This study will compare two plays entitled Medea, by the Roman Seneca and the Greek Euripides. The focus of the study will be on the general superiority of Euripides' presentation of the tragedy. Despite the fact that the plays tell the same story, except for a few minor differences, the dramatic skills and story-telling flair of Euripides outshine the more leaden and much longer-winded Seneca. Seneca tends to create interminable-seeming speeches with little dramatic or expository reward, especially from his Chorus. In fact, the editors themselves excise one long and obviously irrelevant speech "of great detail" from the Chorus of Seneca (Seneca 318). In addition, Seneca's tendency to flowery language often stops the play in its tracks rather than deepening its emotional impact as the author must have intended. Euripides, on the other hand, uses down-to-earth language meant to propel the action and character development, rather than impress the audience with the lyrical skill of the writer. Euripides is capable of lyricism, but he uses his gift judiciously in comparison to the extravagant Seneca. Perhaps most importantly, the Medea of Euripides is a more fully-developed and complex character than the constantly raging protagonist in Seneca.
Again, with minor exceptions, the plays portray the same characters, present the same story and plot, and begin and end at the same points. Right from the beginning, however, Euripides' superior talent in drawing the reader into the play is evident. Both plays open with expository speeches in which the events leading up to Jason's marriage to Creon's daughter are described, as well as the precarious state of mind of Medea as she responds to her husband's betrayal. Although important to an understanding of the play, and full of horrible and emotional moments, the choice of speaker, the length of the speech, and the language chosen are aspects of the speeches which set the two writers apart. Sene...