Sophocles’ Trachiniae revolves around several gender-related themes, such as male/female reversal and domesticity versus wildness. Scholarly interpretations have remarkably often dismissed the play's female protagonist, Deianeira, as helpless, foolish and naive. Third-wave feminism interpreted this tragedy as a patriarchal product par excellence, in which Deianeira's turn to action (her application of a love potion to a robe for Heracles) is an unforgivable transgression (on this trend see e.g. B. Heiden, ‘Trachiniae’, in: Brill's Companion to Sophocles [2012], p. 130). What S.'s book offers is a feminist counter-interpretation, in which she tries to show that the play does not conform to, but rather subverts, patriarchal structures.
In the introduction S. lays the groundwork for one of the central arguments of her book: Deianeira is a political figure, and the οἶκος in which she operates is not a private but a civic entity crucial to the stability of the polis. In S.'s eyes Deianeira offers a ‘female locus’ from which patriarchy is criticised. The concept of the ‘female locus’ is left undefined, as are other (theoretical) terms. At some points the introduction's dense prose is difficult to understand (see e.g. the unexplained reference to ‘cracks’ within Deianeira's speech on p. 8, repeated on pp. 16, 93).
The first chapter offers a lucid discussion of the pre-texts of Trachiniae and shows how vase paintings can provide us with an insight into other versions of the play's myths. In this chapter S. aims to support her view of Deianeira as a political figure by arguing that she is an Amazon living within the Greek polis. According to S. her position contrasts with that of the monsters of the play, who occupy a ‘liminal’ and ‘extra-political’ status. In her endeavour to prove that an ancient audience primarily considered Deianeira as Amazonian, S. supplements the scant evidence that is usually brought up (such as Deianeira's war-like brother and the etymology of her name) with her own, less persuasive, arguments. One wonders, for example, whether Deianeira's descent from a violent family is a recurrent tragic pattern, or indeed distinctively Amazonian.
The second chapter revolves around the nuptial and sexual imagery that is amply present in the play. S. builds upon the work of Segal (C. Segal, Sophocles’ Tragic World [1995], pp. 69–94) when interpreting these issues in political terms. In arguing that monstrous sexual desires cause chaos in the play and disrupt its (in S.'s view ‘political’) order, S. adds her own touch to familiar arguments by more elaborately highlighting the importance of monstrosity and sexual violence. In the second part of this chapter S. offers a discussion of Heracles’ νόσος that is less innovative in relation to the existing scholarship (e.g. P. Biggs, CPh 61 [1966]; W. Allan, Hermes 142 [2014]).
The central theme of Chapter 3 is the ‘crisis of reciprocity’ that permeates the play (and, according to S., forms a threat to its ‘order’). The idea of marriage as a transaction, the recurrence of gifts (Nessus gives Deianeira the love potion, Heracles gives Iole to Deianeira, and Deianeira gives Heracles the robe) and the repeated use of words with the stem δωρ- have been noticed before. S.'s addition is her collection of χάρις-related words and her comparative analysis that shows different ways for gifts to be unreliable and reciprocity to be undermined. Her discussion of Deianeira's gift (the robe) might have benefited from more extensive engagement with Lee's work on πέπλοι (M. Lee, CJ 99 [2004]).
In Chapter 4 S. argues that Trachiniae can be seen as commenting on justice. She offers a fine outline of existing literature on Deianeira's guilt, showing the bias inherent in these studies – Deianeira is presented in scholarship as either naive or cruel because she is a woman. The outline of existing studies points out the relevance of making the distinction between guilt, knowledge and intentions. S.'s treatment of the issue adds nuance to the ongoing debate because of her emphasis on Deianeira's logical deliberations, her concern with her own reputation, and the changes in her state of mind and thoughts on the love potion.
The first part of the fifth and last chapter revolves around the ‘authority’ of traditional endings over the audience's perception of the plot. S. uses the alternating forces of mythological foreknowledge and dramatic plot on the one hand, and Heracles’ role as a ‘speaker of aetiology’ on the other as explanations for the Sophoclean open-endedness that governs the last part of the play. The second part of the chapter revolves around a different type of authority: that of Heracles over Hyllus. S. argues that Trachiniae reflects Hyllus’ rite of passage, and she interprets Heracles’ wish for Hyllus to marry Iole as a way for him to ensure the continuation of his οἶκος. This aligns well with S.'s interest in the οἶκος as a political unit, but S. seems to go too far when she uses this to drive home her point that the play subverts patriarchal authority. Others have read Hyllus’ reluctance less as political resistance and more as a result of his personal discomfort with marrying his father's lover.
One of the crucial characteristics of S.'s approach is her aim to connect the play's literary elements with contemporary socio-political reality. She here follows the widespread (though not uncontested) assumption that even in a play that centres around a mythical world, contemporary issues of public debate can be reflected. But S. sometimes seems to get entangled in theoretical deliberations that obfuscate the connection with historical political reality and yield conclusions that are ultimately incompatible with ancient thought. S.'s main point, that Trachiniae is driven by an inclination to subvert patriarchy, is therefore less persuasive. Think, for example, of Deianeira's famous silent exit, commonly seen as an acceptance of guilt. In S.'s reading, the absence of speech is ‘a communicative device of contesting authorized linguistic forms and refuting the normative discourse of phallogocentrism’ (p. 114). On p. 41 she points out the paradox inherent in such interpretations: ‘Trachiniae … [paradoxically becomes] an early manifesto of the feminist movement’.
S. offers an original view on this tragedy that includes valuable discussions of its literary sources and existing scholarship. Even if her feminist reading will not convince all, her close readings shed useful light on thematic issues such as sexual violence and guilt.
