowledge of the play.
Through the Interactive orals, I have come to realize the general distrust that the Ancient Greek culture had for Euripides and his plays. The use he made of highly immoral themes that usually went counter to Greek morality caused him to be highly criticized throughout his entire career, only to be recognized postmortem. I think this is because, as time passes, cultures evolve, and what was once thought disgusting and prohibited slowly becomes more acceptable into the culture.
As women were considered intellectually inferior and had few rights and privilege, Euripides´s support of women was viewed as dangerous and even wrong; however, with the rise of feminism in the past century, his plays, and Medea in particular, have become stronger in the Greek dramaturgic landscape.
I also found interesting insights into Euripides’s work through the analysis of Medea’s actions as symptomatic of a real world mental illness. What at first may appear only a work of fiction actually exists and is a not uncommon condition in divorced women. This illness’s characteristics are markedly similar to those Medea shows in the play, which confirms that Greek tragedies are not fictional works with the only purpose of entertaining the public, but are reflective plays that analyze human society and its moral values.
Another interesting topic raised in the interactive oral was the contextual consideration of Medea as either a hero or a villain. In my perspective, she possesses many aspects of both, as she fights against society in order to win her rights but in order to do so she uses vengeance and commits both homicide and filicide. I think that the decision about whether she is a hero or a villain depends more on one’s moral values, as she can be seen as either a strong female rights supporter or a psychopath.
In general, the interactive orals enhanced my questioning and consideration of Euripides’s use of morality, which was noticeably different from that of his Greek contemporaries.
The Interactive Orals have helped me understand the context of Medea in many ways. One of the topics was the Twelve Olympians, which was very useful as often in the play the characters mention the name of the gods but with their Roman names, like Phoebus instead of Apollo. Thus, knowing their different names, what they stood for and some background information on how they came to exist, it was possible to have a better understanding of the text.
Near the beginning of the play, Medea says, “Oh, I wish that lighting from heaven would split my head open.” After learning about the Greek God Zeus, leader of the Olympians, we know his instrument of power is the lightning bolt. Also, because Zeus is the leader of the Olympians, often when a character or the chorus mentions the name “God” it is assumed they are talking about Zeus, as in the line “Don’t be hurt. God will be your friend in this.” This, however, is not known for sure.
When the chorus announces “O God and Earth and Heaven!” they are referring to the deities that came before the Titans and are responsible for the creation. Apostrophe is used as a literary device and by the chorus, evoking the deity of Earth, referring to Gaia, responsible for earth, nature and life. Medea also mentions Themis and Artemis, saying “Great Themis, Lady Artemis, behold the things I suffer, though I made him promise, my hateful husband.” Themis was the goddess of law and the divine order, so as she is talking about her suffering and her husband, she is asking for justice to be made. Artemis, we learn, is the goddess of virginity and childbirth. This helps to supplement the explanation in the footnote at the bottom of the page, “… the virgin Artemis would be sensitive to the plight of women.” With the researched information we know perhaps why Artemis would be sensitive to women as she represented two solely feminine ideas.
The interactive portion of the oral also brought up some important questions that contributed to the overall knowledge of the text. One student asked the question “How did these myths come to exist?” and we came to the conclusion that they were created to explain the origins and nature of things. Then, while reading, we understand why the Greeks were polytheistic and how different gods played different roles in certain situations.
Learning about Euripides’ career, the role of the women in ancient Greece, and the role of the chorus helped me understand the constant references in the play. During Euripides’ career he wrote about three common themes: God, War, and Women. In Medea a main theme is woman and her role in serving men. Women were seen as inferior and as property of their husbands in Ancient Greece; they were to have eyes for only one man. Throughout the play there is a constant feeling of oppression towards Medea, who often mentions her position in the eyes of men and society. She refers to herself as “something he won in a foreign land.” To Jason, she is just a prize for heroism. Medea makes reference to the reality that a woman’s only job was to bear children. But Medea was not like the common woman of Ancient Greece. She struggled constantly against the society’s and men’s oppression. With knowledge from the interactive orals I was able to understand the constant references to woman as inferior and discover Euripides’ purpose in reflecting the misogynistic attitudes of Ancient Greek society. For my part of the interactive oral, I had to investigate the role of the chorus and its evolution. I learned that the Chorus’s main role was to reflect and comment on the actions made by the actors themselves. Whilst reading Medea I was astonished by how often this occurred. Towards the end of the play, for example, the chorus comments on the bride, the bridegroom and Medea (32). The chorus refers to Jason as “wretched” and then comments on his greed and how it sparked Medea’s violence. Despite the Chorus’s constant foreshadowing of events, they do not attempt to act upon them. This is because their role is not to get involved but only comment on the moral values held by society. I found it interesting that at the beginning of the play, for the first time Medea is not looked upon as the evil character by the chorus. This must have had quite an impact on Greek audiences, who were used to seeing women as “evil.” Medea serves as a reflection of her society. Despite her horrendous acts, the play takes a stand against the common view of women as manipulative and evil. Euripides uses characters such as the chorus to dictate a more compassionate moral code.
With the help of the Interactive orals my comprehension of Greek theater has deepened as has my understanding of the play Medea. Just with my presentation on Greek tragedy and theater, I learned about the typical structure used, which is good knowledge to have before starting to read the play since now I know about the prologue and parados and the other structural elements.
Learning about the chorus and its importance in Greek tragedy helped me understand that when reading Medea I have to pay attention to the dialogue of the chorus because they tell the story and they’re there to help guide the audience throughout the play. What they do in this play that is intriguing is that fact that they sometimes take a character’s (like Medea’s) side, even though she is not conforming to social norms. In addition, they don’t try to reason with any of the characters, even when they hear negative foreshadowing, such as Medea’s plan to murder her children.
One of the presentations was about women’s rights, and that topic affects the play significantly since women back in Ancient Greece were not considered worthy unless they had sons or were goddesses. Female infanticide was a common practice. Girl children who survived were taught from a very young age about the importance of taking care of their household and how to be a perfect wife. This is what makes this play so interesting: Medea wasn’t anything like women were expected to be back then. She betrayed her family and killed her brother for the love of Jason and then continued to hurt and anger her own family just so Jason could be satisfied with the Golden Fleece. But after she finds out that Jason is leaving her to marry King Creon’s daughter for the throne, she is driven mad and kills the most important thing to Jason, which are his sons.
In Ancient Greece, women didn’t have many rights and were supposed to respect their husbands, who were free to do whatever they wanted. The fact that Medea seeks revenge makes this play interesting since women were not expected to assert themselves in any way, especially not in violent ways as Medea did. The combination of women’s rights and the exaggeration brought out in the play is captivating. A mad, jealous woman killing her children is over-the-top, but Euripides reveals how a woman may go mad after finding out her husband is leaving her when she has betrayed her own family for him. The fact that Euripides shows real life (if extreme) problems to which the audience can connect makes this play truly brilliant.
Although in previous years I have studied Greek tragedy, the lack of consistency on the subject has led me to forget much of it; therefore, the interactive oral presentations have reminded me much of Greek plays and their culture and helped me to understand Medea not only as a story but as a Greek style of writing. Overall all of the orals were an asset to my knowledge of the Greeks, and at times many of them seemed to develop my comprehension of Medea as I was able to analyze different instances that represented Ancient Hellenistic culture.
Learning about the Peloponnesian War was very interesting, but even though it expanded my knowledge of history it did not improve my understanding of Medea as I found no correlation between the play and the war. On the other hand the explanation of how Greek plays were written, such as the role of the chorus and what a tragedy is, improved my ability to see the unique aspects that Greek plays contained and how they described their ideas in a unique way. When reading Medea, the language implies a certain attitude towards the protagonist (Medea) and by having the oral presentations stereotypical aspects of Greek culture have been revealed, such as women’s part in society and the population’s attitudes towards barbarians which explain why Medea is regarded as she is in the play. As a foreigner Medea is treated cautiously in Greece since every foreigner is a barbarian so it doesn’t help her cause in being aided by Greeks; moreover, being in addition to being a barbarian explains Creon’s strict decision to banish Medea, since a woman that could think was regarded as an enchantress. Eventually, when she poisons her gifts to his daughter, she proves to be as dangerous as the King of Corinth feared. There were other presentations that, even though they showed just a minor characteristic of Hellenistic society, helped the overall understanding of the play such as the description of the twelve Olympian gods in the polytheistic religion of Greece.
During our class discussions and interactive oral presentations, various subjects concerning ancient Greece theatrical traditions and Euripides' play "Medea". One of the topics presented was the behavior of the Greek people towards foreigners. According to Herodotus, the Greeks paradoxically felt fascination, envy and contempt regarding these outsiders, or, in their own terms, barbarians. Stereotyped as being unable to exert control over their vices, such as lasciviousness and cruelty, and mocked for wearing effeminate clothing (as recorded by the Greek historian Thucydides), so-called barbarians found themselves belittled in Greek society. However, there is no evidence that suggests that foreigners were physically mistreated though they were excluded from the Olympic Games and religious ceremonies, among other social gatherings. Therefore, it is not an outlandish idea that in "Medea", Jason left his wife, princess of Colchis and bearer of his children and descendants, because of the simple fact that her roots were not Greek.
In not only Euripides' play, but also in all the versions of the myth Jason takes on Glauce, daughter of King Creon, as a second wife. Whether his separation was specifically to distance himself from Medea's damaging reputation as a sorceress or perhaps as a source of power and wealth, it is clear that Medea's non-Greek nationality contributed to this fact. Furthermore, it explains Medea's expulsion and exile from Corinth, an event which fueled her anger and prompted her to take such dramatic and insane measures to avenge herself and secure her position of power among women. As Medea so bluntly states, she was a trophy, a "captive from a foreign shore" and as Jason's "eye was turned towards old age, a foreign wife began to appear a shame to thee". Jason also remarks that Medea has benefited from marrying him, a Greek: "First, thou dwellest in Hellas, instead of thy barbarian land, and hast learnt what justice means and how to live by law, not by the dictates of brute force". Hence, the in-class presentation greatly helped me comprehend the extent of Medea's fury and reason for her radical acts of murder; after all, faced with an attitude of disdain because of her gender and nationality, it was only natural for Medea to stand up and defend herself, her pride and her nation with the grandest of spectacles.
The various interactive orals were a very big help in my understanding of Medea. The first oral that benefited me was the one on the role of women in Greece. This was very beneficial to my understanding of Medea because in order to properly understand why Medea did what she did, one must understand the role of women in ancient Greece. In Greece, women were treated as property, to be married off to men of their father’s choosing. In addition, they were supposed to be quiet, reserved, and they were supposed to stay at home taking care of the house and the children. Another oral that was beneficial was the one on barbarians. The word “barbarian” actually comes from the sounds that the Greeks thought that the foreigners would say, “barba”. In ancient Greece, barbarians were anyone who was not Greek, like Medea for example. This discrimination and non-acceptance by the Greeks towards Medea and the barbarians was also key to the reason why she killed her children and Jason’s new wife. She felt betrayed, but because of how women were supposed to act and because of how barbarians or foreigners were treated, she did not feel like she could achieve justice any other way. Another oral that helped me in my understanding of Medea, was my own. During the research of my oral about the Peloponnesian Wars, I learned a lot, not only about those wars, but also about Euripides and how the wars may have affected the Athenians. The Peloponnesian Wars had an amazingly large effect on Euripides and the rest of the Athenians. It affected the traditional forms of tragedies by forcing playwrights to use fewer people in the chorus; Euripides used less music and poetry as the war went on, making his plays seem darker, and then as the war went on he became more and more disillusioned and anti-war as well, affecting his writing. All of the orals, but particular these, were all very helpful in my further understanding of Medea.
From Laura H.:
ReplyDeleteTo understand Euripides’ intentions in Medea the background information which was presented through the interactive orals was necessary. Due to my contextual understanding of women’s social status and duty in ancient Greece I can appreciate Euripides' attitudes. Women were likely to be abandoned as babies, and if they weren’t life wasn’t much better! Girls were raised at home learning how to take care of the household. Later once they married they became legal property of their husband; this included the husband’s right to enslave his wife if she became adulterous. Marriage was also a political or economic issue, with the husband usually thirty years older than his wife. This is clearly visible in Medea; Jason initially marries Medea to get the Golden Fleece. Then when he receives an offer from King Creon to marry his daughter Jason promptly accepts, all due to his ambition for power. Medea does not fit this category, she is an atypical woman. The play ends with Medea successfully escaping; not only is she a woman but she is a foreigner and yet she is safe at the end of the play. Euripides’ views are admirable, especially for the time period which the play was written. Medea is a very strong willed woman which powerfully and brutally takes on her revenge. While at the time it was considered a shameful interpretation because it favored an immoral woman and foreigner it corresponds to the personage of Euripides which appears to have been an individualist. In another interpretation it is not Medea which kills her children; Euripides has her murder them, which increases the power and brutality of the woman. The strength of Medea is astounding and shocking today, therefore knowing the situation in ancient Greece it is not surprising that the reaction to Euripides’ Medea was horror. Even the chorus, which usually speaks the truth, tends to defend Medea again portraying the scandalous views of Euripides. Not only were the orals very informative and interesting, but they provided necessary contextual information to understand Euripides’ intentions.
Sara C.:
ReplyDeleteEuripides’ “Medea” offers a modern view on contemporary issues of women’s rights, although it was written around 300 BCE. Despite my understanding that the Greeks only worshiped and venerated women if they were goddesses, Medea’s character is the exception to this rule. Being a barbarian from the mythical land of Colchis, she is equipped with both supernatural powers and a strong personality.
Euripides was the first to pose his female protagonist as a martyr, to be regarded with sympathy rather than anger in her quest for vengeance against Jason. Even in all other variations of the play, she is worshiped for her spirit and determination.
I believe that ancient Greek culture was only by Euripides’ era beginning to fathom the inner workings of a woman’s mind and her hardships that were quadrupled by the unjust laws against her. Euripides was a feminist long before the 1960’s movement, and it is inspiring to see how open-minded he was about a controversial topic in the 21st century. While his time period was archaic, his ideals were revolutionary as he favored women and throughout Medea explains his fascination and admiration of them. It is refreshing to see contemporary authors portraying a female protagonist as strong, independent and even a bit frightful. To have an author do so 2300 years ago is downright miraculous.
In some ways, however, Euripides exaggerates his plans to a psychotic extent. A woman would have to be pretty insane to murder her own children, even in ancient, non-civilized times. Women (like the infamous Casey Anthony) continue to repeat these incomprehensible and tormented actions. In “Medea” we are led through the treachery and betrayal she feels before her final explosive reaction, and thus are left feeling oddly proud of her although what she did would otherwise be condemned. If the reader can connect and relate himself or herself to Medea, Jason, the Chorus or any other role in the play even today, then I consider this play to be of tremendous literary worth.
“Medea” is therefore the pinnacle of a new perspective on women’s rights issues. It also explores to a psychological extent the emotional thought processes of a situation that is unorthodox and disturbing. In these ways, it offers an unconventional set of values that are to be weighed equally against those to which we conform everyday.
Shaul N.:
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting to find out about Medea’s origins since the information somewhat altered my perspective on her character. She was “victim” of several misfortunes, which probably caused her to build up implosive anger until she was given her ultimatum and finally exploded (by carrying her mischievous and meticulous plan). Although the resentful actions of the protagonist in Euripides’ play are not justified by any means, one can still realize the “reasoning” (or one might say the lack of reasoning) behind her decisions. Consequently, one cannot entirely judge Medea on her atrocious actions, for as can be seen in other works of literature and real life examples, unconditional love has the power to drive people insane. Can one truly define a person as being absolutely good or entirely bad?
From the start, one could tell that Medea’s love for Jason was truly great, for she deceived her father and killed her brother in order to help Jason and keep him safe. By doing this, she betrayed her people and subsequently relinquished the possibility of ever being welcomed again in the land of Colchis. From this point onwards Medea’s life was destined for chaos due to Jason’s political aspirations and her vengeful personality. Additionally, Medea’s ascendance was also problematic for she was the daughter of Aeetes, King of Colchis. Even though she a princess in her land of origin, she was still considered a barbarian in Greece, which thereby confined her to being considered as inferior. Regardless of Medea’s astuteness, she did not completely integrate properly into Greek society as she probably inflicted fear in people (because of her knowledge in “magic” and potions) and she was regarded as different and lesser. Why is that humans have the tendency to treat those who are different (and usually a minority) as inferior when all that this ever leads to is violence?
Overall, it is clear that Medea’s actions were not justified, but by analyzing what she did for love and the way that she was treated afterwards, one can recognize that the circumstances helped drive her insane. Initially Medea seemed to be a psychopath, but after learning about her story and particularly how she was treated, I modified my point of view of her. A crime of passion is considered as a less punishable instance of murder in today's world. Should Medea’s case be assessed any differently?
Amber K.:
ReplyDeleteAn interesting aspect that I learned about the play Medea is the reaction of the audience towards the play, considering the attitude of the Athenians towards women and foreigners. While there are various versions of the myth, most of them, especially Euripides’ tragedy, are written in a way that emphasizes the violence and cruelty of Medea. Bearing in mind that women in ancient Greece were looked down upon and the prejudice against barbarians existed, perhaps the play was relatively unsuccessful because Medea is both a woman and a foreigner and commits outrageously immoral crimes. Medea murders the princess and King Creon, and then kills her own children, and while it is still surprising for us, it seems to have come to a greater shock to the conservative Greeks, since the play was not so successful in competition. Women of ancient Greece were granted few rights, seen as inferior to men, even considered the legal property of their husbands, and their social status were determined by their husbands. Some aspects of the play do match these attitudes, including Jason’s lack of guilt toward betraying his wife because he has given more to her. According to Jason, Medea is honored by the Greeks because of him; he saved her from living among barbarians, and she learned from the Greeks “how to live by law instead of the sweet will of force”. However, Medea’s personality is clearly different from the common type of women of ancient Greece. She behaves even more cruelly than a man would by murdering so many innocent people just because of her desire for revenge.
Moreover, I was able to link the discrimination against women and foreigners with information about Euripides’ career. Euripides seems to use the chorus to create sympathy towards Medea, despite her brutality and violence. The chorus, who usually represent society’s viewpoint, does not scold or disapprove of Medea’s behavior. Instead, they sympathize with her, and as we discussed, it might be because the chorus are also women and can feel and understand Medea’s pain. Overall, I was able to connect other aspects to the interactive oral and understand the reasons for the audience’s reaction towards the play, and thus expand my knowledge of the play.
Francesco M.:
ReplyDeleteThrough the Interactive orals, I have come to realize the general distrust that the Ancient Greek culture had for Euripides and his plays. The use he made of highly immoral themes that usually went counter to Greek morality caused him to be highly criticized throughout his entire career, only to be recognized postmortem. I think this is because, as time passes, cultures evolve, and what was once thought disgusting and prohibited slowly becomes more acceptable into the culture.
As women were considered intellectually inferior and had few rights and privilege, Euripides´s support of women was viewed as dangerous and even wrong; however, with the rise of feminism in the past century, his plays, and Medea in particular, have become stronger in the Greek dramaturgic landscape.
I also found interesting insights into Euripides’s work through the analysis of Medea’s actions as symptomatic of a real world mental illness. What at first may appear only a work of fiction actually exists and is a not uncommon condition in divorced women. This illness’s characteristics are markedly similar to those Medea shows in the play, which confirms that Greek tragedies are not fictional works with the only purpose of entertaining the public, but are reflective plays that analyze human society and its moral values.
Another interesting topic raised in the interactive oral was the contextual consideration of Medea as either a hero or a villain. In my perspective, she possesses many aspects of both, as she fights against society in order to win her rights but in order to do so she uses vengeance and commits both homicide and filicide. I think that the decision about whether she is a hero or a villain depends more on one’s moral values, as she can be seen as either a strong female rights supporter or a psychopath.
In general, the interactive orals enhanced my questioning and consideration of Euripides’s use of morality, which was noticeably different from that of his Greek contemporaries.
Tiago C.:
ReplyDeleteThe Interactive Orals have helped me understand the context of Medea in many ways. One of the topics was the Twelve Olympians, which was very useful as often in the play the characters mention the name of the gods but with their Roman names, like Phoebus instead of Apollo. Thus, knowing their different names, what they stood for and some background information on how they came to exist, it was possible to have a better understanding of the text.
Near the beginning of the play, Medea says, “Oh, I wish that lighting from heaven would split my head open.” After learning about the Greek God Zeus, leader of the Olympians, we know his instrument of power is the lightning bolt. Also, because Zeus is the leader of the Olympians, often when a character or the chorus mentions the name “God” it is assumed they are talking about Zeus, as in the line “Don’t be hurt. God will be your friend in this.” This, however, is not known for sure.
When the chorus announces “O God and Earth and Heaven!” they are referring to the deities that came before the Titans and are responsible for the creation. Apostrophe is used as a literary device and by the chorus, evoking the deity of Earth, referring to Gaia, responsible for earth, nature and life. Medea also mentions Themis and Artemis, saying “Great Themis, Lady Artemis, behold the things I suffer, though I made him promise, my hateful husband.” Themis was the goddess of law and the divine order, so as she is talking about her suffering and her husband, she is asking for justice to be made. Artemis, we learn, is the goddess of virginity and childbirth. This helps to supplement the explanation in the footnote at the bottom of the page, “… the virgin Artemis would be sensitive to the plight of women.” With the researched information we know perhaps why Artemis would be sensitive to women as she represented two solely feminine ideas.
The interactive portion of the oral also brought up some important questions that contributed to the overall knowledge of the text. One student asked the question “How did these myths come to exist?” and we came to the conclusion that they were created to explain the origins and nature of things. Then, while reading, we understand why the Greeks were polytheistic and how different gods played different roles in certain situations.
Maria V.:
ReplyDeleteLearning about Euripides’ career, the role of the women in ancient Greece, and the role of the chorus helped me understand the constant references in the play. During Euripides’ career he wrote about three common themes: God, War, and Women. In Medea a main theme is woman and her role in serving men.
Women were seen as inferior and as property of their husbands in Ancient Greece; they were to have eyes for only one man. Throughout the play there is a constant feeling of oppression towards Medea, who often mentions her position in the eyes of men and society. She refers to herself as “something he won in a foreign land.” To Jason, she is just a prize for heroism. Medea makes reference to the reality that a woman’s only job was to bear children. But Medea was not like the common woman of Ancient Greece. She struggled constantly against the society’s and men’s oppression. With knowledge from the interactive orals I was able to understand the constant references to woman as inferior and discover Euripides’ purpose in reflecting the misogynistic attitudes of Ancient Greek society.
For my part of the interactive oral, I had to investigate the role of the chorus and its evolution. I learned that the Chorus’s main role was to reflect and comment on the actions made by the actors themselves. Whilst reading Medea I was astonished by how often this occurred. Towards the end of the play, for example, the chorus comments on the bride, the bridegroom and Medea (32). The chorus refers to Jason as “wretched” and then comments on his greed and how it sparked Medea’s violence. Despite the Chorus’s constant foreshadowing of events, they do not attempt to act upon them. This is because their role is not to get involved but only comment on the moral values held by society. I found it interesting that at the beginning of the play, for the first time Medea is not looked upon as the evil character by the chorus. This must have had quite an impact on Greek audiences, who were used to seeing women as “evil.”
Medea serves as a reflection of her society. Despite her horrendous acts, the play takes a stand against the common view of women as manipulative and evil. Euripides uses characters such as the chorus to dictate a more compassionate moral code.
Valeria C.:
ReplyDeleteWith the help of the Interactive orals my comprehension of Greek theater has deepened as has my understanding of the play Medea. Just with my presentation on Greek tragedy and theater, I learned about the typical structure used, which is good knowledge to have before starting to read the play since now I know about the prologue and parados and the other structural elements.
Learning about the chorus and its importance in Greek tragedy helped me understand that when reading Medea I have to pay attention to the dialogue of the chorus because they tell the story and they’re there to help guide the audience throughout the play. What they do in this play that is intriguing is that fact that they sometimes take a character’s (like Medea’s) side, even though she is not conforming to social norms. In addition, they don’t try to reason with any of the characters, even when they hear negative foreshadowing, such as Medea’s plan to murder her children.
One of the presentations was about women’s rights, and that topic affects the play significantly since women back in Ancient Greece were not considered worthy unless they had sons or were goddesses. Female infanticide was a common practice. Girl children who survived were taught from a very young age about the importance of taking care of their household and how to be a perfect wife. This is what makes this play so interesting: Medea wasn’t anything like women were expected to be back then. She betrayed her family and killed her brother for the love of Jason and then continued to hurt and anger her own family just so Jason could be satisfied with the Golden Fleece. But after she finds out that Jason is leaving her to marry King Creon’s daughter for the throne, she is driven mad and kills the most important thing to Jason, which are his sons.
In Ancient Greece, women didn’t have many rights and were supposed to respect their husbands, who were free to do whatever they wanted. The fact that Medea seeks revenge makes this play interesting since women were not expected to assert themselves in any way, especially not in violent ways as Medea did. The combination of women’s rights and the exaggeration brought out in the play is captivating. A mad, jealous woman killing her children is over-the-top, but Euripides reveals how a woman may go mad after finding out her husband is leaving her when she has betrayed her own family for him. The fact that Euripides shows real life (if extreme) problems to which the audience can connect makes this play truly brilliant.
Santiago T.:
ReplyDeleteAlthough in previous years I have studied Greek tragedy, the lack of consistency on the subject has led me to forget much of it; therefore, the interactive oral presentations have reminded me much of Greek plays and their culture and helped me to understand Medea not only as a story but as a Greek style of writing. Overall all of the orals were an asset to my knowledge of the Greeks, and at times many of them seemed to develop my comprehension of Medea as I was able to analyze different instances that represented Ancient Hellenistic culture.
Learning about the Peloponnesian War was very interesting, but even though it expanded my knowledge of history it did not improve my understanding of Medea as I found no correlation between the play and the war. On the other hand the explanation of how Greek plays were written, such as the role of the chorus and what a tragedy is, improved my ability to see the unique aspects that Greek plays contained and how they described their ideas in a unique way. When reading Medea, the language implies a certain attitude towards the protagonist (Medea) and by having the oral presentations stereotypical aspects of Greek culture have been revealed, such as women’s part in society and the population’s attitudes towards barbarians which explain why Medea is regarded as she is in the play. As a foreigner Medea is treated cautiously in Greece since every foreigner is a barbarian so it doesn’t help her cause in being aided by Greeks; moreover, being in addition to being a barbarian explains Creon’s strict decision to banish Medea, since a woman that could think was regarded as an enchantress. Eventually, when she poisons her gifts to his daughter, she proves to be as dangerous as the King of Corinth feared. There were other presentations that, even though they showed just a minor characteristic of Hellenistic society, helped the overall understanding of the play such as the description of the twelve Olympian gods in the polytheistic religion of Greece.
Ana Paola A.:
ReplyDeleteDuring our class discussions and interactive oral presentations, various subjects concerning ancient Greece theatrical traditions and Euripides' play "Medea". One of the topics presented was the behavior of the Greek people towards foreigners. According to Herodotus, the Greeks paradoxically felt fascination, envy and contempt regarding these outsiders, or, in their own terms, barbarians. Stereotyped as being unable to exert control over their vices, such as lasciviousness and cruelty, and mocked for wearing effeminate clothing (as recorded by the Greek historian Thucydides), so-called barbarians found themselves belittled in Greek society. However, there is no evidence that suggests that foreigners were physically mistreated though they were excluded from the Olympic Games and religious ceremonies, among other social gatherings. Therefore, it is not an outlandish idea that in "Medea", Jason left his wife, princess of Colchis and bearer of his children and descendants, because of the simple fact that her roots were not Greek.
In not only Euripides' play, but also in all the versions of the myth Jason takes on Glauce, daughter of King Creon, as a second wife. Whether his separation was specifically to distance himself from Medea's damaging reputation as a sorceress or perhaps as a source of power and wealth, it is clear that Medea's non-Greek nationality contributed to this fact. Furthermore, it explains Medea's expulsion and exile from Corinth, an event which fueled her anger and prompted her to take such dramatic and insane measures to avenge herself and secure her position of power among women. As Medea so bluntly states, she was a trophy, a "captive from a foreign shore" and as Jason's "eye was turned towards old age, a foreign wife began to appear a shame to thee". Jason also remarks that Medea has benefited from marrying him, a Greek: "First, thou dwellest in Hellas, instead of thy barbarian land, and hast learnt what justice means and how to live by law, not by the dictates of brute force". Hence, the in-class presentation greatly helped me comprehend the extent of Medea's fury and reason for her radical acts of murder; after all, faced with an attitude of disdain because of her gender and nationality, it was only natural for Medea to stand up and defend herself, her pride and her nation with the grandest of spectacles.
Matthew G.:
ReplyDeleteThe various interactive orals were a very big help in my understanding of Medea. The first oral that benefited me was the one on the role of women in Greece. This was very beneficial to my understanding of Medea because in order to properly understand why Medea did what she did, one must understand the role of women in ancient Greece. In Greece, women were treated as property, to be married off to men of their father’s choosing. In addition, they were supposed to be quiet, reserved, and they were supposed to stay at home taking care of the house and the children. Another oral that was beneficial was the one on barbarians. The word “barbarian” actually comes from the sounds that the Greeks thought that the foreigners would say, “barba”. In ancient Greece, barbarians were anyone who was not Greek, like Medea for example. This discrimination and non-acceptance by the Greeks towards Medea and the barbarians was also key to the reason why she killed her children and Jason’s new wife. She felt betrayed, but because of how women were supposed to act and because of how barbarians or foreigners were treated, she did not feel like she could achieve justice any other way.
Another oral that helped me in my understanding of Medea, was my own. During the research of my oral about the Peloponnesian Wars, I learned a lot, not only about those wars, but also about Euripides and how the wars may have affected the Athenians. The Peloponnesian Wars had an amazingly large effect on Euripides and the rest of the Athenians. It affected the traditional forms of tragedies by forcing playwrights to use fewer people in the chorus; Euripides used less music and poetry as the war went on, making his plays seem darker, and then as the war went on he became more and more disillusioned and anti-war as well, affecting his writing. All of the orals, but particular these, were all very helpful in my further understanding of Medea.