In the play Medea, the ambivalence of marriage is illustrated in the interplay between Jason and Medea after Jason decides to marry Glauke, daughter of the king of Corinth. Jason and Medea’s union is particularly ambivalent, as both these two characters themselves display an unstable sense of logic. Indeed, superficially, their marriage seems to meet all the requirements for a successful union in antiquity, especially because of the presence of their children. Medea herself tells Jason that “if [children] had not been, you would have had an excuse of another wedding,” clearly suggesting that children is the deciding factor of whether a marriage is sound or not. Children after all, do not only prove that there exists a loving and sexual relationship between a couple, but also that the dynastic line is ensured. Furthermore, children also serve as bonds that keep a marriage together, because whatever differences parents may have, such as Medea and Jason’s cultural backgrounds, their children will always serve as reminders of what history they have shared together. However, despite these outward manifestations of an ideal situation, something more is at play than meets the eye; Medea and Jason both experience internal confrontations of passion and reason, which affects their decisions concerning their marriage, and equally affects the people around them. Jason for instance, while trying to assuage Medea’s anger, tells her that he married Glauke “in [Medea’s] best interest and the children’s… that [they] may live well and not be short of anything.” Though clearly grasping at straws, and trying to appeal to the greater good in order to rationalize what is essentially a broken promise, a look deeper shows that Jason is also trying to convince himself that what he is doing is perfectly reasonable and still remains an example of civilized culture. This is, however, a desire to fulfill his primal instinct of greed; even if he is telling the truth and that he merely wishes economic security for his house, he still is solely thinking about himself and his needs, and merely justifies his action with a meager attempt at rationale. Medea’s equally discordant rationalism is manifested in her conflicting desires to both exact revenge on her unfaithful husband, and to keep her children safe and outside her conflict with Jason. She even argues with herself on this matter, saying, “Poor heart, let them go, have pity upon the children… No! By Hell’s avenging furies it shall not be.” Medea vacillates internally between what reason and civilization dictates, that is, to keep her children from harm, and what her instinctive reaction to being hurt, which is to lash out, tells her to do. In the end she attempts to rationalize following her instinct rather than her conscience by telling herself that she is protecting her children from external harm—from the people of Corinth—by killing them herself, and declaring, “this shall never be, that I should suffer my children to be the prey of my enemies’ insolence.” (Medea, Euripides, lines 1060-1062) The marriage of these two ambivalent natures thus cannot have any positive effects on their surroundings except to consume whatever is in their path, be it Glauke, king Creon, or their own children.

Andromache’s experiences with marriage, however, seems to illustrate the ambivalence of the institution itself, as her first marriage gives a glimpse of what an ideal should be, and her second, of what a nightmare it can be. Her married life with Hector is barely addressed to in Euripides, as if it was so perfect that it does not need to be re-iterated; the story already dwells in the minds of the audience just as ideals are already inculcated into our own minds.

Some topics in this essay:
Woods O’Brien, Andromache Euripides, Medea Jason, Kathy John, , Medea Euripides, Jason Medea’s, Medea Andromache, John Wade, Analogous Medea, lake woods, lake woods o’brien, woods o’brien, euripides lines, andromache euripides, andromache euripides lines, kathy john, institution marriage, andromache’s marriage, lives people, cut ties bind, ambivalence marriage, “it nature,