Eva Molnar

Dr. Erin M. Hanses

CAMS 45H

01 May 2024

Medea: A Feminist Exploration of Character, Audience Perception, and Human Nature

Medea is one of the most powerful character archetypes in Greek Mythology as a whole,

shattering what women were understood to be in Ancient Greek culture. The comparison of

Euripides’ interpretation of Medea through his play with the more modern feminist lens from

Medea the Feminist by Betine Van Zyl Smit is a largely impactful one. Euripides was

revolutionary in personifying such a defiant female role, and even more so making her the main

character of the play. In a similar way, Van Zyl Smit comments on the oppression of women in

Ancient Greek society, and even more so the application of a feminist lens to paint Medea in a

different light. The most shocking part of the Medea story, however, is the way the audience can

sympathize with a character that commits such monstrous acts. There is a certain longing to

connect with Medea, especially in Euripides’ play. The use of a feminist lens to delve into the

sympathy for her character despite the character's immense power says a lot about human nature

as a whole, which is a powerful analysis of the connection between the two works.

Euripides’ telling of the story of Medea is remarked as one of the most famous Greek

tragedies in history, based on the myth of Jason and Medea. The tragedy is an incredibly raw and

emotional piece of ancient literature that connects the feelings and actions of mythological

characters with mortal actions. Much of the text is real and applicable to audiences from every

era, centered around feelings of passion, revenge, emotional suffering, and blinding rage.

Euripides casts Jason and Medea in extremely pointed manners, which initially makes it clear to
the reader who they should side with. Jason, the leader of the Argonauts and a Greek hero,

marries Medea, the Colchian princess. They have two sons together, however the origins are

nothing like the typical content marriage. Medea and Jason had to leave for Corinth because

Medea killed the usurping king of Iolcus, who Jason believed had stolen his throne, which is just

the beginning of Medea’s deadly past. However, both characters' true colors are revealed with

Jason’s decision to leave Medea’s bed for the hand of the daughter of the King of Corinth, Creon.

In this version of the text, retold by Euripides and translated by Diane Arnson Svarlien, there was

a certain complexity that came along with the combination of both accepting and rejecting

gender stereotypes in Greek culture, while finding a unique way for the audience to choose

which side they agree with on their own.

Medea’s characterization is largely based on two events in the play: Jason leaving her for

the princess’ hand and her plot for revenge that ensues. However, it is the switch that Euripides

emphasizes of Medea from victim to perpetrator that prompts the complexity of her

characterization. As the play begins the Nurse and Tutor inside the house witness her true

un-kept rage after hearing the choice Jason has made. Euripides in this section shows her as an

almost animalistic and out-of-control creature, which effectively shows the effects of female rage

in the face of infidelity. He shows this through the voices and actions of the Nurse and Tutor,

claiming that she “looks fiercer than a bull” and that her “ways are too wild, her nature is

hateful.” (Euripides, Medea, pg 7.99-113). They also very clearly hide her children from her in a

fit of rage, afraid that her reaction could be so uncontrollable that she could venture to hurt her

own blood. This is an extremely effective rhetorical choice by Euripides to place this clear piece

of foreshadowing of her two sons' fate, placed conveniently before her conversation with Jason

and Creon personally.

 The way Euripides positions Medea’s conversations with Jason and then shortly after

with Creon functions as a way of not just commenting on the myth’s connection to femininity,

but connecting with the audience’s perspective of female power. Medea’s character effectively

criticizes the woes of being married, having children, and overall being a woman in ancient

Greek society. The author does this in an unassuming manner, however, and chooses to empower

women through the belittling of them through Medea’s commentary. She claims women as the

“most pathetic”, that they find husbands only “to get a master for our body”, and that she would

rather “stand behind a shield three times than go through childbirth once.” (Euripides, Medea, pg

12.230- 13.255) These comments on the lack of versatility in women’s lives in the era it was

interpreted call the audience to recognize the absurdity of the lives they are forced to live while

creating a call to action that creates a bond between Medea and the audience.

This bond is an un-sensible one. How could the audience form a bond with a character

who murders both of her children and the woman her husband left her for? The answer is not

simple or clearly understood, but Euripides recognizes that the helplessness of women as a whole

in Greek society is a larger call to action for the audience than the cruel action of Medea herself.

There is a clear recognition throughout the text that characters like Creon, Jason, and those inside

of her household make comments that not only reflect onto Medea but apply to all women, past

and present. For instance, Creon makes a statement that truly encompasses the fear men had of

the minds of women in ancient Greece, saying that her “words are soothing, but I’m terrified of

what’s in your mind.” (Euripides, Medea, pg 15.325-327) This speaks to the fear of the unknown

and acknowledges that Euripides understood that although men had all of the tangible power in

their society, women found ways to exert their power in roundabout ways.
 In contrast to Medea’s conversation with Creon, her conversation with Jason shows a

much different side of the male figure in the relationship. Diane Arnson Svarlien, in footnote 29

page 24 of her translated text, acknowledges Jason’s response and communication as

“self-conscious” when speaking to Medea. He chooses to not talk specifically to Medea about

her circumstances but instead to talk to woman-kind as a whole. This is a specific rhetorical

choice by Euripides, where he acknowledges Medea’s power over Jason in this situation,

although all odds are against her. Jason plainly states that the “female race should not exist” and

even more broadly that “It’s nothing but a nuisance.” (Euripides, Medea, pg 25.594-595) These

words are harsh and targeted, but his vague recognition of their relation to Medea in this

circumstance highlights his diluted fear of what is to come. The death of the princess and

Medea’s children is significant to recognize the outcome of the belittling and abandonment of

women in Greek culture, but even more important is Medea’s nonchalant response. She finds no

sympathy for those she killed but instead finds joy in the fact that Jason is grieving and “not

laughing” at the end of the conflict. (Euripides, Medea, pg 58.1411)

Through the feminist lens, Euripides’ interpretation of the myth of Jason and Medea is a

clear reflection of the way ancient Greek society was tiered, and the way women went about

finding pockets of power. This theme of women reclaiming power is seen time and time again in

Greek mythology throughout the course, and this specific tragedy cultivates an even larger

response from the audience. Medea’s characterization creates a connection with the audience that

plausibly doesn’t make sense taking into account the plot of the tragedy, but instead, because

there is a sense of sympathy for someone who loses everything. The tragedy overall is a

reflection of the monstrosity of rage and jealousy, and specifically the way that revenge can

corrupt the perpetrator and victim all the same.

 There are thousands of interpretations of the story of Medea, each focusing on a specific

analysis of why she makes certain decisions and her characterization as a whole. Van Zyl Smit’s

interpretation characterizes Medea as a “feminist, “ creating a unique connection between the

ancient play and society today. Her main points align with those common in feminist theory,

claiming Medea is a victim of male oppression, the disparity between gender and class in the

play, female resistance in a male society, and most notably gender and power structure.

The work specifically narrows in on her defiance as a character, which challenges the

power structure originally set in ancient Greece. Medea’s female identity, according to Van Zyl

Smit’s journal, models women’s suppressed feelings of disdain in a male-dominated society.

Most important, though, in her argument, is the importance of Medea’s disruption of power

structure, gender complication, and female identity in Euripides’ text. She largely invites readers

to consider Medea’s role as the protagonist in the text, and the larger importance of her defiance

in the play and its application to women’s role in ancient Greece. The journal functions as a

feminist theory text, which in a broader sense pulls out Medea’s actions in the play and connects

them with why she felt compelled to make the certain decisions that curated the plot. Her

argument overall critiques Euripides’ Medea by analyzing female defiance and its challenge of

patriarchal oppression, and shifts the characterization of Medea from the villain in the plot to a

character who represents womanly autonomy in a world full of male domination.

The most compelling argument Van Zyl Smit makes in her piece is her interpretation that

“power is used to exclude women.” (Van Zyl Smit 2002: 116) A common theme in ancient Greek

literature is the power hierarchy with men holding power over women consistently. Her more

rash interpretation, however, points to the specific degradation and exclusion of women based on

that hierarchy. Two specific men in the play exert their power over Medea, her husband Jason,
and Creon, the king of Corinth. The author connects Medea’s experience in Corinth, which she

described as a “socialist state, ruled by men and women alternately in seven-year cycles.” (Van

Zyl Smit 2002: 116) However, a clear example of men using their power to exclude women, the

ruler at the time manufactured a conspiracy that essentially discredited women’s ability to be

rulers in Corinth. (Van Zyl Smit 2002: 116) This discrediting of women as rulers of women in

Medea’s home state connected to her personally, and was also demonstrated later when she came

to Corinth in a similar situation. Medea endured a multitude of demeaning situations where

men’s power was used to silence her, pointing back to the main point of Van Zyl Smit where she

was manipulated based on her gender. She also utilizes the author Christa Wolf’s interesting

interpretation of the myth who uses Medea’s story to bring awareness to “injustices suffered by

women” and uniquely the negative impacts on women as victims when “corrupt rulers fabricate

rumors and stories to discredit their opponents.” (Van Zyl Smit 2002: 117) The utilization of this

additional interpretation further validates the point that “power is used to exclude women” and

additionally creates an extremely strong connection to the modern world both with gender power

structure and modern political power.

The argument that was found the least compelling, or rather the most abstract, is her

painting Medea as a female icon. This was the hardest to follow because it neglects to take in the

negative aspects of Medea’s character throughout Euripides’ play. The main example she uses to

support this opinion is the reflection of the Chorus throughout the play which often offers a

perspective of empathy for Medea’s circumstances and the outcome of her action. Van Zyl Smit

identifies a certain connection between the Chorus and Medea based on feminism because they

can simultaneously connect as “all survivors of the sex war” (Van Zyl Smit 2002: 119) That

quote is extremely powerful, but it is hard to follow when it connects to the overarching point
she tries to make for Medea as an icon because it is a one-sided interpretation of the myth as a

whole. The Chorus’s perspective paints Medea as an icon in opposition to “a monster” which

does not take into account the complexity of Medea’s character as a whole. (Van Zyl Smit 2002:

119) Although most readers can agree that the play can be read as one with themes rooted in

feminism, characterizing her as an icon insinuates that her behavior is something to be modeled

after, which is a rash interpretation that is harder to follow than most of her other points. Readers

can appreciate the certainty of the author in associating the qualities of an icon, like her rejection

of gender and power stereotypes in ancient Greek society, with Medea. However, the connection

between Medea as an icon and the theme, or, interpretation of the play as a whole is one of the

weaker points she makes in her argument.

Overall, Betine Van Zyl Smit’s Medea the Feminist Interpretation provides a powerful

insight into a feminist analysis of Euripides’ play Medea. She considers all different aspects of

the play through a lens that focuses on power and gender hierarchy, and their association to the

development of the plot and Medea’s character as a whole. The way she highlights the complex

nature of Medea’s character and her decisions in the plot encourages readers overall to reflect on

female agency and its application in the modern world.

These two pieces of literature, when used together to analyze the larger implications of a

revolutionary story like Medea, point to an interesting interpretation of people’s ability to

connect with generally villainous characters. The answer is not a clear one, and many researchers

point to sympathy as a psychological response that often justifies any character’s wrong-doings.

Simi Tiwari, in their journal "Sympathetic Villains in Film and Literature: The

Psychological Appeal of Immortality in Fiction,” focused on the importance of “morally gray

characters and villains.” (Tiwari 2022) Humans like the complexity of characters that aren’t just

completely good or just completely evil, but instead, the ones that encompass both are the most

complex and relatable. Medea could be considered one of those morally gray characters,

although an extremely rash example, and this allows the audience to look past her evil to

sympathize with the betrayal she has experienced. She left her family, friends, status, and home

all for a man who decided to wed another woman. This is seen time and time again in modern

culture and although this is an ancient story, the themes of rage and revenge are still incredibly

prevalent and applicable. The themes throughout the myth make it so modern writers and readers

can see it through different lenses, further morphing the interpretation of Medea as a character to

reflect the periods she applies to.

Another interesting aspect of the audience’s connection to Medea is what the role of

morality plays in such a harsh storyline as the one written by Euripides. Tiwari calls to mind two

different options for why humans can connect with stereotypically “evil” characters. The first is

that morality by definition is a spectrum, and no single person has the same interpretation of

right and wrong as everyone else. (Tiwari 2022) A clear example of this is in Van Zyl Smit’s

Medea the Feminist, where she characterizes Medea as a female icon for her actions in the play,

despite the clear moral implications of murder. Van Zyl Smit in her interpretation can look past

the physical danger of Medea’s actions in the play to see the bigger picture; what female

rejection of male ideals can do to gendered power structure. However, there are plenty of

interpretations that chastise Medea’s actions and completely disagree with the interpretation

above, which clearly shows that morality is a spectrum after all.

The other interpretation is more overarching, explaining that the audience can't connect

with the villain in a work without “compromising their moral belief system,” at least slightly.
(Tiwari 2022) This makes perfect sense in the context of the play and modern feminist

interpretation, despite the era separation. The chorus in Euripides’ Medea functions as a

sympathizer with the main character, as well as a path for Medea to connect entirely with the

audience. Medea’s struggles, cries for help, and rage are heard and seen by everyone in the

house, but most importantly, her first-hand monologues and input from the chorus are what

prompt a strong connection with the audience. The audience knows she plots on killing Jason’s

new bride, and her children, and most importantly how she does it all sheerly to ruin Jason’s life.

It is that dedication of her character in combination with her desperation that creates the source

of sympathy, the audience can realize the rage and grief that comes with acting out of spite.

However, this connection cannot be built without slightly compromising beliefs overall.

Although morality is a spectrum, killing is one action most people can agree is immoral, so why

can the audience look past her evil acts? Murder is one of the harshest extremes of what rage and

betrayal can trigger in a person, but the reason for the connection is the audience can picture just

how enraging having life and livelihood taken can be. It isn't rational or justifiable, but the

emotional response is the relatability of Medea.

Overall, Medea is a character and her story is a revolutionary one in Greek mythology.

There are largely conflicting opinions of whether she should be characterized as a protagonist or

antagonist, but the distinction is not as clear as readers would hope. Her character is complex and

unique, one that the audience can sympathize with, but still be in fear of. Despite different lenses

and theories used to delve into her as a character, she is a revolutionary one. Medea is the picture

of female defiance in a male-dominated world, and she embodies a never-before-seen before

relatability and connection with a woman in Greek mythology as a main character.

 Works Cited

Svarlien, Diane Arnson, trans. 2008. Medea. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing

Company, Inc.

Van Zyl Smit, Betine. "Medea the feminist." Acta Classica: Proceedings of the Classical

Association of South Africa. Vol. 45. No. 1. Classical Association of South Africa

(CASA), 2002.

Tiwari, Simi. "Sympathetic Villains in Film and Literature: The Psychological Appeal of

Immorality in Fiction." Journal The Criterion 13.1 (2022): 331.