People can be blind to love, truth, or reality in general. The reason can be strong emotions or an intention to escape a traumatizing situation. At the same time, the outcomes of such blindness are usually tragic. Euripides was a master of creating dramatic plays that encapsulated the strongest emotions of a person by engaging them into the traumatizing actions and experiences. Particularly, the topic of blindness is particularly vividly represented in Euripides’s “Medea” (Euripides 17). She is overwhelmed with her frustration and anger on Jason’s betrayal and humiliation. In the swirl of a blind rage Medea commits unspeakable things, murdering her rival as well as her children. While Medea’s actions regarding future bride of Jason are more or less understandable, the rationale of murdering her own children roots in the blind rage rather than common sense. In the blindness of her rage, Medea exclaims “Oh, what misery! Cursed sons, and a mother for cursing! Death takes you all – you and your father” (Euripides 19). Here, the main heroine is distressed about the curse, which as she fears fell upon her and her children. Thus, she tries to explain her blindness by superstition.
At the same time, Medea’s blindness has an egoistic and destructive nature. She has betrayed her people for her own will seeing nothing wrong in her actions. Therefore, she remains blind by her emotions to Jason, believing that he will take care of her. At the same time, it is quite clear that she does not see that Jason treats her as his mistress already, despite the fact that they have children. He claims, “it makes no difference to me But for what you have said against the royal family think yourself lucky to be punished with exile” (Euripides 20). It is quite clear that Jason sees Medea as a newcomer to his land, where her right for being the equal is refused. It is possible to say that Medea is blind in both her love and rage towards Jason, as she does not see that she and her children have been already in the precarious situation. Jason’s marriage to a royal family member will mean that she had to realize her situation before involving into the relationship. While during those days, offending a royalty meant to be punished, the attitude to Medea is quite understandable.
The main heroine does not see that she does not belong to Jason’s people and he clearly understands it. While being a hero in this land, Jason’s marriage to a compatriot is understandable, as it is dictated by the time and place where the actions of the play take place. Yet Medea is still preoccupied with her blind rage. At the same time, it is impossible to claim that she acts irrationally. Her explanation of killing children is dictated by the desire to hurt Jason as strongly as possible. Thus, Medea does not poison him, he hurts people he cares about the most. She explains her intentions to kill children by saying that “it is the supreme way to hurt my husband” (Euripides 39). At the same time, there are some rays of light in her blindness, as she laments “my heart dissolves why damage them in trying to hurt their father, and only hurt myself twice over?” (Euripides 39). It is quite clear that Medea does not see the way out of her position not because of her state in the foreign land, but is denial of looking in the eyes of truth.
Medea is the most blind of the characters in the plays, as her personal blindness is multifaceted; it penetrates her feelings at several levels. She does not see clearly in terms of her relationship with Jason and the local people. Medea is a barbarian to them as well as for Jason, who cannot marry an Outlander according to the rules of his people. She also does not see that her actions regarding to her people labeled her as a betrayer as well, where the actions towards her can be considered as justified.
Comparison of the Notions of Fate
The notion of fate plays essential role in Greek tragedy; it determines the actions of its heroes and explains the circumstances the characters encountered with. It is possible to claim that fate in Greek plays usually serve as a catalyst for the tragedy to grow and develop. In Greek tragedy, fate is inevitable and it is not questioned either by the protagonists or the narrators. Yet, the play does not pursue the topic of racial inequality or unfairness, it simply creates a trigger for the further development of the tragedy. For instance, in “Medea” the main heroine is destined to exile due to her disrespect to the royal family (Euripides 26). Despite her children and affiliation with Jason, she has to leave the land. The topic is not pursued as the social or gender inequality, but serves as the main catalyst of the tragic events that will follow. Also, Medea sees the events as a curse, which has the element of destiny as well as embodying the main notion of fate in Greek plays.
The concept of fate in Greek plays relates to the “God’s will” and usually has a religious character where the destiny of every character is written by the deity. It is important to take into account that Greek’s religion is polytheistic, thus related to the God’s will here means reference to the supernatural forces rather than a particular God as it is in monotheistic religions. There is not such thing as higher fate in the Greek plays, but a sense of predetermined events that relate to the purpose of one or multiple deities. Such approach to the destiny serves as the illustration of fatalism existing in the Greek tragedy, which usually becomes a trigger of the events. The protagonists do not question the fairness of fate and its cruelty, they usually perceive it as the part of their life.
In the tragedies of the modern period, the fatalism of destiny is rarely pursued. At the same time, it has to be noted that one of the instances of using the concept of fate existing in the Greek tragedy was made by William Shakespeare, as his works are also overwhelmed with the theme of destiny, which does not refer to religion, but still has a similar meaning. For instance, in “Othello”, the most vivid example of fate is the racial background of Othello. It is quite clear that the protagonist would not be refused to marry Desdemona if he was white. A great portion of tragic feelings expressed by Othello is connected to Brabantio’s denial to agree to the marriage of his daughter and the protagonist (Shakespeare 10). Here, the notion of fate is not criticized or attacked, but serves as the explanation of certain actions and events.
Nevertheless, in the modern plays, the concept of fate has a different philosophical meaning and usually serves different purposes. For instance, in “Adding Machine” by Elmer Rice, after the death the protagonist, Mr. Zero, is told that his soul will be reused for the other person on Earth, which points to the idea of reincarnation and the fate that befalls all humans (Rice 214). Here, fate serves as the prison and as the symbol of change of social and economic relationships in the Western society. In the modern days, fate plays a role of the unequal relationship between people and entities, it serves as a political and social construct that implemented in the plays for criticism. In Rice’s work, the concept of fate reflects the fears of people to be replaced by the machines, while they tend to serve the same purpose as the technical equipment. In “Topdog/Underdog” by Suzan-Lori Parks, one of the protagonists has to involve in the shoplifting due to the inability to find a stable occupation due to his racial background (Parks 61). It is possible to claim that Booth’s destiny is also predetermined, where the fate serves as the criticism of the unequal attitude towards minorities.
It is possible to claim that both Mr. Zero and Booth have the chance to avoid misery by choosing another profession or try to change their destiny, as in the Parks’ and Rice’s plays fate does not play the explanatory role, it is more of a choice of the main heroes; it is their reaction to the circumstances. Mr. Zero did not have to kill his employer and Booth was not persuaded to involve into shoplifting, yet they have decided to make such decisions. The notion of fate in the modern plays has a negative connotation, yet it does not refer to a fatality, but in some instances serves as an explanation of the events and actions and sometimes tend to be the object of criticism of the stagnation and degradation of the human relationship in the age of technological development.
The Theme of Motherhood in Plays
The topic of motherhood in plays takes different forms, where the authors tend to demonstrate both positive and negative sides of this issue. It is customary to think that mothers suppose to love their children no matter what and the instances when they do not follow this rule are usually muted or disregarded. It is a controversial and conflicting topic for the modern time. It has been a difficult theme for a long time and still remains to be a problem for the modern society. At the same time, in literature the topic of faulty motherhood has been explored by many authors and playwrights. After analysis of the plays it is possible to claim that some of them speculate on the topic of inadequate motherhood to create a tragic escalation and to shock the reader. For instance, in “Medea” Euripides the main heroine kills her children out of jealousy to a man. It is an extraordinary reaction to the critical circumstances that is difficult to find in life. It is quite clear that in “Medea”, Euripides uses her despicable actions as the intensification of tragedy.
At the same time, the other plays depict women and their inability to take care about children in a more trivial way, where the lack of care leads to the tragic outcomes. In “Topdog/Underdog”, two brothers are left by their parents, yet it is the loss of a mother that plays important role in the play. Lincoln, one of the characters creates a song about his difficult fate by singing, “my dear mother left me and my father’s gone away, I don’t got no money, I don’t got no place to stay” (Parks 18). Here, the protagonists abandoned by their mother suffer from the constant economic and emotional challenges that predetermine their destiny. Parks uses the concept of abandonment as the element of the explanation of the possible actions and emotional troubles of the main heroes.
Overall, the topic of defective motherhood is difficult to implement into the plays, as such heroes usually induce heated criticism of the audience. For instance, in Anton Chekhov’s play “The Seagull”, Madame Arkadina is narcissistic and self-indulged actress who has an unhealthy relationship with her son by constantly reproaching and picking on him for her personal failures (Chekhov 11). For Arkadina his son serves as a reminder that she is not young any more, which bothers her constantly. Yet in the result, her son is growing contempt and hatred for his mother as the result of her parenting. In one of the scenes Arkadina comes to the play created by his son and manages to ruin it by constantly criticizing the entire performance. She reveals her feelings by saying, “I am tired of him. No one could stand his constant thrusts and sallies. He is a willful, egotistic boy” (Chekhov 12). It is possible to see that the heroine does not treat Treplieff as her son, but rather as a rival, which is unhealthy for a mother. At the same time, the play does not develop this topic by criticizing her actions, but oppositely by attacking her son.
The situation described in “The Seagull” is neither unique nor extraordinary. It is possible to observe the same dynamics of the relationship between mothers and their sons. Moreover, it is possible to observe the same dialogs in the modern day environment. Chekhov does not see anything extraordinary in this relationship as well, as here his heroine serves a different purpose. Akradion reveals herself as selfish and arrogant, yet she is one of the few female characters who chose what they want to do and enjoy their freedom. It is possible to compare her personality features and actions with those expressed by men. While the gender relationship is not the main focus of the research, yet still it is essential to admit that the heroine embodies the type of character that usually relate to men. It may explain her attitude to her son as well as to motherhood in general.
As it was noticed earlier, it is customary to think that mothers have to love their children. Yet, it is difficult to imagine what she has to do if she does not feel such feelings. While in “Medea” it is not a question of love, rather than blind revenge, in the modern plays the conflict between the necessity motherly feelings and actual sensations of the main heroines is quite popular. It is impossible to claim that the authors create such characters due to misogyny or an intention to induce certain fear about the inadequate motherhood. Each of the plays where a woman is illustrated as a bad mother tries to discuss the topic that tends to be inconvenient in real life. It is not used to think that women cannot feel love to their children or can kill them due to their egoistic intentions. Moreover, it is more convenient to imagine a father as an inadequate parent than mother because mother is seen as the primary caregiver for the children. Therefore, the criticism for the faulty parenting usually intensifies if the discussion concerns motherhood.
Neither of the plays tries to start a discussion about the inequality of attitude to women regarding their mistakes in parenting, the assumptions point to the need of reconsidering the motherhood and the approach of the society to it. While it is difficult to sympathize for Medea, Lincoln and Booth’s mother, or Madame Arkadina, their actions were triggered by the circumstances that may be relevant today. It is difficult to confirm whether mothers have to love their children a priori or they have to learn how to do it. It is also hard to claim if their actions are dictated by their flawed nature or it is simply the result of the environmental impact. In each of the plays, the heroines are pushed to make choices that cannot be ignored by a person living in society. Apparently that Arkadina gave birth to her only son as the necessity rather than her desire to become a mother, yet the environment in which she lives requires a woman to be a mother. In “Medea”, a woman is put in the dead end by her partner and people due to her opposition to be humiliated. In “Topdog/Underdog”, the mother has to abandon her children, possibly due to the poor socioeconomic circumstances.
Of course, the conditions and circumstances do not justify the actions made by either of the characters, but at the same time, the playwrights try to cause a dialog discussing the sensitive and difficult topic of inadequate parenting choices made by women. While it is a 21st century, this theme is still almost a taboo in the modern society, as women are still perceived as caregivers more than anything else. In such circumstances, a female, who feels that she cannot express the same feelings for her child remains by herself. As Arkadina, she may vent her anger and frustration on her children and as a mother in the Park’s play will abandon her kids. At the same time, the issues proposed in the plays, both the old and the modern ones, are still relevant to the current reality. It is essential that the play’s have the images of dismantling motherhood, as it plays a role of the tragic catalyst that generates the problem in the storyline.
Overall, the topic of motherhood is presented in the plays quite meticulously pointing to the need to revisit this topic and reconsider the attitude to the reasons of inadequate motherhood. While some plays contain a brief description of the motherhood, their illustration serves as the core elements of the story that explains the actions of the protagonists and serve as a warning to the society.
Works Cited
Chekhov, Anton. The Seagull. New York, NY: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014. Print
Euripidus. Medea and Other Plays. London: Penguin Books, 1963. Print
Parks, Suzan-Lori. Topdog/Underdog. New York, NY: Dramatists Play Service, 2004. Print
Rice, Elmer. The Adding Machine. New York, NY: Samuel French, 2011. Print
Shakespeare, William. Othello. New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1996. Print
