Gendered Politics in Sophocles’ Trachiniae

Gesthimani Seferiadi, Gendered Politics in Sophocles’ Trachiniae (Bloomsbury Academic Press:  2022). 9781350260313.

Reviewed by Janette Snyder, Florida State University, js23c@fsu.edu.

Despite the popularity of reexamining tragic Greek heroines, not every play has been considered equally. Seferiadi asserts that the leading heroine of Sophocles’ play Trachiniae, Deianeira, is due for a reexamination. Deianeira, a character often left out in lieu of Sophocles’ more popular heroines such as Antigone and Electra, has yet to experience the same level of reconsideration as her tragic female counterparts. Seferiadi’s aim is not just to add to the conversation but to make a significant contribution to the scholarship surrounding Sophocles’ forgotten heroine. For the past forty years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the plight of previously villainized tragic Greek women. In addition to scholarly research, the mainstream audience has garnered popularity in the stories of famous femmes fatales from Greek tragedy including characters such as Clytemnestra, Medea, and Circe. Previous scholarship regarding these “monstrous” women had been quick to condemn them, but scholars have been reexamining heroines within this genre and investigating their actions with a modern perspective. Seferiadi’s book, in line with this modern perspective, highlights the character of Deianeira, and displays her similarities to these other tragic women. The aim of Seferiadi’s book is to offer a groundbreaking analysis of the gendered politics in Sophocles’ play, Trachiniae, while incorporating feminist theory to explore themes of identity, culture, and sexuality. Seferiadi attempts to challenge traditional interpretations of female subjectivity and the dynamics of the female locus.    

Seferiadi begins a preface that provides background information regarding previous scholarship on gender politics in Greek tragedy, while the introduction focuses on Seferiadi’s research and the book’s overarching themes regarding understanding female characters in Greek tragedy. Seferiadi employs Barbara Goff’s model (from her 2014 book Citizen Bacchae) regarding the presence of  patriarchal structures and their relationship to female agency, with the fulfillment of stereotypical gender roles. Goff’s model explores women in Greek tragedy and their engagement with Athenian identity, while emphasizing tragic elements of citizenship, gender, and power. This topic includes the destabilization of traditional civic roles and the boundaries between the city and the outsider. Beyond applying Goff’s model to analyze the lives and experiences of tragic women, Seferiadi compares the character of Deianeira to another Sophoclean heroine, Antigone, as analyzed by Judith Butler. Seferiadi briefly discusses the topic of kinship and gender norms, which was also a common theme in Butler’s examination of Antigone. Furthermore, Seferiadi affirms that unlike “real Athenian women,” women of tragedy are typically portrayed as paradoxical characters. Tragic women are given the ability to speak and act out, claiming this position as subjects while being in a society that blatantly objectifies them. The main character of Deianeira is interesting in that she is connected to this clan of more traditionally masculine women while attempting to maintain the sanctity of a stereotypical Athenian woman.

In Chapter One, “An Amazon in Athens: Monsters, Gender, and the Polis,” Seferiadi embarks on a comprehensive review of the monstrous origin story of Deianeira. This chapter serves as a foundation for the subsequent analysis, providing a rich background on Deianeira’s appearances throughout Greek tragedy and mythology. Seferiadi asserts that scholars can gain further insight into her character and familial heritage by delving into the etymology behind her name. According to Seferiadi, Deianeira’s name implies a “heinous and murderous aspect of her character” (p. 12). Her name, “the slayer of men,” alludes to her Amazonian origins and her classification as a femme fatale in Greek tragedy. Seferiadi further explores Deianeira’s connections to her Amazonian heritage and discusses the apparent presence of a clear destructive pattern within marital and familial relationships. Seferiadi proposes that both of these characteristics of Deianeira’s background may have been the leading causes behind her actions throughout the play: “Deianeira is predisposed to damage the institution of marriage, through which patriarchy aims to control sexuality, ensure perpetuation, and ultimately secure the survival and prosperity of the oikos and the polis” (p. 15). In the second part of the chapter, a subsection titled Deianeira against the Monsters, Seferiadi discusses the gender reversal presented throughout the play. Unlike other plays in the tragic genre, there are clear undertones of role reversals. Seferiadi argues that the monstrous characters of the play itself are the three leading male figures: Nessus, Achelous, and the famed hero Heracles. Seferiadi argues that assigning the male characters more aggressive qualities pushes Deianeira into a more traditionally masculine role of defending the oikos and polis. The etymology of Deianeira’s name is one of the highlights of this chapter, as it provides more background information into her character. 

In Chapter Two, Seferiadi discusses the institution of marriage and its violation. Nessus’ violent sexual assault towards Deianeira’s body, and incidentally her wedding, is arguably a complete violation of the protection and sanctity of the institution of marriage. Seferiadi asserts that following Nessus’ actions, the marriage between Heracles and Deianeira had been immediately derailed due to the threat of sexual violence, which gave way to the destruction of the oikos and the polis: “Nessus’ attack started as a violent rape and penetration of Deianeira’s wedding but ends in the rape of Heracles’ body turning the imminent wedding into a funeral and the sacrifical perpetrator of the preparatory offerings into the sacrificial victims” (p. 50). In the second part of the chapter, Seferiadi explores the connection between Iole and Deianeira. Heracles continued to violate the sanctity of the marriage by introducing a second wife into the oikos. Seferiadi acknowledges the similarities of the women, as they have both been forcibly objectified. Due to their beauty, both women have been placed in a position where they became the victim of forcible claims and that of a desired object. Seferiadi asserts that these women were physical manifestations of past and present actions existing simultaneously. Deianeira was able to explore her own subjectivity by experiencing it through the eyes of Iole. Seferiadi argues that by doing so, Deianeira was able to create Iole in her own image to recreate her own self-definition. The last part of the chapter focuses on analyzing the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Deianeira and Heracles. Seferiadi argues that their deaths reflect a sense of gender inversion. Dieaneira’s death journey is a blatant metaphor for female subjectivity as she bids farewell from the bridal bed. Seferiadi asserts that the marital bed exists as a physical representation of “female space,” but “at its very core [belongs to] the man” (p. 63). Unlike the typical female suicide, death arrives to Deianeira as a “blood slaughter” with the usage of a sword, and her left side exposed; characteristic of both a tragic female and male death. Seferiai connects Deianeira’s death to her Amazonian heritage and her role as the protector of the oikos. 

Chapter Three explores the concepts of xenia and reciprocity to investigate themes of Deianeira’s subjectivity further. Seferiadi begins this section with a discussion regarding the importance of xenia in Greek tragedy, and attempts to redefine Deianeira’s failure. Seferiadi reminds the reader of the assumed presumption of general female inaptitude within the tragic Greek genre and the role it played in previous examinations of Deianeira’s role in Heracles’ death.  Seferiadi claims that due to Heracles’ past experiences, his own ability to practice reciprocity has been disintegrated. Seferiadi asserts that Heracles’ decision to negate the practice of reciprocity is one of the leading causes of the destruction of stable and healthy relationships within the oikos and polis. Furthermore, Seferiadi seemingly places the blame on the marital relationship between the leading characters on Heracles’ violation of reciprocity: “the hero repeatedly transgresses the laws of the civilized community; that is, he violates xenia, destroys an oikos only to satisfy his lust…” (p. 91). Seferiadi analyzes Heracles’ decision to bring Iole into his household and argues that Heracles knowingly tampers with the institutionalized foundations of marriage and the oikos. Therefore, this showcases his role in the destruction of his own household.  Throughout the chapter, the author continues to analyze the various individualized transactions between Nessus, Heracles, and Deianeira and provides a commentary on Nessus’ initial violation of the reciprocity. Seferiadi argues that his general distastefulness and decision to perform favors for a profit would have been considered shameful in Athenian  aristocratic thought. This chapter, in particular, attempts to analyze the battered relationship between Heracles and Deianeira and how the combination of profit-driven, corrupt forms of xenia and the introduction of Iole were some of the leading causes behind the destruction of Deianeira’s oikos. 

In Chapter Four, Seferiadi continues to analyze the character of Deianeira and her denouncement of traditional gender roles and ingrained femininity, which secures the safety of the oikos and the polis. Seferiadi raises the discussion of Deianeira’s acknowledgement of her lack of knowledge and naivety, but she was too distracted by her own goals and overcoming her misfortune. Deianeira’s actions are largely shaped by Heracles, who embodies the principle of talio (retaliation), and by the Chorus, which reflects a polis-centered perspective on her punishment. Seferiadi examines the final exchanges between Deianeira and Heracles, as well as how her actions have been interpreted in modern scholarship and literature.

Chapter Five continues the discussion of the final interactions between Heracles and Deianeira, specifically emphasizing the impact of Deianeira’s absence at the end of the play. Seferiadi asserts that the finality and the silence behind Deianeira’s exit reflect her refusal to submit to any punishment. Her refusal to engage in “phallocentric” language showcases her possible resistance to the patriarchal structures surrounding her. Moreover, Seferiadi analyzes the “authoritarian dynamics” (p. 117) of the dramatic world of Heracles’ passage towards death and immortality. She also analyzes the kinship bonds within Trachiniae, as illustrated by the parental relationships between Deianeira, Heracles, and their son. Seferiadi argues that Heracles attempted to gain complete parental rights over their son and remove Deianeira from the familial line. Seferiadi compares Heracles’ desire for his son to be that of Orestes from Euripides’ Oresteia. 

This study of Sophocles’ Trachiniae firmly analyzes the gender politics within the play and provides a fundamental understanding into the marital relationship between Heracles and Deianeira. Seferiadi employs many examples from various sources, including modern scholarship regarding women in Greek tragedy and female agency. Seferiadi combines close readings of the text with comparisons to the theories of modern feminists. Although the original aim of her book was to locate the “feminine” in the play, the book focused more on a broad analysis of the play. Overall, this book provides an invaluable investigation into an underappreciated play from Greek tragedy that would be best suited for an academic audience, as it unpacks complicated feminist theories to understand complex gender roles while offering rich discussion on key themes. Her work clearly highlights the need for further reconsideration of gender politics and raises compelling points for future debate.  

Table of Contents 

Introduction (1-7) 
1.  An Amazon in Athens: Monsters, Gender and the Polis (11) 
1.1 The Amazon in the Polis (11-22) 
1.2 Deianeira against the monsters (22-42) 
2. Three Weddings and a Funeral: Marriage and Sexual Violence (43-44) 
2.1 Violated marriages and the polis (44-46) 
2.2 Rape to Death (46-51) 
2.3 Mirrored weddings amongst illicit sexualities (51-59) 
2.4 Death after a death (59-72) 
3. Beware of Monsters Bearing Gifts: Exchange and Reciprocity (73-74) 
3.1 Corroded reciprocal transactions (74-76) 
3.2 Nessos: A gift for a fee (76-83) 
3.3 Herakles: Reciprocity in crisis (83-87) 
3.4 Martial reciprocity on sale (87-93) 
4. Crime and Punishment: Guilt, Justice and Silence (93-94)
4.1 Is Deianeira guilty? (94-96) 
4.2 Despair and hope (96-105) 
4.3 Reciprocity and justice (105-112) 
4.4 Right to silence (112-117) 
5. Absent in the Exodos: Authority and Masculinity (117) 
5.1 The authority of Herakles’ νόμος (117-127) 
5.2 Hegemonic masculinity and Hyllos’ maturation (127-134) 
5.3 Epilogue: A precarious journey (134-137)