It's from the Drama book “Medea” by Euripides

Surname 2

Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Course details

Date

Medea Through Aristotle’s Teaching

According to Aristotle's studies, poetry has to be broken down into its integral parts before coming up with conclusions. Aristotle defines that poetry should have basis on imitation and the application of language, harmony, rhythm, as well as language together or separately. Poetry is imitative because it develops how the events and things of the world. Aristotle's definition of tragedy portrays it as the best version of poetry that towers over other issues while comedy is the best version that deals with simple matters. Considering the strong passion depicted by the tragic heroine, the work by Euripides Medea appears as a pathetic tragedy in Aristotle’s eyes. According to Aristotle's criteria on compelling drama is not achieved in Medea; therefore, it is not a good tragedy.

The tragedy starts with a massive conflict between Medea and her husband, who she accuses of dishonesty. All through the play, we witness the peak of hatred and anger that builds up to a level that all other things dissolve to an anticlimactic conclusion through the revenge carried out by Medea (Cropp and Mastronarde 362). This act can be considered a shortcoming in a tragedy since it does not escalate to the highest peak possible or as Aristotle would put it enough complexity. The most important part of a tragedy is the plot. Through the ill-treatment of the subject Medea, the tragedy does not achieve the sophistication required in the plot. Aristotle looks into the fundamental and defining parts of a complex plot and points to several elements. He cites reversing intention, catastrophe as well as recognition (Belfiore 7). Shifting the aim and identification have to be used together to achieve the desired result, and they react to bring about the catastrophe. There is no switching of intention because Medea is intent on carrying out her revenge from the beginning.

Despite there being a moment where she targets her anger at her children, it happens so unexpectedly that it is not easy to think of it as a reversal of intention because it is not correctly recognized later at any point. Medea has already learned about Jason and Creon's daughter; no smallest recognition can apply or work towards switching the prospects of the tragic heroine (Cropp and Mastronarde 362). The only occurrence that appears exceptional is the moment Medea kills her children. Without this single element, Euripides’ Medea cannot be considered a tragedy. This surprise element does not work in the tragedy's favor because it lacks the cause to effect connection to the plot and lacks relevance as well. However, the intended is carried out by the heroine, who turns out better than intention without action. Aristotle talks about the skill and ability of a capable tragedian to come up with a united play, and he puts a lot of emphasis on complication and the way the plot unravels (Belfiore 1).

To Aristotle, a great tragedian is one who can combine these two parts well. Except for a little catastrophe, Medea does not show, but there is no switch in intention or recognition, and the lack of depth as Medea strategizes and arranges for revenge to make it through the pain. The introduction of a God who interferes and helps Medea get away by chariot according to Aristotle can appear far fetched because it does not come naturally out of the plot. This interruption by force out of the plot seems faulty. Her survival, as well, does not appear acceptable on moral grounds.

Works Cited

Belfiore, Elizabeth S. Tragic pleasures: Aristotle on plot and emotion. Vol. 182. Princeton university press, 2014.

Cropp, Martin, and Donald J. Mastronarde. "Euripides: "Medea"." Phoenix, vol. 58, no. 3/4, 2004, p. 362.