Medea and Love and Hate - Essay Example

Medea and Love and Hate Introduction In Euripides’ Medea, a woman is scorned and does the unthinkable in response – she murders Creon and his daughter with poisoned garments, then proceeds to murder her own children. As a backstory to why she would do such a thing, Medea had helped Jason earlier attain that which he wanted most in the world – a throne, which could only be had if he could attain the Golden Fleece. Medea, who had the powers of a sorceress, helped Jason with this by performing magic so that he could accomplish the feats that he needed to accomplish, so that he could get this fleece. Then, Medea murdered her own brother to help Jason escape with the fleece, then persuaded the daughters of Pelias, the king whom Jason was trying to usurp, to kill him. In other words, Medea, out of love, committed murders and did all she could in her power to help Jason attain what he wanted. When Jason coldly announced that he was to be married to Creon’s daughter, because he wanted the material gains that this would bring him, Medea commits more murders. Two of these murders, that of Creon and Creon’s daughter, are most certainly out of hatred for Jason. She also kills her two children with Jason, and the reason why she kills her children is a little more ambiguous. Some interpretations state that Medea might have killed them out of misguided love, to shield them from the horrors of being outcasts and to protect them from the hatred of her enemies. Other interpretations are that the killing of the children was also out of hate, as Euripides made it clear that Medea did it out of spite for Jason, and that Medea did it to deprive Jason both of heirs and support in his old age. Under this interpretation the murders of the sons, too, would be driven by hatred for Jason. This essay will explore these themes, examining the various murders that Medea commits or persuades others to commit, with a focus on whether or not each murder was committing out of love or hate. Background Medea was a priestess and daughter of the moon-goddess Hecate, and was also a witch and the child of Aietes and the grandchild of Helios the Sun-god (Podlecki, 2005). Aietes was another child of Helios, and Aietes was given Corinth as a part of his domain to rule. Aietes left the kingship, which passed to his brother, Aloeus and others, and the people of Corinth wanted Aietes back as king. They then summoned Medea, Aietes’ daughter, who became queen and she ruled Corinth with Jason, her husband. Medea had become the wife of Jason because she helped Jason years earlier obtain a Golden Fleece, which was necessary to claim his own inheritance and throne of Iolkos (Chong-Gossard). Medea helped Jason with her magical powers obtain the fleece, then the two fled with the fleece. However, Medea had to kill her brother Absyrtus, as a distraction for her father, in order to flee (Podlecki, 2005). Medea also was complicit in the murder of Pelias, who was Jason’s uncle, when Pelias refused to give Jason his kingdom – Medea convinced Pelias’ daughters to kill Pelias by telling the daughters that if they killed him, chopped him up, and put him with special magic herbs into a cauldron, that his youth would be restored (Chong-Gossard). However, Jason proved to be faithless, even though Medea literally killed for him, as Jason is married to the daughter of Creon as the play Medea begins. Discussion Killing of Pelias and Medea’s Brother Medea’s killing of Pelias, was motivated by love, according to the Nurse, whose opening monologue explains a part of the backstory on why Medea is so distraught when the play opens. As the nurse says, Medea’s spirit was “struck senseless with love of Jason. She wouldn’t have persuaded Pelias’ daughters to kill their father…she tried to please the people in whose land she had come, an exile” (8-12). And, indeed, one could argue that Medea’s actions in killing her brother were also motivated by love. Medea wanted to help Jason in any way that she could – she used her soceresses’ powers to help Jason get the Golden Fleece. These powers in helping him were motivated by love for Jason. Therefore, since the killing of the brother was a part of helping Jason get his throne on Colchis, because it was just one of the actions that Medea took to help him. If Medea didn’t love Jason, she would not have killed her own brother. Killing of Creon and the Princess The latter murders, of Creon and the princess were based upon hate for Jason. Medea’s hatred for Jason rested in the fact that Jason married the daughter of Creon, without any kind of thought for Medea, who helped Jason so much, including killing for him. Mueller (2001) states that Medea’s hatred for Jason was also because he effectively destroyed the one place that she could go, as she was banished by Creon – her father’s house. Medea tells Jason that she has no place to turn, saying “Now where am I to turn? Should I got back to my father’s house, which I betrayed for you, and my country too, when I came here?” (502-503). In other words, Medea destroyed her links to her paternal home for Jason, and has no place to turn in the event of a divorce from Jason. Therefore, Jason not just destroyed Medea’s love for him, but he destroyed any chance that she could turn to home, all while knowing that, if it were not for Medea, he never would have gotten the position that he got to. He completely discounted her sacrifices, and seemed not to even know that his behavior was wrong, while depriving her of any semblance of a home or country. Therefore, because Medea felt understandable rage at Jason for doing what he did, this underscores the interpretation that Medea killed Creon and the Princess out of hatred for Jason. Mueller (2001) further states that Medea’s hatred for Jason stemmed from the fact that Jason refused to give Medea compensation for the harm that he has created in her life. Jason does not recognize that he owes a debt to Medea, let alone attempt to repay her. He offers Medea money as an act of generosity to her, as she was to be exiled and exiles are often poor. Jason also attempts to blame Medea for the end of the relationship, which is, according to Mueller (2001), another way for him to avoid a social obligation to compensate her for his misdeeds. Medea rejects Jason’s offers of money, on the basis that Jason is unworthy, so accepting a gift from him would be not profitable for her. This is another reason why Medea hates Jason, because he insults her when he offers her money, as if she were a charity case, while not acknowledging that he owes her compensation for the fact that he caused her great harm with his actions. Part of the reason behind Medea’s actions, according to Lansky (2004) was based upon shame, and this was the reason why love turned to hate. In particular, her actions were a result of shame that is not consciously felt, yet is known at an unconscious level. Her actions were a guard against unconsciously felt future shame, according to Lansky (2004), that was exacerbated by the fact that her social status and security were damaged by Jason’s actions, along with Medea’s helplessness. Because Medea’s shame was unbearable, according to Lansky (2004), she was driven to filicide and murdering the king and the king’s daughter. However, Lansky (2004) notes that shame was not just from the fact that she was humiliated by Jason, but was also fed from her unconscious fantasies which were shameful to her, and anticipated further shame. Because the shame could not be resolved, the shame became unbearable. Moreover, her act of killing her children and the princess and Creon serve a purpose for Medea – to transfer her feelings of shame to her husband, effectively relocating the shame and, in the mind of Medea, thus expelling the shame from her own unconscious mind. Thus, Lansky (2004) states that Medea not only could not forgive, because her shame was unbearable, but, because she anticipated future shame, she was driven to the acts that she committed in the play. Medea’s transformation from love to hate also follows a similar trajectory from feminine to masculine, according to Lansky (2004). Medea changes in the play from somebody who is anguished and helpless to somebody who is an avenger, much like the epic hero Ajax. Euripides thus defeminizes Medea in changing her from love to hate. This is due, in part, because she did not have the protection of a male, which was a societal mandate at that time, so she had to become masculine herself. Mueller (2001) echoes this, stating that Medea spoke different languages – she was feminine in speaking with the Corinthian women, and masculine when talking to Jason. Even when she is talking to herself in monologue, she speaks in different languages – that of the pitiful mother who has great love for her children and that of the hero warrior who is vengeful. Mueller (2001) states that the language of reciprocity that is spoken by Medea is usually reserved for men. Thus, as Medea goes from love to hate, or, from not feeling shameful to feeling shameful, she also transforms from feminine to masculine. Shame is a part of the reason why Medea’s murder of her own brother is fundamentally different than the latter murders. The earlier murder did not have the shame element attached to it – Medea murdered her brother out of love for Jason, and this was when Medea was more feminized and subservient. Shame was not at the root of this murder. It was the escalating shame that was brought on by Jason’s actions that undergirded the later murders, and it was this sense of shame that turned her emotions from love to hate. This is exacerbated by Medea’s loss of identity by the betrayal of Jason, according to Lansky (2004) – Medea’s marriage was her entire existence, so her identity essentially dissolved when Jason left her. Then, when Medea is banished from society, unable even to the women chorus who understood her predicament, Medea is made even more powerless and has her identity stripped even more. Her murders of Creon and the princess give her back a sense of identity. Her loss of identity, coupled with her shame, is at the root of the hatred that she expresses when she murders the princess, Creon, and her children, argues Lansky (2004). Geddie (2005) states that the chorus provides part of the reason why Medea would kill the Princess and Creon, and that this reason is based upon vengeance, which could be said comes from hate. The chorus states that the revenge for the way that Jason treated Medea was a sound one, because Jason was thankless and did not honour his family, and every man who is as thankless as Jason and without honour should be destroyed. While the chorus is approving of getting revenge upon Jason for what he did is based upon the fact that Jason did not honour and respect his family, it may also be said to be based upon hatred for Jason and what he did to Medea, and hatred of all faithless men who would behave in the same manner. Killing of The Children While it is pretty clear that absolute hatred, based upon shame, is the reason why Medea killed Creon and Creon’s daughter, there is some question whether hatred for Jason is at the root of the killing of her children. Papadopoulou (1997) states that Medea had an inner struggle when she was contemplating killing her children, and there is some indication that part of the reason why she decides to kill her children is because she does not want them to grow up in a hostile land and be insulted by Medea’s enemies. Lansky (2004) concurs in this analysis, noting that Medea started to waver with regards to killing her children, but her paranoid shame fantasies are what compelled her to go through with it. This can be seen in the in the passages where Medea talks about her resolve in killing her children, but shows her wavering nature, then resolves once more after considering that the children might be laughed at: I cannot bear to do it. I renounced my plans I had before. I’ll take my children away from This land. Why should I hurt their father with the pain They feel and suffer twice as much of pain myself? No, no, I will not do it. I renounced my plans. Ah, what is wrong with me? Do I want to let go My enemies unhurt and be laughed at for it? I must face this thing. Oh, but what a weak woman Even to admit to my mind these soft arguments. (1044-1052) That Medea’s motivation for killing her children is partially to save them from humiliation at the hands of her enemies is made even more clear in another passage: If they live with you in Athens they will cher you. No! By Hell’s avenging furies it shall not be This shall never be, that I should suffer my children To be the prey of my enemies’ insolence. (1058-1061). Dubois (2002) partially concurs in this analysis, stating that Medea herself was somebody who was ostracized from society because of her actions and the fact that she is a foreigner. Medea is considered to be a barbarian, according to Dubois (2002), and she was called a beast. Moreover, Medea can never be considered to be a citizen. It is not too far to imagine that Medea might believe that her children would have a similar taint if the children survived. This would be especially true when Medea kills the Creon and the Princess – her infamy would pass to her children, and this would make her children’s lives be especially harsh. Medea might have imagined that, along with the fact that her enemies would make life hard for the children, her own actions would make it difficult, coupled with Medea’s position in society, which was low to begin with, and would be lowered when Medea killed Creon and the Princess. With all this in mind, killing the children would essentially be putting them out of future misery that would be brought on by Medea’s station in life, coupled with her actions. Under this interpretation, the murder of her children are, at least in part, based upon a kind of misguided love. Medea does not want her children to suffer humiliation and the unbearable shame that she has experienced. She has a paranoid fantasy that this would be the case if the children were left alive. Therefore, this is partially the reason why she decides to kill them – to save them from unbearable shame. Since Medea knows the feeling of unbearable shame, the sheer agony of it, that she wanted to spare her children from it might be an act of love for them. While love of the sons is one interpretation of why Medea killed her children, Reid & Gillett (1997) digress from this line of thought. They state that, based upon Euripides’ own interpretation of Medea’s actions, that Medea killed her children just for spite – to “take away the smile from her husband’s face” (p. 19). They go on to explicitly deny that Medea’s actions in killing her children were out of anything but hate – they state that there could be an instance where Medea can be considered to have mitigation for her actions in killing her children, even if she can never be justified. And this would be if Medea wanted to spare her children unwanted suffering as “embarrassing cast-offs of a powerful political figure” (p. 19). However, they state that “these do not seem to be part of Euripdes’s account” (p. 19). Allen (1900) agrees that Medea did not kill the children out of any sense of love or concern for their well-being after Medea becomes a criminal by murdering the Creon and the Princess. He states that Medea was motivated to kill the children to deprive Jason of heirs, as well as to deprive him of support in his old age. He also notes that Jason does not show much affection for the boys, and he does not show any kind of compunction in having his children banished with Medea. Jason’s concern about losing his heir is, however, paramount, according to Allen (1900), because, in ancient Greek life, it was a terrible thing to have one’s lineage become extinct, and this is exactly what Medea does when he kills her and Jason’s sons. Therefore, under this interpretation, in accordance with the above interpretation, Medea’s murder of her children is based upon hate, for it was to spite Jason that she did what she did. Specifically, to ensure that Jason does not have heirs, which would be a great tragedy for him as an ancient Greek, would be an expression of Medea’s hatred of Jason. Vardamis (2003) offers a fresh interpretation that would support that Medea killed her children because because she hated Jason. He states that the children were allegorical for nation, state or tribe. He states that Medea did love her children – she wanted the earth to swallow her before she would ever do them harm. Yet she killed them, much like a nation might sacrifice its sons and daughters for enemy nations. Just like with Medea, sometimes a nation might loathe the enemy more than it loves its sons and daughters, so the sacrifice of the people of the nation is something that is valid and necessary. He states that, with the case of Medea, she used her sons to wreak total havoc and victory over the enemy, Jason. Just like with war, when nations leaders talk about the need to win at all costs, that the enemy must be destroyed, and if the youth is sacrificed for the war, then this is just the cost of war, Medea felt the same way about her sons. As the United States bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and the Allies carpet bombed German cities in World War II, despite the loss of millions of innocent lives, so, too, did Medea justify what she was doing. She loved her sons, but she hated Jason more. Vardamis (2003) states that Euripides might have had the war imagery in mind when writing the play, because, during that time, Athens and Sparta had been at war for decades. Sparta and Athens were economic and political rivals who wanted the Greek city states, island and colonies, and both Athens and Sparta felt wronged by the other. This war lasted from around 461 BC to at least until 437 BC, which is when Euripides wrote his Medea tragedy. Verdamis (2003) further states, as proof that Euripides might have meant for Medea to be an allegory for a nation-state, that earlier versions of the Medea tale do not have Medea killing her own children. Rather, the Corinthian enemies do so, as payback for Medea killing Creon and the Princess. That Euripides changed that dynamic to where Medea was the person who killed the sons might be because Euripides was attempting to make a statement about war in general. How war involves sacrifice, and how bloody that sacrifice can be. As Medea, who was horribly wronged, was not justified in killing her children, nations, who might also be badly wronged, are also not justified in sending its citizens into war to be killed. Thus, Medeas sacrifice of her children is meant as a kind of protest against war. Therefore, under this interpretation, Medea killed her kids, while loving them. But she also killed her kids because her hatred for Jason overruled her love for her sons. Conclusion Medea was a complex figure in Greek tragedy. On the surface, she appears to be simply a woman scorned who is taking vengeance upon the person who wronged her. She figured, probably rightly, that killing Jason himself would not be punishment for what he did. For, if he is dead, he is not suffering. She wanted him to suffer, so killing the people that he cared about would presumably bring this about. Except there was not any indication that Jason cared about anybody but himself. So, Medea, intelligent woman that she was, decided to take it upon herself to make sure that Jason is deprived of heirs and material wealth. She made sure that he was deprived of heirs by killing their sons. She made sure that he was deprived of material wealth by killing Creon and the Princess. Medea was not always so vengeful. In fact, she was a murderess before she even bore children, as she helped Jason by killing her own brother and convincing the daughters of King Pelias to kill him. These murders were done to help Jason, so, at that time, she was killing out of love for him. Later on, her murders were distinctly out of hatred for him. Still, Medeas motivations were more complex than merely love and hate. Hate was based upon shame – shame that Jason had brought on her by leaving her, shame because she felt that her countrymen and enemies were laughing at her, and shame because she was already an outsider in society, now she faced the prospect of becoming even more of an outsider. Her shame was magnified when she realized that she, literally, had no place to go – she couldnt go back to her parents, because she killed her brother. Moreover, Jason shamed her more by offering her a pittance of money because she was going to be exiled. The money was an insult because it wasnt enough to repair the harm that he did, and, at any rate, money could never make things right. Therefore, her hatred is rooted in shame, according to one interpretation. Whether or not she killed her children out of love for them or hatred for Jason is something is also open to interpretation. According to one interpretation, she killed her children out of misguided love. She didnt her children to go through the shame that she, herself, was going through, so she killed them. However, according to other interpretations, she killed them, too, out of hatred for Jason. She wanted to deprive Jason of heirs and comfort in his old age, and, in ancient Greek life, to have ones lineage become extinct was devastating. Or, alternatively, Jason and Medea were allegories for nation-states at war. Just like a nation-state will sacrifice innocent blood to defeat the enemy, so, too, would Medea to exact total devastation upon Jason. Under these interpretation, it was Medeas hatred of Jason that was more powerful than the love for her sons, so her killing of her sons was also out of hatred for Jason. At any rate, what can be surmised from the play is not that Medea thought that she was killing people whom Jason cared about. It is obvious that Jason cared for nobody but himself. However, in taking away his material wealth – by killing Creon and the Princess – and by taking away his heirs – by killing the sons – Medea was able to finally attain total justice over Jason, who was clearly in the wrong. While Medea did not act morally by taking innocent blood, there still was some satisfaction, even for the audience, that Jason did get his comeuppance that was so richly deserved. References Podlecki, A. (1989) Euripides Medea: Translation, Introduction and Notes. Newbury, MA: Focus Publishing Co. Chong-Gossard, K.O. On teaching Euripides Medea – Classics and archaeology. Available at: classics-archaeology.unimelb.edu.au Mueller, M. (2001) The language of reciprocity in Euripides Medea. American Journal of Philology, 122, 471-504. Lansky, M. (2004) The impossibility of forgiveness: Shame fantasies as instigators of vengefulness in Euripides Medea. Journal of the American Psychiatric Association, 53.2, 437-472. Geddie, P. (2005) Running upstream: The function of the chorus in Euripides Medea. Hirundo: The McGill Journal of Classical Studies, 3, 1-11. Papadopoulou, T. (1997) The presentation of the inner self: Euripides Medea 1021-55 and Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica 3, 772-801, Mnemosyne, I.6, 641-667. Dubois, P. (2002) Ancient tragedy and the metaphor of katharsis. Theatre Journal, 54, 19-24. Reid, M. & Gillett, G. (1997) The case of Medea – A view of fetal-maternal conflict. Journal of Medical Ethics, 23, 19-25. Vardamis, A. (2003) Medea and the imagery of war. Jeffers Studies, 7.1, 7-19. Vardamis, A. (2003) Medea and the imagery of war. Jeffers Studies, 7.1, 7-17. Read More