Talk:Medea (play)

Glauce or Creusa?
What's the deal with Glauce/Creusa? I'm pretty sure she's called Creusa in my copy of it (of course, I don't have it with me now, but I certainly did when I originally expanded this article...did I miss something?). Adam Bishop 04:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I checked in my copy at home, apparently she is unnamed in Euripides' version. Adam Bishop 02:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen her go by both names, depends on the source. - Ravenous 07:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The original text of Euripides' "Medea" gives her no name. He simply mentions "Creon's child." In my translation, I've used Glauce (line 16) because that's how she'd be known by the Greeks at Euripides' time. It is not until Propertius, a Roman poet 1st C. BC and Seneca (Roman philosopher and tragedian, 1st C AD) that we see the name Creusa (which is the feminine form of the name Creon, ie, her father) User: Solowords/ 9.05 29 August 2010 G. Theodoridis []


 * If I get round to sorting out the plot in the article, I intend to render her as neither Glauce nor Creusa, because, as the comments above me say: no name. But this is unless someone interposes either a defence for whatever name, or sorts out the plot before I do, or both. Untitled50reg (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If there was a pre-existing character from mythology named Glauce who was Creon's daughter and who was going to marry Jason but was murdered by Medea, then the character in the play is Glauce. I mean if there were some play that never mentions Poseidon by name but a character once invokes the "King of the Sea" and this is unambiguously understood to be referring to Poseidon, then we wouldn't say "technically this deity being invoked is unnamed, so we can't describe it as Poseidon in the article". I say keep the name but note somewhere in the article that she is not named in the original text and was called Creusa by the Romans.HonestManBad (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hm. Well that seems to me like renaming Lady Macbeth (whose name is not even Lady Macbeth) Gruoch of Scotland. And, accordingly, discussion over whether to call a no-named character (who is not even in the play) Glauce or Creusa is a lot like when people discuss whether Gruoch (for that's her name now) faints legitimately around-about the "help-me-hence-ho", or whatever she says, while this faint is merely an editor-intrusion (ie, not even in the play). Untitled50reg (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, i just read "ποντομέδων" in Euripides' Hippolytus, translated "lord of the sea" in the Loeb; which reminded me of the above Poseidon-argument; which i tell you, because it has a footnote suggesting that it might be Proteus. (pp. 196-7). Untitled50reg (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * One play is a depiction of a previously-known episode in mythology, in which one of the pre-existing mythological characters just happens to not be referred to by name. The other is a play depicting an original story containing original characters based on historical persons.
 * I stipulated in my Poseidon example that it was specifically about a case where there was an unambiguous reference to an unnamed deity. HonestManBad (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything is ambiguous. As they say: there are no facts, only interpretations. Naming a no-name is a glaringly extraneous manifestation of the latter, having cut its umbilical cord, and run off to refashion the facts of its own birth to accord with its interpretation thereof. This interpretation's parent is neither Glauce nor Creusa, no matter how similar.


 * Hoping to be clear: my interpretation is that a deity at such a point called Whatever-of-the-Sea, is no more than that, namely a deity at such a point called Whatever-of-the-Sea. Slapping anything else on it is very interpretation, and a scrawny milksop of an argument for refashioning an interpretation of its birth. With the utmost clarity: Glauce and Creusa are entirely extraneous to the Medea-play as it stands. Mythology is separate; a thing refracted by Euripides back into itself. Whichever daughter of whoever might be believed to have had this whatever-name; but in the Medea-play, this character of disputed name not only does not have a name in the play, but is not even in the play. The character is only in report. Untitled50reg (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality and motherhood in Medea
I wnat to get some inputs which will give some light on the different aspects of Motherhood and sexuality in the Play

Too many quotes?
This article uses quite a few quotes, and they are in a couple different formats. It makes it look pretty cluttered. I say we trim the quotes down and standardize their format. Who agrees? - Ravenous 02:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

'Medea' as a 'feminist' work
Perhaps Medea should be compared with Aeschylus' Clytaemnestra as they are similar in many ways as strong and resolute female characters of Greek drama. The quote, 'Medea, uncharacteristically for a female character, is strong and powerful', appears to ignore Clytaemnestra.

Nicander 12:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd consider Antigone a strong female character as well, especially as Sophocles portrays her. Looking at Euripides' other plays, there are several others as well... perhaps we should start by getting rid of this "uncharacteristically" quote, since it's not true. - Ravenous 15:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed it along with this other sentence since it's along those same lines: "Euripides breaks with tradition, having a female lead with what in Greek drama were very male characteristics and by having a female chorus (traditionally, the chorus consisted of city elders)." On the subject of the chorus, Aeschylus and Sophocles both had some female choruses in their existing plays. - Ravenous 05:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Describing Medea as 'strong and powerful' is an understatement, and in general there are huge problems with trying to claim Medea as a feminist work, in the sense of a work that celebrates a strong and independent female character. In many ways, the play doesn't celebrate Medea at all but deplores her. I've read a scholarly article from as far back as 1957 which points out that the play begins by seducing the audience into celebrating Medea as a female hero who subscribes to the heroic code, but it then turns around and demonstrates the consequences of the same code: Medea kills her own children because she would rather see them die than suffer dishonour from the mockery of her enemies. Lexo (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[Resolved] Garbled?
At time of writing, the article is devoid of reaction and this quasi-sentence.Untitled50reg (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I cannot make sense of this quasi-sentence in the section "Reaction": "To have included an indecisive chorus, his criticism of Athenian society and his eventual disrespect for the gods — inhibit in Artemis, the acclaimed goddess of light and justice, acting for the now apparently evil Medea in carrying her to King Aegeus, was to repeal the purpose of the Dionysian plays: to appreciate Grecian society and uphold the power of the gods."

If anyone thinks they can, they should correct it. pmr (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Theatre Assessment
--Dereksmootz (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Start class - Themes headings is a good heading stub, but needs expansion. Quotes in plot probably aren't necessary, particularly the soliliquy (unless it is notable independently, in which case it probably belongs in its own section).
 * Low importance - a single play constitutes a "highly specific area of knowledge."


 * I agree that the article isn't very good yet, but for the WikiProject Theatre to assess the article on Euripides' Medea as "low importance" because it's about only one play is...well, the kindest thing I can think of to say about that is that it's an interesting assessment. This is one of the most famous, most influential, most-translated, most-adapted, most-commented-upon plays ever written. Euripides is one of a tiny handful of figures who stand at the source of all world drama, and this is almost certainly his most famous play. Lexo (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that I assessed it as such as part of an assessment spree where I went through the list of unassessed articles within the Wikiproject, probably with the attitude that "a vaguely informed assessment is better than no assessment", which may not be the best philosophy... I'm not a subject matter expert by any means, and am happy to defer to you.  To that end and per your recommendation, I've updated it to high importance.  If you see that I've committed similar faux pas with other plays, please correct them - they're likely just as hastily done. Dereksmootz (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't time to go through all the other plays you've assessed, but will stick with this one page, thanks, as it's more than enough to be going on with. (My last search in JSTOR for articles on 'Euripides Medea' threw up 4509 articles.) Lexo (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

new translations
I checked out the site as I wanted to trace a translation/adaptation that I heard on bbc radio several months ago - it was an adaptation as it involved a present day setting and a father with limited access rights taking his children to the sea if I recall correctly,and killing them. Does anyone know the play? The translation that i find compelling is that by Robin Robertson Vintage 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.169.153 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[Resolved] Did some cleanup...
Took out lots of the needless excerpts. Added some refs, etc. Ifnkovhg (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
What's with the bizarrely fustian translations? They seem to have been added by Adam Bishop in an edit of 25 January 2005 when he merged another article with this one, but I've compared them to a good modern translation (John Harrison, Cambridge U.P., 1999) and also to the original text (ed. J. Diggle, OCT 1984) and besides being stuffily Victorian (and giving a quite inaccurate impression of what the play is like) they're also largely inaccurate. In some cases they are garbled conflations of lines from two different speeches, in other cases they seem to be outright fabrications on the part of the translator. I will replace them with more accurate versions and if WP lets me, I'll include the original lines. Lexo (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I agree with this point - there's still quotes like 'perchance thou mayst' - a bit too much! Since the above point is from nine years ago I'll try to change some of the quotes to ones from a 2004 translation by Stephen Esposito. Treereader, 15/5/2019

Include background of Jason and Medea's relationship?
I find it sort of odd that this isn't included, since it deals with the nature of Medea's relationship with Jason, which the ancient Greek audience knew about. It's in Metamorphoses, book VII. The themes section ignores the problematic dynamic Medea was pursuing with Jason - one based on pride and possession.

"[...] though she long fought against it, her reason could not subdue her mad desire [...] 'some strange influence weighs heavily upon me, and desire sways me one way, reason another [...] Why do you, a princess, burn with love for a stranger? Why dream of marriage with a foreigner? [...] Shall I then betray my father's kingdom, and by my help [...] set sail without me, and become another woman's husband [...] if he could prefer some other woman to me, then let him perish, the ungrateful wretch! [...] The things I leave behind are of little worth, but precious are the objects I pursue - the glory of having saved the Greek heroes, a knowledge of a better land than this, and cities whose fame has spread even to these shores. I shall become acquainted with all the art and culture of such cities, and I shall have Jason [my italics], for whom I would barter all the wealth the world holds. With him as my husband, men will call me the fortunate favourite of heaven, and my head will touch the stars!'" (Metamorphoses, translated my Mary M. Innes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.20.21 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Though I would not oppose background, I would oppose using any Metamorphoses as background, being composed significantly later.Untitled50reg (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

[Resolved] External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medea (play). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120822034042/http://www.paperstrangers.org/ to http://www.paperstrangers.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

[Resolved] Misandry?
Emendation apparently accepted.Untitled50reg (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding, the only mention of the play in the source Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man seems to be in reference to a letter-writer to The New York Times (p. 143) – not exactly the "feminist critics" alluded to. Other references pertain to a novel by Christa Wolf, not the play. Therefore I've removed the text, which had NPOV problems as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Plot-mess and general want.
The plot offered in the article, at time of writing, is verbose and riddled with errors. For myself, i am very inclined to eviscerating it. But since i do not know when (or if) i certainly will do so, and am equally inclined to letting someone else do so, i wiggle my goad.

There is zeal for the importance of the article, and pointing out the sea of secondary literature, but little attempt to thrust such actually into the article. I almost certainly won't do this. If you read this, you are formally invited to engage thrusting.

Content- and stylewise, the article is messy. I attempted to tidy some of it (as mentioned, i remain inclined to eviscerating the plot), but have been stymied in places. Untitled50reg (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Argument
Alleging that "Need an argument for all Greek tragedies otherwise there is no motivation for the plot. Characters seem far more ruthless and shallow without the argument. meaningless", Darylprasad inserted what was allegedly an argument. I am cutting this from the article, both because i strongly disagree with the reason for its insertion, and strongly object to the inserted text itself. But, like Creon, i am not a tyrant. I paste it here, and request even one reason why i should not have removed this.

"When the Heroes, who sailed in the ship Argo to bring home the Golden Fleece, came to the land of Colchis, they found that to win that treasure was a deed passing the might of mortal man, so terribly was it guarded by monsters magical, even fire-breathing bulls and an unsleeping dragon. But Aphrodite caused Medea the sorceress, daughter of Aeetes the king of the land, to love Jason their captain, so that by her magic he overcame the bulls and the dragon. Then Jason took the Fleece, and Medea withal, for that he had pledged him to wed her in the land of Greece. But as they fled, Absyrlus her brother pursued them with a host of war, yet by Medea's devising was he slain. So they came to the laud of Iolcos, and to Pelias, who held the kingdom which was Jason's of right. But Medea by her magic wrought upon Pelias' daughters so that they slew their father. Yet by reason of men's horror of the deed might not Jason and Medea abide in the land, and they came to Corinth. But there all men rejoiced for the coming of a hero so mighty in war and a lady renowned for wisdom unearthly, for that Medea was grandchild of the Sungod. But a after ten years, Creon the king of the land spake to Jason, saying, " Lo, I will give thee my daughter to wife, and thou shall reign after me, if thou wilt put away thy wife Medea; but her and her two sons will I banish from the land." So Jason consented. And of this befell things strange and awful, which are told herein." Untitled50reg (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations of Literary Study
— Assignment last updated by Marisamasanchan (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

operas
No operas are listed.

Perhaps the most well-known is Cherubini's, with Callas in the title role

RegardsDJ DuncanJay (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Modern Productions and Adaptations
Why did someone deem the list "excessive"? A list can be quickly scanned or ignored. Someone took the time to painstakingly compile the list, which may be useful to others doing research. It makes no sense to cull it frivolously. Ariadne000 (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)