This statement regarding the regress of maternal instincts that are perceived as ‘normal’ can be discussed in reference to Timberlake Wertenbaker's ‘The Love of the Nightingale’ (1988) and Sarah Kane’s ‘Phaedra’s Love’ (1996). Both postmodern plays were written after the 1950s, and with the use of reference to Greek mythology, perpetuate social and gender issues reflective of the time period in which they are set. Theo L. D’haen describes the postmodern genre as one that incudes “self-reflexiveness, metafiction, eclecticism, redundancy, multiplicity, discontinuity, intertextuality, parody, the erasure of boundaries, and the destabilization of the reader” (1997, p.91). In both plays, such an erasure of boundaries and destabilization of the reader occur, and this can be seen by looking at them both through the scope of motherhood and feminism. Both plays somewhat conform to traditional views surrounding motherhood, yet at the same time they stray form such ideals. Wertenbaker’s play is a radical feminist adaptation and reconstruction of the Greek Myth of Philomela and Procne, and works to explore themes of radical feminism and sisterhood, as well as motherhood, when Procne stands up against her husband Tereus and punishes him for abusing her sister with the use of their son, Itys. Additionally, Kane’s play is similarly based on a Greek myth, however, is centered around the Greek tragedy of Phaedra, which is a myth that also explores themes of motherhood in an unconventional manner, in which Phaedra begins to feel romantic and sexual feelings towards her stepson, Hippolytus, which is fundamentally far from the feelings a mother should feel towards her children/stepchildren. As both plays are adaptations of and are inspired by Greek mythology, some of the class and gender ideals they depict are very much reflective of the era and coincide with the original myths. That being said however, both plays eradicate the Athenian image of a mother and of a wife, portraying Procne and Phadra each in a very outlandish and unusual way, conveyed through how they treat their children as the plays progress.
Motherhood and feminism, whether that be in females conforming to patriarchal ideals, or fighting against it, both coincide with each other. In many patriarchal societies, mothering a child was perceived to be the role of a woman, that is, their bodies existed only to pleasure their husbands and birth their husband’s children. During and post 1950s, motherhood and being a mother were idolized and seen to be much greater than which it was due to the prosperity of the country after the Second World War. Due to new gadgets and there no longer being a necessity for women to go out and work, their home life was consequently ‘easier’, and they could simply focus on household chores and mothering their children. However, their lives had changed massively after the war, “they had less household help, were more aware of community concerns and politics, felt less emphasis on family relationships and a diminishment of autocratic family roles” (Fullerton, 2010, p.21). This means that it was very difficult for most women to just fall back into their outdated routine lives, existing purely to cook, clean and bear children, and more women wanted to do much more than this, and they were not allowed to do so, as they were inferior to men and only men were supposed to be the breadwinner and provide for their families. Though in Greek mythology, motherhood was usually conveyed by women who were self-sacrificing, passionate and all loving towards their children, they would do anything for them and even lay down their lives for them at times. In short, their primal maternal instinct would be to protect, and their role in society and life shouldn't surpass this. At the time, many critics agree with the fact that there was an overwhelming need for the patriarchal society to mold and control the female experience, with the control of female reproductivity. Nancy Demand suggests that the most difficult thing for Greek women was to survive, they had to produce new members through the male line: this service of childbearing was the center of women's lives. Simon De Beauvoir's ‘The Second Sex’ (1949) agrees, that for a woman, “she is for man a sexual partner, a reproducer, an erotic subject – an Other through whom he seeks himself” (p.90). Women in the Athenian era existed only to continue on the male line into future generations and lived only to be controlled by either their fathers or husbands all through their lives. According to Donovan, “De Beauvoir sees the female body as inherently alienating because it demands so much of women’s energy that it saps their potential for engaging in a creative pour-soi activity. Childbearing, childbirth, and menstruation are draining physical events that tie women to their bodies and to immanence” (2012, p.121). Feminism, therefore started to break away from such ideals about women and acknowledged the harsh ideals a patriarchal society demanded of a woman's body and life, and so plays written after the 1950s started to exhibit a new type of resistance to this image of the perfect wife and the perfect mother.
A somewhat conventional motherhood in ‘The Love of the Nightingale’ is primarily portrayed through the character of the Queen mother. The Queen is in fact confirmative with gender norms present during Greek mythology and in the 1900s, that is being a spectator in the piece, detaching herself from outwardly issues and immersing herself in public appearances, performance and duty. In the same manner, she silences her daughters: “Procne: ‘Mother’. Queen: ‘What can I say?’. Philomele: ‘Can I go with her?’. Queen: ‘Quiet, child’” (3.295-6). The audience, like the Queen, has no power over the play's outcome, and her character embodies this on stage. The Queen is another female character who, like her daughter, has no voice and also watches 'Medea'. She perceives catastrophe, like the audience, but is powerless to intervene; she is a spectator throughout the play, disconnected from reality. Despite her attempts to be an authoritative mother and silence her daughter, she does not need to be silenced herself because she is unable to exert any impact on the play's male characters. Marianne McDonald attests to this, in that the Queen has to “cede to King Pandion on every issue... she is not even consulted about the plans made for Philomele, the King is named, and the Queen is unnamed – typical of Athenian practice in which a woman was not named in legal proceedings, she is identified by her relation to the immediate male who has power over her” (1994). As a wife, she abides by societal norms, to be ‘seen and not heard’ so to speak. However, regarding the Queen as a mother, it is questionable as to whether she fulfils the role and possesses any sort of normative maternal instincts. In short, the maternal instinct to protect your children, and support them, and this isn't particularly perceived in the character of the Queen. During this section of Scene 3, she simply stands back, purely spectates and silences her daughters when they attempt to speak up. Though, the question stands: is she powerless or willfully inactive? In terms of Athenian standards, she is the perfect image of a wife and a Queen as a woman, due to her being a silent spectator who never challenges what her husband the King says. However, when it comes to being a mother, she neglects the protective and sacrificing maternal instincts she should possess, as she doesn’t support her daughters' opinions and wishes, and instead stifles them in order to keep the King pleased and maintain her image in society.
When it comes to Phaedra, at the start of ‘Phaedra’s Love, she also attempts to conform to her role in society as a royal’s wife, and even though she is only Hippolytus’ stepmother, she appears to care for his well-being and have motherly boundaries with him. She says: “I’m his stepmother. We are Royal” (2.66), and then “I’m married to his father” (2.67), when asked by a doctor if she is in love with her stepson, which holds implications of her keeping a boundary intact with Hippolytus, while also accepting her role in society. Federica Clementi attests to this, stating that “the process of identity creation works the other way around as well, not only she builds the image of devoted wife and mother for herself, she also highlights Hippolytus’s role of loved prince and son, creating the illusion of a healthy, although exclusive, relationship between them” (2020, p.55). She goes on to tell the doctor: “I think my son is ill. I think you should help” (2.67), which also adds to the image of her being a caring stepmother who is simply concerned about her stepson’s well-being, nothing more. However, that image quickly fades, and the real premise of Phaedra’s ‘maternal’ concern is brought to light.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Shortly after the beginning of the play, when Phaedra expresses her concerns for her stepson to the doctor, does she expose her true feelings for Hippolytus to her daughter Strophe with the use of metaphors and symbolism. In Scene 3, she expresses her pain over this twisted sort of one-side love, prohibited love, by telling Strophe, “There’s a thing between us, an awesome fucking thing, can you feel it? It burns. Meant to be. We were. Meant to be”, and when Strophe replies “This isn't healthy, Phaedra says “He’s not my son” (3.71). Fundamentally, any sort of motherly bond Phaedra was trying to somewhat force with Hippolytus is dissipated in an instant with this confession. In Scene 4, Phaedra goes on to confess to Hippolytus directly: “Phaedra: ‘I love you’. Silence. Hippolytus: ‘Why?’. Phaedra: ‘You’re difficult. Moody, cynical, bitter, fat, decadent, spoilt…you're in pain. I adore you’” (4.79). Straight away it is evident that Phaedra does not think of Hippolytus as a mother would think of her son, and any maternal instincts she may have had have begun to merge with the lust and longing she has for him into a twisted kind of ‘love’. After this, when Phaedra performs a sexual act on Hippolytus, and this consolidates the fact that this play is a clear resistance to motherly idealistic expectations during this time period. When Hippolytus pays no mind to her confession and sexual advances, nor does he reciprocate her feelings, this therefore causes Phaedra ultimate devastation and heartbreak, resulting in her hanging herself all while leaving a note stating that it was Hippolytus that had raped her and drove her to death. Hippolytus asks “What happened?”, and Strophe replies “Hung. Note saying you raped her”, and to this Hippolytus says “She shouldn’t have taken it so seriously” (6.90). This therefore implies that Phaedra had no maternal instincts towards Hippolytus in terms of the ideal to protect and be self-sacrificing for one's child, as was usual in Greek tragedy. Instead, she advanced on her stepson, and when he didn’t return her feelings, she ended her own life and framed Hippolytus for a horrific crime.
Another instance in which Phaedra’s motherly instincts are abandoned is when she speaks with her actual daughter Strophe: “Strophe: ‘Mother’. Phaedra: ‘Go away fuck off, don’t touch me, don’t talk to me. stay with me’” (3.69). Ultimately, Phaedra attempts to break away from the limitations of motherhood even with her own daughter by brushing her off with the ‘fuck off’, but then recognizes her customary position in society as postulated by psychoanalytical discourses within a few brief sentences when she says, ‘stay with me’. But ultimately, as Phaedra kills herself as a result of her love and her body being ridiculed by Hippolytus, she is neglecting her daughter and leaving her to fend for herself against her stepfather and stepbrother.
Near the end of the play, when Strophe is in disguise along with Hippolytus, Strophe warns the crowd not to hurt Hippolytus, and as a result Theseus seizes her and rapes her in front of everyone, consuming her body savagely, and then murders her on the spot. Strophe therefore, ends up paying a high price for defying patriarchal authority, she pays such a price due to the fact that she did not have her mother there to protect her as a mother should have.
Procne as a mother in ‘The Love of the Nightingale’ poses similarity to Phaedra, that is regarding the manner in which she loses her maternal instincts for her child as the play progresses. After Procne is made aware that her husband Tereus had raped her sister and cut out her tongue, she allows Philomele to kill Itys, her son. In Scene 20, “Itys goes for Philomele. Procne holds him. Philomele still has the sword. Philomele brings the sword down on his neck” (20. 350), thus killing him. Ultimately, it can be argued that Procne values sisterhood and a need to take revenge on the man that betrayed them over motherhood and the need to protect her child. This is viewed by some as an act of radical feminism, a way for the sisters to fight back against the dominant patriarchy of the time in which they live. Andrew Feldherr suggests that “Procne here faces the familiar tragic dilemma of deciding who she is, mother or sister”. What is most important, though is “in looking at the figure of her son, she stresses a seen likeness to his father against the likeness to herself” (201). This is what causes her to prioritize sisterhood and abandon her sense of motherhood towards Itys. Perhaps, it can be argued that such radical feminism that is portrayed in the play is what impacts Procne’s maternal instincts and how she decides to treat her child. When Tereus took control over Philomele’s body by raping her and cutting her tongue, Procne avenges her sister by taking control of what her body created and allowing her son to be killed. The irony in this lies in that fact that Itys is male. It is something that can be questioned, is Procne taking revenge on only Tereus or perhaps is she fighting back the male gender as a whole? The gender which prioritizes its needs and its discourse in order to push women’s discourse down the ladder. The gender that excuses men's awful actions such as rape and violence as normal due to the fact that women are simply property that belong to men and don’t deserve any rights. In order to carry out this revenge, Procne abandons her sense of motherhood and any sort of maternal love she had for Itys and allows him to be killed. Nursen Gomceli agrees that Procne killing Itys and disregarding her role as a mother is a radical form of rebellion, it suggests that Procne lo longer obeys the rules of patriarchy, also revealed when she tells Tereus: “I obeyed all rules: the rule of parents, the rule of marriage, the rules of my loneliness, you” (20. 47). Additionally, since a child represents the future, the slaughter of Itys can also be interpreted as the destruction of the future of patriarchy (2009, p.92). Near the end of the play when Itys’ body is revealed: “Procne: ‘If you bend over the stream and search for your reflection, Tereus, this is what it looks like’. Tereus: ‘Your own child!’. Procne: ‘Ours. There are no more rules. There is nothing. The world is bleak. The past a mockery, the future dead. And now I want to die’” (20. 335-340). Procne is telling Tereus that he himself was responsible for the death of their son, and so “forces [him] to confront his own guilt” (Winston, 1995, p.515). Her words here work to not only blame Tereus for what occurred, but mostly to consolidate the notion that she is fighting back against the dominant patriarchal system, and with the killing of her son, disregards the systems expectations that women belong under men, and removes the next generation that will carry on enforcing this.
To conclude, many critics agree that plays written during and after the 1950s do in fact pose a resistance to the traditional traits that a mother was expected to possess, that is in the maternal instinct to care for, love and protect one’s child. It would be wrong to disagree to the statement, even though there are instances and/or characters that do conform to the normative ideals of a mother, it is abundantly clear that the protagonists in these two plays who are mothers commit acts that are far from what a mother would do, that is, committing murder and performing sexual acts. The primary theme in each play is about being silenced, and in both instances the female characters are being silenced by men, and Kane and Wertenbaker challenge this as they integrated feminism into both Procne and Phaedra, allowing them abandon motherly nature and take revenge on the men that wronged them. Phaedra takes revenge on Hippolytus by accusing him of rape and the assisted murder of herself, whereas Procne avenges her sister by allowing her son to be killed as a punishment for Tereus. Both Kane and Wertenbaker use the postmodern genre in order to retell traditional Greek myths in a way that does resist the normative ideals expected of a mother in the Athenian era, but essentially also uses it in order to explore themes of radical feminism, by allowing their female characters to challenge the confined patriarchal society in which they lived.
Stuck on your essay?
