The Most Beautiful Corpse \nBoth Orpheus Descending<\/i> written by Tennessee Williams and Sarah Ruhl\u2019s Eurydice<\/i> retell\nthe classic myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. In both cases, the most skillful artist in the world\nenters the realm of the dead to retrieve his wife, Eurydice. She is the central character of the\nformer play and the character of interest of this article. While the two plays adapt the story\nin different ways, as will be discussed later, they both contain either a clear reference to or\na quite literal translation of Eurydice, the woman at the mercy of Orpheus\u2019 rescue.\n<\/p>\n\n This dynamic of the lovers has been discussed in multiple ways, be it through scientific\ndiscussion and research or meditation on the topic in a contemporary play, book or poem.\nThis article strives to contribute not only to the ongoing discussion about Orpheus and\nEurydice\u2019s relationship, but also far wider discussions on women\u2019s agency, feminist\nperspectives and gender theory.\n<\/p>\n\n In that strife additionally lies the interest in multi-faceted sources and angles which are used\nto gain a greater understanding of the aforementioned discussions. For the wider\ncontext, the differing and numerous sources and perspectives have illuminated that the\npower dynamics and cases of dependency discussed have to be considered in a\nframework of oppression or exploitation. In order to grasp the goal of the arguments which are going to be made, one has to look at the discussed material not as single instances of a myth but rather as interconnected stories, rooted in a larger discourse around topics like female agency.\n<\/p>\n\n This transitions into the reason behind this article: the interest in the character of Eurydice.\nIn most plays and myths, books and poems, Eurydice is presented as a helpless figure in\nneed of rescue, even though more modern adaptations have nearly done away with\nEurydice\u2019s dependency on Orpheus. This structure led to a question that is primarily\nconcerned with comparison, which will be the main modus operandi<\/i>. It might be easier to\nunderstand why, more often than not, Eurydice seems to end up dependent on Orpheus if\none can get a grasp of the underlying structure and compares the differing adaptations of the\nmyth. This is also the reason for the previous paragraph, as \u00bbif [history] is not to be reduced\nto a discontinuous series of instantaneous mechanical equilibria between agents who are\ntreated as interchangeable particles, one must reintroduce into it the notion of capital\u00ab\n(Bourdieu 15). One must reintroduce the notion that some groups have historically held\npower over other groups, and through no mode of operation can that notion be made clearer\nthan through comparison. Therefore, this article will look at both plays in a comparative\nmanner and analyze them with regard to the following research question: To what extent do\nTennessee Williams\u2019 Orpheus Descending<\/i> and Sarah Ruhl\u2019s Eurydice<\/i> give their respective\nversions of Eurydice agency?\n<\/p>\n\n The concept of agency has to be defined before it can be discussed. Without delving into any\nphilosophical discussion: \u00bbagency is understood as the capacity to perform intentional\nactions. It assumes that there is an agent who is in possession of capacities and intentions,\nwho is able to self-identify\u00ab (Zaharijevi\u0107 23). In order to not ignore the commitments of the\nintroductory part, agency can not only be understood as an action \u00bbin a discontinuous series\nof instantaneous mechanical equilibria between agents who are treated as interchangeable\nparticles\u00ab (Bourdieu 15), but must also be introduced to the interconnectivity of actions.\nA few words regarding female agency are necessary, as in theory there should be no\ndifference to male<\/i> or female agency<\/i>. In practice though, while male agency has been\npromoted throughout history, female<\/i> agency has been restricted.\n<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n \nIt is not simply that a few bad guys plan to oppress and subjugate women in order to\nmaintain their privileges. […] The changes do not reside in powerful individuals \u2014\nwomen or men \u2014 but in a collaborative joining of hands and collective efforts toward\nchange. What I am saying is that I don\u2019t believe in an individualist approach, one that\ncreates heroes. (Neuenfeldt 20)\n<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nIn effect, this quote illuminates the narrative inherent to this article, which is best understood\nas: If collective action is necessary for change, then the circumstance which should be\nchanged cannot be a mere accumulation of individual acts, it subsequently has to be\nsystemic.\nThis system may be better understood by some examples, ranging from the beginning of\ncivilization when \u00bb[w]omen were the first private property\u00ab (Fehr 5) to our modern day and\nage like \u00bbin Switzerland [where] we find an 18.4 percent pay gap between women and men;\nin Germany, a 21.6 percent pay gap; and in France, a woman must work 54 days more than\na man to make an equal salary (2011)\u00ab (Neuenfeldt 18-19). In short: Female<\/i> agency is not\nto be highlighted in an arbitrary fashion, but because of deeply entrenched structures in our\nsocietal conception of women.\n<\/p>\n\n In modern media, there have been female heroines who have shaped our understanding of\nfemale agency as well as the female gender. This is a byproduct of female representation, as\ngender is performed constantly even by the simple act of representation: \u00bbWhat then is the\nsocial doing of gender? It is more than the continuous creation of the meaning of gender\nthrough human actions […]. We claim that gender itself is constituted through interaction\u00ab\n(West and Zimmermann 129). The avid reader might quickly recognize this as Judith\nButler\u2019s concept of \u203aperforming gender\u2039 and it is through this concept that the actions of\nEurydice and her versions can be understood as female<\/i>. All of the Eurydices perform their\ngender through their decisions, which in turn shape our understanding of the agency of\nfemale characters.\n<\/p>\n\n In order to establish a better understanding of female agency specifically, it seems helpful\nto present some examples which might further illuminate the concept. While discussing\nnegative, unproductive or flawed examples of female agency, one must distinguish between\nfemale agency and representation\/depth of female characters. Very successful female\ncharacters can have little to no agency and still be an interesting meditation on a topic,\nwhereas very poorly written female characters can have a great amount of agency. In short,\njust as the famous Bechdel test is not a guarantee for a well-written work of art, agency is\nnot a prerequisite for a thought-provoking discussion on gender roles.\n<\/p>\n\n It seems obvious to choose another Greek myth as an example: the rape of Persephone,\nspecifically Homer\u2019s version in his Hymn to Demeter<\/i>, translated and commented by Helene\nP. Foley. This choice will stay relevant, as there are some comparisons drawn to this myth\nand that of Orpheus and Eurydice. First and foremost, this story is one of many named a\n\u203arape\u2039. The implications this single fact has for the whole of Greek mythology, the fact that\nthere is such a category as a \u203arape\u2039, paints a fairly clear picture of female agency and\nrepresentation in this kind of literature. It underlines the previous assumption that the cases\nof oppression and manipulation are not single instances but connected by a system of\nexploitation and, in this case, rape. On a semiotic level, rape can represent the ultimate power\nheld over one individual and can thus be understood as \u00bban express of hostility toward the\nobjects of his lust\u00ab (Bryden and Grier 184). Women were and are still seen as objects for\nsatisfying needs, later discarded and even punished for a crime \u2013 if not the most terrible\ncrime \u2013 they are the victim of, just like Io, Europa, Atalanta, or Persephone and her mother\nDemeter.\n<\/p>\n\n Homer\u2019s adaptation of the myth describes Persephone as Demeter\u2019s \u00bbslim-ankled daughter\nwhom Aidoneus seized; Zeus, heavy-thundering and mighty-voiced, gave her, without the\nconsent of Demeter\u00ab (Foley 2). The first details we attain of Persephone are that she is quite\nliterally \u203agiven\u2039: She is an object<\/i> of dispute throughout the myth, wanted by her uncle\nAidoneus\/Hades, her mother as well as her father, Zeus. This is in turn not a story about the\nwrongdoings of Hades or Zeus, as they are not punished but merely negotiated with.\nDemeter\u2019s wrath forces Hades and Zeus to arrange a better deal for the object with the name\n\u203aPersephone\u2039. Thus, this must be taken as a story about \u00bb[t]he girl\u00ab (2), a child being viewed\nas an object and being taken. Persephone\u2019s youth is further illustrated by Lincoln: \u00bbThat\nPersephone is a young girl on the verge of womanhood […] is clear from the texts in which\nher myth is related. Her byname kor\u00eb is virtually synonymous with parthenos, \u203amaiden,\nvirgin\u2039\u00ab (Lincoln 224). The only conscious decision Persephone can make are screams: \u00bbShe\nscreamed with a shrill voice, calling on her father, the son of Kronos highest and best\u00ab (Foley\n2). The irony of the situation is stressed by Lincoln: \u00bbKore\u2019s plight is stressed […] she is\ndescribed as \u203aunwilling\u2039 (aekousar\u00ec)[…]. Finally, there is the bitter irony: caught in a trap set\nby Zeus, it is to Zeus whom Kore calls for assistance\u00ab (Lincoln 225).\n<\/p>\n\n This dichotomy between Persephone\u2019s actions and the trap laid out for her are especially\ninteresting, as the myth limits Persephone\u2019s agency in two major ways which are interesting\nto female agency. First, Persephone is only shown in a passive role: She is not the one\ncapturing but the one being captured. The only resistance to that capture is an outcry for help\nwhich signifies her \u203alack\u2039 of agency. Thus, she does not possess the ability to act on her own.\nSecondly, Persephone is governed by a system of power which has been, either in the broader\ncontext of Greek mythology, or even in the smallest unit of a myth, against her: Her only\naction is crying out for help to that one person that has doomed her. Persephone finds herself\nin a world where her father is known for rape and scheming, finds herself in one of his plots.\nThe truly negative aspect of her agency stems from the single fact that, from the beginning,\nshe had no say in the outcome of the story, as the following quote reveals: \u00bbZeus, heavy-\nthundering and mighty-voiced, gave her, without the consent of Demeter\u00ab (Foley 2).\n<\/p>\n\n To search for positive examples of female agency in Greek literature proved difficult. Thus,\nthis article will concern itself with an originally Greek corpus, although through the\nperspective of a newer retelling. The number of modern retellings of Greek texts is\nenormous. It is interesting to see how we can develop ideas and angles unknown to the\n\u203aoriginal\u2039 authors of those texts and then implement them so seemlessly. A retelling of the\nOdyssey from Penelope\u2019s point of view can be a meditation on the constant double standard\nthat women had and have to endure daily (The Penelopiad<\/i>, Margaret Atwood 2005).\n<\/p>\n\n Christa Wolf\u2019s Kassandra<\/i> will serve as a positive example for female agency.\nFrom the first few lines of the text, a major difference can already be established: Kassandra,\nit seems, is the narrator of her own story.1<\/sup> This changes the whole structure of the myth, as\nit is no mere outcry of a maiden being taken away anymore. This is a long and complex\nretelling of an older corpus through the victim\u2019s point of view. In this reinvention of the\noriginal myth, Wolf gives the character of Cassandra agency on a meta-level:\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n \n[Cassandra] embod[ies] a corrective to the instrumental reason which is becoming\nincreasingly dominant in [her] societ[y], and [she] possess[es] a clear insight into\n[herself] which enables [her] to see through the collective self-delusions of those around\n[her]. (Bridge 34)\n\n<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nThus, Cassandra holds agency through her knowledge, whereas Persephone is not aware of\nthe structures surrounding her, crying out to the forces which doom her.\n<\/p>\n\n This narrative power is then coupled with Cassandra\u2019s foresight. In an ironic twist,\nPersephone\u2019s naivety about her kidnapping is contrasted with Cassandra\u2019s expanding\nawareness of the danger to come. She is not only more active than Persephone, but also\nknowledgeable about the oppressive system surrounding both of them. Cassandra\u2019s\nknowledge might also be interpreted as a meta-commentary on agency: Someone who is\nable to predict actions and who can contemplate the free will of these actions might be a\ngood perspective to reflect on action itself and what it truly means to be able to act.\n<\/p>\n\n Cassandra\u2019s ability to act is even apparent through a sheer numerical comparison between\nboth characters. Whilst Persephone \u00bbscreamed with a shrill voice\u00ab (Foley 2), Cassandra can\nsave lives: \u00bbsie also hinderte, ihr und meiner Kinder Leben den gleichg\u00fcltigen Elementen zu\nlassen\u00ab (Wolf 8). At the same time, the latter contemplates the impact of her choice, further\nelaborating on the fact that she is keenly aware of the patriarchal system surrounding her:\n\u00bbund sie statt dessen wahnwitzigen Menschen \u00fcberantwortete\u00ab (8).\n<\/p>\n\n The final argument to be made about the positivity of Cassandra\u2019s agency is that of her\nultimate fate. Like Persephone, who is taken against her will, Cassandra is forced to sleep\nwith Agamemnon and eventually gets killed, which makes her subject to rape and death as\nwell. Unlike Persephone however, Cassandra\u2019s ability grants her agency through criticism.\nWhile both of their fates end in an unsatisfactory outcome for their female roles, Cassandra\u2019s\nwit is cleverly implemented to think about the system condemning her. One might even go\nso far as to imply that without the tragic ending, this retelling of the story would lose its core\npoint, that of a critical assessment of the misogynistic and war-blinded culture of the Greeks:\n\u00bbWolf zeigt dann auch im Text, wie das Prinzip des Kampfes in Wahrheit die Frau als Opfer\nvoraussetzt, da die k\u00e4mpferische Energie des Mannes sich der Nutzbarmachung der\nKraftquelle Frau verdankt\u00ab (Keller 155). This is an assessment which is also made by\nCassandra.\n<\/p>\n\n The second point of interest for this article concerns the representation and characterization of Eurydice in Ovid\u2019s Metamorphoses<\/i>,2<\/sup> as this source is vital to understanding newer adaptations. Even before discussing the aforementioned source, some thought should be\nspent on the core structure of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. Quickly summarized, the\ntale has the basic outline of Eurydice\u2019s death as \u00bb[a] serpent bit her ankle, and she was gone\u00ab\n(Ovid 234), which is followed by Orpheus\u2019 descent into the underworld, when he \u00bb[d]ared\nto descend to Styx, passing the portal\u00ab (234). Afterwards, he confronts Hades and\nPersephone: \u00bbcame to the king of that sad realm, and to Persephone, his consort, and he\nswept the strings, and chanted\u00ab (234). This leads to the joint ascent as \u00bbhe must not […] turn\nback his gaze, or the gift would be in vain. They climbed the upward path\u00ab (235-236) and\nfinally culminates in Orpheus\u2019 failure.\n<\/p>\n\n Eurydice\u2019s part is thus that of the helpless woman in need of rescue, commonly also known\nas the \u203adamsel in distress\u2039: \u00bbthe female operates as a means for masculine realization by\ncreating the conflict between love, which is embodied by, and directed toward the lady, and\nchivalry, the rules of conduct set and followed by men\u00ab (Kolsal 26). While the quoted line\nis concerned with the Arthurian legend, it is quite easy to draw parallels to the depiction of\nvalues allocated to female members of society and male self-understanding in ancient\nGreece:\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n \nThe feminine is viewed as the opposite of the masculine, its other half that can be united\nthrough marriage […] As for [this] dichotomy, it encompasses the Aristotelian claim\nthat the female is an inferior form of the male form. (Kolsal 26)\n\n<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nIn summary, the very structure of the myth is to be viewed as problematic in the context of\nfemale agency, as it presupposes a power dichotomy which is, from the start, stacked against\nEurydice. One might argue that \u00bbthe rules of conduct set and followed by men\u00ab (Kolsal 26)\nare a rather fit description of Greek mythology as a whole: a realm defined and dominated\nby men.\n\n<\/p>\n\n Eurydice receives little to no mention in Ovid\u2019s recount of the myth. The first allusion to her\nis a functionalization, as she is referred to as \u00bbthe bride\u00ab (Ovid 234). Thus, she is already\nconnected to the traditions of wedlock. Ovid\u2019s version even starts with Orpheus calling out\nto \u00bbHymen\u00ab (234), the god of marriage. In this connection to marriage, a great dependency\non Orpheus can be seen as Eurydice is, quite literally, the counterpart to Orpheus and \u00bbthe\nAristotelian claim\u00ab (Kolsal 26) comes up again: Only through marriage can Eurydice be\nconsidered a worthy human being. Also, this emphasis on marriage will stay relevant, as it will be examined numerous times, especially in Ruhl\u2019s depiction\nof the myth.\n<\/p>\n\n Eurydice\u2019s death, as will be discussed later, is not only a major part of the myth but also her\ncharacter\u2019s agency: Does she choose to die? Or is she killed unwillingly, portraying a more\npassive role? In Ovid\u2019s text, the choice is taken away from her as \u00bb[a] serpent bit her ankle,\nand she was gone\u00ab (234). This establishes her character as a victim instead of a heroine \u2013 a\nmodel of victimization which will permeate throughout her whole characterization, since she\nis the one in need of rescue.\n<\/p>\n\n This idea also creates a sense of fragility surrounding Eurydice. In the text, she is \u00bblimping\na little from her late wound\u00ab (235), causing Orpheus to be \u00bbafraid that she might falter\u00ab\n(236) and to turn around which, of course, robs him of his own agency to a slight extent,\nlightening the weight of his mistake and burdening Eurydice at the same time. Her second\ndeath then is the total annihilation of anything resembling her agency. This will stay true for\nthe adaptations to come:\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n \nDying the second time, she had no reproach to bring against her husband, what was\nthere to complain of? One thing, only: He loved her. He could hardly hear her calling\nfarewell! when she was gone. (Ovid 236)\n\n<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nEurydice does not voice any complaints to her second death, as it is now associated with her\nfaltering; the only complaint worth mentioning being Orpheus\u2019 loss. In addition, like\nOrpheus, we can hardly hear Eurydice in this version of the myth, her voice only being\nbriefly mentioned at the end of the story.\nPrior to her second death, singing to the king and queen of the underworld, Orpheus draws\nan interesting parallel to his story and that of Hades and Persephone:\n\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n \nLove has conquered. This god [the god of love] is famous in the world above, but here,\nI do not know. I think he may be or is it all a lie, that ancient story of an old ravishment,\nand how he brought the two of you together? (Ovid 235)\n\n<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nHe directly compares his love for Eurydice to a planned abduction and rape of \u00bba young girl\non the verge of womanhood\u00ab (Lincoln 224) and in doing so, \u00bbOrpheus for his own purposes\ncharacterizes it as a marriage based on love […], urging the couple to identify with his plight\u00ab\n(Ovid 461).\n<\/p>\n\n Although this comparison might be a bit disturbing, it actually calls to attention some\nsimilarities of Eurydice and Persephone. Both characters are given or taken by Hades who\nis managing them like resources, observable in quotes like \u00bbor the gift [that is Eurydice]\nwould be in vain\u00ab (236) or \u00bb[a]gainst her will Hades took her\u00ab (Foley 4). Besides that, both\nof them cry out at the tragic turn of their respective myth, try to leave the underworld but are\nunable to, and ultimately both of them are in the middle of a conflict of higher powers\ngoverning them and making decisions on their behalf.\n<\/p>\n\n To summarize this short analysis of one of the oldest tellings of the myth in regards to female\nagency: The structure of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice does not warrant female agency\nat all; instead, it promises quite the contrary. An author interested in creating a modern and\/or\nfeminist retelling of the given text should aim to change or at least be critical of the core\ndynamics of the myth. They should think critically about its many older versions which work\nwith a deeply patriarchal system stacked against the female roles of its text, diminishing their\nagency and limiting their understanding of their surroundings.\n<\/p>\n\n Orpheus Descending<\/i>, first presented on Broadway on March 17th, 1957, is a rewritten version of Tennessee Williams\u2019 play Battle of Angels<\/i>. It adapts the story of Orpheus and\nEurydice in an unconventional way, as its main plot centers around their time in hell rather\nthan their joint time before death. Reading this play as a one-to-one comparison of the plot\nof the \u203aoriginal\u2039 myth would not be productive, as there could be an argument made for three\nEurydices rather than one: \u00bband [Orpheus] drives three local Eurydices to the diversified\nextremes of mysticism, nymphomania and embittered hope\u00ab (Lee 311). This article will\nconsider only one of these three possible Eurydices due to several reasons that will become\napparent when discussed, but also because of the direct romantic connection between Val\nand Lady who are this version\u2019s Orpheus and Eurydice.\n<\/p>\n\n In her first appearance on stage, Lady is described as:\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n \nany age between 35 and 45, […] her figure is youthful. […] a woman who met with\nemotional disaster in her girlhood, […] But when in repose, a girlish softness emerges\nagain and she looks ten years younger. (Williams 11)\n\n<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nThis description fits neatly with the idea that Eurydice\u2019s \u00bbgrowing years were taken\u00ab (Ovid\n235), but it also puts a twist to that idea in coupling it with trauma and stress. As the reader\nlater learns, Lady has already lost her life and that of her unborn child once: \u00bbI lost my life\nin it, yeah, I lost my life in it, three lives was lost in it, two born lives and one not…\u00ab\n(Williams 59), meaning the life of her father, her way of life until this point as well as the\nlife she was carrying. This memory already conveys a lot of information regarding her\nunwanted death, which is alluded to in the play through the words \u00bbdeath don\u2019t come when\nyou want it, it comes when you don\u2019t want it!\u00ab (35). Readers also gain knowledge of her\nrelationship to her father \u2013 \u00bbI want [Jabe] to see [my father\u2019s] wine garden come open again\nwhen he\u2019s dying!\u00ab (59) \u2013 and her relationship with her new husband, Jabe, \u00bbwho bought\n[her] at a fire sale\u00ab (23) and \u00bbburned [Lady\u2019s father] out, house and orchard and vines\u00ab (51).\nJabe is often ascribed sickly or deathly features as he fights cancer and, in the history he has\nwith Lady, represents \u00bbMr. Death\u00ab or the role of Hades (65), which is emphasized by saying\nthat \u00bb[Jabe] is death\u2019s self, and malignancy<\/i>\u00ab (65).\n<\/p>\n\n Lady is motivated by revenge for her father, but also the freedom that Val imagines for her.\nWhen he is telling her about the birds and their freedoms, she replies with: \u00bbI sure would\ngive this mercantile store and every bit of stock in it to be that tiny bird the color of the sky\nfor one night to sleep on the wind and \u2013 Float!\u00ab (23) This quote illustrates her desire to\ndistance herself from the materialistic boundaries of her day-to-day life, a recurring theme\nfor many versions of Eurydice.\n<\/p>\n\n On a more numerical level, Lady is able to do many things in and around the store: giving\ncommands and decorating, buying and hiring, expelling someone from the store premises\nand even protecting Val from death. All of these instances describe her potential for action\nwhich effectively inverts the aforementioned power dynamic of Orpheus and Eurydice.\nHowever, if the store is understood as this version\u2019s underworld and literally Hades\u2019 lair,\nthen it is to be questioned whether Lady is truly free in her decisions. She herself is keenly\naware of her position in the store and through the course of the story even discovers that her\nhusband killed her father: \u00bbDid you hear what [Jabe] said? He said \u203aWe\u2039 did it, \u203aWE\u2039 burned\n\u2013 house \u2013 vines \u2013 orchard\u00ab (51). This gives her a better understanding of the system that is\nsurrounding her.\n<\/p>\n\n Yet, it is due to that understanding that she is constantly defying and resisting the given order\nas best as she can. She waits for Carol, even if she is someone disliked and ostracized by the\ncommunity. The whole act of building the confectionery as a symbolic revival of her father\u2019s\norchard is an act of defiance towards Jabe and eventually \u00bbher face [is full] with all the\npassions and secrets of life and death in it now, her fierce eyes blazing, knowing, and still\ndefying\u00ab (65). Arguably, Lady not only fulfills the role of Eurydice as a \u203adamsel in distress\u2039\nbut also the role of \u203athe goddess of spring\u2039, namely Persephone, trying to revive her father\u2019s\norchard as well as the corrupted community surrounding her.3<\/sup>\n<\/p>\n\n In Sarah Ruhl\u2019s play Eurydice<\/i> (2003), \u00bbthe emphasis has shifted from the musician who\ninvades the Underworld to rescue his dead wife to the wife herself\u00ab (Weales 608), which\nproves itself true on some levels. Starting with the paratextual level, the play does not present\na fairly expected \u203aOrpheus in the Underworld\u2039 or many variations of that title but a simple\nEurydice<\/i>. This title already indicates the focal shift from one character to the other.\nSimultaneously, it raises the expectation that the viewer is going to learn more about the\ncharacter of Eurydice. In addition to that, her name is listed first under \u203aCHARACTERS\u2039, a\nplacement which accentuates her importance even more.\n<\/p>\n\n In the play, the first character to speak is Eurydice, as opposed to Orpheus who stays mute\nfor more than one page of the play, and only communicates via gestures. Thus, she could be\nconsidered his voice, which is a role that establishes a great codependency: Orpheus is not\nable to talk without Eurydice; she<\/i> is the one who voices the thoughts he is not able to\ncommunicate on his own. Counting the instances of her agency, the viewer sees her\neducating herself as she \u00bbread a book today\u00ab (Ruhl 4) and gets herself some water.4<\/sup> She also\ndenies an offer by the lord of the underworld who asks her \u00bbSo would you like to accompany\nme to this interesting affair?\u00ab (18) to which Eurydice replies \u00bbNo, thank you\u00ab (18) and, later\non, outsmarts him when saying \u00bbClose your eyes, then! [Hades] closes his eyes, expecting a\nkiss. She takes the letter from his breast pocket. She slips under him and opens the door to\nthe stairwell<\/i>\u00ab (30). These are only a few selected examples among many instances in the\ntext, through which the viewer gets the impression that Eurydice is free to act on her own.\nThis notion also holds true for her death which she herself is responsible for: \u00bbShe runs, trips\nand pitches down the stairs, holding her letter<\/i>\u00ab (31). In Ruhl\u2019s adaptation, Eurydice\u2019s death\nis unwanted but self-inflicted. The point of her death neatly leads to the restrictions she faces\nin the play.\n<\/p>\n\n Eurydice is described \u00bbas though [she is] a little too young and a little too in love\u00ab (2) which\nis interpreted by critics as \u00bb[a]n indecisive young woman who seems uncertain about the\nbooks she reads\u00ab (Chirico 315). Thus, there are a lot of questions asked by Eurydice\nthroughout the play which are then answered by the other (male) characters. This establishes\na teacher-student dynamic. For instance, her father teaches her to speak again, Hades tells\nher how \u00bba real man\u00ab (Ruhl 30) should have \u00bbbroad shoulders like me\u00ab (30) and, finally,\nOrpheus shows her his gifts, teaches her about music and how to clap a rhythm.\n<\/p>\n\n Furthermore, Eurydice is often both emotionally and physically restricted by the men\nsurrounding her. It can be seen in Hades who \u00bbblocks the doorway<\/i>\u00ab (30) and is thus the\nactual cause of her death, even though the play does not acknowledge it. Orpheus is passively\nforcing his behavior onto Eurydice as he is \u00bbalways taking a shower when the guests arrive\nso he doesn\u2019t have to greet them. Then [she has to] greet them\u00ab (17). Additionally, he\nemotionally pressures her to accept his proposal: \u00bbI think so. ORPHEUS: You think<\/u> so?\nEURYDICE: I wasn\u2019t thinking. I mean\u2013Yes. Just: Yes\u00ab (12). Finally, her father is often\nbelieved to be the reason for her staying in the underworld: \u00bbAlthough she loves Orpheus,\nEurydice regrets leaving her father in the underworld\u00ab (Chirico 317) and ultimately chooses\n\u00bbto stay with her recently dead father\u00ab (Weales 609).\n<\/p>\n\n One of the core aspects in comparative literature is that of \u203aInfluence\u2039 (Corbineau-Hoffmann\n103) which is used to describe the following: \u00bbEin interner Kontakt [oder auch: Einflu\u00df], hat\nder Definition nach ein weiteres Werk zur Folge und betrifft nur jene Rezipienten, die selbst\nAutoren, \u203aDichter\u2039, sind\u00ab (103). This idea proves important for these two plays, as through\ncomparing how both plays adapt the \u203aoriginal myth\u2039 one might gain a better understanding\nof their respective views on female agency. The closer the text gets to Ovid\u2019s representation\nwithout in turn criticizing the underlying worldview, the less female agency is given to\nEurydice. Additionally, it might be interesting to observe the differing takes of both plays\non the same material.\n<\/p>\n\n This part of the article will amount to a list of choices the respective writer made regarding adaptation. Both texts describe their version of Eurydice as young since \u00bbEurydice […] should be played as though [she is] a little too young\u00ab (Ruhl 2) and Lady\u2019s \u00bbgirlish softness emerges again\nand she looks ten years younger\u00ab (Williams 11). Thus, both versions stay true to the Ovidian\nidea that her youthful years were taken \u2013 a decision which seems to hold two core reasons.\nFirstly, one idea of the original myth could be interpreted as Eurydice dying too soon which\nmotivates Orpheus to seek her in the world of the dead. Secondly, Eurydice is often depicted\nas \u203aunknowing\u2039, while Orpheus is able to lead her out of the underworld and has knowledge\nabout the rules of the Gods. Eurydice\u2019s frequent description as younger thus serves the\npurpose of presenting her as lesser than Orpheus.\n<\/p>\n\n Based on the words \u00bbdeath don\u2019t come when you want it, it comes when you don\u2019t want it!\u00ab\n(35), Williams\u2019 version of the character does not choose to die. Meanwhile, Ruhl\u2019s version\ndies by accident \u2013 or, more accurately, because she was pursued as \u00bb[s]he runs, trips and\npitches down the stairs, holding her letter<\/i>\u00ab (Ruhl 31) \u2013 which reaffirms Ovid\u2019s telling again\nand does not give Eurydice a choice regarding her own death. Eurydice\u2019s death is a focal\npoint of the myth\u2019s basic outline, and with that position comes a certain importance.\nSubsequently, it seems confusing why Ruhl\u2019s retelling fails to give Eurydice a choice. Of\ncourse, this choice would preferably not consist of two male partners but of principles \u2013\nnamely that of commitment, which is represented by the marriage to Orpheus, and freedom,\nwhich is illustrated by the \u203ainteresting\u2039 conversations Eurydice promises herself in the\nunderworld.\n<\/p>\n\n Ruhl decides to give Eurydice the choice of rebirth which is showcased in the following\nscene: \u00bbEURYDICE: Orpheus? HE TURNS TOWARDS HER, STARTLED<\/i>\u00ab (83). Opposed\nto this, William\u2019s protagonist desperately longs for her version of Orpheus which is\ndemonstrated through begging \u00bbNO, NO, DON\u2019T GO\u2026. I NEED YOU!!! […] TO LIVE\u2026.\nTO GO ON LIVING!!!\u00ab (Williams 46). The latter, thus, more closely resembles Ovid\u2019s\nversion of the tale. Ruhl\u2019s choice to actually grant Eurydice agency is very much needed\nbecause it presents her as being able to shape the course of her own life, whereas William\u2019s\ndecision to let Lady long for a choice stays consistent with the environment that has been set\nup to that point.\n<\/p>\n\n Both versions die for their father, both formulate their memories through their father.\nWilliams\u2019 adaptation could have worked with either a mother or a father figure, as the\ncharacter only holds relevance for the development of the plot. In contrast to this, Ruhl\u2019s\nversion features the father as a way of coping with feelings of loss since she \u00bbwrote Eurydice\nin honour of her father, who died too young. For her, Eurydice is in some respects a\nmanifestation of her desire to experience more conversations with him\u00ab (Coronis 302).\n<\/p>\n\n In general, some roles do not have to be open for any member of the cast, if that role only\n\u203aworks\u2039 with a certain cast member in mind. As the role of mentor in the underworld could\nnot have been played by her mother, this leads to some rather problematic conclusions: Her\nfather has to teach Eurydice how to live. This set role in the play then creates the implication\nthat Eurydice\u2019s choice to stay in the underworld is taken from her, as her ability to make that\ndecision is only possible through her father. It is also worth mentioning that through this\ninclusion of the father figure, Eurydice becomes more three-dimensional, as she now\npossesses memories, as opposed to Ovid\u2019s account where this is not the case.\n<\/p>\n\n Lastly, while Lady gets to act only within the boundaries of her shop and is ultimately\nrestricted by Jabe, Eurydice is free to do whatever she wants. However, Lady is aware of the\nsystem restricting her, whereas Eurydice seems oblivious to any allusion to the patriarchal\nsystem, which is observable through her repeating misogynist thoughts like: \u00bbA wedding is\nfor daughters and fathers. The mothers all dress up, trying to look like young women. […]\nThey stop being married to each other on that day\u00ab (Ruhl 17).\n<\/p>\n\n What follows now is an attempt to give a definitive answer on the question of female agency. Each adaptation is faithful to Ovid, because they end in tragedy. There will not be a\nfreed Eurydice, nor will there be an independent one. The core structure, as shown earlier,\nforbids a writing which has those goals of equality and agency.\n<\/p>\n\n To answer the question of how well these two versions navigate the given framework, it can\nbe said that both add onto Eurydice\u2019s character and relations, and both give her a voice which\ncan denounce and describe her surroundings \u2013 far more than Ovid\u2019s writing is willing to\ngrant. In these retellings, Eurydice truly becomes a character and not just a MacGuffin to be\nretrieved out of Hades.\n<\/p>\n\n Ultimately, both versions of Eurydice are in a conflict between two men. As shown previously, this likely has to do with the adaptation of the \u203aoriginal\u2039 myth. Williams\u2019\nLady is torn between the revenge for her father and love and sexual realization embodied by\nVal, since \u00bb[t]hrough her sexual relationship with Val, Lady Torrance has attained reality\nand meaning in life\u00ab (Blackwell 13). Ruhl\u2019s Eurydice has to choose either her father or\nOrpheus, whom she is unsure of. No matter who they choose, both versions are dependent\non a man in their (after-)lives, as Lady literally exclaims: \u00bbNO, NO, DON\u2019T GO\u2026. I NEED\nYOU!!! […] TO LIVE\u2026. TO GO ON LIVING!!!\u00ab (Williams 46). Meanwhile, Ruhl\u2019s\nEurydice is also heavily reliant on her father to teach her to live again, which could be read\nas the father\u2019s intention as he \u00bbforces his daughter to marry a man she does not love [which]\ntightens his own hold on her, since it ensures that she will always love him and never really\nleave him\u00ab (Finney 108).\n<\/p>\n\n To put it bluntly, these two characters are restricted and oppressed in far more ways than\nthey are free and have agency of their own. There could have been many ways in which\nthese two versions of Eurydice had more say in their lives. Yet, nearly all of their actions are\nlinked to the men surrounding them, granting them no possibility of acting on their own\nauthority. Ironically, the plays let themselves be categorized into the dichotomy previously\nestablished by the examples of female agency. Ruhl\u2019s Eurydice can act in a limited space\nbut is unaware of any patriarchal system and thus closer connected to \u203athe rape of\nPersephone\u2039. In contrast, Williams\u2019 Lady is far more restricted in her actions but is aware of\nher misogynist surroundings.\n<\/p>\n\n Throughout this paper, the different versions of Orpheus and Euryidce\u2019s myth have been\nanalyzed in order to find out to which extent the female characters are given agency. It has\nbecome evident that any non-critical adaptation of this myth presents major issues in regards\nto female agency. Both of the plays compared adapt the restrictions which Eurydice has to\nface in her world, namely her inability to escape a choice between two men as well as her\nbackground, which ties her whole existence to a mythized father figure. As these limitations\nare not viewed through a critical lens, since both plays fail to use these boundaries set by a\nlarger patriarchal narrative as a means of liberating the two Eurydices, it is not possible to\ntalk about two female agents, but rather two passive female roles. However, as there is only\na low grade of one-to-one adaptation, both texts are able to talk about feminist topics, like\nthe trauma of abusive relationships, the process of maturing into an adult woman and the act\nof defiance against an oppressive system. Therefore, both texts are competent enough to\nform their own thoughts about the myth\u2019s core ideas of dependency, love and redefining\nborders.\n<\/p>\n\n Ultimately, it is clear that through the more critical view of Orpheus Descending<\/i>\u2019s character\nLady, the play is able to present a more positive example of female agency than Eurydice<\/i>.\nThere, the protagonist Eurydice could theoretically act on her own, but is constantly seen in\nan inferior position to the men teaching or manipulating her. This stands in stark contrast to\nLady, who is able to both openly defy the given order and to question the structures\nsurrounding her. In the end, the readers of the two plays leave Eurydice where she has been\neven prior to Ovid\u2019s recount of the myth: in the realm of powers unknown to her, quietly\nstruggling against most certain death.\n<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Matti<\/strong> (geb. 2004) studiert momentan Deutsche Sprache und Literatur kombiniert mit Philosophie im Bachelor. Dabei fokussiert er sich auf Intertextualit\u00e4t, Strukturanalyse und feministischer Aufarbeitung von Texten.<\/i><\/p>\n Kontakt: matti.schoenbrunn@student.uni-halle.de; schoenbrunn.kontakt@gmail.com<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n 1<\/sup>This point of discussion is surrounded with differing opinions regarding the question whether Cassandra is to be read as an analogy for Wolf: \u00bbDass Christa Wolf Kassandra ist, kann getrost als Selbstverst\u00e4ndlichkeit Ovid et al. Metamorphoses<\/i>. (Translated by Rolfe Humphries, annotated by J.D. Reed). USA Indiana University Press, 2018. Blackwell, Louise. \u00bbTennessee Williams and the Predicament of Women.\u00ab South Atlantic Bulletin<\/i>, vol. 35, no. 2, 1970, pp. 9\u201314. Both Orpheus Descending written by Tennessee Williams and Sarah Ruhl\u2019s Eurydice retell the classic myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. In both cases, the most skillful artist in the world enters the realm of the dead to retrieve his wife, Eurydice. She is the central character of the former play and the character of interest of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6132,"featured_media":468,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6132"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=467"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1041,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467\/revisions\/1041"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/468"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<\/strong>Exploring Female Agency in Tennessee Williams\u2019 \u00bbOrpheus Descending\u00ab and Sarah Ruhl\u2019s \u00bbEurydice\u00ab<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\nA Definition of (Female) Agency\n<\/h2>\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nA Negative Example of Female Agency\n<\/h2>\n\n
A Positive Example of Female Agency\n<\/h2>\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nEurydice as a Figure\n<\/h2>\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nEurydice in \u00bbOrpheus Descending\u00ab\n<\/h2>\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nEurydice in \u00bbEurydice\u00ab\n<\/h2>\n\n
Comparing the Plays\n<\/h2>\n\n
Adaptation of the Myth\n<\/h2>\n\n
The Two Eurydices\n<\/h2>\n\n
Conclusion\n<\/h2>\n\n
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.urz.uni-halle.de\/zsbblog2024\/files\/2024\/11\/Matti_Schoenbrunn_Quadrat-300x300.jpg\")
\n\n\n\nNotes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
angenommen werden\u00ab (Keller 152).
2<\/sup>This paper will work with the translation of Rolfe Humphries.
3<\/sup>Just like Hades is not the \u203agod of death\u2039, but rather the \u203agod of the dead\u2039, Persephone is not the \u203agoddess of spring\u2039, but rather the daughter of Demeter. Through Demeter\u2019s joy over the annual reunion of her daughter
and herself, the world is presented with spring.
4<\/sup>The play uses water in numerous instances to represent different ideas, be it the adolescent experience of love shared with Orpheus or the drowning of memories in the river Lethe.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPrimary Sources<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ruhl, Sarah. Eurydice<\/i>, Berkeley Repertory Theatre, 2003.
Williams, Tennessee. Orpheus Descending<\/i>, Broadway, 1957.
Wolf, Christa. Kassandra. Erz\u00e4hlung. Mit einem Kommentar von Sonja Hilzinger<\/i>, Suhrkamp, 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSecondary Literature<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Bridge, Helen. \u00bbChrista Wolf’s Kassandra and Medea: Continuity and Change.\u00ab German Life and Letters<\/i>, vol. 57, no. 1, 2004, pp. 33\u201343.
Bryden, David P., and Maren M. Grier. \u00bbThe Search for Rapists\u2019 \u203aReal\u2039 Motives.\u00ab The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-)<\/i>, vol. 101, no. 1, 2011, pp. 171\u2013278.
Bourdieu, Pierre. \u00bbThe forms of capital.\u00ab Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education<\/i>, edited by J. Richardson, Greenwood Publishing Group Inc. Westport, CT, 1986, pp. 241\u2013258.
Chirico, Miriam M. \u00bbReview: [Untitled].\u00ab Theatre Journal<\/i>, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 315\u2013317.
Corbineau-Hoffmann, Angelika. Einf\u00fchrung in die Komparatistik<\/i>. Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2000.
Coronis, Athena. \u00bbSarah Ruhl\u2019s \u203aEurydice\u2039: A Dramatic Study of the Orpheus Myth in Reverse.\u00ab Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement<\/i>, no. 126, 2013, pp. 299\u2013315.
Fehr, Dennis Earl. \u00bbChapter 1: The Birth of Oppression.\u00ab Counterpoints<\/i>, vol. 5, 1993, pp. 5\u201322.
Finney, Gail. Women in Modern Drama: Freud, Feminism, and European Theater at the Turn of the Century<\/i>. Cornell University Press, 1989.
Foley, Helene P. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays<\/i>. Princeton University Press, 1994.
Keller, Thomas. \u00bbDie Wolfstr\u00e4ume der Kassandra. \u00dcber eine weibliche Mythologie des Friedens und die m\u00e4nnliche Logik des Krieges bei Christa Wolf.\u00ab Recherches germaniques<\/i>, vol. 15, no. 1, 1985, pp. 151\u2013174.
Kolsal, Ya\u011fmur Su. \u00bb\u203aAlways to Do Ladies, Damosels, and Gentlewomen Succour\u2039: The Instrumental Presence of Women in Le Morte D\u2019arthur as the Motifs of the Damsel in Distress, the Enchantress and The Seductress.\u00ab Overtones Ege Journal of English Studies<\/i>, vol. 2, no. 1, 2023, pp. 25\u201334.
Lee, M. Owen. \u201cOrpheus and Eurydice: Some Modern Versions.\u201d The Classical Journal<\/i>, vol. 56, no. 7, 1961, pp. 307\u2013313.
Lincoln, Bruce. \u00bbThe Rape of Persephone: A Greek Scenario of Women\u2019s Initiation.\u00ab Harvard Theological Review<\/i>, vol. 72, no. 3-4, 1908, pp. 223\u2013235.
Neuenfeldt, Elaine G. \u00bbIdentifying and Dismantling Patriarchy and Other Systems of Oppression of Women: Gender Analysis, Feminist Theology, and the Church in Mission.\u00ab International Review of Mission<\/i>, vol. 104, no. 1, 2015, p 18\u201325.
Weales, Gerald. \u00bbAmerican Theater Watch, 2007-2008.\u00ab The Georgia Review<\/i>, vol. 62, no. 3, 2008, pp. 603\u2013611.
West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. \u00bbDoing Gender.\u00ab Gender and Society<\/i>, vol. 1, no. 2, 1987, pp. 125\u2013151.
Zaharijevi\u0107, Adriana. \u00bbOn Butler\u2019s Theory of Agency.\u00ab Bodies That Still Matter: Resonances of the Work of Judith Butler<\/i>, edited by Annemie Halsema, Katja Kwastek and Roel Oever, Amsterdam University Press, 2021, pp. 21\u201330.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"