Exploring the Character of Euripides’ ‘Medea’ in 20th and 21st Century Narratives

 

Literatur  |  Philosophie  |  Sprache

 

Fiona Bieri, 2005 | Niederdorf, BL

 

From child-slaughtering bloodthirsty villain to lovesick victim of the patriarchy: This Matura paper investigates the character of Medea across three different narratives: Euripides’s ancient tragedy Medea, Christa Wolf’s Medea. Stimmen, and Rosie Hewlett’s Medea. Through a comparative analysis, the different portrayals of Medea’s character are critically analysed and compared focusing on the narrative perspective, specifically the attitude towards infanticide, and the portrayal of female characters. Ultimately, this paper presents the societal attitude towards women’s roles in literature and demonstrates how the ‘ancient’ can influence the ‘contemporary’, particularly in the form of a literary retelling.

Introduction

Overall, the paper treats the following research question: How does the depiction of Medea’s character evolve from Euripides’ original portrayal to the reinterpretations by Christa Wolf and Rosie Hewlett, and what does this evolution suggest about the changing perceptions of female roles in literature?

Methods

The paper is structured into different sections to answer the research question. The first section consists of a theoretical framework encompassing feminism, etc. The knowledge thereby acquired served as foundation for the comparative analysis – the main part of the paper. For this part, the three works were read closely and annotated thoroughly. Thereafter, Medea’s character across the three narratives was compared and analysed. The focus lay on the voice of the narrator, how the theme of infanticide is approached, how female characters are portrayed in general, and how the authors’ and novels’ respective societal and historical context shaped Medea’s character.

Results

The comparative analysis revealed significant differences in Medea’s portrayal across the three works. The key differences stemmed from the motives behind the reoccurring motif of the murders and Medea’s role in them. Euripides’ Medea is responsible for multiple murders, predominately acting out of revenge and thus creating the image of a raging fury and remorseless bloodthirsty villain. Wolf’s Medea does not commit any murder but is held responsible nevertheless and made the scapegoat by male politicians. Hewlett’s Medea commits the same murders as Euripides’, but acts with the intent of salvage, thereby appearing as morally grey and naïve character. Despite these differences, in all three narratives Medea suffers under stereotypes and restricting gender roles imposed on her.

Discussion

The differences in Medea’s character reflect the societal and feminist context surrounding the works’ creation. The evolution from Euripides’ Medea, created in a strictly patriarchal society, to Wolf’s Medea. Stimmen can be explained by the 2nd and 3rd wave feminist ideas of the 1990s. By reclaiming Medea’s character, Wolf counters the patriarchal distortion of Medea’s character and critiques the historical vilification of women. Hewlett’s Medea mirrors the possibilities of modern feminism, enabled through previous feminists like Wolf, which view emotional complexity and vulnerability in female characters as strengths and allow for more nuanced characters and moral ambiguities. While the evolution from Euripides’ to Wolf’s to Hewlett’s Medea align with feminist ideas and progress, an analysis of more retellings about Medea’s story and a focus on more aspects, such as her dependency on other characters, would have surely enriched the observed evolution of the differing portrayal of Medea.

Conclusions

In conclusion, retelling a story is a powerful cultural tool that allows authors to portray female characters anew and challenge their representation in a patriarchal society. Both Wolf and Hewlett use this tool and provide Medea with a voice to tell her side of the story, alter key narrative events, and embed their own cultural and political critiques into their retellings. Moreover, the evolving portrayal of Medea reflects not only the historical contexts in which these works were written but also the shifting societal attitudes towards gender and power. While the comparative analysis highlighted the transformation of Medea’s character, further exploration of either Medea’s character or other figures in cinematic or theatrical adaptations could deepen the insights. Examining how different audiences interpret different kinds of retellings is also vital to understand the relevance and impact of reimagining ancient figures. Ultimately, this paper shows that ancient myths remain relevant today as they offer a tool to address contemporary issues such as gender inequality and patriarchal oppression.

 

 

Würdigung durch die Expertin

Désirée Wenger

Fiona Bieri hat eine Maturaarbeit geschrieben, die sich mit Arbeiten vieler Literaturstudierender messen kann. Sie besticht durch ihre genaue Analyse, ihre eindrucksvolle diachronische Recherchearbeit und ihr druckreifes Englisch. Mit ihrer Fragestellung nach der Repräsentation der Medeafigur und den damit verbundenen Implikationen von Stereotypisierungen und Sexismus trifft das Forschungsprojekt den Puls unserer Zeit, in welcher Frauenrechte zunehmend bedroht sind.

Prädikat:

sehr gut

 

 

 

Gymnasium Liestal
Lehrerin: Angela Chiappini-Fitzgerald