Focus Spring 1999.tif 38 Focus on Literatur "Gut sei gewesen, was die Ehtfaltung alles Lebendigen gefordert habe:"l Feminist M ythmaking and Christa Wolf's Medea. Stimmen Britta Kallin Decent feminist scholarship has identified the social construct Myrhos ~Vrau, the myth of womanhood, as an. invention of the female sex in literature and history. It has been revealed that female characters depicted in myths and other literary forms are often one-sided women who represent ideals of angel, mother, or whore. Medea; Helena, Me­ dusa: their names ring in our ears. We have heard stories about them or their family members. Similar to the analysis of the role of Eve, Judith, and Mary in feminist theology, feminist myth criticism has allowed us to reinterpret female characters in myths, to rewrite their stories, and to retell their impact on humanity.2 Myth and religion are different, yet related ways of making sense of our history and espe­ ciall y of our so-called civilization. Mythological and religious stories are narrative forms that attempt to shed light on our cultural values, philosophical and political principles, as well as on our origin, repre­ sented by our fore-fathers and fore-mothers. In her recent work Medea. Stimmen (1996), why does Christa Wolf turn to a patriarchal tradition; why does she rewrite a Greek myth?> Many critics have attacked Wolf and interpreted the Medea novel as a self-defensive work.4 The same issues have often been raised about her previous novel Kassandra (1983) and Wolf has been criti­ cized for not offering a new and different approach from her first rein­ terpretation of mythology. These attitudes-as appropriate as they may be-prevent investigations of other levels of the text. Wolf's rewriting of the Medea myth is a continuation of this process in feminist criti­ cism, which is still at the beginning of examining different aspects of gender, different works, and different myths of Our culture. With the help of this feminist practice, Wolf shows the reader inequalities in Focus on LiteratuT Vol. 6, No. 1 (1999) 38 Focus on Literatur "Gut sei gewesen, was die Ehtfaltung alles Lebendigen gefordert habe:"l Feminist M ythmaking and Christa Wolf's Medea. Stimmen Britta Kallin Decent feminist scholarship has identified the social construct Mythos ~ V rau, the myth of womanhood, as an. invention of the female sex in literature and history. It has been revealed that female characters depicted in myths and other literary forms are often one-sided women who represent ideals of angel, mother, or whore. Medea; Helena, Me­ dusa: their names ring in our ears. We have heard stories about them or their family members. Similar to the analysis of the role of Eve, Judith, and Mary in feminist theology, feminist myth criticism has allowed us to reinterpret female characters in myths, to rewrite their stories, and to retell their impact on humanity.2 Myth and religion are different, yet related ways of making sense of our history and espe­ cially of our so-called civilization. Mythological and religious stories are narrative forms that attempt to shed light on our cultural values, philosophical and political principles, as well as on our origin, repre­ sented by our fore-fathers and fore-mothers. In her recent work Medea. Stimmen (1996), why does Christa Wolf turn to a patriarchal tradition; why does she rewrite a Greek myth?> Many critics have attacked Wolf and interpreted the Medea novel as a self-defensive work.4 The same issues have often been raised about her previous novel Kassandra (1983) and Wolf has been criti­ cized for not offering a new and different approach from her first rein­ terpretation of mythology. These attitudes-as appropriate as they may be-prevent investigations of other levels of the text. Wolf's rewriting of the Medea myth is a continuation of this process in feminist criti­ cism, which is still at the beginning of examining different aspects of gender, different works, and different myths of Our culture. With the help of this feminist practice, Wolf shows the reader inequalities in Focus on LiteratuT Vol. 6, No. 1 (1999) 40 41 Focus on Literatur Our world and illustrates how differently men and women construct their reality. Thus, Wolf uses the myth to ponder about history and the writing of histOry as well as the writing of stories and their inscrip­ tion into our cultural memory. Reading Wolf's novel from a feminist perspective, the question arises as to whose interests old myths serve and what they tell us about the world and our place in them. In Medea. Stimmen, Wolf creates a selfhood for women and expresses women's experience by transforming an androcentric cultural tradition. By re­ defining Medea, she revises one part of a male-dominated system of storytelling. Before I examine these points with examples from Wolf's novel, I would like to outline the recent history of feminist myth criti­ cism as part of feminist literary criticism. As feminist scholars have shown, religious stOries and folk­ tales or myths of the Western tradition are very important for Our understanding of gendered characteristics because of their influence on our thinking and on Our comprehension of the world. Helene Cixous's approach regarding mythology in the Western European tra­ dition has opened up Our eyes for a critique of old values. In 1975, Cixous dealt with the Medea figure in The Newly Born Woman and illustrated her feminist critique of myths: Woman's weapons: Weeping, crying, poisons, veils, nets. Who cries there? ... Who? Medea, Ariadne, Dido, How did you moan ... All history is thus troubled with her incessant moanings, which insist, die down, come up again, always un­ heard. (107) Cixous reflects on mythological female characters who are either pas­ sive, helpless victims (they cry) Or they are aggressive perpetrators (they poison somebody) but their cries and voices are never heard. The fe­ male characters of male authors are often trapped in their patriarchal environment without being given a voice or a way Out of their situa­ tion. Cixous deals extensively with the meaning of myths as part of Our literary uadition: Where to stand? Who to be? Who, in the long continuing episodes of their misfortune - woman's abundance always re­ paid by abandonment? Beginning Medea's story all over again, Feminist Nlythmaking . less and less violently, repeating mOre and more tenderly, sadly, the gift, the fervor, the passion, the alienation, the stunning discovery of the worst (which isn't death): the total love that has been used by the loved one for his base ambitions. 'The one who was everything for me, I know only too well, my husband has become the worst of men.' (Euripides, Medea 75) Cixous uses the patriarchal tradition of myth because their reinterpre­ tation offers a way of showing how old traditions are laden with inher­ ited misogynist values. Among others, Dorothy Dinnerstein explains in The Mermaid and the Minotaur (1976) how wCime~ and men learn gender specific attitudes and internalize them by being exposed to old stories. Since myths seem to stem from tflle stories, readers and listen­ ers of myths internalize the ideas about gender differences as univer­ sally applicable and true. 5 In 1978, the radical feminist Mary Daly examined the mystifi­ cation of myths in the Western world and carne to the conclusion that "[p ]atriarchy perpetuates its deception through myth" (44). In patriar­ chal myth scholarship, myths are viewed as explanations of the world, they are supposed to help understand the world. Like any other form of literature they can be used as a tool of learning because they include a didactic approach: "To participate in reality is to repeat mythical models, to reactualize them continuously" (Daly 45, emphasis in origi­ nal). According to Daly, patriarchy uses traditional myths to reinforce its dominant position. Supporting this idea, Northrop Frye points out the importance of our cultural heritage in terms of myths. Fry states that Greek and biblical mythologies are predominantly male­ centered and that they lead to almost all subsequent forms of litera­ ture.6 In her study Feminist Criticism: Women as Contemporary Crit­ ics (1986), Maggie Humm concludes that feminist scholars have long been concerned with the influence on gender-role perceptions trans­ mitted through myths.7 She not only eloquently explains the impor­ tance of myths for gender stereotypes but also emphasizes the need for new myths: Myth Critics are important to any feminist analysis of the culture of sexuality since sexual politics is the base for their 40 Focus on Literatur Our world and illustrates how differently men and women construct their reality. Thus, Wolf uses the myth to ponder about history and the ~Titing of histOry as well as the writing of stories and their inscrip­ tiOn IntO our cultural memory. Reading Wolf's novel from a feminist perspective, the question arises as to whose interests old myths serve and what they tell us about the world and Our place in them. In Medea. Stimmen, Wolf creates a selfhood for women and expresses women's experience by transforming an androcentric cultural tradition. By re­ defining Medea, she revises one part of a male-dominated system of storytelling. Before I examine these points with examples from Wolf's novel, I would like to outline the recent history of feminist myth criti­ CISm as part of feminist literary criticism. As feminist scholars have shown, religious stOries and folk­ tales or myths of the Western tradition are very important for Our understanding of gendered characteristics because of their influence on our thinking and on Our comprehension of the world. Helene C:ixous's approach regarding mythology in the Western European tra­ dnwn has opened up Our eyes for a critique of old values. In 1975, Cixous dealt with the Medea figure in The Newly Born Woman and illustrated her fem.inist critique of myths: Woman's weapons: Weeping, crying, poisons, veils, nets. Who cries there? . .. Who? Medea, Ariadne, Dido, How did you moan ... All history is thus troubled with her incessant moanings, which insist, die down, come up again, always un­ heard. (107) Cixous reflects on mythological female characters who are either pas­ SIV~, helpless victims (they cry) Or they are aggressive perpetrators (they pOlson somebody) but their cries and voices are never heard. The fe­ mal~ characters. of male authors are often trapped in their patriarchal enVlfonment WIthout being given a voice or a way Out of their situa­ tion. Cixous deals extensively with the meaning of myths as part of Our literary uadition: W?ere to stand? Who to be? Who, in the long continuing epIsodes of their misfortune - woman's abundance always re­ paid by abandonment? Beginning Medea's story all over again, Feminist Mythmaking . 41 less and less violently, repeating mOre and more tenderly, sadly, the gift, the fervor, the passion, the alienation, the stunning discovery of the worst (which isn't death): the total love that has been used by the loved one for his base ambitions. 'The one who was everything for me, I know only too well, my husband has become the worst of men.' (Euripides, Medea 75) Cixous uses the patriarchal tradition of myth because their reinterpre­ tation offers a way of showing how old traditions are laden with inher­ ited misogynist values. Among others, Dorothy Dinnerstein explains in The Mermaid and the Minotaur (1976) how wCime~ and men learn gender specific attitudes and internalize them by being exposed t? old stories. Since myths seem to stem from tflle stories, readers and lIsten­ ers of myths internalize the ideas about gender differences as univer- sally applicable and true. 5 .. In 1978, the radical feminist Mary Daly examined the mystIfi­ cation of myths in the Western world and came to the conclusion that "[p]atriarchy perpetuates its deception through myth" (44). In patriar­ chal myth scholarship, myths are viewed as explanations of the world, they are supposed to help understand the world. Like any other form of literature they can be used as a tool of learning because they include a didactic approach: "To participate in reality is to repeat mythical models, to reactualize them continuously" (Daly 45, emphasis in origi­ nal) . According to Daly, patriarchy uses traditional myths to reinforce its dominant position. Supporting this idea, Northrop Frye points out the importance of our cultural heritage in terms of myths. Fry states that Greek and biblical mythologies are predominantly male­ centered and that they lead to almost all subsequent forms of litera- In her study Feminist Criticism: Women as Contemporary Crit­ ics (1986), Maggie Humm concludes that feminist scholars have long been concerned with the influence on gender-role per(eptions trans­ mitted through myths.7 She not only eloquently explains the impor­ tance of myths for gender stereotypes but also emphasizes the need for new myths: Myth Critics are important to any feminist analysis of the culture of sexuality since sexual politics is the base for theIr 42 43 Focus on Literatur analysis. Male myths ... are really prohibitions against women's free choice of sexuality ... Above all, gender stereotypes can only be eliminated when we recognise the many different styles of thought, feeling and behaviour represented in the language of myths. In the long run, myth criticism may be most impor­ tant not so much to feminist criticism but to the future of women's writing. The creation of new myth in lesbian and science fiction novels ... is an uncharted territory of the psy­ chological and physical potential of women . (102-3, emphasis in original) Humm's argument is twofold: myth criticism is an important area for feminist analysis as well as a tool for new myths written from a female or feminist perspective. Another feminist scholar who draws attention to the ques­ tionable assum ption that myths offer universal truth is Cynthia Davis. In 1990, Davis examined archetypes and myths and warned that tradi­ tionally myth scholars have not taken into account "that most of the tales they study are created and transmitted by males ... and they never question the equation of male with universal" (114). Therefore, feminist critics have to examine mythology as partly shaped by a pa­ triarchal tradition. According to Davis, it is important to keep the following in mind when analyzing the works of women writers and their relation to images of women: The woman is always the Other in the male myth, unpos­ sessed but needed, capable of dual effects, allowing and threat­ ening the man's sense of identity. The woman novelist enters a literature and culture rooted in this myth, in which gender relations are the parable for human relations to the outer world, in which human means "male" ... But in a very real sense, the received versions of myth are the structures the writer has to work with; to step completely out of one's culture is impos­ sible. The woman writer can add the 'human dimension' by identifying with the mythic female in a way that men cannot; thus the resurrection of myths that center on women (117)8 Feminist Mythmaking Davis calls for adaptations of myths from a female perspective. When an author retells a myth focusing on the situation of women, an illu­ minating dimension is added to the reading of the myth. Yet, Davis also clearly states the impossibility of completely changing a myth because of our roots in the culture in which we grow up. In her article "Creating a Women's Mythology: H.D.'s Helen in Egypt" (1990), Susan Friedman describes why it is so important for the female literary tradition to establish a women's mythology: Because this revisionist mythmaking offers a rich source of personal and cultural transformations 'froIll a woman's per­ spective, it makes an important contribution to the female poetic tradition. Simultaneously, it helps to reshape the poetic tradition to which all groups, with their different historically determined experiences and perspectives, contribute. (376, em­ phasis in original) Friedman sees an important opportunity for the reshaping of the pa­ triarchal canon in revising old myths. She has explored revisions of the traditional Helen myth in H.D.'s poetry. According to Friedman, H.D. can only construct a new identity for Helen after the character comes to terms with the identity created by the dominant tradition. In order to understand Wolf's choice to reinterpret a Greek myth, I would like to point to a recent study by Sigrid Weigel, Bilder des kulturellen Geddchtnisses (1994), in which she deals with new ap­ proaches in reading East and West German literature from a post- Wende perspective.9 Weigel asserts that a development has taken place in con­ temporary German literature that moves from themes of individual autobiographical stories to stories that deal with a more collective cul­ tural memory. Weigel further contends that authors try to reconstruct their cultural identity nowadays by elucidating their cultural roots in legends, folk-tales, and myths. The reader is drawn into an interpreta­ tion of literature through complex structures of memory, one of which is the "Verfahren der Aktualisierung von Mythen fur gegenwartige Erfahrungen" (Weigel 10). Weigel describes the overall tendencies in contemporary German literature as follows: 1m Bewu~tsein einer immer schon be- und geschriebenen, einer 42 Focus on Literatur analysis. Male myths ... are really prohibitions against women's free choic.e of sexuality ... Above all, gender stereotypes can only be elirrunated when we recognise the many different styles of thought, feeling and behaviour represented in the lanruao-e o 0 of myths. In the long run, myth criticism may be most impor- tant not so much to feminist criticism but to the future of women's writing. The creation of new myth in lesbian and science fiction novels ... is an uncharted territory of the psy­ chological and physical potential of women. (102-3, emphasis in original) Humm's argument is twofold: myth criticism is an important area for feminist analysis as well as a tool for new myths written from a female or feminist perspective. . Another feminist scholar who draws attention to the ques- tlonable assumption that myths offer universal truth is Cynthia Davis. In 1990, Davis examined archetypes and myths and warned that tradi­ tionally myth scholars have not taken into account "that most of the tales they s~udy are crea.ted and transmitted by males ... and they never quesuon the equatIOn of male with universal" (114) . Therefore, femInIst cntlcs.have to examine mythology as partly shaped by a pa­ tnarchal t:-adlt1?n. According to Davis, it is important to keep the followmg m rrund when analyzing the works of women writers and their relation to images of women: The woman is always the Other in the male myth, unpos­ sessed but needed, capable of dual effects, allowino- and threat- . 0 enrng the man's sense of identity. The woman novelist enters a liter~ture and culture rooted in this myth, in which gender relatIOns are the parable for human relations to the outer world in ~hich human means "male" ... But in a very real sense, th~ receIved versions of myth are the structures the writer has to ,:ork with; to step completely Out of one's culture is impos­ SIble .. The woman writer can add the 'human dimension' by Idenufymg WIth the mythic female in a way that men cannot; thus the resurrection of myths that center on women .... (117)8 Feminist M ythmaking 43 Davis calls for adaptations of myths from a female perspective. When an author retells a myth focusing on the situation of women, an illu­ minating dimension is added to the reading of the myth. Yet, Davis also clearly states the impossibility of completely changing a myth because of our roots in the culture in which we grow up. In her article "Creating a Women's Mythology: H .D.'s Helen in Egypt" (1990), Susan Friedman describes why it is so important for the female literary tradition to establish a women's mythology: Because this revisionist mythmaking offers a rich source of personal and cultural transformations '[roIll a woman's per­ spective, it makes an important contribution to the female poetic tradition. Simultaneously, it helps to reshape the poetic tradition to which all groups, with their different historically determined experiences and perspectives, contribute. (376, em­ phasis in original) Friedman sees an important opportunity for the reshaping of the pa­ triarchal canon in revising old myths. She has explored revisions of the traditional Helen myth in H.D.'s poetry. According to Friedman, H .D. can only construct a new identity for Helen after the character comes to terms with the identity created by the dominant tradition. In order to understand Wolf's choice to reinterpret a Greek myth, I would like to point to a recent study by Sigrid Weigel, Bilder des kulcurellen Geddchcnisses (1994), in which she deals with new ap­ proaches in reading East and West German literature from a post- Wende perspective.9 Weigel asserts that a development has taken place in con­ temporary German literature that moves from themes of individual autobiographical stories to stories that deal with a more collective cul­ tural memory. Weigel further contends that authors try to reconstruct their cultural identity nowadays by elucidating their cultural roots in legends, folk-tales, and myths. The reader is drawn into an interpreta­ tion of literature through complex structures of memory, one of whIch is the "Verfahren der Aktualisierung von Mythen fur gegenwartige Erfahrungen" (Weigel 10). Weigel describes the overall tendencies in contemporary German literature as follows: 1m Bewu~tsein einer immer schon be- und geschriebenen, einer 44 45 Focus on Literatur stets bereits gedeuteten Welt gewinnen in der Literatur dabei Verfahren der IntertextuaLitdt an Bedeutung: Referenzen auf tradierte Bilder, Texte und Dokumente, Fortschreibungen, Umschriften und Relekturen alter Mythen und Geschichten, in denen Ahnlichkeiten aufscheinen und Unterschiede zur Jetztzeit markiert werden. (11, emphasis in original) The cultural memory with which authors deal is found in old stories, images, and creation myths. They offer an explanation of the struc­ ture of our present societies and ideas. In the patriarchal Medea myth, Medea threatens the patriar­ chal Greek world and its values, one of them being the ideal of the submissive female. Her power is represented as destructive because she does not support but attacks the patriarchal system. Carolyn Durham describes Euripides'S version as follows: "Medea dismembers and scat­ ters in the first place. Not only defined as killer of men, Medea also incarnates the destruction of the private, domestic, traditionally fe­ male world of the family" (55).10 Durham does a close feminist read­ ing of Euripides's play, but unlike her and other feminist scholars who interpret the drama as androcentric, Peter Rudnytsky claims in his interpretation that Euripides's Medea is a "feminist work:" "Indeed, despite being written by a male author, the Medea [Euripides's] surely qualifies as a feminist work in its anatomy of the injustices suffered by women in marriage" (37). I argue that it is not Euripides or other authors after him but Wolf who is the first to offer her readers a femi­ nist version of Medea. 11 Manfred Fuhrmann observes in the Frank­ furter ALLgemeine Zeitung: Die griechischen Mythen durfen umerzahlt werden: Davon leben sie, davon haben sie ihre leuchtenden Spuren die Jahrtausende hindurch hinterlassen. Christa Wolfs neue Medea befolgt dieses Prinzip, sie befolgt es so entschieden, daB sie sich grundlich von ihren etwa zweihundert Vorgangerinnen unterscheidet. Among these two hundred authors, Wolf is the first to rewrite the myth in order to shed new light on a story originally written from a male perspective. She refuses to believe that Medea has murdered her Feminist M ythmaking children. 12 Wolf tries to add a human dimension to her character by iden­ tifying with Medea. Her Medea is not an entirely new myth . She uses different versions of this old myth and allows the reader to look at them from a different perspective. Neither the author nor the readers can step out of the culture that surrounds them. This realization re­ quires us to analyze the myths with which we have grown up, discover their misogynist values and, possibly, change them into egalitarian stories by including other perspectives or inventing new myths. The same is necessary when we look at nursery rhymes, fairy tales, etc. In retelling "Little Red Riding Hood" from a feminist perspective, we conceptualize a different version which enables us to question whether there is only one "true" and right story. Hardly any story and in par­ ticular not old, handed down stories announce that they are written or told from a certain perspective and that there are other "true" ac­ counts from other perspectives of the same Story. The retelling of a Story allows us to see how tied up our literary and intellectual tradi­ tion is with the dominant perspective. To problematize Wolf's critique of the most predominant Medea myth, we need to take a closer look at the differences between Wolf's Medea.Stimmen and the main source from which her interpre­ tation evolved. Euripides's play Medea is no doubt the most promi­ nent source for Wolf, although she is aware of early derivations of the story.13 In Euripides's and Wolf's works, Medea is the protagonist of the story.14 The motivations for her actions, however, are quite con­ trary and the evaluation of Medea's actions by these two authors is very different. In the patriarchal tradition of myths, Medea is known as the woman who fell in love with Jason and helped him steal the Golden Fleece. Fearing her father's punishment for her disobedience, she fled . with Jason and the other Argonauts to Corinth. When her father set out his fleet in pursuit of them, Medea allegedly killed her brother, cut his body into pieces and strew them into the ocean so that her father would slow down. Medea is also said to have poisoned the King of Corinth. She is known for jealously murdering the king's daughter Glauke when her husband Jason decided to marry Glauke. Finally, Medea is supposed to have murdered her two children to take revenge on Jason. 44 Focus on Literatur stets bereits gedeuteten Welt gewinnen in der Literatur dabei Verfahren der IntertextuaLitdt an Bedeutung: Referenzen auf tradierte Bilder, Texte und Dokumente, Fortschreibungen, Umschrift~n und Relekturen alter Mythen und Geschichten, in den en Ahnlichkeiten aufscheinen und Unterschiede zur Jetztzeit markiert werden. (11, emphasis in original) The cultural memory with which authors deal is found in old stories images, and creation myths. They offer an explanation of the struc~ ture of our present societies and ideas. In the patriarchal Medea myth, Medea threatens the patriar­ chal Greek world and its values, one of them being the ideal of the submissive female. Her power is represented as destructive because she does not support but attacks the patriarchal system. Carolyn Durham describes Euripides's version as follows: "Medea dismembers and scat­ ters in the first place. Not only defined as killer of men, Medea also incarnates the destruction of the private, domestic, traditionally fe­ male world of the family" (55).10 Durham does a close feminist read­ ing of Euripides's play, but unlike her and other feminist scholars who interpret the drama as androcentric, Peter Rudnytsky claims in his interpretation that Euripides's Medea is a "feminist work" "Indeed, despit: being written by a male author, the Medea [Euripides's] surely qualIfIes as a feminist work in its anatomy of the injustices suffered by women in marriage" (37). I argue that it is not Euripides or other authors after him but Wolf who is the first to offer her readers a femi­ nist version of Medea.11 Manfred Fuhrmann observes in the Frank­ furter ALLgemeine Zeitung: Die griechischen Mythen durfen umerzahlt werden: Davon leben sie, davon haben sie ihre leuchtenden Spuren die Jahrtausende hindurch hinterlassen. Christa Wolfs neue Medea befolgt dieses Prinzip, sie befolgt es so entschieden, daB sie sich grundlich von ihren etwa zweihundert Vorgangerinnen unterscheidet. Among these two hundred authors, Wolf is the first to rewrite the myth in order to shed new light on a story originally written from a male perspective. She refuses to believe that Medea has murdered her Feminist M ythmaking 45 children. 12 Wolf tries to add a human dimension to her character by iden­ tifying with Medea. Her Medea is not an entirely new myth. She uses different versions of this old myth and allows the reader to look at them from a different perspective. Neither the author nor the readers can step out of the culture that surrounds them. This realization re­ quires us to analyze the myths with which we have grown up, discover their misogynist values and, possibly, change them into egalitarian stories by including other perspectives or inventing new myths. The same is necessary when we look at nursery rhymes, fairy tales, etc. In retelling "Little Red Riding H ood" from a feminist perspective, we conceptualize a different version which enables us to question whether there is only one "true" and right story. Hardly any story and in par­ ticular not old, handed down stories announce that they are written or told from a certain perspective and that there are other "true" ac­ counts from other perspectives of the same Story. The retelling of a Story allows us to see how tied up our literary and intellectual tradi­ tion is with the dominant perspective. To problematize Wolf's critique of the most predominant Medea myth, we need to take a closer look at the differences between Wolf's Medea.Stimmen and the main source from which her interpre­ tation evolved. Euripides's play Medea is no doubt the most promi­ nent source for Wolf, although she is aware of early derivations of the story.13 In Euripides's and Wolf's works, Medea is the protagonist of the story. I-! The motivations for her actions, however, are quite con­ trary and the evaluation of Medea's actions by these two authors is very different. In the patriarchal tradition of myths, Medea is known as the woman who fell in love with Jason and helped him steal the Golden Fleece. Fearing her father's punishment for her disobedience, she fled . with Jason and the other Argonauts to Corinth. When her father set out his fleet in pursuit of them, Medea allegedly killed her brother, cut his body into pieces and strew them into the ocean so that her father would slow down. Medea is also said to have poisoned the King of Corinth. She is known for jealously murdering the king's daughter Glauke when her husband Jason decided to marry Glauke. Finally, Medea is supposed to have murdered her two children to take revenge on Jason . http:story.14 http:story.13 http:Medea.11 46 Focus on LiteralltT The most striking changes which \'{folf incorporates in her Story are the following: Medea leaves Colchis because it is a degenerate state ruled by her corrupt father, Aietes. Her brother Absyrtos does not die at her hands but he is killed wicit their father's permission because Aieres is afraid that his son would take over his power. IS Medea does not poison the princess of Corinth, Glauke, and her father, Kreon. Medea does nor commit infanticide but her children are killed by the mob. The infanticide motive, central (0 all orner adaptations of the myth, is no longer the crucial issue because Medea has a lover and is not jealous of Glauke.!6 Euripides's Mede .. is a less independent character than \Volf's. Even though he turned her into an intelligent woman and powerful sorceress, she is trapped in the patriarchal system of her time which allows her only to be mother and faithful wife. In Wolrs novel, Medea is not only imeUigent and has healing P0';\,'f:rs but she also has many friends, a profession, and she does not see her life-fulfillment in sup­ paning her husband's aspirations. WoIrs Medea is not a self-sacrific­ ing woman. Even though she tries to belp others through psycho­ therapeutic insight and homeopathic medicine, she is very much aware that she does not follow the rules for women in Greek society.17 She does not abandon her powerful position and does not lie about basic beliefs in order to save her husband. her children, or herself. Euripides wrote from a perspective which turned Medea into a barbarian outsider, a non-Greek, who threatens Greek values and society. 1n Myths of the Greeks and Romans, Michael Grant indicates that some of the legends about the Argonauts and the Odyssey were created in a phase of colonization and explorarion of the Mediterra­ nean region during the seventh and sixth century B.C. Euripides wrore his plays during the classical phase in the fifth century B.C. and tried to fuse some of these old legends (Grant 280). Wolf analyzes Medea's position as a member of an ethnic mi­ nority of her time. By using an old story, she traces similarities to our time and addresses unresolved social problems in present·day Germany as well as in Western history. As a foreigner and a woman who looks critically at the intrigues of the ruling class Medea is turned into the scapegoat of the greedy government in Corinth which tries to keep its po';\,'f:rful position through fraud and deceit. Compared with the light­ skinned Greeks, Medea is dark-skinned. In her article in the Nelle Feminist Mythmaking 47 Zurcher Zeittmg, Astrid Kohler refers to her as the "'erste Asylantin der Literaturgeschichte.»u The novel tries to speak out against oppression of minorities and violence against foreigners. Medea. Sllmmen con­ tains a critique of colonialism. However, Monika Shafi challenges the way Wolf (rears Medea as a foreigner and a "barbarian:" "'Medea entfaltet ... nicht eine kolonialkritische Perspektive, sondern rekurriert letzdich auf ein klassisches Humanit2csideal, das individuelle Entscheidungsprozesse in den Vordergrund riickt" (383). Indeed, the novel fail s to discuss problems between insiders and outsiders and re­ duces the conflict between the majority of the Greeks and the ethnic minority of the people from Colchis to a persona) story. Although these points of criticism are compelling, it is also a legjtimate investi­ gation on Wolf's part to confront us with a different version. As Shafi persuasively explains, the blind spots in the novel are fields of analysis for feminist scholarship that work in conjunction with issues of race, sexual orien~tion, age, religion, to name but a few distinctive differ­ ences among people. Shafi also convincingly argues that the character Medea enters exile as an outsider in a privileged position and is preoc­ cupied with her moral superiority: Medea ist namlich nicht damit beschaftigt, sich in dem 3US verlorener Heimat und ungewisser Zukunft konstituierten 'Zwischen-Raum' neu zu orten, sondern ih re moralische Andersartigkeit und Uberlegenheit unter Beweis zu stellen. (383) Medea's moral power compared to everyone around her is emphasized by the different voices-since there is no single narrator-throughout the text. 19 Shafi's assertion of Medea's superiority stands in contrast to H erbert Lehnert's conclusions. According to him, the representation of Medea "verhindert, daB die mythisch-femi nin ische Vorbildlichkeit der Figur ins Legendare und Unglaubhafte gerat" (300). While Shafi asserts that Medea's role is too superior ro be cons idered real, Lehnert argues that Medea is depicted as an ideal but does not lose her credibil­ ity as a human being. Wolf's Medea has been referred to as 1O0 good 1O be [rue.2~ Nevertheless, Wolf maintains in an interview that Medea is not meant to represent an ideal: "Wenn ich an die Frauen denke, die ich kenne, ware sie [Medea] bestimmr nicht flir jede ein Ideal. Und, 48 FootS on Literallir ich wieder hole, ich b in weir davan emfernt, rdeale schaffen Zll wollen" (\Xfolf, "Interview" 55). Wolf tries to show her readers a different ver­ sion and glorifies Medea but refuses to admit that [he character Medea turns into an image representing the conscience of the people and is thus of superior moral standing. Gail Finney contends that [T]he reader emerges from this novel with a revised portrait of Medea as a superior individual: superior as a woman, as a healer, as a priestess who unburdens others by encouraging them to speak-to bring other hidden thoughts to a verbal level. in the manner of a therapist-and as the conscience of the public. (124) Medea is obviously not the average person and has advantages (social standing, education, etc.) over other characters in the book (and over her readers) that prevent them from making similar decisions of com­ parable moral integrity. Nevertheless, the judgment of Medea as a moral speaker and Wolf's mouthpiece raises other questions. The crit ique that Medea is roo noble a human being might be persuasive on the one hand. Yet, on the o ther hand, does this criticism occur partly because Wolf's character is a woman? In literary h istory, many male characters have been representatives of a new man, a better human being. Is Wolf criticized because she develo ped a m orally superior female character as a positive example of humanity? In Kassandra and Medea. Stimmen, the agent is not a male but female character. The question arises whether the author is criticized for placing a woman in the position of a moral leader. As Georgina Paul claims in her study on the dialeaic in Medea. Stimmen, "(S]ie [Wolf] kehrt den SpieR gleichsam urn, indem sie die Manner der mangelnden Selbsterkenmnis bez.ichtigt, wah rend die Frauen es sind, die die Handlungen der Manner miihelos durchschauen .. . " (235) . H owever, nor all women are good and all men are bad. lnge Stephan acknowledges that Wolf sympathizes with the female rathe r than male characters but she also asserts that the depiction of charac­ ters like Agameda and other women who work against Medea helps to avoid Meine schemacische Verteilung von G ut und Bose zwischen Frauen und Mannern D (247).ln an interview, Wolf admits that her interest lies much more in the development and motivation of the female charac- Feminist Mythmaki.qg 49 ters.21 "DaG hier ei ne Frauenfigur von einem tiber die Jahrhundene hinweg tiberlieferten Make! befreit wird," writes Thomas Anz for the Silddeutsche Zeitlmg, "diem aber nicht der platten Gegeniiberstellung von gute n , verkannten Frauen und schlechten, iiherschatzten Mannern." An essential task of femi nist literary scho larship is to ex­ amine these kinds of new myths and to question their representation of characters, values, and the world depicted in them. Wolf employs didactic goals w hen she changes the meaning of the o lder myths that show Medea as a sorceress and murderer.22 Whereas Euripides focuses only on themes such as love, adul­ tery, and jea1ousy, Wolf deals, in addition, with 'topics such as politics, psychology, education, the power-play between people, intrigues, truth, fear, and violence. The m ost important aspect in the book is her utO­ pian ideal of a better life, one in which all thin gs alive can be stimu­ lated , promoted, and encouraged and do not need to be suppressed. Medea's strength in Wolfs novel is her ability to see through things, to identify patterns of fear and how fear turns into hatred and violence. At one point she learns that nOt only Colchis which she fled hoping to find to a p lace where people were less corrupt but also Corinth is built on li es. "Die hier ... sind Meister im Liigen, auch im Sich-selbst­ Belugen" (Wolf, Medea 111). For Wolf, it is important to tackle themes of Justice and equality of h umankind. Medea's former student Agameda used to be an admirer of hers. During the course of the novel, how­ ever, Agameda's feelings change into envy and finally into hatred. She says: '"'Medea in ihrer Verblendung setzt ja auf die Starken der Menschen, ich setze auf ih re Schwachen" (83) . Medea tru ly believes in the positive sides of humans, although she is aware that people can be easily corrupted t hrough fear and lack of self-respect . W hat Wolf has ch allenged in Kassandra and keeps challenging in Medea. Slimmen are t he fixed images of women. These unchanging images reoccur th roughout literary history in stOries wriuen up to the present. To contest these images, Wolf destroys the static and para­ lyzed character Medea. The effect is eye-opening. At the same time, however, Wolf steps into the [rap of unintentionally reinforcing the message o f the original story. As Nicola Kaminski puts it in her analy­ sis of the interconnectedness of Wolf's Sommemiick, ~~s bleibt, and Medea. Stimmen: Als abgeschlossener Einzeltext vermag 3uch sie (Medea] 50 roms on Liceralltr bloG die Aporie des Festschreibens, def Erserzung eines Mythos durch einen anderen zur Darstellung zu bringen, wenn auch - im fortwahrenden Nachdenken iiber Mythengenese - hach selbsrreOexiv. (131) I would argue, however, that Wolf's self-reflexive analysis of the old myth enables the reader of Medea. 5timmen to reread the old myth while simultaneously reading the revised one which opens up new horizons of conceptualizing our world. In her study on myth and gender in 2D'b century German writings, Inge Stephan also declares that Wolf's approach to the old myth is "analytisch-hermeneutisch" and opens new dimensions in a dissecting fashion (244). By rewrit ing Medea, Wolf counterbalances the masculine experience with the for­ marion of a women's myth and transforms mythological traditions by evaluating the Medea conflict from a female perspective. The author makes Medea realize and fight against all expectations of the domi· nant myth before Medea's authentic self can develop and gain inde· pendence of the old myth. Some critics have insisted that Wolf prompts the reader of her book with an anitude of resignation, a judgment they primarily base on the last few passages ofthe book.n In tbe end, after she is expelled from Corinth and her two sons are kined, Medea has to run away and she joins a group of women in the mountains. She doubts that people will understand the power structures and dangers for humankind in patriarchal societies. Even jfthey identified them, they would not know how to fight them. It has also often been overlooked, though, that Wolf offers a variety of descriptions which represent a utopian world. When Medea remembers her childhood in Colchis, she dreams of a better society that can be read as a utopian image for the future: Wir in Kolchis waren beseelt von unseren uralten Legenden. in denen unser Land von gerechten Koniginnen und Konigen regiert wurde, bewohnt von Menschen, die in Eintracht mitemander iebten und unter denen der Besitz so gleichmaBig verteilt war, da!! keiner den anderen beneidete oder ibm nach seinem Gut oder gar nach dem Leben trachtete. (Wolf, Medea 99)" Centuries ago, before Medea was born, the government in Colchis Feminist Mythmaking 51 distributed property evenly among their subjects. The projection of Marxist ideas regarding property distribution becomes evidem. The lifestyle in Colchis was initially different and focused on the comfort of all people. Medea talks about those times and values with Akamas, one of the astrologers and politicians in Corinth who, in the end, accelerates her downfall. "Gut sei gewesen, was die Emfalrung alles Lebendigen gefordert habe. Also Fruchrbarkeit, sagre ich [Akamasl Auch, sagte Medea, und sie fing an, von gewissen Kriiften zu reden .» (Wolf, Medea 123). The deconstruction of old myths will con­ tinue to play an essential role in feminist criticism, and it is a viable tool for literary endeavors that aim at exposing·internalized concepts of truth. In summary, I have shown how. feminist myth criticism has been shaped over the past twenty five years and now offers a theoreti­ cal basis and a set of tools to analyze our understanding of the world reflected in myths and to dissect gender ideologies transmitted through myths. Writing women's myths is a way of reconstnlC(ing women's role in history as well as a way of establishing a different place for women in oral and literal}' history. By relating WoWs reinterpretation in her novel to feminist myth criticism, I have examined why there is a need for more rewrinen versions of old stories and myths and a need for feminist mythmaking. I have also illustrated how the Medea figure in Wolf's novel Medea. Scimmen differs from the one in Euripides's play Medea. Wolf's Medea is not responsible for the crimes which she has been blamed for. \'(/olf has artistically rewritten bow Medea was made into a scapegoat for a much bigger crime committed by lhe greedy governments of Colchis and Corinth. The amhor deconstructs the traditional image of Medea and thus simultaneously constructs a new image of a st rong woman. Wolf reinterprets mythology and in doing so she shows biased viewpoints and inequalities in perception between people. She points out inadequacies of gender ideologies but does not succeed in investigating culturally inscribed racial stereotyping. If more new versions of Medea are going to be written, maybe at one point in time we will be able to tell a revised Medea myth that Incorporates all different kinds of perspectives from still unheard voices. University 0/ Cincinnati -, ,- l\'Vo!f, Meda 12J. Focus on Literatur N otes !For a further discussion of female characters in myths and religion, see Davis, Humm, and Pratt. 'Tbe English translation is entitled Mede::: A l.lod(m Ruelling and, therefore, defines WoIrs book immediately as an adaptation of a myth. 'As examples, see Anz., Fuhrmann, Kohler, and Hage. sBulfinch assertS that there is "a substratum of truth" in old myths (!l2). 6Comp .. re Humm 90. 'Compare Humm's argument in the chapter on "Myth Crit icism~ 1The resurrection of the Aphrodite, Anemis, CasS