Saturday, October 7, 2017
Medea vs. Oedipus
Medea and Oedipus, the characters around which the two plays we read are centered, have many similar qualities. They both are intelligent and able to use their wit to get around obstacles and solve problems. They're also both pretty brave and quick on their feet in the face of danger. There are a lot of negative attributes they share as well. Both Medea and Oedipus are extremely concerned with their pride and reputation. Oedipus can't stand to be wrong; Medea will not tolerate being slighted. However, more than all of these traits, what Medea and Oedipus share the most is their inability to control their own fates. Medea and Oedipus are both capable human beings (clearly Oedipus is more at an advantage, though), but they are pawns of divine authority and cannot change their destinies. Oedipus is obviously completely driven by the prophecy of his life; he has no chance of avoiding his predestination. Medea is controlled by an outside force in a more subtle way. A lovespell was cast on her by Cypris, which can arguably justify her powerful emotions for Jason both in the positive and negative manners. At the end of the day, Medea and Oedipus can try their hardest to avoid their destinies with their intelligence but their fates are sealed. I think this is really important to consider because the downfall of both Medea and Oedipus is arguably not caused by something they directly dude. Sure, Oedipus did choose to kill a man on whim when he knew what his destiny consisted of, but no matter what he would've had to fulfill the destiny in some way, maybe more indirectly. In general, both characters couldn't alter their fates and didn't directly cause their downfalls by an act of their own doing which poses a very pertinent question: are they really tragic protagonists?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think the comparison of Medea and Oedipus is really interesting; however, I'm not really sure about the analysis of each characters' free will. Medea does have some of her actions seemingly controlled by Cypris, but I don't think this is the cause of all of her actions in the play. I think her plot for revenge is carried out under her own free will, and she could have chosen to do otherwise. In the context of the story, as Aristotle says, it seems logically inevitable that Medea will act the way she does, but I don't think this means she has no control over her actions. Similarly, I think you can argue both for and against Oedipus' free will, but personally I think it's a more interesting and compelling story if we think of Oedipus as in control of his actions. While the prophecies do come true and the more he tries to avoid them, the more they seem to come true, I still think it's his personality and actions that lead to his downfall. I think in the context of the tragedy, it's most interesting to consider Oedipus as a tragic hero whose own actions cause his downfall.
I understand your points, Bryce, and I do agree with them on some level. Definitely the plot holds more dimensions and layers if the characters of Oedipus and Medea also contribute to their downfall. If their attributes ultimately alter their fate, a greater lesson resonates with the audience and the two tragic emotions (pity and fear) can better be evoked. However, I still think destiny is the most important force at work in both plays. Of course, Medea does ultimately have control over certain elements of how she deals with her betrayal; however, we as an audience do not know the extent of Cypris' spell. We do not know how emotionally intense Medea was in both love and rage prior to the spell. We do not know if only her passionate love and not her incessant rage were caused by the spell. But, we do know that Medea took the affairs of her heart very seriously thanks to the spell, which certainly contributed to her anger when her heart was broken. For Oedipus, I feel like as much as he could have tried to escape killing his father and marrying his mother, he would have ended up doing so anyways. I think even if he didn't intend on killing his father or anyone in general, either by accident or indirectly he would have killed him just because destiny must happen. He has no control even if he is extremely cautious. We brought up in class that the gods would no longer be gods if their word and prophecies didn't occur; therefore, Oedipus' fate is sealed no matter what. He has control over his everyday temperament and actions but not over the two predictions of the prophecy. Again, this concept of predestination and lack of free will takes away from the messages of the stories, but they certainly cannot be disregarded when trying to fully interpret the plays.
I also think it's more interesting to consider the characters as having free will. The way I’ve been thinking of it is a combination of free will and destiny—that is, the destiny comes about because of the characters’ free will.
I’ll try to explain this in a way that makes more sense. I like to think that the characters have free will—as Bryce said, lack of free will would make things a bit boring in my opinion. So, Oedipus makes choices independently of what the gods want or preordained. He decides to run away from home, he decides to kill Laius—no one forces him into that. All of his choices, though—which result from his free will—add up and contribute to the fulfillment of the prophecy. It’s not necessarily that the gods intervene to make Oedipus act in a certain way, but more that his future actions are already known to them.
I know that Calvin didn’t believe in free will, but his way of thinking is similar in some ways. He believed that one’s fate was predetermined, and people themselves could not change whether they were destined for salvation or damnation. That concept was always off-putting to me, especially until I read more about what he meant. God, he thought, was omnipotent and omniscient—He already knows all of our future actions. And because God already knows how we will turn out and what we’ll be like before we are even born, He knows the fate of our souls.
I don’t think either interpretation is right or wrong, better or worse. But it is fascinating to see so many different ways of thinking about these concepts, all linked but hardly ever the exact same.
Post a Comment