Euripides's Medea Vs. Buttrey

Theodore V. Buttrey defended the role of character Aegeus in Euripides's Medea as being instrumental in helping progress the story from the play’s first and second act. This defense of Euripides, comes in response to critics, including Aristotle, who, having taken poorly to Aegeus’ underdeveloped character and rather suspicious entrance in the play, have gone and criticized the entire structure of Medea. Buttrey, on the other hand, credited Aegeus for providing a noticeable distinction between the play’s two acts; acting as the principal red herring that ends up throwing the audience’s attention away from Medea’s intent on committing filicide until the horrible reveal of the play’s climax. Hence, it is with the king of Athens that Euripides

As such, the character Aegeus is essential to the plot, as it is his offer of salvation in Athens that convinces the audience to continue their blind support of Medea in the hopes that a glorious victory will soon be hers. Moreover, Aegeus is just as important to the play’s theme of childlessness. It is largely on account of his offer of an escape for both Medea and her children that the audience becomes disgusted with her plan to slay the latter. And lastly, Aegeus played a significant role in the delivery of the play’s message--that being that the will of the Gods is always unpredictable-- as his entire purpose for being in the play, his ability to provide Medea with an escape from Corinth, does little in the end to prevent the deaths of Medea’s children. Furthermore, the fact that the efforts of Aegeus are made miniscule by the god Helios’ rewarding of Medea with a chariot of dragons to ferry her to safety helps further exploit this message. Put simply, the character of Aegeus is no less insignificant to the plot of Medea than the titular character herself, and as such, he is a testament of its well-defined

The king has commonly come under attack for his underdeveloped introduction in the play. He seemingly appears out of nowhere like something of a deus ex machina, for the sole purpose of aiding Medea in her quest for vengeance, almost too ideally, if not entirely. Moreover, Aegeus has been criticized for supposedly influencing Medea’s decision to commit filicide with his sorrow-filled description of childlessness. And so the conclusion many critics have made is that Aegeus had no purpose for being in the play in the first place, as no good comes from it in the end. However, their arguments fall short when one considers just how much of an impact Aegeus had on the plot through his offer of safety and shelter to Medea, which extended to her children: “the Aegeus episode to mark the division between the injury done to Medea and the injury done by her.”(Buttrey, 8) The introduction of Aegeus marked a major shift in the focus of the story, for he serves as it's red herring. As such, it is through the character Aegeus that Euripides teased the audience with notion of a traditional victory for Medea, a victory where Jason, the princess, and Creon would be dead, while her children would be alive and well: "If you yourself come to my palace, you will find a home and a sanctuary. Never will I surrender you to anybody.”(Euripides, 231) Hitherto of Euripides’ play, the traditional telling of