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 [[1]]

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)

Garbled?

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

• 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."

--Dereksmootz (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)