Medea as an Emblem of Female Emotionalism: Resurrections of Medea in Shakespeare and Webster
Creators: name: Kessinger, Melanie
Publisher: name: Stanford Digital Repository
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Medea (Euripides)
subject: Medea (Seneca, Lucius Annaeus)
subject: Merchant of Venice (Shakespeare, William)
subject: Macbeth (Shakespeare, William)
subject: Tempest (Shakespeare, William)
subject: Medea in Athens
subject: Dramatic monologues
subject: Femininity in literature
subject: English drama--Early modern and Elizabethan
subject: Medea (Greek mythology) in literature
subject: Portia (Fictitious character : Shakespeare)
subject: Webster, Augusta, 1837-1894

description: 	This essay unfolds as a series of character studies, in which the characters act not only as reimaginings of Medea but also as mirrors into womanhood in the Early Modern and Victorian eras. Chapter One focuses on Shakespeare’s characters of Lady Macbeth and Portia as resurrected Medea figures. Portia is established as a Medea through Bassanio’s invocation of the Medea myth in Act One of The Merchant of Venice, in which he refers to himself as a “Jason” and to Portia as the “Golden Fleece.” Like Jason with Medea, Bassanio implies that he will use Portia as a means to an end to help his beloved Antonio — who in fact potentially represents a Glaucè figure in this play. While Macbeth does not explicitly reference Medea, Lady Macbeth uses Medean language in her infamous speech: her use of “gall” directly mirrors Medea’s language in a 1581 translation of Seneca’s Medea — one that Shakespeare may himself have read. Both Portia and Lady Macbeth use persuasive rhetoric and pervert their femininity in Medea-like ways, and in their relationships with their respective husbands, both Macbeth and Bassanio often resemble Jason. As Portia is doomed to a loveless marriage and Lady Macbeth is driven to insanity and removed from the scene altogether, Shakespeare’s adaptation of this Greek myth illustrates the Early Modern fear surrounding women who grasp at power when wronged or abandoned by male superiors. 
	The second chapter examines Augusta Webster’s reconsideration of Medea’s motives in her retelling of the myth in her translation of Euripides’ Medea as well as her dramatic monologue Medea in Athens. Webster’s choice of the dramatic monologue form allows her to humanize Medea and gain creative freedoms not possible in her direct translation of Euripides’ play. Medea’s sense of self is constructed in both of these works primarily through the lens of Jason, as Medea reflects on her regrets and desires in relation to her husband. Webster highlights injustices in their relationship to undermine the institution of marriage at large, bringing the morality of wedlock into question through Medea’s language, rhyme, and the contrast she reveals between her current self and the woman she was in her youth. In terms of Medea’s infantacide, Webster emphasizes the notion of inevitability: she further ties Medea’s actions to Jason by suggesting that Jason’s betrayal left Medea with no choice but to enact her revenge. By employing the all-female chorus in her translation of Euripides’ play, Webster suggests that these women are sympathetic and perhaps even supportive of Medea’s revenge. Webster’s Medea directly critiques patriarchal norms and builds a case for increased access to divorce by blaming her moral transgressions on her continued marriage to Jason. 
	While the first two chapters trace the relationship between Shakespeare’s and Webster’s respective invocations of Medea’s tale, the third works to compare how these two authors employ their myth to different effects. The primary focus of the chapter is on Jessica and Lorenzo as resurrections of Medea and Jason in The Merchant of Venice, as they directly invoke the mythological lovers in Act Five of the play. Religion also figures notably in Jessica’s tale; Jessica sees Lorenzo as a means of salvation, unlike Webster’s Medea, who views marriage as the cause of her moral undoing. As Shakespeare’s Medea figure (Jessica) does not blame her marriage, her sin is less escapable than that of Webster’s Medea — particularly as Jessica admits to her guilt in the play rather than blaming it on someone else. There are severe consequences for resurrected Medeas from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice as well as from his later plays. Jessica’s silence displays the repercussions for Medea figures who threaten the established social order, whereas in Webster’s dramatic monologue Medea cannot be silenced and in fact possesses control over Jason’s voice, who is only able to speak through her imagination. Like Jessica, Portia also becomes a subservient wife by the end of the play, and in Macbeth Lady Macbeth is exiled from the stage after her fear of discovery drives her to insanity. Shakespeare’s Sycorax from The Tempest is another notable Medea figure, who is removed from the drama before it even begins due to her dangerous powers. In this way, Shakespeare presents Medea less as Webster’s wronged wife and more as a vessel for the Early Modern anxieties about female influence. 
	This work identifies the difference between Webster’s resurrection of Medea to examine the power dynamics of marriage and Shakespeare’s invocation of her as a cautionary tale about powerful and dangerous women. Neither author resurrects a unified Medea from the past, but rather partakes in a larger dialogue concerning character stability as they adapt the myth of the enchantress. Shakespeare and Webster resurrect Medea differently based on the culture and biases of their respective time periods, transforming the witch from an emblem of dangerous female power to a representation of marital injustice, with Webster in particular encouraging us to read not only Medea, but also Portia, Jessica, and Shakespeare’s other notable Medea figures on an emotional rather than purely literal level.