If we remember from
our last text and Apollonius Rhodius' background, in Book III of The Voyage of
Argo, Hera and Aphrodite are wringing their hands over how they might aid Jason
to get the Golden Fleece and hit upon the ruse of getting Aphrodite to send
Cupid to loose an arrow into Medea and cause her to fall in love with Jason and
therefore do anything to aid him in his quest, in some traditions, going as far
as fratricide to do so. So already we have Medea acting under the influence as
it were and not in control and therefore not wholly responsible for her
actions. In Euripides play line 16 of the Nurses speech, 'now all is enmity,
and love's bonds are diseased. For Jason, abandoning his own children and my
mistress is bedding down in a royal match, having married the daughter of
Creon, ruler of this land. Poor Medea, finding herself cast aside, calls loudly
on his oaths, invokes the mighty assurance of his sworn right hand, and calls
the gods to witness the unjust return she is getting from Jason.' And the Gods?
Zeus will be her advocate as the Chorus states (l.148) and might Themis and
lady Artemis are enjoined to see what Medea suffers.
We remember that Jason did not cut a particularly consistent
figure as hero in the Voyage of Argo and at the expense of making him all too
human, Apollonius arouses our slight misgivings about him, there not being
something quite right, not 100% hero material about him, a whiff of
inconsistency or even as if borne out in Euripides handling of Jason, one of
inconstancy - or at the very least brutal male sexual realpolitik. For that
reason we are not given to seeing Jason in a particularly warm light either. So
where did the sympathies of the ancient audience lie? Is it useful to retrofit
the play with such relatively modern confabulations such as feminist critique
and paint Medea as a proto or in the words of some the first feminist figure in
western literature? Is this the reason for the plays lasting popularity
resonance and fascination throughout its modern reception? That may account for
us, but I repeat; what on earth did the original audience make of this play?
What was Euripides up to? Is Medea an example of the danger of barbarian wives,
steeped in the mystery of the east (she is usually depicted in Eastern garb
with potion mixing paraphernalia from a very early period) but lethal and prone
to magic/poison when her wrath is stirred? Or is Medea, Euripides way of
throwing a light on the unfair and constricting social conventions of (male
dominated) Athenian society? It did come third after all so if anything there
were reasons for it failing to receive first prize. What were they? Was there a
great difference in quality between the first second and third prizes? Perhaps
it was the shocking violence of the slayings in the play deviously schemed and
ruthlessly carried out, albeit with a very momentary flicker of motherly
remorse and hesitation. The play end quite as abruptly as it opens and it all
feels a bit too slick almost 2 dimensional in plot terms - especially when
compared with Sophocles Antigone for example. Much to discuss as usual!
Euge!
