Defoe as the first published author

Why was Daniel Defoe considered the 'First published author':

What of those that came before him?

By Jennifer Richards

In this essay I will be analysing various authors, male and female including Defoe and their published work, specifically female authors published before his time, I will be comparing the difference in their work, discussing the literary cultural production and deciphering whether or not this is a gender issue. In the early days of literary publication it is known that there has been a constant struggle for female authors and their credibility has always come into question, why is it then, that a male writer was to be considered the first published author, if there were a number of published works that predated his written and were written by women and can this be looked at as a feminist issue? I will also be analysing why the title of 'First published author' was awarded to Daniel Defoe specifically when authors such as Aphra Behn and William Shakespeare had their work published prior to Defoe's lifetime. 

To begin with we will look at the author in question, as a man who is not unfamiliar with the struggles and hard times that befell many authors and merchants in the 17^th century, Daniel Defoe's acclaim as an author when many others were overlooked cannot be solely chalked down to cultural privilege. Women were not the sole members of society looked down upon or oppressed during that time, the working class, poverty stricken members, male and female were all familiar with the limitations throughout their society. Defoe illustrates his experiences both with liberty or lack thereof, evidently this shows that no matter what your gender is, your role in society is not fixed, nor is your freedom or oppression:

"In Prison I have learnt to know that Liberty does not consist in open Doors, and the free Egress and Regress of Locomotion. I have seen the rough side of the World as well as the smooth, and have in less than half a Year tasted the difference between the Closet of a King, and the Dungeon of Newgate."

It is true that many of Defoe's hard ships and his lack of freedom were self inflicted due to his debt, however whether or not this debt was avoidable and was only brought about by poor life choices is not certain. To say that Defoe is recognised as the first published author cannot be entirely down to male privilege, though that may have been a contributing factor. In fact it was because of his exercise of freedom of speech, his rhetorical pamphlet that he lost his civil freedom for a while. Perhaps he was not part of the oppressed but it can be said with certainty he was not afforded the luxury of cultural freedom for most of his life, either literally or in the face of heavy criticism. Considering the discontent one of his pieces spread throughout the country it's likely he would have had to work even harder to earn the credibility of a published author later on in life. His poem 'a hymn to the pillory' perfectly summarises the struggle with creative freedom many artists, poets and authors faced by exercising creative expression: 

"Actions receive their tincture from the times,
And as they change are virtues made of crimes." 

We have to consider that this title is not intended literally as there were many authors, male and female, with published works prior to his time. The most notable is of course William Shakespeare, why is it then that such a title be awarded to an author that, despite his vast contribution to literature, could not match the contributions of Shakespeare, who is known for almost completely shaping the English language. Though he did spark controversy, as many of his plays were known to have questioned the role of Queen Elizabeth and furthermore question the stability of society with a female ruler, Shakespeare himself managed to adhere to traditional societal constructs and cast himself as a patriarchal figure, even regarding his inclusion of the occult in his work. Is it perhaps that his work primarily as a dramatist and poet as opposed to a novelist cast him in a light unfitting for the title of first published author? Or is it, like Aphra Behn that such a title was too limiting? The impact shakespeare has on the literary community especially in regards to its development and evolution has made him one of the most profound authors throughout history, throughout his life he was primarily a play-write, unlike Aphra Behn and Daniel Defoe he had little active involvement in other areas however the footprint he left has reached far beyond that point. It could also be seen from a more literal stand point, although his works were published prior to Defoe, his area of expertise was more geared toward his work being performed as opposed to being recognised as a body of published work. 

To help answer this more expansively we look to Robinson Crusoe, one of his most highly acclaimed pieces. Known for being one of the first of its kind to employ realistic characters using simple prose as well as illustrating man's inherent need for civilisation or the inevitability of cultural evolution, simultaneous with independence and liberty. As Bamber Gascoigne describes it: 

“Defoe created a realistic frame for the novel, which distinguished it from its predecessors. The account of a shipwrecked sailor was a comment both on the human need for civilized society and the equally powerful necessity for individual freedom. But it also offered a dream of building a private kingdom, a self-made Utopia, and being completely self-sufficient, without any political, social or religious constraints.”

Even the notion of the utopia rings true of basic human nature; the yearning for peace, beauty, safety and freedom, an implausible construct invented by mankind that exists solely in our minds, indefinitely sought after and never achieved. It could be said that the critical message and relate-ability of this literary classic is what awarded him the title he carries to this day. A title clearly not intended in a literal sense but something earned through the importance of ones work and how it relates to society. It is also not entirely a question of quality of work; perhaps the relevance to humanity Robinson Crusoe had was the difference between that and the work of other authors, particularly Aphra Behn and Shakespeare. The work of the latter detracted itself from reality to an extent that either wrought comedic affect or brought about dream like themes. Despite the very clear messages behind his work and how that pertains to society, the way in which his fiction was segregated from reality could have been what differentiated his work from the work of Defoe. Furthermore Daniel Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe takes us back to almost indigenous values and the very early stages of humanity and civilisation, his work often centralised around humanity as a whole, be it in his economic journalism, his religious pamphlets, travel logs and mercantile documents, even his natural tendency to go back and forth between different perspectives or moral standpoints rings true to the nature of humanity and this was evident in his work. His work presented a very raw and early picture of the psychology or behaviours of our species, reminding us of how, despite our advancements, we are all still primitive at heart. Could it be said that it was this present theme in his written work that won him the title of 'First published author'? Is it that he was the first to publish work that illustrated humanity as a whole and could the title be looked at as “first published author of humanity”? The first few lines of 'True born English-man' are a perfect example of the way in which he discussed and challenged human behaviour: 

“Wherever God erects a house of prayer,
The devil always builds a chapel there:
And 'twill be found upon examination,
The latter has the largest congregation.”

A notable author worth looking at to further analyse the question was Aphra Behn, a profound and highly revered writer, when considering her acclaim and contributions to literary society, what reasons other than unfair gender roles enforced against female authors that diminished their credibility within the literary community, despite their contributions, can be drawn from this? To limit oneself to such a conclusion without proper analysation would be to discredit the work of a huge number of authors, even though through naming Daniel Defoe as the first published author he is cast as the face of 17th-18^th century literature and this sets a standard, reinforcing a patriarchal power in the written community in the eyes of the public and as such making it harder for women to create their literary footprint. Defoe was by no means privileged in his upbringing and living standards, however being a prolific male author he already maintained an unfair advantage. Perhaps despite its simplicity, gender can be considered a contributing factor.

Aphra Behn has previously claimed that she believes her work would have received less scrutiny and criticism had it been written by a man, it is no secret that the work women produced was often discredited, ignored or held to a higher standard than the work of men, earning a living or voicing opinions that didn't coincide with the standards women were expected to uphold was considered controversial, taboo or scandalous, subsequently this automatically meant that female authors were not taken as seriously or were held up to higher scrutiny. This double standard has hindered the women of the literary community back to a fault, authors such as Behn were overlooked because of this. Being the first woman in England to identify herself as a professional writer, Aphra Behn has been noted for her controversial role in literary and cultural society. Steering herself away from the traditional role of a woman, her work both in writing and as a spy has earned her national interest and the way in which she forever alludes biographical analysation of historians increases the mystery behind this woman. She has been immortalised throughout history as a feminist icon, as Virginia Woolf famously stated “All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn, for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds”. Many believed Behn to have been a hero for women's rights and the example she set inspired fire in the hearts of women everywhere to find their voice. Could her lack of adherence to society's standards for both men and women be the crutch to her being recognised as the first published author? Some would recognise this to be a feminist issue and perhaps to some degree it was, it is easy to write this off as being a result of a misogynistic civilisation, yet in doing so you are looking solely at the authors, not the body of work they produced nor the way in which it effected society. To say that Aphra Behn was not awarded the title of 'First published author' because she was a woman is to ignore the work of so many other prolific writers including her own. Perhaps it was not her gender but the way in which she chose to live out her life that caused the title to befall someone else. No doubt Daniel Defoe's livelihood was far from the status quo, however even as a man who sequestered both controversy and acclaim unto his character, Defoe was unable to match the reputation given to Aphra Behn. The lack of information on Behn's life as well as the enigma like quality that she maintained, when added to her rebellion against traditional values and the way of life she chose, this could be the reason she never earned the title of 'First published author'. The title itself carries a stable, finite connotation to the nature of work accompanying said title, which seems unfitting or even limiting to Behn's accomplishments, Daniel Defoe was known primarily for his work as an author, Aphra Behn however was known for her character, not just her talents or literary prowess. 

To say this was a gender issue would seem too simplistic, there are far too many characteristics of authors or external factors to write this off as being the result of unfair gender standards against female authors. When comparing Defoe and Behn, both had fairly similar lifestyles and bodies of work, however, the qualities of these authors or how they were recognised in society, both then and now, contributes to the roles given to them as historical figures. As stated before, Daniel Defoe's primary role in history was as a writer, though that certainly wasn't all he was noted for, his published works played the biggest role and we remember him more for his written word than for his character or other accomplishments, yet Aphra Behn played a bigger or at least more eclectic part. Her work as a play-write and poet was undoubtedly groundbreaking in regards to politics however as she has expanded beyond this her work as a writer was not the only part of her life worth noting. 

If gender was to be the sole reason behind female writers being overlooked for the title of 'first published author', then we have to imagine the work of Daniel Defoe being carried by his masculinity, this being subjective depending on how you look at it, however it is hard to believe he could have earned his place in history based on just that. As previously stated, there is no doubt gender was a contributing factor, not only to the prerequisite criteria for such a role but also to how we look at the work of various authors, were it not for this many female writers would have published their work with their real names tied to it, instead of choosing anonymity or a male pseudonym. In the end a contributing factor is the extent to which this effects how their work is viewed, we also have to consider that this title has remained consistent throughout history and up to modern day in which female authors are given just as much value as their male counterparts. Lastly this is too broad a factor and overlooks many important details of their work as well as how they changed the literary world. Aphra Behn's style of writing and her character simply don't fit the role given to Defoe, though they bear similarities in their work and lifestyles the result of said lifestyles garnered very different reactions and points of view. Daniel Defoe was in fact the first published author to include realistic characters and his use of prose was like none before it, it encapsulated human spirit at its most organic form and his entire collection of work coupled with the way he went about working can be viewed today as an early map to the inner-workings of our genus. William Shakespeare was to play a different role in society, though his work taught us important values about human behaviour and civilisation his focus was more satirical and advanced, looking more toward political values and cultural constructs as opposed to basic human behaviour. His style of writing followed a theme of fantasy, the examples of humanity and emotions we see in his work are somewhat melodramatic, which further divorces his work from reality and his use of comedy, the occult, magic or dream like sequences paint a picture too elaborate to be appropriately associated with the way our species works. So to conclude, after having discussed and analysed the various possibilities as to why Daniel Defoe holds the title of 'First published author' it is safe to say we can rule out this being entirely an issue of unfair gender standards. To write it off as such ignores the brilliance of Aphra Behn's accomplishments, it identifies and limits her to being just another female author and she has reached high acclaim in spite of this, it also ignores the work of Shakespeare, for if this were a gender issue and nothing else why then was he overlooked, being a male that advocated the patriarchy, lastly it insinuates the work of Daniel Defoe as being prominent due to his gender. This brings us to the possibility that, as prestigious a title as it is, it was either unfitting or too limiting to apply to William Shakespeare or Aphra Behn, they played a different role in history and their prowess exceeded being known for just that. Their work centralised around alternate themes and addressed other issues not pertaining to the work of Daniel Defoe. In summation, the key word in the title being “First”, Defoe was the first published author to write in a way that regards and contests basic human behavioural patterns, the psychology behind building societies and civilisations as well as the birth of human culture, though there are many other contributing factors toward this title as previously discussed, the primary reason must be the precise and raw nature of his written work and the impact that left on the society he both challenged and integrated into. 

References

Gascoigne, B. (n.d.). Daniel Defoe. [online] Kirjasto.sci.fi. Available at: http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/defoe.htm [Accessed 19 Dec. 2014].

Martin, A. (n.d.). 'No tincture of learning?': Aphra Behn as (Re)Writer and Translator. 1st ed. [ebook] pp.1, 2, 3. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/translation-studies/translation-in-history/documents/Martin-Aphra-Behn-pdf [Accessed 19 Dec. 2014].

Poetryfoundation.org, (n.d.). Aphra Behn : The Poetry Foundation. [online] Available at: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/aphra-behn [Accessed 19 Dec. 2014].

Speck, B. (2001). The life and opinions of Daniel Defoe. 1st ed. [ebook] Northumbria: H-Albion, pp.1, 2. Available at: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=5649 [Accessed 19 Dec. 2014].

Watt, I. (1960). Daniel Defoe (1660-1731) as a novelist by Ian Watt. [online] Ourcivilisation.com. Available at: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/defoed/novel.htm [Accessed 19 Dec. 2014].

Williams, A. and O'Connor, K. (n.d.). [podcast] Who is Aphra Behn?. Available at: http://writersinspire.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/content/who-aphra-behn [Accessed 19 Dec. 2014].

Theatre is a device in which society talks to itself

Theatre is a device in which society talks to itself:

Discuss

by Jennifer Richards

In this essay I will be discussing how theatre as a device reflects culture and society as well as communicating with it. Touching upon historical examples as well discussing the work of Anton Chekhov, William Shakespeare and Bertolt Brecht, more specifically the three plays 'Macbeth', 'Fear and Misery in the Third Reich' and 'Three Sisters'. I will also be talking about how theatre funding can play its role in the reflection of society. Theatre acts as an informative mirror held up to various cultures and civilisations through which ideas and concepts are formulated, inspiration is shed and can provide us with the opportunity to reflect upon our world.

Taking a look at Greek plays to begin with, they were some of the earliest theatrical devices in history and were often used as ways to portray fables and epics that prior to that were only heard. However as they advanced they served to reflect various aspects of their society. Examples would include oppression of the patriarchy, as seen in Medea by Euripides, the juxtaposition between working class, peasants and the nobility and lastly how totalitarian religious rule played a major role in the shaping of ancient Greek civilisation. During the period of 550 and 220 BC the political and military power within Greece was a central theme in most theatrical productions and it is also where the origin of western theatre can be found. Most plays we see today are cultural remnants and echoes influenced by ancient Greek plays and the society it reflected.

Looking now in more depth at how theatre has enabled or encouraged society to talk to itself, two example in particular, the play 'Justice' by John Galsworthy inspired Winston Churchill to move to change the law on solitary confinement and the Marriage of Figaro by Beaumarchais was described as being “The French revolution in action”, by Napoleon. Michael Billington claims that “What theatre can do is shift attitudes, articulate discontent, and reflect, often with microscopic accuracy, the mood of the nation.” Theatre acts as a device in which society can see itself, sparking inspiration or change in the mindset of the general public yet it is less direct or catatonic in its influence. Prior to the commercial use of the internet, theatre was the primary component in the evolution of society and culture. He continues to outline the relationship between theatre and society during the Attlee period in England, discussing the labour party and their national socialist ideas in conjunction with J. B. Priestly's work, Billington explains “(he) penned a brilliantly polemical book, Theatre Outlook, that called for measures to counter the power of fat-cat theatre owners.” as well as the play 'Uranium 235' by Joan Littlewood intended as a demonstration of nuclear fission.

Another play worth noting for its reflection and communication with society is Shakespeare's Macbeth, the work of Shakespeare as a whole often embodied powerful or strong female roles which could be seen as an homage to Queen Elizabeth during his time. Contrary to that and more specifically within Macbeth, especially when considering the villainous light his female lead is cast under, if we are to associate lady Macbeth with the Queen at that time, the intention was more likely to be a role that mirrored what he may have felt to be an unfit ruler that would inevitably lead to chaos. “Shakespeare implicitly suggests the danger of women's involvement in politics at the sovereign level.” Jane Dall explains in her essay 'The stage and the state'. The play reflects a sense of criticism and exaggerated turmoil that Shakespeare believed was ensuing within the government due to a woman being in power, perhaps this served to spread discontent by implying the existence of tyranny within the government, akin to early subliminal messaging. Audiences are given the impression that a woman with power can only lead to downfall and destruction which could encourage anarchy within society. Shakespeare's command went beyond the stage and beyond the script, as can be said with many dramatists, their influence had more power than one might first assume. Within the play we see Lady Macbeth exhibit a mad lust for power and she convinces her husband to commit treason by murdering the king and usurping his throne, this could be Shakespeare's way of insinuating a number of things: that despite her sovereign status Elizabeth still can't be revered as a figure of power or that it should simply be passed onto a man, it was never lady Macbeth that went after the throne for herself and she lamented being born a woman. It could also insinuate that having a woman in a position of power or seeking power will cause tensions, plotting or revolting within a power struggle that wouldn't exist if the status quo of the patriarchy remained in tact. Lastly it promotes negative stigma toward female sovereignty or female leaders, taking away any credibility and encouraging the public to question the Queen's right to rule.

Shakespeare's Macbeth reflected a very prevalent fear in the minds of many, regarding the uncertainty of a female ruler and through this play, as well as many others, he created an atmosphere in which society began to stir.

It would seem that a complete lack of theatre and performances says just as much, if not more, about society than individual plays themselves. During Cromwell's rule in England we see then more than ever how important the device of theatre was to the community, an abolishment of theatre made many realise the value it held in society, as without it a freedom of speech or creativity and a sort of awareness was lacking, one could argue that theatre maintained a balance, it served to subtly educate the public on how their country was being run, or how society behaved, it gave them introspective thought and the ability to be entertained whilst also be aware of what was at work throughout their nations and the world.

Another key aspect to note that ties in to the conversation of society brought about by theatre, is the funding of various production houses and companies.

It works both ways, how the financial state of the government or society reflects upon theatre and how the financial state the theatre reflects upon on society. Beyond how theatre itself sways and intermingles with our thoughts throughout society, the funding for a play, or lack thereof, can paint a picture of how the community it exists within behaves toward the performing arts or even just the financial state of the country/nation at that time. For example: during Margaret Thatcher's time as priminister, subsidies were reduced and theatres were asked to find private funding, this could be seen as a representation of the financial crisis and unemployment England faced during that time. In present day society, seeing as commercial funding is the primary source of funding, the artistic integrity of the theatre has all but disappeared in most cases, as sponsors and conglomerates have monopolised the funding for most theatrical shows. The lack of substance, art and meaning within performances could be a reflection upon how consumerism and capitalism have risen within first world countries.

Looking back to the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, prior to the revolution, it was popular amoung Russian dramatists to have their work revolve around a bittersweet theme of both hope and despair. Even though Chekhov's play, the Three Sisters, predates the Russian revolution there are definitely hints of risen tensions and apprehension within the characters and their nation, there is a longing sense of nostalgia presented and a miserable apathy about the characters' current lives, yet hope for the future, or perhaps just a pipe dream for better days. This can all be considered a mirror held up to the livelihoods of the people of Russia during that time.

Known for his theatrical voice toward anti-fascism and his disdain for war, Brecht's Fear and misery in the third Reich was one of the more notable anti-war pieces, displaying the tragedies and travesties that went on during the second world war, but taking a different perspective to what is usually written about; Brecht focused his play on how Hitler's reign affected the economy, German citizens not focusing solely on Jewish citizens and the horrors they were subjected to. Taking a different approach was a much more effective way of getting his audience to think about the situation as it would have been relatable, as well as his tendency to distance the audience from the play. This prevents the public from forming emotional connections with the characters and subsequently biased points of view, Brecht clearly wanted his audience to think but he didn't want to convince them one way or another, his goal was to inform and educate but not to argue. The focal point of Fear and Misery was the origins of the fascist regime, how did it happen? Brecht has always been very clear about his feelings toward fascism, as Mark Ravenhill states in his article arguing against critics and nay sayers of Brecht's work, “Before the Nazis came to power, Hitler's brown shirts were disrupting performances of Brecht and Weill's 1930 opera Mahagonny, claiming that it brought the contamination of black and Jewish musical influences into the German opera house.” The lack of any inherent or consistent plot within the play works to distance itself from the notion of fiction, if audiences were consciously aware of a plot it would make it easier to remain complacent to the message Brecht intended on sharing. Having the scenes played out like a montage of events as opposed to the cohesive scene changes accompanying a clear storyline allows the audience to remember this is real, what is happening in the play is happening on their doorsteps. “The scenes have a disturbingly everyday feel to them, as though we are looking at lives through a distorted prism” Lindsey Oldham describes in her review of Fear and Misery in the Third Reich for The Oxford Student. It is well known that Brecht as a dramatist has used his plays as a device to convey a message or to hold up a mirror to the society he was subject to and lived through. In his play Mother Courage he has claimed the intention was to warn society of the impossibilities of remaining neutral in the upcoming war. Identifying society's tendency to remain complacent or to bury their heads in the sand and urging them that this war, unlike any others, will make that impossible. One could say Brecht foresaw the devastating affect this war would have on the world and Mother Courage was his attempt at shaking his audience into changing their attitudes and reactions in preparation for this.

Looking back throughout history it is hard to believe our civilisations and cultures would be anything like what they are today without the use of theatre. Before the rise of social media and communication via the internet, before television and cinema, theatre held a position in society that was the tool for evolution, the evolution of thinking, action, movements and politics. Some government officials or figures of power remained unaffected by theatre, others fell to revolutions through movements sparked by theatre. As previously stated the affect of drama and performances does not come with overwhelming force and it doesn't happen overnight, it is the device in which society talks to itself and through talking and thinking, actions arise, movements are born and change takes place. In conclusion the art of theatre plays a more major role in our world than mere entertainment, it is a reflection of our cultural ideals and political status, or even just personal fears. It is also what encouraged and still encourages audiences to think and create change.

References

Bbc.co.uk, (n.d.). BBC - Higher Bitesize English - Background : Revision. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/english/macbeth/background/revision/1/ [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014].

Billington, M. (2007). Michael Billington on how British theatre holds up a mirror to who we are. [online] the Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2007/oct/24/theatre1 [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014].

Dall, J. (n.d.). The Stage and the State: Shakespeare's Portrayal of Women and Sovereign Issues in Macbeth and Hamlet. [online] History.hanover.edu. Available at: http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/00/hhr00_2.html [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014].

Dresen, F. (n.d.). Anton Chekhov: The Role of Author in Russian Society. [online] Wilsoncenter.org. Available at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/anton-chekhov-the-role-author-russian-society [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014].

Ravenhill, M. (2008). Don't bash Brecht. [online] the Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2008/may/26/dontbashbrecht [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014].

Is medea a feminist? Discuss

Is MEDEA a feminist?

Discuss

JENNIFER RICHARDS

In this essay I will be reviewing the text Medea, a play written by Greek play-write Euripedes. I will be analysing feminist perspectives and ideals presented within the book, and posing arguments for and against Medea's character being seen as feminist. I shall also be Discussing the history of feminism up to present day and drawing comparisons between other feminist figures as well as Medea's actions, Lastly I will be talking about the implications or connotations her actions may have had, as well as her reasoning for such actions and what they may or may not represent.

Some have argued that Greek tragedy or even more specifically Euripedes is where feminism originated, with Greek tragedy comes the birth of the heroine, a female protagonist with all the qualities of the hero only charged with feminine empowerment. The genre sparked the beginnings of various movements and many saw a new path in the evolution of the social development, Terry Collits mentions the influential book on Greek tragedy published by Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Jean-Pierre Vernant, saying that “They exposed classical studies to the winds of change which were already transforming other disciplines in the humanities”. He goes on to explain how “startlingly modern” Medea is, explaining how the outrage of Medea and solidarity of the chorus share the same perspective of their desires being thwarted prejudice. There have been a large variation of accounts and other tales with heroines or strong female protagonists yet when we trace back the lineage of feminism Euripedes is what comes to mind, Euripedes, along with Aristotle, were some of the first to pose the questions and core values that most modern feminists identify with, and Medea is one of the first pieces of text that embodies said values.

First off, to truly understand the feminist position posed within the play, we must analyse the term feminist, which is different to the word feminism and has different connotations. To say that Medea has feminist traits, or her actions within this play followed the dynamic of feminism would be wholly accurate, however inadvertent, but being a feminist is an active choice. If you want to look at it literally then no Medea is not technically a feminist within this play, on account of having never classified herself as such or even stated her fight is for equality or the eradication of the patriarchy. However the fact still remains that on some subconscious level it would seem she's choosing to fight not just to exact her own personal vengeance but to set an example, to stand up for womankind that experienced heavy oppression within their culture.

Considering the vast spectrum that is feminism, as well as the various different types of feminists out there from radical to liberal, it is tricky to define Medea's subconscious feminist stance. There is no one type of feminism, it would seem due to her desire to completely and utterly subvert all female stereotypes and gender roles, as well as her desire to fight back against patriarchal views and oppression she may fit more into the role of a radical feminist. Medea has a more ruthless approach but more than that, she's not attempting to find ways in which to live with dignity in society's pre existing social values and rules, she's challenging the rules and values themselves. In Brittney Cooper's article on internal conflicts within feminism, especially interracial, she writes “(Liberal) feminisms still center around equality... (radical) feminisms demand justice. There is a difference. One kind of feminism focuses on the policies that will help women integrate fully into the existing system. The other recognises the fundamental flaws in the system and seeks its complete and total transformation.” Radical and liberal feminisms are terms more relative to this discussion, as opposed to racial conflict. The same ideals can be applied to Medea; instead of trying to bargain or reason with Jason, or simply trying to make the best out of a bad situation she demands justice, casting Medea in the light of a radical feminist.

From a first glance Medea comes across as a feminist that would seem lightyears ahead of her time, considering the slow progress the feminist movement has made in the last century, to have, not just Medea, but multiple women within this play take a stance on female empowerment and a protest against the oppressive patriarchy can be considered as a fairly modern approach for the time in which it was written.

In today's society, with the advancements we have made and the rights women have won, though the battle is still going on, in first world countries primarily the fight has shifted from a complete upheaval of society's standards and beliefs toward gender roles as well as an abolishment of the patriarchy, to now simply striving for equality and mutual respect. In parts of the world where women still do not attain the same legal rights of men the fight is much fiercer, drastic and extreme. This latter is the same kind of fight we see playing out in Medea, but on a smaller more personal scale.

We can see a large number of empowering qualities within her character. Always being proclaimed as an intelligent woman, with implications toward her bravery, upon reading the play many may see her as admirable for having the courage to stand her ground and to do what she felt was right, as well as disproving all preconceptions toward the female role. Some could go as far as to say that her character subconsciously promotes feminism, without proclaiming herself to be a feminist or to even be fighting specifically for women's rights, there are subtle connotations and implications in her dialogue that put forth the idea that she isn't just fighting for her own liberty, justice and vengeance against an oppressive male, but all the women in her society and culture that have to endure the patriarchy much as she does.

Many will argue that there was nothing empowering about her actions, that they had little to do with feminism and were just part of a quest for irrational vengeance. If anything some may go as far as to say that her hysteria was damaging to the feminist cause, that it may give other women a bad name. However if you go deeper you can see that her refusal to comply, compromise or moderate her vengeance for the sake of the happiness, mercy or comfort of others, especially Jason, puts her on a pedestal of feminist ideals; she unashamedly parades her feelings about the given situation, no matter how hysterical they may seem, this freedom of personal expression being something that women for centuries have been encouraged, nay, pressured into censoring for the sake of male comfort. She behaves just as any man would do, and has done, without feeling the need to be apologetic for how much pain she experienced.

Considering the author, a renown “champion of women's equality”, we are immediately presented with the perspective of proto-feminism. It is hard to view this play or Medea as anything but with these preconceptions, that being said there are two very equal arguments for and against Medea being seen as a feminist; while she completely alienates herself from the patriarchal view of a traditional woman, an ideal wife or mother and unashamedly follows her own will as a person, not just a woman, because of her irrational reaction, no matter how justified or non-conformist it may be, in the bigger picture it does little to aid the cause, or pave a way for women to stand their ground. Her protest and fight for vengeance ends up sinking in to the sea of dominant male views on women and is merely written off as the stereotypical hysterical woman. Her selfishness portrayed can be criticised by men and women later on in our world for ultimately discarding rationality and a feminist stand for her own personal goals and thus reinforcing the idea that a passive woman is a better woman.

In the end however it is never truly stated by Medea or anyone else within the play that she wishes to consider the bigger picture and the fact that her character may be written off as hysterical or hindering could be simply down to others failing to follow her example, within reason. It wasn't simply the betrayal by Jason, after all, that triggered such an extreme response, one must realise that his abandonment was the straw that broke the camel's back. Looking at either the bigger picture or Medea's personal goals the same conclusion can be drawn: she took a stand unapologetically, made herself out to be somebody who won't be pushed around or succumb to society's standards or the patriarchal ideal, she was wronged and she exacted vengeance, she disregarded her standing as a woman despite the disapproval of those around her and that in itself is a feminist act.

Due to how relatable Medea's character is to modern women, in the sense that we all have a festering dark side drawn to revenge and anger, only Medea is unashamed about letting this side out, one can consider this a timeless quality. It can be persistently called upon by women throughout history and in modern day and be seen as a reason to be unapologetic for your emotions. Medea's betrayal and rage may be looked at as a representation of the turmoil of women through years of tyranny from mankind. However instead of bending to the will of the patriarchy and or crumbling under the influence, becoming a martyr or a victim, Medea conquers oppression and domineers masculinity, as many women have done since, “Medea's story has hooks upon which the modern viewer or reader can hang elements of the lives of modern women”, this relatable quality not only in Medea but in the events of the play can subsequently be construed as a representation of modern women, and perhaps even the feminist movement. Tales of marital betrayal and revenge that follow suit can be seen in War of the Roses or The First Wives Club.

Cheryl Fuller, in her feminist essay of Medea explains that “the character Medea is the same woman transported across time”, as previously stated this timeless quality allows a reflection of the female struggle between love and hatred, loyalty and betrayal, sacrifice and justice that we have seen played continuously throughout time. One could even argue that perhaps this was one of many sparks that triggered the beginnings of the feminist movements. Regardless of whether or not this was the intention of Euripedes, we cannot deny the impact the story had and the clear feminist qualities embodied within Medea's rich character. One might go as far as to say perhaps she's the woman many wish they had the courage to be?

It could be argued that the intention of Euripedes was less in the support of female empowerment, but more of a jab at male dominion: “Euripede's Medea indeed questioned prevailing norms and beliefs, primarily those of the heroic masculine ethic, but it did so at the expense of women,” whether or not women see Medea's vengeful, maniacal behaviour as a positive trait is one thing, and not something that can be argued as it is subjective, however how those traits can actually help the cause is another, considering her ill temper is not directed at women but at men, women have more freedom to look at it from either side. However when one realises that any man who reads Medea is more likely to only see the side of her victims and subsequently draw biased and misguided conclusions about who women really are, we see that the play and her character only serve to further segregate the two genders. If we are to argue in favour of Medea's feminism we have to see that she fights for equality, not female superiority, she has to have qualities that positively impact both genders, one shouldn't have to attack an opposing party to defend one's own point.

The question still stands “Can Medea be considered a feminist?” In the last paragraph I discussed Euripede's portrayal of this character, in that context as I explained it is hard to see her as a feminist because of how damaging her role is to the feminist movement, however that is only if she is viewed as a fictitious character instead of an ideal or a real person. Let's pretend for a moment that Medea really existed, would we condemn her actions against misogyny and oppression because it makes feminism look bad? The fact still stands that because the inequality was so drastic then, so too must the fight against it be. An obedient and tame woman is a decent woman in the eyes of ancient Greece, had she not attacked the patriarchy to defend herself and womankind then perhaps her stand would have been in vain and her tale lost. “Silence is a woman's glory”; many men believed, and still do, by making as much noise as possible Medea creates her own female glory, one not designed and designated by mankind. It is a feminist's duty to create her own glory and help create a world where that is a universal possibility, to question natural order and man's role of ruler over society. We can see the influence of Aristotle (or possibly vice versa) in this play, when it comes to who should rule a household and who should be ruled it is clear that Medea is challenging this, as Aristotle says “Ought a woman to be temperate and brave and just,” these are three qualities that stand out the most within Medea's character. “For if a noble nature is equally required in both, why should one of them always rule, and the other always be ruled?” This notion is very apparent within the play, it was at the point which Medea learns of her exile that one can imagine this occurring to her. It is a question any feminist must ask themselves and others and constantly remember in order to progress. One could even consider it the ultimate feminist question, the reason to fight oppression.

In conclusion, the arguments for and against Medea's role as a feminist depend entirely on perspective of the play, how it was written; how it can be seen as spiteful toward men and hurtful to the feminist cause. How little thought Euripedes gave to the bigger picture and how through a potentially selfish desire to put forth his opinion he wound up doing more harm than good. Are there not however correlations there? Medea's behaviour and Euripedes' cause for writing the novel come across fairly similarly. It can be cast aside as a petty jab at men for their fiendish behaviour or it can be seen as an attempt to represent any oppressed and down trodden women who needed something to fuel their fire. When it comes down to it Medea's actions, what she represents and the questions implied by her character paint the picture of radical feminism at its finest. Though her story is personal the message is universal, question your role as a woman, challenge the reign of men and fight back against enforced silence no matter what the immediate cost, because of this I conclude that yes Medea should be considered a feminist.

References

Aristotle., and Rackham, H. (1959). Aristotle: politics. 1st ed. London: Heinemann, pp.Book 1 section 1254a, section 1254b.

Collits, T. (n.d.). Intimations of Feminism in Ancient Athens: Euripedes' Medea. 1st ed. [ebook] Sydney: University of Sydney, pp.1,2,3,7,8. Available at: http://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/SSE/article/viewFile/547/516 [Accessed 15 Oct. 2014].

Cooper, B. (2014). Feminism’s ugly internal clash: Why its future is not up to white women. [online] Salon.com. Available at: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/feminisms_ugly_internal_clash_why_its_future_is_not_up_to_white_women/ [Accessed 15 Oct. 2014].

Fuller, C. (2010). Medea, Feminism and the Shadow. Undergraduate. University of Minnesota.

Messing, A. (n.d.). Protofeminist or Misogynist? Medea as a case study of gendered discourse. 1st ed. [ebook] Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, pp.2, 3, 4, 5. Available at: http://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/kingston-mann/Messing.pdf [Accessed 15 Oct. 2014].

"Should critics focus solely on the words on the page?" - F. R. Leavis

Cultural Fragments essay:

“Should literary critics focus solely on the words on the page?”
- F. R. Leavis

Introduction

Within this essay one of the areas covered will be the subject of New Criticism and how this is relevant to the main topic. New criticism is a form of literary critique named after John Crowe Ransom’s book The new criticism. A form of criticism that looks at literary works as though they were their own self contained reference, involving mostly close reading as opposed to looking at the bigger picture. This is the type of criticism that will be researched and discussed, judging the advantages and disadvantages it may encompass. This formalist approach to literature enables critics to judge the book or poem by the quality itself, instead of looking at it as a product of its generation or culture, it enables us judge the literary piece as more individualistic, one that stands on its own. If we disregard not only the historical and cultural context in which it was written, but perhaps even the authors themselves, we are capable of reading the piece from a completely objective and fresh perspective, we are freed from judging the work with a biased or pre existing opinion of the author which would subsequently colour our opinions of the text and change how we read it. An anonymous blogger claims: “Critics are free from contextual trappings that tend to stir their attention away from the text.”

Main article

Some books will come across as less effective and in some ways entertaining without the context. Jane Austin’s Northanger Abbey is a good example of this; the context Austin provides in the introduction to the novel enables us to see that this book is a parody. This explanation is arguably one of the most important factors for understanding the story, however that being said the quality of the work itself is not reduced. Looking at her use of discourse and narrative, how Austin dips in and out of the story with her own voice to add some satirical or comedic insight, as well as the imagery used, one can see that these still allow for a well written book even when disregarding context. Contrary to the books that suffer from a close reading, poetry instead tends to benefit more, the compact structure and form poetry uses as well as its ability to be understood and properly appreciated without needing context enables readers to perform a close reading and purvey the raw quality of the work, similar to a work of visual art that often leaves the interpretation up to the viewer instead of explaining itself.  

Gary Lehmann, poetry critic writes “Poems should be read for what they say, not what they say about the poet or his times. The text is its only spokesperson and the only one we should attend.” Reading about a poet or author’s life and upbringing could colour the way you read and interpret their work. The work of Sylvia Plath is an example of this; you’d be hard pressed to find somebody familiar with her work that wasn’t also knowledgeable about her external life, depression and suicide. The knowledge on this is so abundant it has become associative with her work and in turn a critical analytical tool for her poems, it’s difficult to critique and study her work without your opinion of it being swayed by the biographical information, and though she is undoubtedly a skilled and talented writer, what readers and critics are looking at when they read Plath’s work is her life, not the words on the page. To disregard the biographical context and perform a close reading of her work with a New Criticism approach, one may discover a completely new perspective and meaning to her work.

Looking further into how close reading and New Criticism can effect the study of various texts, one can begin to break down the main advantages and disadvantages to the practice, having already touched upon some advantages of this we now look to some criticisms of New Criticism, when analyzing The New Criticism by John Crowe Ransom, literary critic and advocate of New Criticism Rene Wellek talks about the four main reasons why many critics, such as Ronald Crane, are disputing this form of criticism as being obsolete, one of the four reasons given was explaining how limiting some believe New Criticism to be: “Finally the New Criticism is being dismissed as a mere pedagogical device, a version of the French explication de texte, useful at most for American college students who must learn to read and read poetry in particular.” Even though Wellek continues on to claim that these accusations against New Criticism are baseless, we have to wonder if there is any validity to these disputes.

In his essay on literary criticism Ronald Crane argues that in the New Critics attempt to remain objective to the text, only to end up instead becoming subjective “They fail to come out of the grip of New Criticism. Consequently many important aspects are lost sight of.” The underlying argument is that instead of creating a form of literary criticism that remains entirely unbiased and objective of the text it’s studying, it ends up limiting the potential of the book or poem and can cause New Critics to overlook crucial context. An example of this would be Oscar Wilde’s A picture of Dorian Gray, without looking at the historical and cultural co-text in which the book was written, the importance and merit that it carries becomes limited, and Wilde’s message about the dangers of the aesthetic movement at the time will be lost.

Conclusion

One can study and appreciate the quality of the written word, they can analyse the patterns and structures within poems and books, but because the literary works contain so much more than that you would only be studying half of the poem or book. Similar to judging a work of art by nothing more than the mediums, colours and practices used, it could be argued that in studying the format and text only, one can use the method of close reading to research the author or piece together their thought process. Instead of using biographical, historical and cultural information and co-text to study the book, you could use the book to study the biographical, historical and cultural.  However to conclude it would ultimately seem that to focus solely on the words on the page, critics would be limiting themselves to the depth, messages, context and meaning the literary piece may contain. There is evidence that proves the effectiveness of New Criticism and close reading, and for many it’s a preferable approach to analyzing work, however the evidence to the contrary goes to say that it is not the only effective method. We as readers and critics and writers should look at more than just the words on the page, as most literature goes beyond just that.

References

Bcs.bedfordstmartins.com. n.d. virtuaLit: Critical Approaches. [online] Available at: http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/poetry/critical_define/crit_newcrit.html [Accessed: 4 Apr 2014].

Biswas, A. K. 2003. Literary Criticism of R.S. Crane. [e-book] Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 120 & 121. Available through: Amazon.co.uk, Waterstones, BookDepository, WHSmith, Blackwell http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kdvuxpWrNCsC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=ronald+crane+new+criticism&source=bl&ots=BgohD5yNEL&sig=ns6HI2K61f1yLsVsJNlkawWebco&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GLI9U5b8EbTH7AatrIG4DQ&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=ronald%20crane%20new%20criticism&f=false [Accessed: 4 Apr 2014].

lasierrasurvivescomps. 2011. Lit. Crit. New Criticism. [online] Available at: http://lasierrasurvivescomps.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lit-crit-new-criticism/ [Accessed: 4 Apr 2014].

Lehmann, G. 2008. John Crowe Ransom - You can't teach an old dog New Criticism. [online] Available at: http://jmww.150m.com/Winter08bio.html [Accessed: 4 Apr 2014].

Reeder, E. n.d. What Are the Pros and Cons of New Criticism? (with pictures). [online] Available at: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-new-criticism.htm [Accessed: 4 Apr 2014].

Wellek, R. 1978. Critical Inquiry/ New Criticism: Pro and Contra. [e-book] The University of Chicago Press. p. 613, 614, 615. Available through: http://www.jstor.org/ http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342947?seq=3 [Accessed: 4 Apr 2014].