Medea
Euripides
70 p.

Natur och Kultur
(published together with Aischylos’ Agamemnon.)

Back cover blurb:

[---]

MEDEA av Euripides (ca 485-406 f.Kr.) är svartsjukans, den kvinnliga lidelsens och könskampens drama. Euripides tog i sina dramer upp psykologiska och sociala frågor och tvekade inte att ifrågasätta gamla värderingar. Hon tillhör dem som lade grund för den moderna litteraturen och har haft en oerhörd betydelse för europeisk dramatik och skönlitteratur.

This is another thing I read for school. If it wasn’t in the school syllabus, I probably wouldn’t have read it, as it is Greek and Greek is my sister’s field, not mine. But I read it, and I enjoyed it. Or, that is to say, I enjoyed the first sixty-five pages. Then Medea was given a chariot with dragons, and I just did not buy that. Where did those dragons come from anyway?! As a moralistic work, this is complete and utter bullshit. Someone kills - directly or indirectly - an insane amount of people, but is still given the moral highground, because her husband cheated on her. Even the fact that she kills her own sons doesn’t seem to faze the gods. This made me incredibly upset. I am not a nice person, I don’t hold too much on morals and all that, but there is something seriously wrong with something like that.

I must also admit not being too fond of Medea. I thought she, as a character, was a bit too hysterical, a bit too mad, without any good cause. A lot of people in my year enjoyed her immensely, and whilst I really liked the story overall, she didn’t convince me. Neither did the ending. However, this might be related to that this is the first Greek play I have ever read. If I had read more, I might be more impressed. The fact that many seem to dislike the ending of the play makes me feel relieved. For once it isn’t me who is deviating from general opinion. I always feel so wrong when I do that.

However, my class is going to do our best to dramatise at least parts of the play, and I am very excited. As you are.