Medea: Euripides’ feminist anti-hero
Despite her demented behavior and evil deeds, Euripides’ Medea demonstrated intermittent clarity of thought- logos applied to its zenith in dissecting the Greek patriarchy, all the while using manipulation to achieve her goals. It is in these moments that modern readers can recognize the budding feminist within Euripides’ female anti-hero. Scorned and publicly humiliated by her husband, Medea used extreme means to exact revenge. Still, through her various monologues- to Jason, the women of Corinth, et al. — Medea detailed succinctly how Greek societal norms negatively affected the ‘fairer’ sex and was determined to flout convention. This essay does not aim to argue Medea’s use of manipulation or her maniacal tendencies; rather, I argue that Medea- the antithesis to accepted Greek femininity- is an ancient example of proto-feminism.
There are various schools of thought that would disagree with the above estimation, but to believe that Medea only subsisted of maniacal behavior would be an understatement. Medea was outspoken, eloquent, analytical, highly intelligent, and manipulative. She also exhibited a mental fortitude that allowed her to ruthlessly kill through means usually reserved for men, i.e. using a sword versus only using poison. Euripides imbued her with the above masculine attributes, which were qualities that would normally encapsulate a male anti-hero, not a female protagonist. Though one can presuppose that Euripides chose to create Medea with such qualities to illustrate social inequity and/or to critique the Greek patriarchy, one thing is certain: Euripides created a multilayered character who defied the narrative range and structure for female protagonists at that time, which makes this investigation a worthy endeavor.
Final Paper Proposal
There are many scholarly arguments that support the view of Sue Bridehead as a ‘sexless, frigid’ young woman who was more of a tease than a woman worth of any empathy. I argue that not only was Sue not deserving of any of those synonyms, but through feminist theory, show that she was a creature before her time. Though this novel is penned under the Victorian era, there is much social change happening historically. With the beginnings of feminism in the 1850’s Britain, the opinion of Victorian maidenhood and a woman’s place was now in question and tradition in peril. Sue Bridehead was, I believe, Hardy’s attempt to reconcile the ‘old’ with the ‘new’. Though we will never know of Hardy’s true motivations or thoughts behind his characters, we have his story that leaves a powerful message of the strength of societal beliefs. We have to think that Arabella was placed into this story as a contrast to Sue, with Sue being the preferable sort. If this premise is true, then can we as readers accept that Sue Bridehead was a complex character; one who had flaws but was genuine and therefore still worthy? Can we accept that her rejection of her husband's under the law and the husband of her heart was not because of a perverse desire to entice and tease? It was in fact her desire to be free from restrictions and be herself, just as women do today? Under the feminist theory, I plan to trace Sue Bridehead throughout the novel, showing examples to prove that Sue was, in fact, the reimagining of what the ‘new era’ woman would encompass through Hardy’s eyes.
