The myth of Medea killing her own children does not exist before the fifth century BCE. It is a later addition by writers promoting a patriarchal society.
@@LorentJalabert Well, actually, yeah. In no world were those kids not getting killed after what Medea did, but what her enemies would've done to the kids would by far be worse than how Medea murdered them.
Medea didn't have magical powers because she had the blood of gods she had magical powers because she learned them. she was a student of Hecate and her father was a powerful immortal sorcerer. Medea was powerful because she was a woman who could do things that the men around her couldn't, not only with spells but she was also extremely cunning and wasn't afraid to speak her mind. When you look at powerful women like Medea in greek myths they kind of have to be scary they have to do evil things to survive, lest you become the woman who dies at the end.
Also she didn't kill her children because she didn't love them neither in order to just hurt Jason. He could just kill him as well after all. She killed the children because they were boys and royal descendants. By killing his sons she left him childless and without any heirs of royal ancestry. And that because Jason was extremely ambitious to become a king himself. That is the reason why he went to the Quest for the Golden Fleece after all. He wanted to take the throne from Pelias that was his half uncle and king of Thessaly. Medea helped him to get the Golden Fleece and he married her because she was herself the daughter of a king. And then after having two sons with her she abandoned her to go for another heiress and another kingdom. If Medea didn't kill the children Jason would have had the heirs of one kingdom and the wife and probably the children heirs of a second kingdom. Medea by killing the new wife and her father (he was collateral damage) and the children she left Jason exactly where he started.
@@creativecolours2022 it seems everybody had forgot that Medea did not fall in love with Jason on her own, that was because Hera made sure Eros shot her with one of his arrows. One can only speculate when divine intervention ends and personal agency begins with Medea. At time went on, as Medea continued to help Jason,. she just goes to the nth degree, way beyond what is necessary, resorting to deception and murder in the most gruesome fashion. So just as she helped Jason with such fanatical zeal, she sought revenge on the same level. It appears Eros' arrow droved her insane.
Thank you so much sir, I appreciate the hardwork you put in video as a English language and literature student, this summary and analysis will help me a lot in my exam of the Origins of Western Literature tomorrow
This did not go over her conversation with the king from the other state who granted her protection if she came to his country once she was exiled. Really important to know. Edit: it does mention him
Reading Madea was torturing. Listening to the audio version of it was better, but not great. Watching you summarize it with animation was exciting. A little misleading since the play is boring (to me anyway), but still exciting. Bravo.
@@gulkucuk7696 you still need to reference anything paraphrased or summarised in academia, and telling a uni student not to use youtube videos as reference in an academic video just ignores the current landscape of academia, and belittles the incredible efforts of educators and academics that use this platform.
i know this comment is a year old but just as reference for anyone else looking at this answer, i would cite course hero since that is the ultimate company this information is published through!
Or maybe, in some irrational way, even after all the betrayal, she still loved him? And it was easier for her to imagine her life without a children than him, or she simply wanted to live with conscioussnes of causing him harm …. Even thou just temporary. Ambitchious man like Jason will father new children with new heiress in no time
I always find that the analysis of this play fails to see the wood for the trees. The more feminism is connected to this play, the more it seems like feminism is the ideology of the selfish and cruel (perhaps they should stop doing it). For all of the grievances of Medea, no sane person could argue that this is worth snuffing out two innocent lives. The intellectual understanding of this story seems to lose all humanity as it callously disregards the murder of children in favour of a selfish and petty woman. She conveniently abdicates responsibility for her act, as if she possessed no other choices but to cruelly do even more harm to her children than she has had done to her
Keep in mind this is a play written by a man in a firmly patriarchal society. Medea isn’t a representation of feminism as it was then or today. In fact it’s shows the sexism of society back then by portraying a powerful and cunning woman as secuming to what was thought to be feminine weakness. Killing her children is the “overly emotional” response sexist society would expect from a woman.
