“Nothing in excess” is inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi. As the cornerstone of Greek philosophy, this belief was embraced through a lifestyle of moderation and self-control. Despite this ideal, in his tragic masterpiece Medea, Euripides confronts the menacing inner workings of the human psyche while exploring the dangers of emotional superfluity in his titular heroine. In explicit defiance of feminine conventions, Medea portrays the chaos that unbridled emotions cause in society. However, is Medea's spiral into unbridled, murderous passions attributed to the rigid structure of her environment, or is she simply a victim of individualized instability as her vexation overwhelms any principles of temperance? At the climax of the work, the reader can consider the circumstances that led to the heroine's degradation and whether any preventative measures could have been explored. Ultimately, Medea's lack of confidence in her own sex eliminates any prospect of achieving emotional balance or moderation, and leads to a new “worst-case scenario” of defiance of strict Greek social decorum. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The constraints of ancient Greek society praised temperance and discipline as the foundation for achieving a “happy” lifestyle. Indeed, Euripides builds these conventions during the play's preamble speech: "Moderation wins first as the best word for men to use, and likewise is by far the best path for them to follow" (96). Evidently, in response to the outspoken attitude of Medea's children, the Nurse recognizes that “it is better then to have been educated to live in conditions of equality/. . . not in proud pomp, but in security” to achieve the most that life in a stable Greek society offered (98-9). Indeed, the subsidiary character of the Nurse accredits the way in which respect for stable equality – between genders, emotions and life choices – ends with the epitome reward of “safety”. Therefore, how then can a maverick like Medea successfully gain the benefits of this balanced civilization? Evidently, the unequivocal subversion of prescribed conventions that favor moderation as “the best way” produces overwhelming emotional and social turmoil. Sprinkled throughout the play, Euripides skillfully incorporates the audience's opinions of his play's nominal heroine into the many evocative and disparaging characterizations of her by the Nurse, her husband Jason, King Creon, and even the chorus. Medea, in fact, is dryly defined as a woman with a "heart of stone" (216). From this initial distinction, Medea's role as heroine is in clear subversion to Greek constructs of emotional balance. Indeed, as a “miserable suffering woman” with a “detested existence,” Medea is markedly personified as “cursed” and even “vile” (188, 319, 324). Throughout the play, Medea's unorthodox portrayal confirms her non-conformity to the expectations of Greek society. As the play progresses, Medea dishonors her position, both as a woman in an ancient Greek civilization and as a heroine, by devaluing her gender. If she defames her own femininity and reputation, isn't the reader left to question her mere credibility as a heroic figure? Furthermore, Medea recognizes the degrading importance given to women, stating that, indeed, "women, though by nature little suited to virtuous actions, are the most expert in creating any mischief" (427). Furthermore, in a candid denunciation of her sex, Medea refuses to act as a representative of a "degraded" community, and instead expresses her criticism thatechoes a male perspective. More than an elementary prefiguration, Euripides integrates this internal monologue to demonstrate Medea's attitude lack of conviction in her own sex. Likewise, her qualms about her gender are subject to emotional chaos: "[A] woman is a weak creature, always devoted to alacrity" (512). Indeed, without faith in the possibility that a woman can secure a safe place in society, our heroine highlights her sex's inability to restrain emotions. Furthermore, Medea claims that “of all things that have life and meaning, we women are the most unfortunate creatures” (499). Indeed, Medea rejects any possibility for women to maintain stability within this demanding society. Her very position as a heroine renounces everything that Greek civilization embodies in terms of the ideal of maintaining balance. Certainly, through Medea, Euripides explores the restrictive constraints of marriage in ancient Greek society. Our heroine's direct indignation at the institution itself highlights the crushing weight of unity within a society that is so repressive. Accordingly, Medea details the selection process, giving the reader a perspective of society's expectations: First we must buy a husband at a great price. . . here lies the most important question, whether our choice will be good or bad. For divorce is not honorable to women, nor can we deny our lords. . . If by chance we carry out these tasks / with scrupulousness and tact, and the husband lives with us, without feeling the yoke, our life is happy; / otherwise it would be better to die (447-50, 453-5). In this passage, Medea explores the nature of marriage as ultimately eternal since divorce cannot be an alternative measure: it is, in fact, “not honorable.” Likewise, the heroine exhibits the transitive quality of agreement that obliges her female counterparts to enter into a contract of “performing these tasks scrupulously and tactfully” in order to achieve a “happy” life. In fact, such "tasks" accentuate the laborious nuances of marriage: "Then the wife, coming as she does to new habits and customs, since she has not learned the lesson in her home, must have a diviner's eye to see how best treat the companion of his life” (450-2). Concisely criticizing “typical” Greek education, Medea virtually states that a new bride is unprepared “since she has not learned her lesson in her home,” further affirming women's unadaptable attitude toward “new ways and customs.” Indeed, Medea's disapproval of women's availability in domestic life reveals an inadequacy in society. If, as you argue, a woman is so unprepared in her youth that she is ill-equipped to enter into an everlasting bond of marriage, doesn't that suggest a social void – or some type of preventative measure – that needs to be addressed? Therefore, Medea's argument about women's “unpreparedness” highlights a deficiency in social constructs. As for the enduring ideals of marriage, Medea argues that when a naive, even “fearful” bride “finds her honor violated, no heart is full.” with thoughts more deadly than his” (453). Clearly, a marital arrangement is assigned a dangerous cost: without the “backup” option of divorce, the spouse is originally placed in a complacent and undemanding position in the relationship with an unlikely opportunity for elevation. Therefore, when faced with the threat of infidelity – regardless of which partner is at fault – it is the woman's honor that is “harmed,” filling her heart with thoughts that are unpredictable and even “dead[ly].” Here, Medea's social criticism calls into question the very validity of a.