Andromache's story speaks to many atrocities that are gravely overlooked because she is a woman.
Women in The Iliad, and in ancient Greece, were responsible for grieving -- grief was "women's work" (and to some, still is). The notion has beautiful cultural traditions attached to it, but in The Iliad, we also see how that can take a toll during times of war and immense grief. Andromache mourns for not just herself, but her husband, her husband's family, her lineage, her people, and so on -- but because she is a woman, fans of The Iliad (rather than scholars primarily, though Classics is a heavily male-dominated field as well) tend to scrape over her story. It becomes normal to see women as holders of tragedy, and while the nature of the events that occur in specific and direct relation to her are incredibly powerful and noteworthy, Andromache herself is often swept under the rug in place of female characters who take on a more sexual character role. No one wants to watch a woman grieve, but even more-so, no one wants to see Andromache as anything more than the events that occur around / to her. She becomes the embodiment of this grief, a voice for all women who experience these wartorn tragedies, yet at the same time that notion strips her of her individuality as a character and woman. We begin look at her story through the lens of a model, an archetype, a voice of thousands, and we forget to empathize with how personal her story is, not just in general but to her as a character. We see her as the woman to describe all women, but in doing so, we lose sight of the person that woman is. We miss her ferocity, loyalty, empathy [and other traits] . . . and we replace her and interpret her as a symbol, an image of a woman in The Iliad or ancient Greece, something "beyond" or "more than" a woman when we should be seeing her as her own character alongside this.
When we take away the intricacies of her as an individual person, her womanhood becomes a statement rather than an experience. She becomes the face of statistics (as an easy comparison to modern times), we begin forgetting about her humanity and instead we treat her as a concept.
I don't think this is inherently bad, but something we should be mindful of when interacting with The Iliad -- I think it's important to still see her as her own person, not only because of how her autonomy may have been restricted like many women in The Iliad (and if we're going to talk about the plight of women in The Iliad then we should acknowledge our part in these interpretations that at times can further this), but because her story is hers for a reason and her pain, her grief, is hers and not something that should be overlooked on a personal level. I think if we do see her as a concept, as a symbol, then we should take great care to not dismiss her as her own woman too.
I think this is something wonderfully depicted in The Iliad. We see moments of her own grief in private, as well as moments of her leading public grieving. Of course, not everybody overlooks her -- and even if they did, The Iliad can be such a subjective reading experience -- but I do see a lot of fans and even characters overlook her, which is why I wanted to talk about this a bit formally yet also a bit casually.
I feel like, in general, you can only minimize a story like hers so much, no matter how overlooked or acknowledged she is, it will still be prominent just given the nature of it. Given that, I'm not saying her story is erased or completely neglected, it's certainly a powerful story that many of us know, have seen or read depictions of, etc. I just really want to hone in on this idea that turning her womanhood into a symbol often simultaneously strips her (and thus, the audience) from her personal grief.
Women are always something other than a woman. A symbol, an object, etc. Sometimes it's demeaning, sometimes it's empowering, but every time it's easy to overlook her individual experience in honour of the broader community. Fans often take her grief and move on from it to examine the story of women in The Iliad in general -- as more detailed representation of all the women who lost loved ones in the Trojan War -- and I think it was genius of Homer to include this for us to really take a look at, think about, discuss, and come to conclusions over (albeit, I'd also argue that by showing us this reflection of how we treat women, he is perpetuating that treatment of women, but this is all a very subjective and nuanced conversation, and I'll table going too far into Homer specifically because I do want to focus more on Andromache and what I've been talking about here). When we think about it though, we don't often think of men in these terms -- instead of seeing Achilles' rage as the rage of all men or the firey, blazing symbol of manhood, we see many examples of male characters being angry and we still see Achilles as his own character (this is just one example of many).
I think there's space for us to acknowledge these larger concepts without neglecting the individual women that make them up. I think being mindful of how we think about and understand Andromache and how we either dismiss or share her story is really integral to this.
By turning Andromache's womanhood into a movement, we take her womanhood and we drench it of all things that make her unique as a woman. We lose touch with how deeply we can resonate with Andromache because we make her a statue rather than a being with words, actions, feelings, etc. Of course, she is a fictional character, but I think you all get what I'm trying to say here.
I understand normalizing this community aspect of womanhood and how female characters are depicted, but I think in The Iliad we're also given an opportunity here to see women as more than that (especially as how Andromache is featured whereas other women, while often mentioned, are not) and I just think it's something many of us could benefit from reflecting and / or pondering more about. We see the representation of women like Andromache as so lacking in availability, accessibility or inclusion, that we forget how full it can be when it is happening, and I think it's really important to be aware of that habit that some of us forge behaviorally and instinctually when interacting with literature and viewing women as characters in stories. While every character has a role, woman or not, I just wanted to acknowledge that while I understand the need for women as symbols, I think we should still take the time to acknowledge them as not just symbols and still appreciate their inclusion as individual characters as well.
At this point, you know my stance: I think we should normalize recognizing her as her own being in deep ways and truly connect with the text beyond just making her a framework, archetype or generalized figure. We don't balance her duties as a woman and what she represents with how intricate it is for her as an individual, and I think we're presented with an opportunity to consider otherwise with Andromache. It's great that she is a character that many of us can relate to, but I think she's still more than just a theme or a message, she's still a character, a woman, her own person who went through hell in The Iliad and other stories. I really admire her and I think many of us can learn a lot from examining her through this lens I'm presenting about Andromache!
If this posted interested you, consider clicking my profile and checking out my table of contents! I write a lot of think-pieces and info-posts based in Classics, and I have a lot more to come!
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
vaporwave
discoholicmusic
areudirty
gummygunk
gracieabrams
2087
romaincrisis
turnnoffyourmind
