Euripides and Philosophy

Although it is accepted by many scholars that Euripides had an active interest in philosophical pursuits (Dodds, 1929, p.97f, 103), merely being contemporaneous with the philosophical debate of nomos and physis does not provide incontrovertible proof that Euripides was directly involved in it. However, what is presented to the audience in the Bacchae allows a conclusion that at least on some level, Euripides was thinking about this conflict.

What is known of Euripides in terms of biographical details is scant(8). There is a tradition, however, which has had wide circulation among scholarly circles but which is dubious in origin. The main source of the tradition are the works of Old Comedy. Clearly, such a source casts all "evidence" derived from it into doubt. Old Comedy's principle aim was to entertain the audience, not to inform it, and thus had devices such as irony, inversion, exaggeration and invention at its disposal in order to generate that aim. For example, if Euripides was depicted as a misogynist in these plays, and he was, it does not necessarily follow that he was one. Indeed, the comic element in this portrayal may very well derive from the fact that Euripides was quite the opposite. In much the same way, all the assumptions of the biographical tradition of Euripides derived at face value from the comedies of Aristophanes and others of his ilk can be considered unreliable.

Tantalising as the portraits of Euripides in the comedies may be in attempting to sketch his character, they must therefore be given only their due credibility. Unfortunately, the comedies represent the only substantial descriptions of Euripides outside of what may be gleaned from his own dramatic creations. However, that does not mean that the student need be bereft of a conclusion as to who Euripides was, but that such conclusions must be preceded with a caution regarding the degree to which they are based on an educated degree of speculation.

Since the inquiry here does somewhat consider the intent of Euripides in the Bacchae, it is important to sketch such a portrait. With Old Comedy given a more realistic level of credibility than it has hitherto been afforded, the major source of information must be the tragedies themselves, and what is known of their historical context. This latter element includes the cultural atmosphere of the time, as Euripides would have had to understand the way his audience thought in order to manipulate those thoughts to take the form he intended as a result of witnessing his tragedies. The two main historical events to keep in mind are the Peloponnesian War and the burst of intellectual activity identified with the sophists (Croally, 1994, p.56). The value of information from the comedies is then to be found in comparing their depictions against the conclusions drawn from the plays in their context. The task is then to decipher the woven elements of comic invention and historical fact. This is the approach taken here.

Dodds (1929, p.98) considers the question of how to decipher Euripides' ideas from the plays but although he sees it as problematic, he also sees a way through by focussing on the characters who are clearly "thinkers", not just utterers.

Some conclusions drawn by scholars about Euripides adequately keep these caveats in mind and are thus a useful starting point for this inquiry: he is concerned with the inner life of the individual - psychological approach to characterisations, not the typical struggle of the hero against outside forces beyond their control (Zeitlin, 1990A, p.87; Dodds, 1929, p.99, 103); interested in philosophical questions, but he was not a sophist (Dodds, 1929, p.97, 98); not interested in tragic heroes on the grand scale, but heroes that can be associated with by an audience of ordinary citizens, therefore interested in common questions; and not a misogynist, indeed, quite the opposite.

With all these things in mind, it is clear that a connection between Euripides and the nomos versus physis debate is easily within the realms of possibility. When the most revealing evidence, the drama itself, is considered, the relationship is even clearer. Euripides seems to fasten upon this ethical debate of his time and applies it to the life of the psyche; the level of the individual's internal life rather than their public acts as part of the polis, but with drastic repercussions for that self same polis.

For anyone doubting the practical nature of the nomos versus physis debate, ie. did it have a presence in Euripides' time apart from in the rarefied atmosphere of intellectual spheres, the so called "Melian dialogue" in Thuycidides (5, 85-111), if reliable historically, attests to it.

THE PLAY: Dionysus versus Pentheus

At the top level of meaning, the Bacchae is concerned with the god Dionysus revenging himself on Thebes, the city of his mother, where his divine status has been rejected. A god as a principal actor in a tragedy is not common among the extant plays as these figures usually take background roles comprising a context within which the human characters struggle. So from the beginning, Dionysus' role is an unusual thus interesting one. As the action proceeds and he is rejected by Thebes (in the person of its king, Pentheus, and by many of its citizens, including the women who form the bacchae when they are "driven mad" by the god) this is also a significant point, that is, where other plays may deal with insults to a god or negligence in regard to proper worship, the Bacchae is concerned with the significant theme of a god not recognised at all (Faas, 1984, p.70).

The rejection leads to the question of why Dionysus was not regarded a god in Thebes. An answer to this question then leads to a consideration of what he represents, because it is on this basis, among others, that Pentheus decides to reject his godhead. It is at this point in the investigation of the drama that the nomos versus physis perspective begins to be revealed. Pentheus, "as the representative of the city he sets the nomos of the polis and its ethical order in opposition to Dionysian physis and the ecstatic cult of instinct and emotion" (Friedrich, 1990, p.538f). The antithesis then becomes obvious everywhere in this play, from the distinction between the Thebes and Cithaeron (Friedrich, 1990, p.539) to the difference in attire of the two main protagonists, Pentheus most likely in hoplite gear, and Dionysus, as the text describes, in effeminate clothing and hair style, perfumed like a woman (or Asian).

Therefore, the most obvious place where the nomos and physis antithesis is manifest in the Bacchae is in the opposition between Dionysus and Pentheus(9). The way in which these two characters embody nomos and physis forces will be the main focus of this examination but will be considered along with relevant aspects relating to the other characters and themes discernible.

The gods in ancient Greek mythology were representatives of certain qualities and institutions that were relevant in the world of their believers (and disbelievers). However, the anthropomorphism of ancient Greek mythology had a definite literal level of reading, ie. it was valid in that society for the gods to be perceived as real entities, not just dramatic personifications of certain forces/ideas. This is an important point in relation to Euripides possible intent. If Dionysus is meant to represent a literal character, the drama is more open to a literal interpretation. However, for reasons arising from Euripides' depictions of gods, not only in the current work but throughout the extant plays, the definite inclination here is to follow Dodds (1929, p.101, 102; 1951, p.96; contrast with Rankin, 1983, p.133, 137) in the conclusion that the gods function in Euripides not as literal characters but as representatives of more enduring qualities/forces(10). With this as a basis for considering the character of Dionysus, the way is clear for his insertion into the ethical antithesis in question.

If there ever was a god of physis, then Dionysus was it(11). With respect to the other ideas related to physis that are described above, there are many references in the play that link him to those also (Rankin, 1983, p.136). Dionysus is represented as coming to Thebes as a foreigner from Asia (hence non-Greek); his effeminate appearance is remarked upon and Pentheus takes issue with it (hence the feminine); his devotees, the Chorus, are all women (also a link to the female); and the elements of his worship as expressed in the first Choral ode involve ecstatic rites in the mountains (references to ecstasy, unity with nature).

Pentheus, as the King of Thebes, is cast, at least nominally, as the representative of nomos (Friedrich, 1990, p.538-9). Clearly, the polis state can only exist if there are conventional laws created, or at least endorsed, by the society contained within it. Of the many links between Pentheus and the ideas related to the nomos concept, the importance of the polis has already been mentioned (hence civilisation); part of Pentheus' anger is caused by the fact that women are going against his decrees (hence the issue of masculinity); of course he is Greek and displays an almost xenophobic response to the invading Asiatic cult (Greek as preeminent); his actions are self-described as being in the interest of civic order, and he readily calls in the army to promote this (hence the requirement of order)(Bowen, 1969, 14); he reasons that Dionysus cannot possibly be a new god (hence rational practices promoted); and he is disgusted by the lecherous acts he imagines are being perpetrated by the Bacchic followers (he condones only moderate emotional and sexual acts).

At this level it appears quite obvious that Dionysus and Pentheus readily illustrate the conflict between nomos and physis with each representing the diametrically opposed ends of the antithesis. However, Euripides does not simply present us with two pure representatives of nomos and physis. There is a crucial complexity in his characterisations and it is this complexity that allows a coherent answer to Norwood's "riddle".

The gendering of the conflict in the Bacchae is a very important element. As proposed above, the male versus female concept is readily enclosed in the superordinate nomos versus physis antithesis. In Euripides the female is often a quality invoked to conflict against male civic ideals (cf. Medea). In this respect it is "anti-polis" as well as connected with the irrational, emotional and sexual (Segal, 1978, p.185). Segal (1978, p.186) further emphasises the feminine as linked to Dionysus through this disordering capacity. The male versus female element is attested to throughout the tragedy in various guises: the Bacchae are women, Dionysus' effeminacy, Pentheus' shame at the women's superiority against the male forces sent to spy or quash their uprising. The gendering of the conflict leads toward its own climax in Pentheus' agreement to and subsequent dressing as a female bacchant. (Zeitlin(12), 1990A, p.63).

Although Dionysus is promoting a new orgiastic cult, he never demands complete abandon to natural urges; not complete in the sense of a permanent new way of life nor in the sense of a completely polarised excess. What he does demand is a recognition of his importance, and the ecstatic worship that is of positive value. This is embodied in both the words and the actions of the Chorus which will be considered more closely below. The god is also depicted as a reasonable entity who promotes the idea of a "It's a wise man's part to practise a smooth-tempered self-control" [p.213] thus acknowledging the place of nomos ideals like moderation and wisdom. It is this interplay between the polarities (Segal, 1978, p.186) which suggests a more appropriate response to the needs of the individual in society.

Dionysus is a lover of peace (418), calm (603) and controlled (642), and indeed if one actor in the play is to be considered rational, it is arguably Dionysus. But it the god's capacity for extreme violence and destruction, and how this symbolises what is happening in Pentheus, that makes the Bacchae a tragedy.

Despite Pentheus' role as the protector of nomos and the polis, he also has definite leanings towards qualities of the "other side", as already intimated. It is widely agreed that he expresses a prurient voyeurism in his fantasies of what is taking place on Cithaeron and this is most vividly displayed in his eager acceptance of Dionysus' invitation to "see" what is taking place there (Faas, 1984, p.71):

Amidst these groups of worshippers, they tell me, stand
Bowls full of wine; and our women go creeping off
This way and that too lonely places and give themselves
To lecherous men.
[Pentheus, p.198]

How quickly does Pentheus turn from puritanical protector of the polis to the enthusiastic spy/voyeur when invited by Dionysus to view the women unseen. With this dramatic thread in mind, it is not difficult to see Pentheus as a classic sufferer of repression (Faas, 1984, p.71). Witness also the elements of overreaction, to put it mildly, evident in the following passages (214, 326-8, 332-3, 312, 539, 555-7).

It seems in fact that Pentheus is struggling to meet the requirements of nomos (Diller, 1983, p.360). His characteristics seem to be those of just repressed excess, but the physis-like qualities that are apparently seething under the surface of Pentheus are of the sickened, negative kind. Indeed, at times, they come bubbling to the surface in all their contradictions; he believes in order but lacks self-control, he condemns the irrational but is often lacking in reason himself (Dodds, 1944, p.xl):

But I will punish
This man who has been your instructor in lunacy.
Go, someone, quickly to his seat of augury,
Smash it with crowbars, topple the walls, throw all his things
In wild confusion, turn the whole place upside down,
Fling his holy fripperies to the hurricane winds!
[Pentheus, p.203]

I'll sacrifice, yes - blood of women, massacred
Wholesale, as they deserve, among Cithaeron's glens.
[Pentheus, p.219]

Pentheus' hubris as well as his own capacity for irrational thought and behaviour, are illuminated more thoroughly as the play progresses. Every new "miracle" by Dionysus results in his becoming ever more determined to quash the cult as his rage rises to fever pitch. It is obvious that the king's motivations are entirely derived from within himself, as he seems to be completely impervious to the advice of others, or to the events occurring around him.

One of the so called "palace miracles" where Dionysus causes an earthquake to rock the royal residence, is a highpoint in the tragedy. Its symbolism goes to the core of the drama. As the palace begins to crumble, the feeling is that it is a physical reflection of what is happening psychologically to Pentheus - his own facade of self-control is beginning to show cracks (Segal, 1982, p.92, 93). This image is so powerful because the palace and the city have been so closely identified with Pentheus throughout the play in his role as their protector. Trying to put Dionysus in the palace dungeon further reveals the stunningly minute identification of the palace with Pentheus; he is trying to lock up his own Dionysian tendencies deep within himself, but in the same way that the bonds will not hold Dionysus as the Lydian Stranger, nor will Pentheus' self-repression hold in his own Dionysian tendencies, his extremitised physis. (Segal, 1982, p.89, 106, 93; 1978, p.193)

Pentheus has few if any redeeming features in the play (Bowen, 1969, p.11). Much as he is a proponent of nomos on the surface, it becomes exceedingly clear that he is driven by urges from the physis polarity. But there is a common feature in all this; he seems exclusively to represent the negative, extremitised polarities of both forces. From his prurience on the one hand to his quick resort to use of violent civic force, in the form of the army, on the other (Manning, 1978, p.81), it is of little wonder that his death excites little pity.

Pentheus, pay heed to my words. You rely
On force; but it is not force that governs human affairs.
Do not mistake for wisdom that opinion which
May rise from a sick mind.
[Teiresias, p.201]

As such a figure, it is proposed that Euripides constructed Pentheus to represent all the wrong responses from both the nomos and physis perspectives. Cloaked as king and protector of the polis, he may be perceived on a surface reading of the tragedy as another martyred culture-hero - the details of the drama reveal this as a truly superficial reading. He is more a victim than a hero, but even then he is just a victim of his own repressed psyche (Faas, 1984, p.73). Zeitlin correctly notes that Pentheus' own madness focuses the drama's attention from his lack of control over the women to the lack of control over himself (1990B, p.138). Ultimately his actions spell destruction not only for himself but for the polis which he was above all to protect.

It is interesting that of the representatives of the two poles of nomos and physis, Apollonian and Dionysian, it is Pentheus, supposedly representing the former polarity who takes it to an extreme in both directions. It is Dionysus, who one would expect be the ultimate Dionysian, who displays moderation and a balance of qualities!