Euripides and Aristotle discussion about a tragedy hero - Essay Example

?Euripides and Aristotle discussion about a tragedy hero Introduction A perfect tragedy hero was determined by Aristotle and in the works of ancient philosophers and writers Aristotle’s claim can be discussed further on. On the example of Euripides “Medea” the basic determinants of the tragedy hero is correlated with the main character of the epic poem, Medea. Euripides’ “Medea” found new interpretations created by Heiner Muller, Franz Grillparzer and other authors. Actually, scientists consider Euripides’ plays to be too unusual for the conservative Athenian society (Dykstal 104). In his famous play “Medea” the Euripides presented a completely new perspective on tragedy. This perspective is worth discussing, thus the given paper will define tragedy and demonstrate in what ways "Medea" can be considered as a tragedy. A lot of controversies may be found with regards to this character, but we will focus on Medea as on the collective image of female features. Both philosopher underline such features as strength, will to reach a certain goal. There is an evident different vision of the tragedy hero and we will consider these differences. Aristotle’s tragedy hero and its opposition by Euripides Aristotle claims: “Even a woman may be good, and also a slave; though the woman may be said to be an inferior being, and the slave quite worthless” (Aristotle). Thus, Aristotle tries to conceal the fact that women are initially good. Medea signifies a complicated psychological character and her vicious nature is evident. Thus, the first point of a woman’s goodness is discarded by Euripides. It is better to say that the philosopher indicates that woman’s goodness is another kind of goodness. Thus, Medea considered goodness in her actions. Killing her children in the name of revenge can be hardly considered as goodness from the objective perspective, but this action was good for her. She has her own goodness based on her own morals and principles. Moreover, Euripides contradicts with the second principle of a perfect tragedy hero. Aristotle claims about hero’s propriety, but actions taken by Medea are not appropriate at all from the perspective of the contemporaries as well as from the perspective for the ancient society. Euripides criticizes her deeds: A woman's marriage bed—    [1290]       so full of pain—how many evils, (1540)       has it brought on humankind? (Euripides) Nevertheless, Euripides shows a gradual transformation of the main hero. The second thing to reach is respectability: “There is a type of manly valor; but valor in a woman, or unscrupulous cleverness is inappropriate” (Aristotle). This position of Aristotle does not coincide with the character development presented by Euripides. Again, as Tragedy represents people who can be considered unusual, the example of Euripides shows a transformation of Medea: from being cunning fame fatal to transcendence into a selfless creature, who is neither human being nor god. In the beginning Medea says: Let no one think that I'm a trivial woman, a feeble one who sits there passively.    No, I'm a different sort—dangerous    to enemies, but well disposed to friends.                                      960     Lives like mine achieve the greatest glory.                                           [810] (Euripides) In her words we can see that this woman is full of valor. Aristotle argues that it is impossible for women to have valor. Euripides reflects this feature in the female character of Medea. Moreover, we can even suppose that Medea is a prototype of an ancient goddess Themis. She has no feelings, but takes some actions in the name of her own justice. Her own pure reason triggers her actions. The principle of the absence of cleverness among women is also denied by Euripides. Medea developed cunning strategies and then took some actions. She did not act without a proper consideration. Her ability to act with regards to her own inner emotional stimulus signifies the presence of cleverness. Thus, at this point considerations of Euripides and Aristotle do not coincide as well. The fourth point of Aristotle concerning inconsistency of the tragedy hero is also argued by Euripides. Aristotle talked about “consistently inconsistence” of the tragedy hero. Medea, vice versa, acts inconsistently. On the one hand, her actions are well-planned and consistent, but on the other hand they seem inconsistent from the perspective of detached viewers, from the generally accepted principles. Medea had her own goals. It is a sign of consistency of actions, but her transformations from a strong-willed woman and a perfect strategist. She was looking for her time, her own best time: The time for fulfillment dawns, And the golden light bathes humankind. The time of the demons is over. (60) (Euripides) Thus, we can claim that actions of Medea are inconsistent if to consider them from moral perspective, but her actions as the Sun God are consistent in the struggle against demons, who are Jason with his sons. Medea’s character interpretation is the depiction of the eternal fight between good and evil, between arguing of Euripides and Aristotle. In other words, Euripides makes an attempt to persuade Aristotle that female characters of tragedy are in a strong contradiction with the points developed by Aristotle. Euripides positions a character of Medea at different level; she is clever, cunning strategist, who tries to fight against false lives, her enemies and demons. She fights against a vicious human nature. She is an eternal fighter against Evil: I've made up my mind, my friends.       I'll do it—kill my children now, without delay,       and flee this land. I must not hesitate.       That will hand them over to someone else,       to be slaughtered by a hand less loving.                                       1460       No matter what, the children have to die.       Since that's the case, then I, who gave them life,                                [1240]       will kill them. (Euripides) Only a supernatural woman could have killed her children; it is not natural of women living in the real world; the right to give and to take away a human life belongs to God. In this epic poem this right belongs to a divine creature, Medea. An estranged position of Medea keeps her far apart from real world, from generally accepted moral and behavioral stereotypes. A fight against human vices is hardly natural of an irrational woman, who has no valor. This is an intention of a clever person, who fights for justice and not even for her own personal happiness. Medea is above emotional constraints and stereotypes; she is a critical heroine; she lives on the edge and she sees only black or white colors. Conclusion Medea’s character is not true to life. This is the contradiction with Aristotle’s claim. She is above reality and she exists in the transcendental state: she crosses the borders of womanhood; she does not consider her actions in the plane of sins; her actions are predetermined by her spiritual and divine intentions. Thus, there is an evident differentiation between the tragic hero developed by Aristotle and Euripides. Both of them position their characters as strong willed individuals with clearly set goals. Euripides tragedy hero is asexual, divine and spiritual. For Aristotle tragedy hero is close to real life and he is certainly a man full of valor and dignity. Though, we can claim that two points of these two philosophers coincide: both of them position their heroes as full of valor and consistency. Still, there is different vision of these two concepts between these two philosophers. Both of these philosophers contributed much to the development of ancient tragedy. In spite of existent differences, both of philosophers have common points and significant features of the tragedy hero are developed in accordance with the principles of strength, desire for justice, the existence above all prejudices and reaching personal goals. Works cited 1. Medea by Euripides. Web. 15 November, 2011 . 2. Aristotle. Poetics. Web. 15 November, 2011 Read More