In Euripides Medea, readers see Medea, the allegedly monstrous wife of Jason, hero of the Greek people. Many critics have since held up Euripides play as further proof of Medeas monstrosity in her infanticide, labeling her a Monstrous Mother. However, throughout Medeas interactions with other characters, her mistreatment by her husband Jason, and her interactions with her children, the reader sees Medea in a new light: she is no longer monstrous. In fact the ideas of mythic and monstrous mothers no longer apply to Medea; she falls between both realms. Euripides can arguably be a proto-feminist, as he intends Medea to be seen as a barbarian troubled by Greek culture, due to her outsider nature, she cannot survive in not only this Greek environment, but an environment ran by men. She is ultimately a product of her surroundings, proving that women were used by Greek men for their own amusement.
Euripides intent to prove that Medeas story was one of a betrayed mother, rather than a monstrous one, occurs in Medeas interactions with other people. One of the first instances of this occurring comes from Nurses interpretations of Medeas character, when she demands, What did I say, dear Children? Your mother frets her heart and frets it to anger. Run away quickly into the house, and keep well out of her sight (66). This is important because it immediately shows the instability of Medeas character. Medeas nurse, who knows Medea and Jasons family intimately, notices Medeas imbalance around her children, as any nurse should. This disturbance in Medeas character indicates that during the scenes throughout the play, Medea was in fact not acting as herself, and was simply a bi-product of Greek society. Euripides also uses the Nurse as a voice of proving the strength of womanhood. Even in Greek culture, they had a say, and offered invaluable insight into interactions between peoples. Soon after Medeas children are sent away from her, the audience learns of this instability that Nurse hints at, when Medea asks Creon, Oh, this is the end for me. I am utterly lost. . . What is your reason, Creon, for banishing me? (72). Here, Medea is betrayed by Creon, banished from the last place she had been able to call home. This unexpected betrayal has proved that Creon views Medea as a barbarian, no longer welcome in present day society. Medea is now controlled by Creon, who Jason has sided along with. This makes her even more unstable, discrediting her monstrosity. She cannot be acting rational, and thus monstrous, toward her children if she is unstable in the mind, which she in fact is. Finally, in her instability, Medea is enabled by Aegus. After vaguely talking of her banishment, Aegus finally declares, But if you by yourself can reach my house, then you shall stay there safely. To none will I give you up (88). Medea, again, a woman in a mans world, has finally been enabled. Having been emotionally damaged by her banishment from Creons lands, another King, a strong male figure, has given her the mental support to go ahead with whatever disillusioned idea, as she will be protected. Medea cannot help but continue toward her path of infanticide, as powerful men have forced her hand. She was pushed to the edge by Creon, and then supported in full by Aegus. Thus, Euripides is ultimately proving that it is impossible for Medea to be a monstrous mother, because she is not responsible for her actions. This underlines the mistreatment of women in Greek society, as they were ultimately forced to do the pleasures of men, even the smartest of women, like Medea.
Even with her intelligence, Medea is easily manipulated by Jason, thus her actions cannot be considered her own, but those forced upon her. When lamenting on her husband, she states, Oh, I wish that lightning from heaven would split my head open. Oh, what use have I now for life? . . . The things I suffered, though I made him promise, my hateful husband. I pray that I see him, him and his bride and all their palace shattered for the wrong they dare to do me without cause (68). Jason has just been promised to wed another women, while leaving his wife of ten years, Medea. Medea had shown all of her love for Jason, not only by leaving her home country but also killing her brother in order to allow them to escape safely, successfully burning all bridges from her past. Jason is her only link left to society, and now he is leaving her. Euripides is thus portraying Medea as the wronged woman, not just emotionally, but mentally as well; Medeas entire world has been turned upside down. Then, when Medea confronts Jason, he offers her money, simply to have her to leave him and be gone, out of his life for good (82). This signals to Medea that Jason is done with her, not only does he no longer love her, he can no longer stand to be around her, making him the worst person in her life. Finally, Jason attempts to stop Medea, and demand the bodies of Medeas dead children. Medea instead responds, They died from a disease they caught from their father. . . The children are dead. I say this to make you suffer (109-110). This line is incredibly significant because in Medeas mind, her children are dead because of Jason, and she is right. Jason has turned her world upside down, she has always been a barbarian, and on top of that, a woman, but now she is alone in the world, with no one to rely on. Jason has taken away everything from her, and thus must be punished for his actions. In Mary Lefkowitzs commentary, Lefkowitz comments on the husband-wife relationship in Euripides other players. It is understandable that children would provide the principal reason for a married couples devotion to each other, but even when there are no offspring on their presence seems to be unimportant, strong ties of affection seem to have existed between spouses (Lefkowitz, Women in Greek Myth, 128). In all of Euripides other plays, the spouses have some kind of attraction, in fact, Evadne and Capaneus in Suppliants had a close bond, without children. Thus, because Euripides depicts Jason having no love of Medea, even with their shared children, he ultimately proves that the bond between Medea and Jason has been shattered, which ultimately destroys Medeas mental character. Thus, Medeas actions are proof that Euripides is portraying Medea as a proto-feminist character; she has been wronged by men, in a mans world, and the only way for retribution would be through her act of infanticide. By betraying Medea, Jason forced her to react, and be the proto-feminist Euripides defines her as.
Euripides portrayal of Medea as a proto-feminist character living in a mans world is reliant on her not being a monstrous mother in Greek society. And this is ultimately evidenced in her interactions with her children. While Medea faces her children, her internal conflicts prove her innocence. She cries, Why children, do you look upon me with your eyes? Why do you smile so sweetly that smile of all? (98), as well as, Come, children, give me your hands, give your mother your hands to kiss them. Oh the dear hands, and O how dear are these lips to me, and the generous eyes of the bearing of my children! I wish you happiness, but not here in this world (Medea, 99). A monstrous mother would never interact with her children as such, showing such physical affection with them. She would be distant from them, with no conflictions about killing them. This is further proved when Medea declares, Do not, O my heart, you must not do these things! Poor heart, let them go, have pity upon the children (Medea, 99). Even when her heart has been betrayed by Jason, it is still conflicted with the parting of her children. Medeas conflictions in the infanticide scene ultimately prove her lack of monstrosity. Thus, her actions prove that not only is she still a mother, if not a mythic mother, a mother none the less, but that Medea is ultimately looking out for her well being, a certainly feminist ideal.
Finally, Euripides proves Medeas lack of monstrosity in the final moments of the play, when the Chorus says, Zeus in Olympus is the oversee of man doings. Many things the gods achieve are beyond our judgment. What we thought is not confirmed and what we thought not god Contrives. And so it happens in this story (112). If Euripides ultimate intention had been to portray Medea as an evil Monstrous woman, she would have been punished by the gods, ultimately proving that Medeas actions as a proto-feminist were not justified. But because of the fact that Medea was allowed to live, Euripides quite explicitly alludes to the fact that not only were Medeas actions justified, but they were the only choice at hand. Male society had ruined her, thus the only response was for her to strike back. This act of infanticide is the ultimate expression of antipathy toward male dominated society, allowing Medea to assert her dominance over a society that had shunned her.
Thus, because Medea is not a monstrous mother, the audience must look to Euripides intentions in focusing his story on Medea, rather than Jason. Medea, the main character, not a mother, has been wronged. She becomes a proto-feminist in the development of her own identity, with the act of infanticide the ultimate outcry against Greek society, as children were held sacred. Lillian Corti comments on this, stating that Medeas transition from misery to triumph is analogous to the process whereby dependent children initially dominated by adult figures learn, through interaction with playmates and mentors, to exercise control over themselves, to negotiate on equal terms with peers, and eventually to govern their own dependents (Corti, The Myth of Medea and the Murder of Children, 30). This development of Medea, being an abused barbarian wife, to an all controlling woman, proves her proto-feminist figure. Euripides is thus speaking out against Greek society, using his play as an outlet of expression, and Medea as the vessel to express male dominance over women, and Medeas outbreak from the social norm, making her a true proto-feminist.
Bibliography
Euripides. Medea. 431 B.C.E.
Lefkowitz, Mary R. Women in Greek Myth. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007.
Corti, Lillian. The Myth of Medea and the Murder of Children. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1998.
Already have an account? Log In Now
7568