Euripides’ reputation has often suffered from a comparison of his works with those on similar subjects by Aeschylus and Sophocles. In such a comparison Euripides stands at a disadvantage, since it involves comparing what are acknowledged to be his lesser plays with the masterpieces of the two earlier tragedians, while no plays are extant by his predecessors on the same subjects as his greatest plays. To take as an example one of Euripides’ acknowledged masterpieces, the Medea, the only Greek works we still possess in which Medea is a prominent figure are one of Pindar's Odes and Apollonius Rhodius’ epic, the Argonautica, both of which deal with an earlier phase of the legend; while for plays dealing with the same incidents we must turn to those of a Roman dramatist, Seneca, and a French dramatist, Corneille. In comparing Euripides’ Médea with the plays of these two dramatists we give Euripides an advantage which is possibly greater than that which Aeschylus and Sophocles have in a comparison of their works with his; for tragic drama was not a branch of literature in which the Romans excelled and the Médée is admittedly not one of Corneille's successes. Nevertheless, even a hurried reading of their plays is of value in helping us to appreciate Euripides’ Medea, since salient points of that play stand out by contrast in bolder relief.

Such a comparison impresses upon us two important aspects of Euripides’ play: first, that he reduced the magical element, itself an essential part of the story, to the barest minimum, and second, that he alone feels sympathy with Medea herself.