Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Interim Readings
>
Euripides - The Medea
date
newest »
newest »
Nemo wrote: "Everyman and Thomas, which translation of Sophocles would you recommend?"I like Hugh Lloyd-Jones' Sophocles 1: Ajax/Electra/Oedipus Tyrannus because his translation is as close to literal as one can get. The English is rather spare as a result. If you can stand a little more interpretation, the Chicago translations edited by Richmond Lattimore and David Grene are standard. Sophocles I: Oedipus The King, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone (Since you're a completist, you may as well get them all: 2 vols of Sophocles, 2 vols of Aeschylus, and 5 vols of Euripides.) Get 'em while they're hot!
Kristen wrote: "Interesting. What do you suppose the Greeks based their views of women upon? Would it perhaps have anything to do with any of the gods they worshipped? And I wonder what motivated Euripides to include this speech that would've made the male audience uncomfortable as you have said. It surprises me that a man could have this kind of insight into what are usually the darkest parts of woman's thoughts. "It was an extremely patriarchal society, and what always amazes me is how much freedom they allowed their poets. Euripides especially was fascinated with the plight of women, children, and slaves in Athenian society. This was certainly not the "manly" thing to celebrate in that war-torn era. But dramatists like Euripides and Aristophanes were free to depict women who exercised great power over men, in both tragic and comical ways. Not only was it tolerated, but these productions had to be bankrolled, so they were financially encouraged as well. It is a little paradoxical, but I think it is one of the things that made Athenian society a truly revolutionary culture.
Adelle wrote: "In that spirit, do you believe that Jason really has a different idea about honor? Do you believe that Jason thinks it is honorable for him to break his vow to Medea. Yes, I'm firmly in Medea's camp, I'm there in front of those double gates with the chorus, sympathizing [especially at this point in the play] with Medea. "I understand what you're saying, and I'm absolutely sure that Euripides wanted his audience to feel the same way. But I'm doubt they did -- instead they felt, as Nemo so succinctly put it -- fear. And isn't that one of the reasons we go to the theatre? Is there some way that we can see Medea as an ancient horror story?
The entertainment value aside, I think Athenian men would have recognized that Jason was doing what any man is supposed to be doing, fulfilling his destiny. His whole purpose in life has been to re-establish his kingdom, or in this case to marry into one in lieu of the one that has been stolen from him. That's why he marries Medea, to get the Fleece so he can reclaim his kingdom. When that doesn't work out (because Medea chops up Pelias, and they are chased off by Pelias' son) they wind up in Corinth, where he finds a marvelous opportunity for gainful employment, Creon's daughter. But no, Medea would rather live like a refugee, with no kingdom but lots of passion. I think Athenian men, who at the time were involved in a massive war to maintain the Athenian Empire, would see Jason's point.
Which doesn't make what Jason did right, and he pays for it dearly. But I think his position was probably culturally justified.
(And now that I've read through the rest of the posts I think this is just a restatement of what Everyman said. Hope this doesn't mess up your badminton game!)
In the passage Kristen quoted above, Medea says"And then the jeopardy,
For good or ill, what shall that master be;
Reject she cannot: and if he but stays
His suit, 'tis shame on all that woman's days. "
That wasn't actually true in Athens. While a woman could not do much to protect herself, her male relatives could. A wife mistreated by her husband could appeal to her father, brother, or other male relative to intercede on her behalf. If the treatment were bad enough, the male relative could initiate divorce, in which case her dowry would be returned intact and she could remarry.
Later in that same speech, she complains:
"I'm alone.
I have no city, and I'm being abused
by my own husband. I was carried off,
a trophy from a barbarian country.
I have no mother, brother, or relation,
to shelter with in this extremity."
Now this is a bit disingenuous. First, she wasn't "carried off;" she was the one who made her flight possible by helping Jason get the Golden Fleece -- without her help, made in exchange for the promise to marry her, he would have died attempting these tasks. So she's the one who chose to leave with him rather than being carried off.
But even more than that, why does she not have a brother to help her? Because she killed him! (I'm reminded of the defendant who killed his parents and then demanded the mercy of the Court because he was an orphan.) She is the one who chose to destroy her family; it's not Jason's fault that she has no brother or other family member to help her.
The Greek audience, of course, would have been well aware of this history, and if Greek audiences ever hissed, I suspect they would have hissed when she complained how unfair it was that she had no brother to protect her. :)
I say that Jason was a fool and a blowhard and brought about his own punishment (though Medea's revenge was also excessive). His self-justification is baloney. He absolves himself of ingratitude for Medea saving his life by claiming it was really Aphrodite's doing (535), a phony pretense. He says that if Medea had stayed in Colchis "at the ends of the Earth" no-one would have heard of her (541), apparently unaware that people live in Colchis too. He says that he and Medea have enough children (558), then a little later that he wants to have more children (563). He expects the families of two rival mothers to get along grandly together (565) and for future sons to protect their elder half-brothers (596), as dubious an expectation as can be. He claims to be acting in the best interests of his children, but he is little concerned when he hears that they will be sent into exile with Medea. We don't hear that he's giving Medea a proper divorce. He's just abandoning her. And he expects her to put up with it! No woman would, last of all the fiery Medea. I think his behavior is actually un-Greek, and that is part of what brings on his terrible fate. Divorce was apparently common in ancient Greece, but it required appearing before a magistrate, explaining the cause, and returning the dowry. I think Jason was clearly wrong to so casually set Medea aside for convenience. Even Socrates stuck with the haridan Xanthippe.
Everyman wrote at 47: " I can understand the attendant's sympathy with Medea for being banished -- being banished out of Greek society and sent back to live as a barbarian is indeed a very bad thing, since civilization is only possible in Greece (in their view!) But is he sympathizing with her for Jason's decision to take a royal wife? That's not so clear to me. "
It's from the first 2 or 3 pages of the play. And as you surmised the passage is not explicit as to whether he is sympathizing with Medea's betrayal by Jason or with her upcoming banishment.
Personally, I read it as the former. I base this on the following:
The old man says to the nurse: "You've been maid for so many years to my mistress;" This suggests to me that both the old man and the nurse have been with Medea for many years. The way the old man states this ("to my mistress") further suggests to me that he has been in service to Medea longer than the nurse has. Which makes sense in that there probably wasn't a need for a nurse until there were children.
The nurse refers to herself and the old man as "faith servants like us."
It is the old man who "watch[s] over Jason's sons." After all these years, he would care for the boys and would feel the pain of their father deserting them.
But what really makes me think that he held sympathy for Medea even before he overheard the conversation regarding Kreon's plans to exile Medea and the boys was his saying "...how little she knows of this latest trouble?" Which means that he believed there was a trouble PRIOR to the threat of exile. And that trouble so alluded to could only be Jason's betrayal and desertion of Medea and the children.
Also, the old man says "So you see how Jason deserts his children for the pleasure of his new bride?" That implies sympathy with Medea over Jason's betrayal of Medea --- in any case, it's definately not sympathy over the upcoming threat of exile.
I would add that I don't believe his sympathy with Medea is because she is going to have to live outside of Greek society. My thinking is that he probably attended Medea even prior to her fleeing her homeland with Jason. I don't believe he he gives a damn for Greek society. {That belief cannot be supported or disproved by the text itself.) My sense is he loves the children and mourns for the terrible life the children will have to live deserted by their father, resourceless, in a manner not fitting to their royal blood line.
It's from the first 2 or 3 pages of the play. And as you surmised the passage is not explicit as to whether he is sympathizing with Medea's betrayal by Jason or with her upcoming banishment.
Personally, I read it as the former. I base this on the following:
The old man says to the nurse: "You've been maid for so many years to my mistress;" This suggests to me that both the old man and the nurse have been with Medea for many years. The way the old man states this ("to my mistress") further suggests to me that he has been in service to Medea longer than the nurse has. Which makes sense in that there probably wasn't a need for a nurse until there were children.
The nurse refers to herself and the old man as "faith servants like us."
It is the old man who "watch[s] over Jason's sons." After all these years, he would care for the boys and would feel the pain of their father deserting them.
But what really makes me think that he held sympathy for Medea even before he overheard the conversation regarding Kreon's plans to exile Medea and the boys was his saying "...how little she knows of this latest trouble?" Which means that he believed there was a trouble PRIOR to the threat of exile. And that trouble so alluded to could only be Jason's betrayal and desertion of Medea and the children.
Also, the old man says "So you see how Jason deserts his children for the pleasure of his new bride?" That implies sympathy with Medea over Jason's betrayal of Medea --- in any case, it's definately not sympathy over the upcoming threat of exile.
I would add that I don't believe his sympathy with Medea is because she is going to have to live outside of Greek society. My thinking is that he probably attended Medea even prior to her fleeing her homeland with Jason. I don't believe he he gives a damn for Greek society. {That belief cannot be supported or disproved by the text itself.) My sense is he loves the children and mourns for the terrible life the children will have to live deserted by their father, resourceless, in a manner not fitting to their royal blood line.
Roger wrote: "I say that Jason was a fool and a blowhard and brought about his own punishment (though Medea's revenge was also excessive).I agree that most modern readers see it that way. I'm not sure the original audience would.
He says that if Medea had stayed in Colchis "at the ends of the Earth" no-one would have heard of her (541), apparently unaware that people live in Colchis too.
Ah, but the people living in Colchis are barbarians. They don't count. He says at one point that she got the advantage of coming to Greece, and his audience would have nodded and said, yes, that's totally true, she was very fortunate in that. (If Frank Sinatra had stayed in Peoria, where yes there are people, instead of coming to New York, in a world without any radio or records or tapes or CDs or movies or the like, would people still have heard of him? And the comparison is even worse than that; more like staying in Outer Mongolia.)
He expects the families of two rival mothers to get along grandly together (565) and for future sons to protect their elder half-brothers (596), as dubious an expectation as can be.
To us, probably. To the Greeks, not uncommon. Families of wives and concubines got along all the time.
He claims to be acting in the best interests of his children, but he is little concerned when he hears that they will be sent into exile with Medea.
That's a fair point, but nothing he did; that was Creon's doing, and since he was about to marry Creon's daughter, it behooved him not to criticize Creon's decision, didn't it?
We don't hear that he's giving Medea a proper divorce. He's just abandoning her.
As far as the Athenians are concerned, they aren't married so he couldn't give her a divorce. And he's not abandoning her at all; he expects her to stay with him in his home and live in wealth and comfort -- indeed, more wealth and comfort than he can provide now, since he will become the king.
I think his behavior is actually un-Greek, and that is part of what brings on his terrible fate. Divorce was apparently common in ancient Greece, but it required appearing before a magistrate, explaining the cause, and returning the dowry.
I'm interested in that comment, because I'm curious what parts of what he did you think were non-Greek. I wouldn't say divorce was common, but it certainly existed. Putting aside the matter of whether they were actually married or not, though, as I understand their customs it had to be initiated by her male relatives, and she had disposed of them all, her brother by killing him, and her father by helping his enemy steal his treasure and then running off with it.
I think Jason was clearly wrong to so casually set Medea aside for convenience. Even Socrates stuck with the haridan Xanthippe.
But Socrates wasn't a legitimate prince who had been done out his kingdom by his uncle Pelias who had usurped his throne, and then having to flee Iolcus because Medea tricked Pelias's daughters into killing him, thus making sure that he would never be able to hold that kingship. Since Medea had deprived him of one kingdom, was it so terrible to expect a small sacrifice from her in order for him to win a replacement kingdom?
I don't argue that Jason was perfect; he wasn't. But I do think that within the culture within which the original audience watched the play, realizing that there really was an absolute prejudice against barbarians and the feeling that they were inferior beings who should have been grateful just to get the chance to come to Greece (think American in the early 1800s and the many foreigners who we looked down on and though were lucky to be able to come to America).
I'm not seeing how he was being un-Greek in wanting to get ahead. Perhaps you can enlighten me on that?
Thomas wrote: "Adelle at 54 :
LOL. I like croquet, as well as badmitton...and I feel like I'm chasing that oath ball all over the lawn. ;)
The entertainment value aside, I think Athenian men would have recognized that Jason was doing what any man is supposed to be doing, fulfilling his destiny. His whole purpose in life has been to re-establish his kingdom, or in this case to marry into one in lieu of the one that has been stolen from him. That's why he marries Medea, to get the Fleece so he can reclaim his kingdom. When that doesn't work out (because Medea chops up Pelias, and they are chased off by Pelias' son) they wind up in Corinth, where he finds a marvelous opportunity for gainful employment, Creon's daughter. But no, Medea would rather live like a refugee, with no kingdom but lots of passion.
Oh, I'm with you on the entertainment factor! I have no difficulty imagining that the male, Greek, Athenian audience would have viewed Medea as a monster. Un-womanly. Un-Greek. And resenting her for holding that oath that Jason gave.
But I have to disagree with you on the rest. Maybe the audience saw Jason doing what a man might have WANTED to do ("fulfill his destiny"---and who cares what it costs anyone else? wife? sons?)
So maybe, for the audience, Jason was living some sort of fantasy that they wished they could live. And they thrilled to Jason's bold action. Tired of your present wife? Abandon her. Better opportunities with someone else? Desert the first wife. It's only a movie (play), after all. They could vicariously live the I-ve-a-more-powerful-and-lucrative-destiny-that-I-must-follow life of Jason up there on the stage without consequences. Ah, but that's right! There were consequences. Because Jason, with right hand clasped with Medea, had sworn "the eternal pledge."
Sure, I'll grant you that Jason very probably married Medea because he needed to in order to aquire the Golden Fleece and so that he wouldn't die and all that jazz. But look. Jason GOT the Golden Fleece. Jason is still alive. Medea fulfilled her part of the bargain.
If one signs a contract (which is not by any stretch, I would think, as binding as an oath with right hands clasped and gods a-listenin), one can't then simply betray the contract, one can't simply stop paying on the contract because it is one's self-perceived destiny that one should have a bigger, better house.
And even after they got to Jason's homeland of destiny, Medea still tried to help Jason. When Pelias wouldn't turn over the place to Jason, Medea tried to help by "beguiling the daughters of Pelias into slaying their father."
I have to wonder why about Jason. Pelias must be old by now. I would think that Jason might still have had some of those sword-wielding Argonauts with him. Couldn't they have overpowered Pelias's men? Jason has a rightful claim to the place. Couldn't he have made a persuasive plea to the people and convinced them to put him in his rightful place? Did Medea have to do EVERYTHING for him?
What kind of destiny does Jason deserve if he has to sleep his way to it? First with Medea and then with Kreon's daughter???
Maybe Medea WOULD rather live as a refugee without worldly wealth if it meant that she could keep her husband and that her sons wouldn't suffer the betrayal of being deserted by their father. Imagine her not seeing Jason's "logic," not lightly letting him move on to another wife with better prospects? I don't know....maybe all these years Jason thought that Medea was doing all she did "for him"....maybe he didn't realize she was doing "for them".
I just think it all comes back to the oath. [In Agamemnon, I did not side with Clytemnestra, so it's not like I'm backing Medea just because she's a woman.}
Had Jason not broken his oath, his sons would still be alive. Jason, first wife gone, sons dead, new wife dead, the king/his father-in-law dead, the country probably turned against him.... Jason probably has opportunity to consider whether or not it was wise to break his oath when he felt that the condition (marriage to Medea) no longer suited his desires.
LOL. I like croquet, as well as badmitton...and I feel like I'm chasing that oath ball all over the lawn. ;)
The entertainment value aside, I think Athenian men would have recognized that Jason was doing what any man is supposed to be doing, fulfilling his destiny. His whole purpose in life has been to re-establish his kingdom, or in this case to marry into one in lieu of the one that has been stolen from him. That's why he marries Medea, to get the Fleece so he can reclaim his kingdom. When that doesn't work out (because Medea chops up Pelias, and they are chased off by Pelias' son) they wind up in Corinth, where he finds a marvelous opportunity for gainful employment, Creon's daughter. But no, Medea would rather live like a refugee, with no kingdom but lots of passion.
Oh, I'm with you on the entertainment factor! I have no difficulty imagining that the male, Greek, Athenian audience would have viewed Medea as a monster. Un-womanly. Un-Greek. And resenting her for holding that oath that Jason gave.
But I have to disagree with you on the rest. Maybe the audience saw Jason doing what a man might have WANTED to do ("fulfill his destiny"---and who cares what it costs anyone else? wife? sons?)
So maybe, for the audience, Jason was living some sort of fantasy that they wished they could live. And they thrilled to Jason's bold action. Tired of your present wife? Abandon her. Better opportunities with someone else? Desert the first wife. It's only a movie (play), after all. They could vicariously live the I-ve-a-more-powerful-and-lucrative-destiny-that-I-must-follow life of Jason up there on the stage without consequences. Ah, but that's right! There were consequences. Because Jason, with right hand clasped with Medea, had sworn "the eternal pledge."
Sure, I'll grant you that Jason very probably married Medea because he needed to in order to aquire the Golden Fleece and so that he wouldn't die and all that jazz. But look. Jason GOT the Golden Fleece. Jason is still alive. Medea fulfilled her part of the bargain.
If one signs a contract (which is not by any stretch, I would think, as binding as an oath with right hands clasped and gods a-listenin), one can't then simply betray the contract, one can't simply stop paying on the contract because it is one's self-perceived destiny that one should have a bigger, better house.
And even after they got to Jason's homeland of destiny, Medea still tried to help Jason. When Pelias wouldn't turn over the place to Jason, Medea tried to help by "beguiling the daughters of Pelias into slaying their father."
I have to wonder why about Jason. Pelias must be old by now. I would think that Jason might still have had some of those sword-wielding Argonauts with him. Couldn't they have overpowered Pelias's men? Jason has a rightful claim to the place. Couldn't he have made a persuasive plea to the people and convinced them to put him in his rightful place? Did Medea have to do EVERYTHING for him?
What kind of destiny does Jason deserve if he has to sleep his way to it? First with Medea and then with Kreon's daughter???
Maybe Medea WOULD rather live as a refugee without worldly wealth if it meant that she could keep her husband and that her sons wouldn't suffer the betrayal of being deserted by their father. Imagine her not seeing Jason's "logic," not lightly letting him move on to another wife with better prospects? I don't know....maybe all these years Jason thought that Medea was doing all she did "for him"....maybe he didn't realize she was doing "for them".
I just think it all comes back to the oath. [In Agamemnon, I did not side with Clytemnestra, so it's not like I'm backing Medea just because she's a woman.}
Had Jason not broken his oath, his sons would still be alive. Jason, first wife gone, sons dead, new wife dead, the king/his father-in-law dead, the country probably turned against him.... Jason probably has opportunity to consider whether or not it was wise to break his oath when he felt that the condition (marriage to Medea) no longer suited his desires.
Perhaps the tragedy is that no one in this play does what is right, and everyone suffers for it. Medea's rage is inconsolable, and the Hero's Journey ends in shambles. The Nurse begins the play, How I wish the Argo had never reached the land of Colchis, and Jason ends it, saying of his children I wish I had never begot them.
But the chorus has the last word:
Zeus in Olympus is the overseer
Of many doings. Many things the gods
Achieve beyond our judgment. What we thought
Is not confirmed and what we thought not god
Contrives. And so it happens in this story.
What have the gods achieved?
Post 58 Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "I say that Jason was a fool and a blowhard a..."
Roger wrote: "He expects the families of two rival mothers to get along grandly together (565) and for future sons to protect their elder half-brothers (596), as dubious an expectation as can be."
Everyman wrote: "To us, probably. To the Greeks, not uncommon. Families of wives and concubines got along all the time."
I would like to comment on this. My sense is that Roger is probably correct on this count.
SOME families of wives and concubines might have got along all the time....but this one wasn't going to.
1) Jason surely had some sense of Medea's temperment by this point in their relationship. He would have known that Medea wasn't going to go along meekly...and therefore he must have been aware that there were going to be significant problems. Very likely that was the reason that Jason didn't tell Medea that he was going to marry Kreon's daughter. Very telling...Jason wanted to keep things smooth, at least until after the marriage...which doesn't give much promise to smooth relations AFTER the marriage.
2) Jason knows that the King, too, has anger issues. Jason: "Personally, I have always done my best to calm the King's anger"
3) Kreon states outright "I love my own family more than you." Odds are he will greatly favor his daughter and HER children over Medea and Medea's children. Only bad feelings will arise from this.
4) Medea begs for her children to Kreon (the step-grandfather)..."Take pity on them!) Kreon doesn't much care. Probably he will care even less when his daughter and Jason have chilren of their own.
5) Jason promises "your father will take good care, and make full provision, with the help of God".....but Jason should realize in that having broken his oath there will be no help from God.
6) Jason isn't in much of a power position. He doubts he can even persuade his father-in-law not to banish his sons. Little protection, it would seem, would Jason be able to provide for his children.
7) Jason isn't in much of a power position with his new wife either. She cares not for his children. "When she caught sight of [the] children, she covered up her eyes, and her face grew pale, and she turned away, filled with petulance" And Jason tried to conjole her, and it was only the sight of the dress that soothed her anger. Jason's word, not mine. "Do not feel anger"
8) Granted, Medea lies when it is to her benefit. But Medea is speaking, and there's no one there for her to impress. She seems to believe (as I read it) that her children would not live were they to stay with Jason and his new wife. She going to kill the children herself, "and not delay nor let them be killed by a crueler hand. Bot die they must in any case: and if they must be slain, it is I, their mother who gave them life, who must slay them! O my heart, my heart"
Roger wrote: "He expects the families of two rival mothers to get along grandly together (565) and for future sons to protect their elder half-brothers (596), as dubious an expectation as can be."
Everyman wrote: "To us, probably. To the Greeks, not uncommon. Families of wives and concubines got along all the time."
I would like to comment on this. My sense is that Roger is probably correct on this count.
SOME families of wives and concubines might have got along all the time....but this one wasn't going to.
1) Jason surely had some sense of Medea's temperment by this point in their relationship. He would have known that Medea wasn't going to go along meekly...and therefore he must have been aware that there were going to be significant problems. Very likely that was the reason that Jason didn't tell Medea that he was going to marry Kreon's daughter. Very telling...Jason wanted to keep things smooth, at least until after the marriage...which doesn't give much promise to smooth relations AFTER the marriage.
2) Jason knows that the King, too, has anger issues. Jason: "Personally, I have always done my best to calm the King's anger"
3) Kreon states outright "I love my own family more than you." Odds are he will greatly favor his daughter and HER children over Medea and Medea's children. Only bad feelings will arise from this.
4) Medea begs for her children to Kreon (the step-grandfather)..."Take pity on them!) Kreon doesn't much care. Probably he will care even less when his daughter and Jason have chilren of their own.
5) Jason promises "your father will take good care, and make full provision, with the help of God".....but Jason should realize in that having broken his oath there will be no help from God.
6) Jason isn't in much of a power position. He doubts he can even persuade his father-in-law not to banish his sons. Little protection, it would seem, would Jason be able to provide for his children.
7) Jason isn't in much of a power position with his new wife either. She cares not for his children. "When she caught sight of [the] children, she covered up her eyes, and her face grew pale, and she turned away, filled with petulance" And Jason tried to conjole her, and it was only the sight of the dress that soothed her anger. Jason's word, not mine. "Do not feel anger"
8) Granted, Medea lies when it is to her benefit. But Medea is speaking, and there's no one there for her to impress. She seems to believe (as I read it) that her children would not live were they to stay with Jason and his new wife. She going to kill the children herself, "and not delay nor let them be killed by a crueler hand. Bot die they must in any case: and if they must be slain, it is I, their mother who gave them life, who must slay them! O my heart, my heart"
I appreciate the foreshadowing that makes itself plain after the play has unfolded. In having gone back to re-read I see:
Jason is speaking. He says, "your father will take good care, and make full provision, with the help of God."
But we know Jason has broken his oath to the gods, and so they will not help him, and Jason will not take good care of his sons.
Jason says that his sons will be among the leading men in Corith..."All you need to do is grow up" ... well, that's not going to happen.
Jason says, and this is so very sad in the re-reading because I know what the underlying meaning is... "as as for your future, you may leave it safely in the hands of your father, and of those among the gods you love him" ... but the gods don't love him because he has broken his oath and so the boys will have no future.
Jason says, "I want to see you when you've grown to be men"
What a sad passage.
Jason is speaking. He says, "your father will take good care, and make full provision, with the help of God."
But we know Jason has broken his oath to the gods, and so they will not help him, and Jason will not take good care of his sons.
Jason says that his sons will be among the leading men in Corith..."All you need to do is grow up" ... well, that's not going to happen.
Jason says, and this is so very sad in the re-reading because I know what the underlying meaning is... "as as for your future, you may leave it safely in the hands of your father, and of those among the gods you love him" ... but the gods don't love him because he has broken his oath and so the boys will have no future.
Jason says, "I want to see you when you've grown to be men"
What a sad passage.
Thomas wrote: "What have the gods achieved? ..."
They have most forcefully demonstrated the sorrowful consequences man brings upon himself and those around him when he swears an oath to the gods and then breaks it.
They have most forcefully demonstrated the sorrowful consequences man brings upon himself and those around him when he swears an oath to the gods and then breaks it.
Thomas wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Everyman and Thomas, which translation of Sophocles would you recommend?"I like Hugh Lloyd-Jones' Sophocles 1: Ajax/Electra/Oedipus Tyrannus because his translation is as..."
Thanks for the recommendation, Thomas. I got 3 vols from the library today (Sophocles I & II, and Aeschylus I).
Has anybody been able to arrange the tragedies in chronological order (i.e. the order in which they were written, or, the order of the events in the plays) ?
Thomas wrote: "Perhaps the tragedy is that no one in this play does what is right, and everyone suffers for it. Medea's rage is inconsolable, and the Hero's Journey ends in shambles."I completely agree. That was my feeling in the end. The way that Jason and Medea continue to argue back and forth until the very end, highlighted the tragedy. They are doing nothing but pointing fingers.
Thomas asked "What have the gods achieved?"I thought about that as well, especially at the end when the chariot is sent down to Medea as her get-away. I wondered if this was the gods siding with her, or even condoning her actions. I don't know much about Greek mythology, so I'd be really curious to hear what anyone has to say about this.
Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "I say that Jason was a fool and a blowhard and brought about his own punishment (though Medea's revenge was also excessive).I agree that most modern readers see it that way. I'm no..."
Jason's foolishness is amply demonstrated by his expection that Medea will go along with his second marriage, his selfishness by his casual dismissal of Medea and calm willingness to see his sons go into exile. I can't imagine that we're meant to have much sympathy for him.
Medea is extreme (and most un-Greek) in her passion and revenge, but there is no much justice and genuine anguish in her soliloquies that we have to sympathize with her. Imagine this woman character (though played by a man) delivering her speeches about the suffering of women to a theater full of men. Maybe she acts out her rage like no Greek woman would, but I think Euripides wants us to hear a message about what women really feel when wronged. He's no feminist in any modern sense, but he understands human emotions and feelings and wants his audience to understand them too.
Colchis was not Peoria, it was a great kingdom. The Greeks were aware that there were other great kingdoms around (Egypt, Lydia, Ethiopia) and that one could be famous in them.
There is no indication in the play that Jason considered himself not really married to Medea. (For one thing, that would make his sons illegitimate.) He was not Athenian, not living in Athens, and not living in the Clasical era, so the Periclean law against marrying non-Athenians (not just non-Greeks) was not applicable on three counts. In mythology, Perseus married a non-Greek (the Ethiopian Andromeda) and their descendents ruled Mycenae until Atreus, so there seems to be no bar to foreign wives.
Jason was un-Greek to cast off Medea unceremoniously. The Greeks may have allowed divorce in classical times, but they were serious about the marriage bond. A divorce required formalities, not just a casual dismissal. Jason's behavior is exceptional--is there any other example of divorce in Greek mythology?
And since when is giving up your husband a "small sacrifice"?
Adelle wrote: "Thomas wrote: "What have the gods achieved? ..."They have most forcefully demonstrated the sorrowful consequences man brings upon himself and those around him when he swears an oath to the gods..."
That's why I find the last verses so odd -- they seem to say that the acts of the gods are beyond human ken. (Kovacs' translation is "many are the things accomplished against our expectation.") What is the "unexpected" thing that the gods contrive in this play? I guess it doesn't seem unexpected to me that there are consequences for oath-breaking, but maybe it's how the consequences occur? I'm not sure.
Adelle wrote: "I have to wonder why about Jason. Pelias must be old by now. I would think that Jason might still have had some of those sword-wielding Argonauts with him. Couldn't they have overpowered Pelias's men? Jason has a rightful claim to the place. Couldn't he have made a persuasive plea to the people and convinced them to put him in his rightful place? Did Medea have to do EVERYTHING for him? "LOL!! So Jason himself should have committed regicide on his uncle? I'm not sure the residents would have stood for that any more than they stood for Medea tricking his daughters into killing Pelias. But of course, Euripides had the essentials of the myth already in place, so he had to take Jason basically as he found him.
Adelle wrote: "I would like to comment on this. My sense is that Roger is probably correct on this count.SOME families of wives and concubines might have got along all the time....but this one wasn't going to. "
You make some good points, which I think basically boil down to that Medea is still at heart a barbarian and not a good Greek imbued with good Greek values.
As to "She seems to believe (as I read it) that her children would not live were they to stay with Jason and his new wife. She going to kill the children herself, "and not delay nor let them be killed by a crueler hand. Bot die they must in any case: and if they must be slain, it is I, their mother who gave them life, who must slay them! O my heart, my heart", I say she's grossly misstating the case. First, nobody that I know have has threatened the children, have they? She has been ordered to take them with her. Second, she is a sorceress, and could easily use her magic to save her children if she wanted to (they could have gone in the chariot alive just as well as dead). It seems to me that she makes clear elsewhere that the reason she is killing them is to punish Jason. Maybe she tries to justify her infanticide by claiming they would be killed anyhow, but who threatened the children and when?
Medea is basically a bloodthirsty woman who has shown herself willing to kill whenever it suits her convenience, whereas we have no evidence that either Jason or Creon has ever killed anybody other than in legitimate war or the execution of justice.
So I think you have good points as to whether it was realistic for Jason to believe that Medea would really put up with a two woman household, but I don't agree with you that Medea had a legitimate expectation that her children were condemned to die anyhow.
Nemo wrote: "Has anybody been able to arrange the tragedies in chronological order (i.e. the order in which they were written, or, the order of the events in the plays) ?"
I'm sure somebody has, or has as well as it can be done (we have some pretty good records for many of the plays as to when they were first performed), but I don't know offhand where to find it.
I did a quick search on "chronology of Greek tragedies" and found three sites which might help answer your question:
http://www.greektheatre.gr/timeline.html
http://academic.reed.edu/humanities/1...
http://english.tjc.edu/engl2332nbyr/G...
I haven't compared them to see whether they're consistent or not, and which plays they include.
Roger wrote: "Jason was un-Greek to cast off Medea unceremoniously. The Greeks may have allowed divorce in classical times, but they were serious about the marriage bond. A divorce required formalities, not just a casual dismissal. Jason's behavior is exceptional--is there any other example of divorce in Greek mythology? .."
Now that I think about it, Jason's second marriage would have been perfectly acceptable in Spartan culture. The Spartans completely subordinated individual wants and needs to the state, and plural marriage was common because they believed this promoted the birth of the strongest sons. If Jason's goal really is to establish a kingdom (and isn't done out of personal weakness or inability to keep an oath, which is evidently debatable) then he is acting in line with Spartan ideals.
Thomas wrote: "Perhaps the tragedy is that no one in this play does what is right, and everyone suffers for it. Medea's rage is inconsolable, and the Hero's Journey ends in shambles."That's true as far as it goes, but I would think that Euripides had more in mind that that when he wrote the play.
One view of Greek tragedy is that it was supposed to provide catharsis, to evoke fear and pity. Does the play do this? And if so, fear of what? Adelle suggests that it teaches fear by showing the terrible consequences of violating an oath to the Gods. That may be part of it, but it doesn't seem to me to be all, or maybe not even the primary issue of the play.
I suggest that the fear that the Athenian audience is experiencing is the fear of barbarians and of clever non-Greek women. There was, according to Vandiver, a generalized anxiety among Greek men of clever women who misused their intelligence to challenge the status quo. Here we have a very "uppity" woman refusing to accept the sensible, beneficial plan Jason has chosen, but using her feminine wrath to wreak havoc on everyone in sight out of some sort of crazed emotional impulse, the very worst one can imagine of a woman.
Would they pity Medea? I'm not so sure. She, after all, had the (for them) great benefit of being brought to Greece, of leaving a barbarian country for the benefits of the greatest civilization -- indeed, the only (from the Athenian viewpoint) civilized place on earth. She bears a prince's children. And then she throws this all away because of some misguided lust for this man. And what is most terrifying is that she gets away with it; the natural order of society is totally upended and destroyed.
I suggest, rather, that they would have pitied Jason, who was only doing his rational best for himself and his children and ran into this uncontrollable, emotional buzz saw.
Yes, this is a very patriarchal way of viewing the play. But the audience watching it was male, and the world view in which they watched was highly patriarchal. So isn't this the likely way they would have viewed the fear and the pity?
The works I have available say that formal polygyny was not practiced in ancient Sparta, though a few ancient sources suggest a form of polyandry.http://books.google.com/books?id=DD84...
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xfx1...
Everyman wrote: "LOL!! So Jason himself should have committed regicide on his uncle? I'm not sure the residents would have stood for that any more than they stood for Medea tricking his daughters into killing Pelias. But of course, Euripides had the essentials of the myth already in place, so he had to take Jason basically as he found him.
."
LOL!! Did you see the movie Start the Revolution Without Me. Such a delightful movie. I highly recommend it. Anyway, towards the end, the Gene Wilder character says, "You didn't have to SHOOT him. I didn't know you were going to SHOOT him!"
lol. I didn't think Jason would have to KILL him {Pelias}. More like overpower him and exile him.
Mmmm. But now that you mention it... On the other hand...... if Jason is right, and Pelias is not the rightful king, then would it really be regicide if Jason killed Pelias?
And if Jason is determined beyond all that he must fulfill his destiny and rule, then maybe killing Pelias is what would be required. In which case, Jason would have to decide whether or not it was worth it to him.
Medea showed herself willing to kill for Jason. Is Jason willing to kill for Jason?
On the other, other hand, LOL, yes, yes, yes, espcially in the 2nd half of the play, there IS a VERY strong revenge motive apparent. Which to me, doesn't actually mean that there were any other options open to Medea. From her position (and as she was a non-Greek I don't think she has to follow Greek rules), I don't think she had any other options. You might think that taking the children into exile was an option for her. I don't believe that Medea saw that as a option. Hence her incredible despair at the beginning of the play.
Had Altreus? Altheus? (the guy with the fertility problem) not happened by, I'm supposing that Medea would have killed the children, then have done her best to kill Jason and his new family, and would willingly have died in the process. Had she not died in her attempt to kill Jason's wife, I would imagine that she would then have killed herself...so that Jason would not have the satisfaction.
."
LOL!! Did you see the movie Start the Revolution Without Me. Such a delightful movie. I highly recommend it. Anyway, towards the end, the Gene Wilder character says, "You didn't have to SHOOT him. I didn't know you were going to SHOOT him!"
lol. I didn't think Jason would have to KILL him {Pelias}. More like overpower him and exile him.
Mmmm. But now that you mention it... On the other hand...... if Jason is right, and Pelias is not the rightful king, then would it really be regicide if Jason killed Pelias?
And if Jason is determined beyond all that he must fulfill his destiny and rule, then maybe killing Pelias is what would be required. In which case, Jason would have to decide whether or not it was worth it to him.
Medea showed herself willing to kill for Jason. Is Jason willing to kill for Jason?
On the other, other hand, LOL, yes, yes, yes, espcially in the 2nd half of the play, there IS a VERY strong revenge motive apparent. Which to me, doesn't actually mean that there were any other options open to Medea. From her position (and as she was a non-Greek I don't think she has to follow Greek rules), I don't think she had any other options. You might think that taking the children into exile was an option for her. I don't believe that Medea saw that as a option. Hence her incredible despair at the beginning of the play.
Had Altreus? Altheus? (the guy with the fertility problem) not happened by, I'm supposing that Medea would have killed the children, then have done her best to kill Jason and his new family, and would willingly have died in the process. Had she not died in her attempt to kill Jason's wife, I would imagine that she would then have killed herself...so that Jason would not have the satisfaction.
Medea forfeits our pity only by her excessive, unnatural, and murderous vengeance. She clearly expresses a legitimate and hearfelt grievance. I can't believe the Athenian audience would expect a King's daughter to quietly accept the treatment she received.Jason however does indeed end up with our pity, since he suffers a horrifying revenge that it is out of proportion even to his grave fault. His "tragic flaw" is perhaps being self-centered and obtuse. With a little more restraint and forethought he could have kept his dangerous sorceress-wife content. There's no indication that he had to remarry to continue living peacefully at Corinth.
Roger wrote: "Medea forfeits our pity only by her excessive, unnatural, and murderous vengeance. ..."It may be excessive, but not "un-Greek", imo.
I was reading Iphigenia At Aulis the other day. To defend your honor and re-gain your wife by sacrificing an innocent young woman and waging a war in which thousands of lives are lost seems to me excessive, if not unjust, and yet to the Greeks it was the heroic thing to do.
Everyman wrote: "I suggest, rather, that they would have pitied Jason, who was only doing his rational best for himself and his children and ran into this uncontrollable, emotional buzz saw.."
What I most appreciate about the play is the dialogue between Jason and Medea. Their exchange is a classic lovers' spat that resonates even today, in translation, so I can imagine how it must have sounded to the men in a 5th cent. audience. I would imagine that after seeing this play they went home and listened to their wives a little more carefully than usual.
Roger wrote: "The works I have available say that formal polygyny was not practiced in ancient Sparta, though a few ancient sources suggest a form of polyandry.http://books.google.com/books?id=DD84......"
The Xenophon passage in the second reference is what I was thinking of. Wife-swapping for eugenic purposes.
Another thought occurred to me as I was sanding in the shop (if you've never sanded fine lumber, you don't know how much thinking you can get done as you work your way up through the grits!)Medea was produced in 431. The law banning marriage to foreigners was passed twenty years before that. I wonder, and this is pure speculation, whether there was a faction in Greece which was opposing this law, and Euripides was saying, in part, "see what horrors a foreign wife is capable of, and realize how wise this law was."
Adelle wrote: "From her position (and as she was a non-Greek I don't think she has to follow Greek rules), I don't think she had any other options. You might think that taking the children into exile was an option for her. I don't believe that Medea saw that as a option."Why wouldn't she? Creon says very specifically
"You there, Medea, scowling in anger
against your husband. I'm ordering you
out of Corinth. You must go into exile,
and take those two children of yours with you."
And later, after he (unwisely, as it turns out) grants her the extra day,
"But let me warn you—
if the sun catches you tomorrow
within the borders of this country,
you or your children, you'll be put to death."
Doesn't that clearly say that if she takes the children, they won't be put to death?
And Jason makes clear that he isn't going to kill the children -- he wants them to grow up benefiting from their royal half-siblings. In fact, it's only because she knows that Jason loves the children and is NOT going to kill them that makes her killing of them meaningful -- if he planned to kill them, how would he be hurt by her doing it?
What is there in the play that gives her a legitimate reason to think that she couldn't take the children into exile? If she had said to Aegeus, my children have been banished with me, give them haven too, do you think he would have said no? Of course, she doesn't ask because, as she makes clear in the very next speech, she had already planned to kill them.
BTW, Adelle, if it sounds as though I don't think your interpretation of the play is a reasonable one, that's not it at all. There are many possible interpretations of it, and yours is perfectly reasonable. I just don't think it's the way the original male Athenian audience would have viewed it. But I could easily be wrong.
Roger wrote: "The works I have available say that formal polygyny was not practiced in ancient Sparta, though a few ancient sources suggest a form of polyandry.http://books.google.com/books?id=DD84......"
Just curious, is there a reason you searched on Sparta?
Nemo wrote: "To defend your honor and re-gain your wife by sacrificing an innocent young woman and waging a war in which thousands of lives are lost seems to me excessive, if not unjust, and yet to the Greeks it was the heroic thing to do. "Well, technically it wasn't his wife but his brother's wife, but it's a good point.
Thomas wrote: "I would imagine that after seeing this play they went home and listened to their wives a little more carefully than usual."
LOL!!
Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "The works I have available say that formal polygyny was not practiced in ancient Sparta, though a few ancient sources suggest a form of polyandry.http://books.google.com/books?id=DD..."
Thomas had referred to polygamy in Sparta in #72.
Post 81...Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "..."
I have a response---if not necessarily "an answer"---and if I get caught up on the gardening tomorrow I'll post here.
Edit (Response to Everyman's post at 81 added here.)
I just don't see Medea---because she IS Medea--- as having any other options.
Everyman wrote: What is there in the play that gives her a legitimate reason to think that she couldn't take the children into exile? .
Everyman, I feel that you are trying to limit me...similar to the way that Jason tried to limit Medea. Jason basically demanded that Medea live according to the parameters of his life and his expressed reasoning.
When you write "what is there in the play that gives Medea a legitimate reason to think she couldn't take the children into exile," my sense is that you are really saying what gives her a rational reason....i.e....a reason that fits into the parameters that you want to accept.
Medea wasn't Greek. She wasn't living her life constrained by the parameters of the Greek rules that Jason gave lip-service to. She might not even have been sane.
She was a royal barbarian who didn't hesitate to kill her brother in order to follow her heart. THAT is the kind of woman she was when Jason married her. THAT is the kind of woman she still is. We have to deal with Medea as who she really is. Not who we might expect her to be had she been raised in an environment which more narrowly defined what was or was not "legitimate reason." {In his hubris---a classic Greek flaw, Jason failed to take Medea into account.)
1) Leaving the children is not an option for Medea. Says she when she is speaking honestly to herself: "I'd not dream of leaving my babies to be insulted in a land that loathes me." "Never shall I surrender my childen to the insolence and mockery of my enemies!"
Oh, but the children would have had it rubbed into their faces and into their hearts and minds that their father had deserted them, betrayed them; why even the nurse, who holds those children dear --- as no one else in that land will...especially after there are new children---even the nurse says, "O little children, do you hear how your father feels toward you:?....how cruelly he has betrayed his dear ones!"
2) Jason, and Creon, and countless readers of the play might think that Medea could have taken the children into exile. And physically she could have. But Medea NEVER viewed this as an option.
Hence Medea's despair at the beginning of the play.
Taking the childen into exile probably never was a viable option. Because,Medea can't go into exile without avenging herself.
3) Medea MUST avenge herself. Even the ladies of the chorus agree. "You will be right, Medea, in avenging yourself on your husand." It's not just that she wants to for the sake of revenge---although she does want to for the sake of revenge---but that for her it is the right thing to do, for her it is the necessary thing to do; her royal blood requires it.
And not just revenge on Jason. Medea sees Jason's new wife as having stolen her husband and having beyond measure dishonored her and the children. And Medea refers to Kreon as "the matchmaker Kreon." Apparently she sees Kreon as having been instrumental in luring Jason away from his first family....now ruined.
So she must avenge herself. If she avenges herself and is killed in the process, Kreon's people will kill the children...even Jason in the end feared that...and they would be killed more cruelly than should Medea kill them.
If she enters the palace and avenges herself and is not killed in the process, there's very little likelihood that she will make it back to the children. and the children will be killed more cruelly than if she were to do it herself.
With the distrust of Creon...Medea could probably never make it into the palace at all. And she must avenge herself. Her culture says so. The ladies of the chorus agree.
What can she do??? What can she do??? What can she do??? Despair. "I am lost! I am lost!" She will use the children. "Now at last I understand the full evil of what I have planned. At last I see how my passion is stronger than my reason: Passion, which brings the worst of woes to mortal man." And she is a woman who has ever been ruled by her passion. Even when she is reasoning....her reasoning is done to secure the ends which her passion drives her to.
Oh, yes, I believe Medea wanted revenge. I also believe that she believed she had to avenge Jason's betrayal. The two overlapped.
As the chorus said, "O Medea, you have been hurled by heaven, into an ocean of depair." Medea...longing to die...wishing she were dead..."in death I could leave behind me the horror of living." There were no options for her. Did she go mad? Although her actions---killing children she loved---are the actions of a mad woman.... still....she spoke as one not mad. Then again, look how methodically, how seemingly rationally, some insane people plan their insane actions.
The nurse: "And suffering it is from which all killing springs." Maybe Medea suffered more than she could endure.
What an unrelently sad, sad, sad story.
I have a response---if not necessarily "an answer"---and if I get caught up on the gardening tomorrow I'll post here.
Edit (Response to Everyman's post at 81 added here.)
I just don't see Medea---because she IS Medea--- as having any other options.
Everyman wrote: What is there in the play that gives her a legitimate reason to think that she couldn't take the children into exile? .
Everyman, I feel that you are trying to limit me...similar to the way that Jason tried to limit Medea. Jason basically demanded that Medea live according to the parameters of his life and his expressed reasoning.
When you write "what is there in the play that gives Medea a legitimate reason to think she couldn't take the children into exile," my sense is that you are really saying what gives her a rational reason....i.e....a reason that fits into the parameters that you want to accept.
Medea wasn't Greek. She wasn't living her life constrained by the parameters of the Greek rules that Jason gave lip-service to. She might not even have been sane.
She was a royal barbarian who didn't hesitate to kill her brother in order to follow her heart. THAT is the kind of woman she was when Jason married her. THAT is the kind of woman she still is. We have to deal with Medea as who she really is. Not who we might expect her to be had she been raised in an environment which more narrowly defined what was or was not "legitimate reason." {In his hubris---a classic Greek flaw, Jason failed to take Medea into account.)
1) Leaving the children is not an option for Medea. Says she when she is speaking honestly to herself: "I'd not dream of leaving my babies to be insulted in a land that loathes me." "Never shall I surrender my childen to the insolence and mockery of my enemies!"
Oh, but the children would have had it rubbed into their faces and into their hearts and minds that their father had deserted them, betrayed them; why even the nurse, who holds those children dear --- as no one else in that land will...especially after there are new children---even the nurse says, "O little children, do you hear how your father feels toward you:?....how cruelly he has betrayed his dear ones!"
2) Jason, and Creon, and countless readers of the play might think that Medea could have taken the children into exile. And physically she could have. But Medea NEVER viewed this as an option.
Hence Medea's despair at the beginning of the play.
Taking the childen into exile probably never was a viable option. Because,Medea can't go into exile without avenging herself.
3) Medea MUST avenge herself. Even the ladies of the chorus agree. "You will be right, Medea, in avenging yourself on your husand." It's not just that she wants to for the sake of revenge---although she does want to for the sake of revenge---but that for her it is the right thing to do, for her it is the necessary thing to do; her royal blood requires it.
And not just revenge on Jason. Medea sees Jason's new wife as having stolen her husband and having beyond measure dishonored her and the children. And Medea refers to Kreon as "the matchmaker Kreon." Apparently she sees Kreon as having been instrumental in luring Jason away from his first family....now ruined.
So she must avenge herself. If she avenges herself and is killed in the process, Kreon's people will kill the children...even Jason in the end feared that...and they would be killed more cruelly than should Medea kill them.
If she enters the palace and avenges herself and is not killed in the process, there's very little likelihood that she will make it back to the children. and the children will be killed more cruelly than if she were to do it herself.
With the distrust of Creon...Medea could probably never make it into the palace at all. And she must avenge herself. Her culture says so. The ladies of the chorus agree.
What can she do??? What can she do??? What can she do??? Despair. "I am lost! I am lost!" She will use the children. "Now at last I understand the full evil of what I have planned. At last I see how my passion is stronger than my reason: Passion, which brings the worst of woes to mortal man." And she is a woman who has ever been ruled by her passion. Even when she is reasoning....her reasoning is done to secure the ends which her passion drives her to.
Oh, yes, I believe Medea wanted revenge. I also believe that she believed she had to avenge Jason's betrayal. The two overlapped.
As the chorus said, "O Medea, you have been hurled by heaven, into an ocean of depair." Medea...longing to die...wishing she were dead..."in death I could leave behind me the horror of living." There were no options for her. Did she go mad? Although her actions---killing children she loved---are the actions of a mad woman.... still....she spoke as one not mad. Then again, look how methodically, how seemingly rationally, some insane people plan their insane actions.
The nurse: "And suffering it is from which all killing springs." Maybe Medea suffered more than she could endure.
What an unrelently sad, sad, sad story.
Everyman wrote: "BTW, Adelle, if it sounds as though I don't think your interpretation of the play is a reasonable one, that's not it at all. There are many possible interpretations of it, and yours is perfectly r..."
Arg!! 3rd time trying to post this.
No worries. I never thought you or anyone else here was trying to de-legitimatize my take on the play. Figured everyone sees it a little differently. Enjoyed reading everyone's posts...and then considering...and they trying to support my positions---either online or simply to myself. Forced me to engage with the play on a deeper level than I otherwise would have. I got more out of the play than I otherwise would have. Had a lovely time. Thanks to all.
Arg!! 3rd time trying to post this.
No worries. I never thought you or anyone else here was trying to de-legitimatize my take on the play. Figured everyone sees it a little differently. Enjoyed reading everyone's posts...and then considering...and they trying to support my positions---either online or simply to myself. Forced me to engage with the play on a deeper level than I otherwise would have. I got more out of the play than I otherwise would have. Had a lovely time. Thanks to all.
Kristen wrote: "Thomas asked "What have the gods achieved?"
I thought about that as well, especially at the end when the chariot is sent down to Medea as her get-away. I wondered if this was the gods siding with her..."
I appreciated Thomas and you focusing our attention on the ending of the play and on the final Chorus passage.
Regarding the chariot, I thought that an interesting question. The symolism hadn't occured to me. (ie, was the chariot a symbol of the favor of the gods since it came to take Medea away?)
well....maybe I could see that if the gods had ever seemed like they played fair. The gods had used her. (Wikipedia says that the myth was that Aphrodite caused Medea to fall in love with Jason, so that Medea would help Jason, whose cause Aphrodite and Hera favored.) Which goes a long way towards explaining Jason's remark to Medea---that it was Aphrodite to whom he owed thanks, not Medea. That had to go over like a ton of bricks. Jason to Medea: "You THOUGHT you were helping me, but no, really, you were just being used. When you killed your brother and all... just being used. I owe you, Medea, nothing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason
Still, I think it comes down to "loving one's own best." Kreon loved his family best. The chariot was sent by Medea's father's father, the Sun God Helios...I'm thinking he sent to to take care of his own.
I thought about that as well, especially at the end when the chariot is sent down to Medea as her get-away. I wondered if this was the gods siding with her..."
I appreciated Thomas and you focusing our attention on the ending of the play and on the final Chorus passage.
Regarding the chariot, I thought that an interesting question. The symolism hadn't occured to me. (ie, was the chariot a symbol of the favor of the gods since it came to take Medea away?)
well....maybe I could see that if the gods had ever seemed like they played fair. The gods had used her. (Wikipedia says that the myth was that Aphrodite caused Medea to fall in love with Jason, so that Medea would help Jason, whose cause Aphrodite and Hera favored.) Which goes a long way towards explaining Jason's remark to Medea---that it was Aphrodite to whom he owed thanks, not Medea. That had to go over like a ton of bricks. Jason to Medea: "You THOUGHT you were helping me, but no, really, you were just being used. When you killed your brother and all... just being used. I owe you, Medea, nothing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason
Still, I think it comes down to "loving one's own best." Kreon loved his family best. The chariot was sent by Medea's father's father, the Sun God Helios...I'm thinking he sent to to take care of his own.
Oh! The final lines of the chorus.
Others might have other interpretations. I read those lines a good many times. It simply resonates with me as a well-worded platitude to bring closure to the play.
Basically saying, any day, every day, THIS day, events happen and we (humans) have no idea why. Must be the work of the gods. (There was no way that Jason should have been able to obtain the Golden Fleece; but the gods stepped in and Jason achieved his goal. Jason was sure that he had secured himself a secure future within Kreon's royal family; but the gods saw fit to derail that future for Jason.) [Man proposes; god disposes. And we haven't a clue it would seem.]
Others might have other interpretations. I read those lines a good many times. It simply resonates with me as a well-worded platitude to bring closure to the play.
Basically saying, any day, every day, THIS day, events happen and we (humans) have no idea why. Must be the work of the gods. (There was no way that Jason should have been able to obtain the Golden Fleece; but the gods stepped in and Jason achieved his goal. Jason was sure that he had secured himself a secure future within Kreon's royal family; but the gods saw fit to derail that future for Jason.) [Man proposes; god disposes. And we haven't a clue it would seem.]
Adelle wrote: "Oh! The final lines of the chorus. "They are very apt right after reading Boethius, aren't they? Fortune for Boethius, the gods for Euripides, in both cases they mock our belief that we are in control of our lives as a mere illusion.
Two thousand years later, the same idea shows up in Shakespeare:
As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods,
They kill us for their sport.
King Lear 4.1
Elizabeth wrote: "I am sure I read this years ago in my Greek Drama class, but I have found it a much more satisfying read with years of experience. Thank you so much for bringing a little gem into our lives. ."I'm glad you found it rewarding. It always surprises, sometimes astonishes, me how these little interim reads can generate such great discussions. What a fantastic group we all have assembled here!
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Bacchae / Iphigenia at Aulis / Rhesus (other topics)Ajax - Electra - Oedipus Tyrannus (other topics)
Ajax - Electra - Oedipus Tyrannus (other topics)
Sophocles I: Oedipus The King, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone (other topics)
One of the fascinating things about this, as about many, classics is how differently differe..."
Oh,thank you, Everyman! You make this like a nice game of badmitten! And even if my serves are a little soft, and even if I don't get all my returns over the net, it is so very fun.
OK, oh, yes, yes, yes....the Greeks would have seen it differently...Medea, so un-Greekly, un-proper-womanly.
But it seems to me that it is as you said...or someone said...they probably had to feel somewhat uncomfortable, too. Because in the end, it all comes down to that pesky oath. Does it mean something, or doesn't it? Aedeus (spelling) had to harbor Medea because he had sworn an oath. Jason swore one too. Jason broke his oath. So...are oaths considered honorably breakable if it is advanteous to break them? That seems to me to be the important question.
Like McArthur, I shall return. I loved your post. But I must be off to the neighors by 0530.
Thanks again.