229
« on: March 27, 2002, 08:38:34 AM »
Another great topic, Prof!
Vlad said, "The central horror of "Medea" is her slaying of her own children to spite Jason -- an act that might give even Angelique pause (though it would be interesting to consider the possibilities!)."
We studied Medea in one of my theatre design classes a million years ago, and I actually wrote a paper for my theatre history class last semester with Medea as one of the centeral points. I drew a lot of comparisons to Ang, and still do. The actual focus of my paper was how Greek myths were used almost exclusively at the time as fodder for their plays -- Euripides took the myth of Medea, where she was portrayed very one dimensionally as a sorceress versed in dark arts who schemed to win Jason's hand and sacrificed important things to her (like her brother) to get what she wanted, and painted her as a much more complex character.
Upon deciding that the only way to avenge herself is to kill her husband's new girlfriend, the never-seen Princess, Medea sends her children to her bearing the gift of a robe ... poisoned, of course, and it sends the poor princess up in flames, and takes daddy with her. Medea realizes that her children will be slain now in retaliation for their part, all unknowing, of their mother's not-so-niceties. Quoth Medea, "Women, my task is fixed: as quickly as I may to kill my children, and start away from this land, and not, by wasting time, to suffer my children to be slain by another hand less kindly to them. Force every way will have it they must die, and since this must be so, then I, their mother, shall kill them. Oh, arm yourself in steel, my heart! Do not hang back from doing this fearful and necessary wrong. Oh come, my hand, poor wretched hand, and take the sword ... and do not be a coward, do not think of them, how sweet they are, and how you are their mother. Just for this one short day be forgetful of your children, afterward weep; for even though you kill them, they were very dear; Oh, I am an unhappy woman (Euripides, 40)!"
I realize that defending Medea is a pretty hopeless task -- a woman who stabs her own children doesn't engender much sympathy with people these days -- and I find the same is true for Angelique. It can be argued that Medea's children wouldn't have been fated to die if she had simply swallowed her pride and not sought revenge, but it is important to realize that Euripides provided Medea with a conscience, a struggle over what was right and wrong, and guilt over her actions that is not as clearly defined in her part of the story of the Golden Fleece. Though her actions were ultimately reprehensible, Euripides did not present her as an amoral, heartless witch (though those are the epithets hurled at her by Jason in the play's conclusion).
I guess my main point is that one of the reasons I've always loved Angelique is that she doesn't fall into your standard villain category (this will prove especially true in 1897 and the Leviathan storyline). Like Euripides' version of Medea, she's quite complex, with many layers, and shades and shades (buckets and buckets) of gray. I know that many people will disagree with me, but I've always wanted to give Angelique (and poor ol' Medea too, who gave up the humanity she tried to achieve with the death of her children, and flew away into the heavens in a chariot driven by dragons, and no one has ever made a cooler exit than that) a chance at defense.
(Of course, we also have her not-so-much-fun actions, like sending Josette off the hill DELIBERATELY, or trying to have Liz buried alive, or turning Quentin into a zombie, or ... well, you get the picture).
Nicky (unusually verbose tonight)
Show Posts