A Critique of Aristotelian Evaluation of Euripides’s Medea

Aristotle left a legacy of countless pages on many diverse topics such as biology, physics, metaphysics, politics and ethics. Of these many writings, one hasn't attracted the attention, at least not to the extent the others have, Poetics. Poetics deals mainly with poetry, but with tragedy in particular. In this work, Aristotle answers questions concerning this field, such as what makes a fine tragedy, what are the most important parts of a tragedy, what characteristics should a tragedy have, what makes a powerful plot, what magnitude should a fine tragedy be of, what qualities should a hero have, and what kind of a relation a good tragedy should establish with the audience. Aristotle refers to certain poets and their works as examples in answering these questions. One of these works, namely Medea was rewritten by the Greek poet Euripides in the 5th century BC. This study aims at giving an analysis of Euripides’s version of the famous tragedy of Medea, from an Aristotelian standpoint following the principles Aristotle sets in Poetics. In line with this objective I argue that Medea has been misunderstood or misjudged, especially about its supposed immoral plot and characters; and try to show how it in fact can be moral with an atypical conception of morality.