Medea Euripides Analysis

Medea Euripides AnalysisSo long as the immense passion of the sad virtuosoine of the play is come overed, Euripidess Medea is a work of pathetic tragedy from Aristotles point of view. It opens up with a major conflict between the heroine and her husband the anger of a woman hero for her dishonest husband.Throughout the play, we see the culmination of anger and hatred travel to a point where everything dissolves and an anticlimactic end is attained through the assembling of revenge in Medea. This is actually a shortcoming for a physical composition of tragedy because it does non reach to the highest possible quality and conglomerateity from a temporary hookup as Aristotle would term it. The most beta integral looking at in tragedy is its plot, the imitation of action. Because of the faulty treatment of the subject in hand, Euripides fails to achieve a complex plot in Medea. When Aristotle plunges into the components of a plot that make it complex, he cites three necessa ry component parts successively reversal of intention, recognition, and catastrophe. Accordingly, twain reversal of intention and recognition must go handin hand in a cause-and-effect chain that ultimately in cristal creates the catastrophe in the play for the best effect. However in Medea, we move observe no real reversal of intention as Medea is hearty determined to take revenge from Jason in some way or the new(prenominal) right from the very start. Although there is an upshot where Medea directs her anger oer her own children, this occurs in much(prenominal) an unexpected vogue that it is difficult to consider it as a reversal of intention because there is no train-headed explanation or recognition for it to come afterwards. This unquestionably results in Medea deficient a recognition as there is no reversal of intention that precedes it. Medea already knows about the marriage of Jason to Creons miss, and there is no other smooth recognition that potentiometer be said to change the fortune of the sad heroine. One could say that Aegeuss assurance of security in Athens for Medea is a discovery that allowed Medea to further proceed with her plans, but this is somewhat questionable as we can clearly see that she is determined to execute her planned scenario whether or not Aegeuss sharp appearance was included. The besides surprising event that we can find remarkable is when Medea slays her own children. This action is the one and only sad incident that Aristotle would see as tragic. If this one and only tragic element did not exist, we could hardly say that Euripidess Medea was a tragedy even with a simple plot. But again, a surprising event can be favored only when it has relevance and a cause-and-effect relationship with the plot. That is however not exactly the case for Medeas decision to kill her children. Nevertheless, the intended action is execute in the end by the heroin, an act that is better than intending and not doing. When Aris totle comes to the acquirement of a tragedian to create a perfect unified play, he emphasizes the splendour of firstly the complication, and secondly, the unraveling of the plot. To him, the best tragedian is one who can succeed in making these two parts equally well. But as long as in Medea there is no reversal of intention and recognition pull for a simple catastrophe, the unraveling lacks the order of magnitude of the complication where Medea strategically makes plans, prepares for revenge, and tries to survive the pain.Moreover, the mishap of the play by a Deus ex Machina, a God fussy and allowing Medea to lead with a chariot, is very erroneous for Aristotle as it does not splay out of the plot naturally. The Deus ex Machina used in Medea can be seen as faulty from another point which attributes to Aristotles moral understanding. Medeas escape or somewhat survival is morally not acceptable as she commits a cruel deed in killing her own children. We know that she is a des cendent of a god and is the daughter of a king. But other than such circumstances she is in, she is in fact no better than us. Her tragic flaws such as extreme passion and anger all lapse being small frailties but they are rather vices. Though we see Medeas feelings of suffering through the visible evils of Jason, it is not easy for the audience to read with a child murderess. Additionally, the past life of Medea is also full of prodigal and sin which are reminded to us from time to time either by the Chorus and even Medea herself. This ultimately results in the significant problem of Medea as a tragedy, as it fails in invoking catharsis towards the audience as smallish emotions of pity or fear can be aroused by the downfall of an utter villain.In Medea there is only one major plot which gives it a credit as a tragedy in peripatetic terms. The struggle between a dishonest male and a sorceress female is the one and only simple basis of this plot. We dont see the level of complexi ty and perfection that Aristotle would seek, but our attention is not lost as Euripides does succeed us to be focused on the passionate angers and emotions of Medea throughout the whole play. Thus, the effect of tragedy is to a somewhat certain effect achieved in Medea but put away fails in the master(prenominal) and most important purpose the emotional cleansing that the audience is supposed to feel towards Medea. statement of IntentEuripidess Medea revolves around the central passion of revenge towards her adversaries by the main protagonist, Medea as a result of her husband, Jasons betrayal towards her by an engagement to the daughter of Creon, King of Corinth.I decided to write a critical critical review of Medea through an Aristotelian perspective as to how Aristotle would criticize it if he had the chance. As Medea was different to the Aristotelian tragedies of the time, I expected that the Athenian audience would dedicate responded in confusion and disfavor. I took Arist otles works of the Poetics as a back to my review article.I tried to make the review critical in the disposition that it not just only explains as to how the elements in Medea differ from Aristotles theory of tragedy, but attempts in exploring as to what effects were lost and why it mattered. In the early stages of my review, I criticize how Euripidess failure in creating a complex plot of one that Aristotle would expect results in how Medeas character is portrayed in a very limited and monotone manner in which her compulsion is seemingly doomed to lead to the final catastrophe from the very start. By breaking up the structure and examining its lack of Aristotelian concepts of tragedy in Medea, it allows one to lead to the discovery that the common understanding of Medea as a tragedy is actually an oversimplification and that one could even come to the destination that it barely qualifies to be even a tragedy by Aristotelian understanding. The criticisms towards the structural component of plot in Medea link into the characteristic flaws of Medea through my criticisms towards Euripidess use of the Deus ex Machina to resolve the plot in the final moments of the play. This sudden denouement in the play would strongly matter to Aristotle as its irrational manner would lack a unity where the action of each event leads inevitably to the next in a structurally self-contained manner that is connected by internal necessity, not by external interventions such as the one used by Euripides. Moreover, the Deus ex Machina has the strongest effect on the audience in which it ultimately fails to invoke the tragic emotions of pity and almsgiving in the form of a catharsis towards the protagonist despite Euripidess attempts at doing so through the easily visible exposures of Jasons atrocities. This failure is not only just simply due to the immoral nature in which Medea kills her children, but from the fact that her life is full of atrocities which she does not seem to feel censurable as she confesses in her quarrel with Jason, I lit the way for your escape I betrayed my father and my home I killed King PeliasAll this I did for you. And you, foulest of men, establish betrayed me. (P33, Lines 460-468)Despite all the criticism that I have given to Euripides in my review, I do give credit to Euripides as to how he still manages to grasp hold of the audiences attention and involvement in the play.Nevertheless however, I still conclude with the Aristotelian perspective that the play still lacks the magnitude and perfection that Aristotle would have expected, which ultimately result in my greatest criticism that Euripides fails in creating the effect of convincement towards his audience to sympathize with Medeas emotions through catharsis.