Page 27 - GALIET INFINITE MEDEA: Euripides IV

Our hollow eyes of evening dropping in twos like tears and tears.
For Medea, killing her sons is as equal in sin as a Jason deserting filial bonds. We do know that Medea would not have acted if Jason hadn’t been power and ejaculation thirsty. Without the scales of an in-depth psychological-ethical- philosophical character study, it is difficult to ascertain whether Medea is truly seen and labelled by the Athenian male- audience as the archetypal bad woman: ‘the other.’ As it is, we just don’t know; we don’t know even now, how then, whether it is logically possible to be moral or not. Whatever negative Medean impressions Athenians bring with them to their theatre, it is at least likely that they will have felt mixed, sombre feelings by performance’s end or
Art Response & Sophistry. that, in this or that timeline, theatregoers suffer their peculiar pangs independent from the ‘herd pangs.’ Human beings respond differently to works of theatre and art depending on a complex cultural, moral, social, religious and individual thermometer. Even in a festering, wounded, oozing war ravaged and sophistic Greece, the communal cultural lens, once fogged, would precipitate different, diverse and divisive opinions. Plato, idealist and moralist 3⁄4 dweller of the glorious hyper-uranus 3⁄4 in his Euthydemus Dialogue47 equates the risk of a Sophistic examination by Dionysodorus with the risk of being incinerated to ground-zero, of surrendering himself to Medea
47Plato. Complete Works. Cooper, John M. Hackett Publishing Company. Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1997.
• 27•