Hellooooo!! My name is Tzukin/ widely known as Tzukune on other platforms.
I am autistic as many people are on tumblr, and therefore I will be posting my own art which consists mainly of these two gay vampires with a complex toxic relationship from my childhood special interest of the incredibly trashy, terribly written, borderline gooner manga Rosario+Vampire. Basically I've changed the characters so much to fit my own writing standards that they've become my own characters, so stick around for gay vampire oc art if that interests you...
BUT! I also enjoy a good amount of media and will reblog / occasionally draw fanart for / share opinions of media including but not limited to muppets, mythology, the house in fata morgana, aftergod, litchi hikari club, MADK, interview with a vampire, DMMD, hannibal, adventure time, the summer hikaru died, petscop, early internet, buffy, death note, red dwarf
the thing about media literacy is that understanding why the author chose to specify that the curtains are blue is the same skill set as understanding that the way the author characterizes all black characters as angry or all chinese characters as meek and silent is racist. it is the same skill set as being able to identify when a news source is biased or when someone is feeding you propaganda. the ability to ask "why did this person choose to present this premise in this specific way?" is a critical skill in a world full of misinformation. why are the curtains blue? maybe it's a characterization detail. maybe it's extraneous worldbuilding. why is this character written as being right all the time? maybe you're intended to disagree with them. maybe it doesn't matter. maybe you should still ask why.
The ancient Greek world was incredibly binary - free/slave, greek/barbarian - and these categories would define people’s social status. Although men were generally regarded as superior to women, not all men were considered to have been made equal; it was vital that men prove their masculinity in order to earn their place in the major social institutions such as politics, law or the military through grand-scale events such as sporting events.
The Greek symposium is an event that occurred during festivals that coincided with Greek religious events. It involved celebrations where the entire Greek polis would suspend all public work and men would congregate in taverns to drink and converse, intending to promote ‘male bonding’ patterns that formed the underpinnings of Greek society.
Inevitably, many of the big events and festivals would be put on because of the male identity that was highlighted in this period, leaving little room for a female voice.
Because of this, as Davidson states, “homoerotic relationships played a key role in all areas of greek life” as they oppressed women so much in public life. Whilst they didn’t have any terms for homosexuality, it was widely accepted that people in ancient Greece could respond erotically to beauty in either sex (“In his adolescence, [Alcibiades] drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man, the wives from their husbands.”) To be attracted to a young man as another man was seen as masculine.
However, the concerns around status and social structures got in the way when it came to positions within same-sex relationships, as the central distinction was made between taking an active role versus a passive one. The passive role was only for “inferiors” (those that were women, slaves or male youths who were not yet classed as citizens) and the active role was reserved for free men. Hence the cultural idea of a same-sex relationship being between an older man (erastes) and a boy (eromenos), which would have both sexual and mentorship aspects to it, and was expected to end upon the boy becoming a man.
This brings us to the ideas that Plato explores. Born into an aristocratic family, he had two brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus (both of which appear in the Republic) and became a well-known philosopher from being the student of Socrates. He founded the Academy, which was a philosophical school considered the foundation of western philosophy.
Plato’s ideas involving men and women were somewhat standard for the time period. We see this within the Symposium, a collection of dialogues taking place in a fictional symposium setting where the characters all discuss love. One of these characters, Pausanius, outright claims that women are intellectually inferior to men, “partners with the least possible intelligence”, and therefore unable to be completely loved by men on an equal standing. Pausanius goes further into this idea that love for women could only ever be considered “pandemian eros”, a sensual & common type of love, in comparison to the more heavenly “uranian eros” which is almost strictly reserved for same-sex relationships because of the mentorship they can lend each other. This idea reflects the treatment of women perfectly at the time, as they were so repressed and “private” in comparison to men that they weren’t allowed equal education and were therefore consistently considered as lesser beings. Similarly, Plato refers to women as secretive, inferior, irritable, crude, overly emotional and promiscuous throughout his works, and he also tells us in Timaeus that the womb inside of a woman is an animal that, if it fails to become pregnant, can wander about the body causing ill health by blocking air passages. Plato seems to propel many ideas cementing women as perhaps only good for their ability to reproduce.
However, on many other levels, Plato explores within his various dialogues a perhaps more “unambiguously feminist” perspective (as Vlastos suggests) in his suggestion that women have the same
souls as men. This is seen through how he portrays Aristophanes in the symposium, referring to the story of the creation of humans, a time where we were all spherical and were split apart from our “other half” as punishment from Apollo. He uses this story to suggest that, as humans, all we do is search for our other half, which can be a man or woman no matter your own gender, suggesting that all relationships are made equal and stem from the spherical origin. Ultimately, the symposium portrays lots of different opinions, which was heavily important for a philosopher to be able to do, but also made it much harder to pick apart which opinions are truly Plato’s. This is different to in the republic, where Plato outright states that “if the difference consists only in women bearing and men begetting children, this does not amount to proof that a woman differs from a man in respect of the sort of education she should receive”, condemning the idea that men and women should receive any different treatment, and going almost directly against the ideas he portrayed through Pausanius previously. This almost radical stance is backed up when he completely proposes the abolishment of the family structure, leaving sex purely up to procreation and abandoning the roles of “mother” and “father”, effectively equalling the roles of men and women only as providers of children rather than being protectors / nurturers of them.
However, as Okin explores, Plato is only “forced to reconsider the role of women because he has already opted to abolish the traditional family.” In this sense, Plato may not exactly be as “unambiguously feminist” as Vlastos says, but he certainly explores feminist ideas only because his own contradicting stances on family structures force him to do so. Similarly, in this sense, Plato is also posing a complete restructuring of the idea of marriage, suggesting that for young men during wars, they will be given “opportunity for more frequent intercourse with women, which will be a plausible pretext for having them beget as many children as possible”. Plato, here, is suggesting that by completely removing the concept of marriage, it will lead to an increase in childbirth, which was the main aim in Plato’s posing here, perhaps suggesting that marriage isn’t important for the social structure at all outside of for childbirth. Marriage is unnecessary even to the context of having children, however, because more people could have more children if there was no marriage holding men back.
We see a similar sentiment in the Symposium through Aristophanes, who suggests that “men have no natural interest in getting married and having children, although they are forced to do this by convention”, posing the idea that marriage is in no way natural to human nature, and is instead only a social standard which could be abolished with no change to human ideology.
This is contradictory to Diotima’s stance within the same dialogue, furthering the idea that Plato’s values are very hard to pick apart, as Diotima instead describes marriage in a way that seems to be more-so divinely inspired rather than something that’s only down to human-made structures. Through Socrates’ words, Diotima suggests that “reproduction is the closest thing that mortals can get to being immortal”. This idea makes marriage, in her / Socrates’ eyes, the best way to have a child as it offers a legitimate lineage through means of law, and makes you closer to the status of divine because of your family name being carried down throughout generations. Therefore, Plato within the same text highlights how marriage is significant only to societal structures rather than human nature, but also suggests that marriage is the best thing you can do to become the closest to divine status.
In laws, Plato poses that marriage is a duty to the state. While staying in line with the idea that marriage isn’t anything more than societal, he also contradicts his past ideas by suggesting marriage’s extreme importance by suggesting that both men and women should be fined yearly if they are not married by a certain age. This idea is seemingly, again, peddled by the idea that “lying in a nameless grave” is the worst thing that could happen to a man, and marriage is the easiest step for your existence and family name to continue to live on, giving men a purpose. Plato feels so strongly here about how essential marriage is that he wants to annually fine those that disobey such rules, making it mandatory by law.
And in that sense, Plato’s contradictory views on marriage seem to wrap up with the idea that whilst it is not down to human nature, it is incredibly essential to the societal and perhaps “divine” structures peddled by the idea that marriage creates children and children create a reputation to pass down - this can be done by completely restructuring marriage and simply having children with as many people as possible, or be done through the traditional means of marriage.
Interestingly, Plato’s opinions on sex are also nuanced, as Plato seems to express that “sexual gratification distracts from the focus”, but Socrates “does not wholly condemn couples who occasionally give in to their sexual urges” (Dodds). Whilst Plato seems to completely disagree with the idea sometimes, he also takes a lot of inspiration from Socrates in his values, and so also seems to contradict himself on his own takes on sex too.
Firstly, Plato does seem to pose sexual relationships as perhaps “less than”, as explored through Pausanius again, the idea of Pandemian eros is associated more with heterosexual relationships and the more lust-filled love that stems from sex, whereas Uranian love is a more intellectual and less sexually-peddled idea which stems from mentorship and beneficial mutual relationship. Pausanias directly describes this Pandemian eros as “the common type”, differentiating those that “love the body rather than the mind”. In this sense, sex is condemned in favour of relationships that centre personal growth. Similarly, in Laws, Plato criminilises pedestry, masturbation and incest because they are all, in his eyes, preventing the societal function of reproduction, therefore portraying mindless sex with no reasoning apart from lust as completely useless and furthermore borderline criminal.
However, in the very same sense, Plato acknowledges that sex is necessary and you can’t have a world without sex because of just how much Plato values reproduction within his works. In Laws, he suggests that not having children is to “deprive women of their purpose, and men of glory”. But he also suggests that sex, as Dodds described Socrates’ perspective, is the first step on the ladder of virtue and one cannot be fully condemned for it because it’s a journey rather than a straightforward line.
In the symposium, the characters of both Pausanias and Diotima are said to express sexual relationships as being the start of the ladder. Pausanias is an Erastes, and therefore is directly defined by the pleasure he gains from the mutually beneficial relationship with his eremenos. He describes that “there is only one form of voluntary slavery which isn’t reprehensible, this is slavery whose aim is goodness”. Through this expression, Pausanius clearly believes that getting something from the relationship with his eremenos doesn’t take away from the fact that the relationship is one which desires to give virtue to and mentor the younger party. In this sense, the sex he receives is worth it for the mutually fulfilling knowledge the eremenos will receive in return.
Similarly, Diotima refers to the “latter to virtue” which is described as being the creative search for immortality, as well as Socrates comparing it to the soul having two horses - instinctual desire and moderation - which are in a constant battle. Socrates is therefore forgiving to those who lose control of these horses momentarily and give into desire, and Diotima is forgiving in the sense that she acknowledges that this “latter to virtue” always starts with sexual desire which one can then progress from once they become more experienced and restrained.
However, whilst Plato explores why sex is necessary as well as unnecessary if it’s done in an unproductive context, he also explores how sex and the desire that stems from sex can be something that can go entirely out of control. In the symposium, Plato depicts Socrates exploring the idea that desire can lead to obsession, which is something to be frowned upon. He relates this obsession with his own relationship with Alcibaides, whose attachment to him is something he describes as a “nuisance”, stating that he is “quite terrified by his mad attachment to his lovers”. This is something that Alcibaides also explores in his own words as his desire for Socrates makes him lose better judgement, making him “frenzy… greater than that of the Corybantes”. He compares this “frenzy” to divine rituals done by the Corybantes (worshippers of Cybele) and so emphasises just how intense desire can become - it seems to easily spin out of control and leave the holder of this desire with a lack of control over these two horses in ones soul, therefore delaying / distracting from the ladder to virtue.
Finally, in the Republic, Plato's ideal state liberates people from carnal desire so they can be carefree. He wishes the role of eros to be minimised in order to preserve focus on more “important” values.
And so, what can be considered more essential than sex? Possibly love, as when we remove sex from relationships, the purity of love can possibly catalyse the journey to virtue. In Phaedrus’ speech, there is an outline of the idea that love, specifically between men, can produce a sense of shame from being consistently examined by your partner, which can encourage people to succeed and do good under said scrutiny. This possibly implants in men “stronger guidance towards leading good lives than family, state, money, or anything else”. This idea is significant as the hyperbole of love being held above “anything else” in importance cements Plato’s views on love as far more positive than his views on sex. This passage could be a reference to the idea that entire armies made up of male lovers would be better as the eremenos would be inspired to fight to impress the erastes, and visa versa, specifically drawing ties to the real life sacred theban band which was made up of 150 male/male lovers and were considered heavily successful and therefore ideal in how love forms in that context. As Phaedrus states, “there is no greater benefit to a young man than a good lover, and none greater for a lover than a good boyfriend”. Homoerotic relationships were seen as the basis of social structures and morals because of women’s oppression being so underlying in ancient greek society, romantic relationships between men are almost always the exception to the idea that “common” love is condemnable.
Similarly, Erixymachus, a doctor, highlights that love can be perceived as “from medicine”, and from his own personal experience, it is powerful in balancing and harmonising all aspects of a person. He comments further on how “great and wonderful a god Love is”, personifying love as the divine acting as further emphasis on how important the many perspectives of the symposium seem to highlight that love is.
And, whilst Alcibiades condemns how his own desire for Socrates sends him into frenzy, he also explores that his more pure love for socrates has the ability to inspire virtue in him, suggesting that “nothing is more important than becoming as good a person as possible”, and that no one can help him more effectively than Socrates in reaching this aim. Whilst Plato describes lust as harmful, love in its purest form can definitely directly lead to virtue in how the other person, usually the older person, can directly teach and inspire the younger.
Waterfeld highlights that Socrates’ beliefs aren’t simply that love is always virtuous and should therefore be respected, but that love is only virtuous if it has pure intentions behind it, therefore Plato portrays love as generally “conditional” rather than all encompassing virtue. When love isn’t pure, when it holds desire and sexual feelings behind it, it can lead to love being seen more-so as a sickness, as diotima highlights, which rids people of all sensibilities through them becoming “sick with the excitement of love”. This description entirely opposes Erixymachus’ description of love being a medicine, suggesting that love is inherently something that will always begin with an intense desire or lack of morals, which can only later be refined into virtue, into “medicine”. Similarly, Socrates puts into words how love and desire are relational properties that can’t be described in and of themselves; “Desire and love are directed at what you don’t have, what isn't there and what you need.”
The chorus is an incredibly important aspect of ancient greek plays, specifically within tragedy. Whilst we don’t have much evidence for the visual aspect of the chorus within the scripts themselves, we can assume details from pots such as the basel dancers vase.
The pot depicts a tragic chorus in action, with six young men on the right seemingly dancing while facing a structure of three steps with an older man positioned on / behind a block. We know very little about theatre before aeschylus, so this vase is heavily informational about how the chorus acted in the late 6th century BC Athens, as we have visual information showing us that the chorus consisted mostly of younger men, featuring what is possibly an older actor. There is an indication of them wearing tragic masks as they all carry similar gaping facial expressions and they all wear similar ornate clothing suggesting early tragic-wear. We also see that they all go barefoot and seem to be dancing in formation, suggestive of there being a choreographed routine. The downside to this pot is that the image is static, so we get no indication of the flow of movement, nor whether the movement changed throughout the length of the choral odes. There also seems to be no indication of staging here, so we don’t learn anything from this vase about how the chorus would actually interact with the space they're in (eg. orchestra or parados space) and if it was any different within later performances.
So, this piece of visual evidence shows that there is certainly a visual element to the tragic chorus, but unfortunately, a lot of the visuals of the chorus are lost to time as we will never fully be able to know how they moved throughout their space. So we have to rely on written sources such as the scripts of the plays, as well as what we know from Aristotle’s account of what makes a perfect tragedy, focusing almost entirely on the script itself rather than the visuals.
We can understand the chorus’ role through examining the chorus of Oedipus rex. In Oedipus, the chorus speaks as one character, representing a whole section of society, relevant to the events of the play. Visually, the chorus are dressed as and act as the collective of the wealthy Theban elders. Whilst there is, to some extent, visual spectacle in this sense, the rest of their role heavily relies on their verbal comments and choral odes themselves conveying the religious and political points within the play. Their choral odes divide the play into 6 distinct episodes, framed with a prados and exodos, providing a clear structure for the plot and each stage of Oedipus’ journey to reach his peripeteia. Their role can span from something more simple such as informing the audience of what is going on backstage, introducing characters when they enter - as they do for tiresias, oedipus, jocasta and the theban shepherd - and indicating when characters are leaving - jocasta.
But their role can also span into deeper roles, one of these being summarising the play’s views on religion. This can especially be seen within the plays parados (the introductory ode), where the chorus explains the background context of the current situation. They enter the orchestra marching around an altar and singing a hymn to the gods (Apollo, Athena and artemis), cataloguing the city’s agony and begging the gods to come to the city’s aid. Here, the chorus cements the play in its clearly religious messaging in presenting the city’s suffering as something supernatural, and something which cannot be fixed by the mortal perspective Oedipus is going about it. This parados immediately sets up how Oedipus will fall because of the prophecies that were out of his control. Ultimately, the chorus here choose not to appeal to Oedipus to be their saviour, but instead choose to ask the gods for help, cementing how Sophocles sees the gods as ultimately responsible for everything that falls under human nature.
The chorus presented here is one that loves and respects its king, but is also heavily reverent to the gods, having their opinions split throughout the play, just as the contemporary audience’s opinions might be surrounding oedipus. After the confrontation with Tiresias, the chorus sing an ode surrounding whether they should trust their leader, or Tiresias, as he speaks for the god Apollo. They outright state their confusion, exploring how “that wise interpreter of prophecies stirs up my fears”. They find themselves unable to form a solid opinion and in this sense I believe they, very effectively, reflect the unsure audience and the unsure Oedipus himself, and the struggle between wanting to trust the gods wholeheartedly and wanting to trust your own human opinions and autonomy. This confusion causes the chorus to debate the worth of prophets, and whether they truly do tell the word of god, as “there is no sure way to ascertain if human prophets grasp things any more than I do.” The chorus can only trust in the gods, but as Oedipus is completely detached from the supernatural scene (Knox), the chorus, characters, and audience have no true knowledge of what the gods want from them.
Throughout the exodos (the final ode and moral teaching), the chorus summarises what our opinions on Oedipus’ peripeteia should be as they lament that even the most successful of men - those that have solved the sphinx’s riddle, become king, married the queen and saved thebes - can be completely ruined by the gods. This should, in theory, make us question the morals of the gods, but really the final teaching we get is the inevitability of human fragility and failure, with comments that only death can alleviate the pain of being human: “count no man happy till he dies, free of pain at last.” They reflect on Oedipus’ entire arc after finding out his true identity, and calling the most part of his life “a dream, a vision” in which he seizes joy from, linking into the play’s overall themes of being given knowledge being the worst thing that can happen, equated to physical blindness and self-inflicted punishment. And they also reflect on the entirety of the human condition, being one of the most important of the chorus’ functions: they turn Oedipus’ individual story into a universal lesson.
In terms of literary value, the chorus also serves to carry dramatic irony in it’s odes in order to increase pity & fear for Oedipus leading up to the eventual catharsis we should have when the play’s suffering is over. The audience will have been well aware of the story of Oedipus before sophocles wrote his version of the play, and so the references to Oedipus’ eventual fate throughout it only serves to increase the suffering in the audience while viewing it. The third choral ode is a famous example of this dramatic irony, as, just before the truth is revealed, the chorus becomes strangely hopeful and imagines that Oedipus may be the child of a god or nymph, invoking cithaeron and joining in joyful dancing that is heavily juxtaposing the revelation that we know will happen in the very following scene.
Furthermore, the chorus represents how Oedipus starts to gradually ignore the thebans wishes, in comparison to how he immediately listened to and comforted the chorus earlier on in the play with their worries surrounding the plague. After the confrontation with Creon, the chorus offers to Oedipus that Creon is innocent, that he has spoken eloquently and therefore unlikely to be a suspect, however Oedipus at this point doesn’t listen to anything they say, saying that he must be quick to make counter plans”, completely ignoring the idea that creon could be innocent, and therefore cementing the chorus as a reflection of Oedipus’ diminishing sanity and rationality, too.
While the chorus certainly encourages an almost hatred of Oedipus, they also encourage sympathy, as in the very end, the chorus is treated like a personal friend by Oedipus. They sympathise with him, telling him its “not astonishing” to bear pain in his situation, to which oedipus only responds with “Ah, my friend, so you still care for me, as always.” The chorus seems to serve as an overall symbol for how deeply and personally Oedipus still cares for his citizens, reminding us of the reason why he wanted to search so hard for the answer to the initial prophecy in the first place.
However, the chorus of Oedipus could’ve been seen as less spectacular compared to the bacchae, as knox says, in comparison to the bacchae, “there is not one supernatural event in it… nothing that is not inexorably logical and human”. The chorus of the bacchae, while similarly worshipping of the gods as the Oedipus chorus, directly speaks to Dionysus, portraying a personal connection with the god and therefore cementing it in much higher stakes by portraying a heavily biased chorus, interestingly completely against the protagonist.
In the bacchae, the chorus represents the female bacchants which Dionysus had “recruited” from the east. Visually, their costumes will have been more “exotic”-looking, representing how different they are, and therefore just how strikingly out of place they would’ve seemed to Pentheus’ perspective. The chorus of bacchants, similarly to Oedipus, split up the play into 5 episodes by separating the episodes with their choral odes, including the framing parados and exodos.
During the parados, the chorus sing a dithyramb as they surround the palace, telling the story of how they have travelled from Asia to sing the praises of Dionysus. They claim that someone who worships Bacchus and Cybele is blessed, as well as those who “knows the rites of the gods, who leads a life of reverence, whose spirit is one with the sacred band”. Here, they pose the community aspect of bacchic worship as incredibly enticing and attractive, and set up the play’s themes of desire (the chorus) and repression (Pentheus). Similarly to Dioysus’ own words, they retell the story of Dionysus’ birth and the death of Semele, as well as his rebirth from Zeus’ thigh. This introductory ode also works to introduce us to the main physical symbols of the cult: the thyrsos, fawnskin and snakes wreathed in hair. And they also urge the men of the city to join the women on the mountain, portraying it as entirely positive and religious, whilst also setting up the threat to Pentheus that he would express after the ode is over. Their role, here, seems to be to sway the audiences opinions themselves, making them further confused whether to side with such natural and beautiful imagery of the chorus, or with the perhaps more logical at times Pentheus. Without the Chorus, the audience might see Dionysus only as a frightening manipulator. The Chorus shows why people are drawn to him.
However, they also embody the darker underbelly of Dionysus. Whilst they repeatedly present Dionysus as a god of abundance and release, “the ground flows with milk… flows with wine… flows with the nectar of bees”, they also use language containing disturbing elements from the very beginning; “hunting the blood of goat-slaughter, the joy of eating raw flesh.” The chorus’ function can be seen as unadulterated worship of Dionysus, in that they don’t ignore the darker parts. They serve to hold the two sides of Dionysus together.
In this worship, they don’t only sing in choral odes, but also directly comment on Petheus’ actions and pass judgements on him which may sway the audience against him and cement the worthiness of his punishment. In Pentheus’ first opinions of the “new god”, he accuses the women of sexual corruption and the religion as entirely false, to which the chorus cries: “blasphemy! Stranger, have you no respect for the god?” Whilst Pentheus thinks he is defending civic order, the chorus sees him as insulting a god. Whilst the chorus held the good and bad side of Dionysus together, they didn't do the same for Pentheus, making it increasingly hard to sympathise with him, as Pentheus goes on to threaten to sell the chorus as slaves. Whilst this gives Dionysus a chance to show off his power to both the chorus and the audience (the earthquake and flames from Semele's death site), it also cements Pentheus’ tyranny, and the chorus are even portrayed as perhaps the “correct” response to this supernatural event in comparison to Pentheus who only doubles down on his vehement attacks on the cult. In this moment of earthquake, we are presented with the most impressive and “flashy” supernatural moment, to which the chorus helps accentuate with the exclamation “Dionysus is in the palace! Worship him!”. They almost help the audience feel the god’s presence themselves even when he is unseen. It adds to sound, movement and spectacle completely, making the invisible divine action theatrically vivid.
Finally, the exodos in the Bacchae tells a final moral teaching. They are only brief words, but they wrap up the play’s themes successfully, commenting on the many forms and surprises that gods can bring, and that what was likely to happen didn’t happen, and for the unexpected, the gods found a way. What I take from this ending is a final assessment of the nature of Dionysus’ character. He is subversive, and he makes things come true whether they were likely going to happen or not. Perhaps the suggestion here is that it was likely that everything could’ve continued as normal, and social structures could’ve remained the same, with Pentheus never having been punished, but in a very religious sense, Dionysus was able to supernaturally control many humans to make the madness that was already in them come out, despite it being the unlikely, but not completely impossible outcome. In some sense, we are meant to be shocked and impressed by Dionysus in his impressive feats of complete destruction, despite how awful said destruction was.
However, the comic chorus is much different. As an example, the chorus in frogs will have been made up of 24 members in contrast to the 12 or later 15 that appear in tragedy choruses. Comedy did not have the traits such as peripeteia, anagnorisis and catharsis that tragedy relies on, so comedy had to rely on primarily the chorus to get across certain points. Similarly, the comedy chorus acts very differently to the tragedy chorus in how the choral odes don’t naturally break the plays into acts, as comedy relied a lot more on situational comedy which seemed unrelated to progressing the plot.
Interestingly, the frogs features two separate choruses, the first being a chorus of frogs that first appears when dionysus crosses the marsh in hades. Their appearance relies primarily on sound comedy, as their rhythmic noise “bre-ke-ke-kex” is made into an irritation for dionysus. This is made funny as Aristophanes makes the chorus into a comic obstacle - in tragedy, the chorus will help the audience process suffering, whereas here, the chorus annoys the main character and turns musical repetition into farce. The frogs appearance is not completely random, or even completely comedic either, however, as they sing “a song for dionysus… will be our bacchic cry.” This is a reminder to the audience that even within the comic nonsense, the comedy and theatricality of the play is connected to dionysiac worship. Aristophanes is mocking choral song whilst also celebrating it through the frog chorus. However, the frog chorus is not only rooted in verbal comedy, but also links directly into costume comedy. There is an assumption that is lost to time here that the frogs would’ve possibly been literally dressed in frog costumes. In such a case, there is no way human-sized frogs making frog-like noises couldn’t be considered comedic. There is evidence to back the idea of human-sized frog costumes up in the birds wine jug:
This jug literally depicts 2 bearded figures dancing to a tune while dressed as birds, the vines in the background directly suggesting Dionysus’ influence on the scene and on theatre. This jug is evidence of the comic chorus dressing up in animal costume that pre-dates even Aristophanes’ comedy (who wrote many plays centred on animal choruses). The birds on this jug are presented visually very similar to how we would assume the frogs would’ve been played in the play - they are accompanied by a musician (diaulos player) and are portrayed in motion (assumedly choreographed dancing). Furthermore, the detail in the outfits is a suggestion of the money put into the play that the birds must’ve come from, suggesting the role of the choregoi’s financial help in plays. However, we cannot completely apply this pot to the frogs, as the frogs would be performed at the end of the pelopponesian war, which made the financial status of athens incredibly shaky, and therefore we can’t assume what the costume’s would’ve been like for the frogs, and we can’t assume that the frogs was any more visually flashy than any other play. Similarly, the pot doesn’t give any useful indication on how the bird chorus would’ve worked as there are only 2 portrayed as opposed to the full number of chorus members that would be in the frogs.
The second chorus within the frogs is the chorus of initiates, which, as Cartledge explores, “would reassure the audience that the religious proprieties were not being entirely neglected even in the topsy-turvy, carnival-esque world of the frogs”. The chorus of initiates seems to be far more serious and complex than the chorus of frogs. Their entrance is full of religious atmosphere, exclaiming “Iacchus!” (4x), being a striking contrast with the frogs: the first chorus being made up of pure comic noise, while the initiates are sacred, graceful and ritualistic. Despite this, Aristophanes still manages to make the scene somewhat comic by having Dionysus interrupt the chorus with jokes, parodying the solemnity of the mysteries. This section of the play shows how comedy can parody religion without necessarily mocking it.
As well as having a religious role, the chorus of initiates also have a political role. The chorus tell the impure and the corrupt to stand aside from the dance of worship; “keep silence… any unversed in such words, or impure of mind”. This sounds religious at first in the suggestion that those that aren’t well-versed in the religious rites should step out of the dance, before quickly turning to civic criticism, attacking those who fuel political conflict, take bribes, betray the city or exploit public office. This is typical of old comedy, using language of ritual purity to create a moral boundary: good citizens may join the dance, corrupt citizens may stay outside. This makes the chorus a satirical filter, separating the honourable from the shameful. This theming is especially important in the frogs, because the play isn’t necessarily about the literacy value of the poets, but instead about the morals that they portray; Dionysus came down for a poet “so that the city could be saved and put on plays”.
The parabasis was a section in old comedy which allowed the chorus to address the audience more openly, and as Griffith states, “the lines in the parabasis are chanted by the chorus of initiates, but are clearly meant to be understood as expressing the views of the poet himself.” This parabasis in particular explores especially political themes, particularly in relation to the corrupt upper classes, related to the crisis at the end of the peloponnesian war. In the parabasis, the Chorus does not simply say that Athens has poor leaders. It mocks the city for failing to recognise good men, for trusting the wrong people, and for allowing political life to be dominated by inferior figures. The elysinian mysteries specifically turn to the audience and exclude certain types of people from watching comedies entirely, including greedy officials who would betray the city, soldiers who let the fort go, traitors who side with the foe, etc. It is both an incredibly political statement from the audience, as well as slightly absurd in the idea that entire demographics can be excluded from watching comedies entirely, simply because they aren’t worthy for them is the assumption. Aristophanes perfectly combines the comedic with serious political messages through hyperbole and the absurd, and the eventual message that is received by the audience is that Athens is relying on debased individuals to rule it.
It is assumed that modern audiences may struggle with the parabasis because it depends heavily on contemporary political knowledge. Ancient audiences, however, would have recognised the names, policies and political tensions being attacked, and so the frogs, and much of old comedy, would’ve been incredibly relevant commentary as well as an enjoyable time.
This is a summary of how, when and why plays would’ve been seen in ancient Greece.
We have an idea of the basic structure of the theatres because of the remains that we have of them. Originally they would’ve been built in wood, but the remains that we have only consist of surviving stone.
The physical structure of the theatres consisted of:
The theatron ‘watching area’, the area where the audience would sit, normally built into a hillside, so that the setting was clearly visible to all spectators
The orchestra - the ‘dancing-area’ below the theatron where the chorus would perform
The prohredria - the front row seating for officials, judges, priest of Dionysus etc.
The skene - the wooden hut used as a backdrop for actors to change
The parados - the entry into the orchestra from the side of the theatre
We have certain physical evidence of these structures, such as the Thorikos theatre and the Theatre of Dionysus.
The Thorikos dates to the end of the archaic era. It is different to other Greek theatres built at later dates because it is elliptical rather than circular in shape, holding different acoustics to those circular in shape and therefore portraying variation in the different theatres. It held 3000 people, which is large for a deme (local municipality/village in ancient Greece) theatre, showing that even rural theatres could hold large crowds of spectators. It seemed to have been expanded several times, too. There was a temple and altar at either side of the theatre, showing the importance of religion in relation to theatre.
The theatre of Dionysus (which I’ve been to!!!!) is dated back to the early 5th century until Roman times. It held another religious sanctuary and an altar, as well as a 2m circular prohedria row with the middle seat for the priest of Dionysus, again, showing the importance of religion to the plays being performed. It held a much larger capacity of 17,000, making up almost the entire male population of Athens at the time. What remains of the theatre seems to portray the foundations of the skene and the aisles between the theatron seats.
However, as we are indicated to say in most essay answers, there are limitations to both of the images of the theatres we are presented with, as it is only a photograph that we as a standard audience can see, therefore unrepresentative of the true size and experience of the theatre, and in general the two theatres are almost completely in ruin with a lack of preservation, therefore can’t work out much from the sources outside of the main ‘outlines’ of where the structures would be.
We also have an idea of how significant theatre was to Athenian life. As we touched on before, the theatre of Dionysus could hold almost the entire population of athens within the theatron, as well as many people likely standing around the seating area to watch, not even mentioning those that would travel from outside of Attica to watch these plays specially, too. There were many theatres built in the areas outside of Attica, too, and theatres expanded as the settlements grew, being a hot commodity for many areas. The front seating prohedria area was a very special place to be in, as 500 members of the city council, allied foreign dignitaries, generals, important magistrates and the priest of Dionysus would sit on this row, showing just how prestigious the theatre events would be. Importantly, these foreign dignitaries coming to see the plays put on in Athens was a significant way that Athens was able to show off to surrounding areas.
It was important that plays were seen by the entire population and that plays would go on annually, so special roles and laws would be undertaken to maintain this idea. The choregos would be a rich financial backer attached to a playwright to support his productions, and sponsoring plays was a great honour. Furthermore, the ‘liturgy’ was put in place, which was a tax on the super-rich that outright required them to contribute to the functioning of Athens, including the upkeep of the plays. The ‘eponymous archon’ was the leading politician of Athens and, interestingly, would also organise the city Dionysia (explored later) which was one of the significant festivals with theatre as a huge part of the event - suggesting that regular civic duties to Athens would cross over with theatre upkeep, maintaining its importance in Athenian life.
The theoretic fund was also introduced which was a fund provided by the state which enabled poorer citizens to go to the City Dionysia, cementing its importance so much so that funds were put in place for everyone to see it, rather than it being reserved for only the upper class.
Ultimately, playwrights were highly respected during this time, as explored in the line from The Frogs (Aristophanes), ‘children have teachers to instruct them, young men have the poets’, they were seen almost as moral teachers to the general audience.
Otherwise, not every demographic could see the plays, including women and slaves, suggesting that they may not have been essential to every demographic’s lifestyles within Athens, just the men’s. The plays were only put on for a few days a year and theatres outside of Athens outside of performances would be used for other things, such as public meetings, also suggesting a “lack of importance” of theatre outside of the designated times and demographics.
However, exploring these theatre-centred festivals also makes it clear that religion was central to theatre and plays in general, often being related to Dionysus (god of theatre).
The three main festivals I will briefly cover are:
The City Dionysia, which is a drama festival held in Athens during what is now late March. It was put on to herald the coming of spring, Dionysus encouraging new growth. It ran for 5 days, including events such as the choral dithyrambic contests where tribes sang and danced hymns to honor Dionysus, and the komos which was a wild drinking procession. The opening ceremony held 5 comedies, and the following days would hold 3 tragedies and a satyr-play each day.
The Rural Dionysia, which is a drama festival held in the rural demes surrounding the areas in Attica in mid-winter. It would possibly hold revivals of the plays that were performed in the two other city festivals but for the more rural audiences.
And the Lenaea, a drama festival held in Athens in what is now January. Comedy seems to have been more important in this festival.
Clearly a lot of these festivals would centre on the worship of Dionysus and the plays themselves were surrounded by lots of worshipping events that increased the seeming importance of the plays themselves in how surrounded by excitement they were. And some more proof of the importance of religion within theatre would come in the physical factors of the theatres themselves, calling back to the thorikos and the theatre of Dionysus which both had an altar and religious sanctuary on either side of them. Furthermore, the importance of the priest of Dionysus coming to see the plays and having a special seat in the prohedria paired with the fact that a Dionysus statue would be brought to the theatre to almost watch over the audience as they watched the plays and the altar at the centre of the orchestra makes it undeniable that religion cannot be separated from the play-watching experience. There would be many religious sacrifices at the events surrounding the performances and Solon would even make theatre a strictly religious event during the 5th century.
The dramatic festivals were not isolated cultural events. They belonged to a much wider world of thysia — sacrifice — pompe — procession — choral song, communal eating, drinking and public celebration.
The plays were also judged competitively. Before the contest, potential judges were selected from the ten tribes, their names were placed in sealed urns, and one judge from each tribe was drawn by the archon. These ten judges swore an oath of impartiality.
There were prizes too. In tragedy, there were originally prizes for the best poet and the best chorēgos. A prize for the best tragic actor was introduced in 449 BC. The actors were called hypokritai, literally “answerers,” because the actor originally answered or responded to the chorus. The festival was agonistic: it was built around competition, status and public judgement.
A polis was the quintessential ancient Greek city-state. Functioning as an independent, self-governing political unit.
When an Athenian entered the Theatre of Dionysus, he entered a kind of “map of the city.” The audience was not arranged randomly, it represented the polis. Goldhill’s phrase is useful: the theatre was a place where the city represented itself to itself. Before the audience watched Thebes, Argos, Troy, Persia or the Underworld on stage, they first saw Athens arranged around them.
The symbolic use of plays:
Goldhill explains why most tragedies are not set in Athens. If theatre was a place where Athens represented itself to itself, why are the plays usually set somewhere else — Thebes, Argos, Corinth, Troy, Persia, or mythical landscapes?
Goldhill’s answer is that tragedy explores Athens indirectly. It stages other places, other peoples and other times in order to make the audience think more deeply about itself. The audience might resist a play that directly attacked Athens, but a myth about Thebes or Troy could explore similar questions at a safe distance.
Masks also strengthen the Dionysiac reading of theatre. Cartledge links mask-wearing with ekstasis, “standing outside oneself.” The Greek word for mask is prosōpon, which can also mean “face.” This is useful because Greek theatre repeatedly plays with the relationship between face, identity and role. In a Dionysiac context, the mask does not simply hide the actor. It allows transformation: one body can become a god, a king, a woman, a slave, a foreigner or a chorus member.
The joining of religion & civic:
Piglets were sacrificed and taken around the theatre, their blood marking the theatrical space as sacred. Wine was also poured out to the gods in a ritual known as a libation. The libations were poured by the ten generals, the most important military and political leaders of Athens. This is significant because it joins religion, theatre and state power together.
This is a summary of how, when and why plays would’ve been seen in ancient Greece.
We have an idea of the basic structure of the theatres because of the remains that we have of them. Originally they would’ve been built in wood, but the remains that we have only consist of surviving stone.
The physical structure of the theatres consisted of:
The theatron ‘watching area’, the area where the audience would sit, normally built into a hillside, so that the setting was clearly visible to all spectators
The orchestra - the ‘dancing-area’ below the theatron where the chorus would perform
The prohredria - the front row seating for officials, judges, priest of Dionysus etc.
The skene - the wooden hut used as a backdrop for actors to change
The parados - the entry into the orchestra from the side of the theatre
We have certain physical evidence of these structures, such as the Thorikos theatre and the Theatre of Dionysus.
The Thorikos dates to the end of the archaic era. It is different to other Greek theatres built at later dates because it is elliptical rather than circular in shape, holding different acoustics to those circular in shape and therefore portraying variation in the different theatres. It held 3000 people, which is large for a deme (local municipality/village in ancient Greece) theatre, showing that even rural theatres could hold large crowds of spectators. It seemed to have been expanded several times, too. There was a temple and altar at either side of the theatre, showing the importance of religion in relation to theatre.
The theatre of Dionysus (which I’ve been to!!!!) is dated back to the early 5th century until Roman times. It held another religious sanctuary and an altar, as well as a 2m circular prohedria row with the middle seat for the priest of Dionysus, again, showing the importance of religion to the plays being performed. It held a much larger capacity of 17,000, making up almost the entire male population of Athens at the time. What remains of the theatre seems to portray the foundations of the skene and the aisles between the theatron seats.
However, as we are indicated to say in most essay answers, there are limitations to both of the images of the theatres we are presented with, as it is only a photograph that we as a standard audience can see, therefore unrepresentative of the true size and experience of the theatre, and in general the two theatres are almost completely in ruin with a lack of preservation, therefore can’t work out much from the sources outside of the main ‘outlines’ of where the structures would be.
We also have an idea of how significant theatre was to Athenian life. As we touched on before, the theatre of Dionysus could hold almost the entire population of athens within the theatron, as well as many people likely standing around the seating area to watch, not even mentioning those that would travel from outside of Attica to watch these plays specially, too. There were many theatres built in the areas outside of Attica, too, and theatres expanded as the settlements grew, being a hot commodity for many areas. The front seating prohedria area was a very special place to be in, as 500 members of the city council, allied foreign dignitaries, generals, important magistrates and the priest of Dionysus would sit on this row, showing just how prestigious the theatre events would be. Importantly, these foreign dignitaries coming to see the plays put on in Athens was a significant way that Athens was able to show off to surrounding areas.
It was important that plays were seen by the entire population and that plays would go on annually, so special roles and laws would be undertaken to maintain this idea. The choregos would be a rich financial backer attached to a playwright to support his productions, and sponsoring plays was a great honour. Furthermore, the ‘liturgy’ was put in place, which was a tax on the super-rich that outright required them to contribute to the functioning of Athens, including the upkeep of the plays. The ‘eponymous archon’ was the leading politician of Athens and, interestingly, would also organise the city Dionysia (explored later) which was one of the significant festivals with theatre as a huge part of the event - suggesting that regular civic duties to Athens would cross over with theatre upkeep, maintaining its importance in Athenian life.
The theoretic fund was also introduced which was a fund provided by the state which enabled poorer citizens to go to the City Dionysia, cementing its importance so much so that funds were put in place for everyone to see it, rather than it being reserved for only the upper class.
Ultimately, playwrights were highly respected during this time, as explored in the line from The Frogs (Aristophanes), ‘children have teachers to instruct them, young men have the poets’, they were seen almost as moral teachers to the general audience.
Otherwise, not every demographic could see the plays, including women and slaves, suggesting that they may not have been essential to every demographic’s lifestyles within Athens, just the men’s. The plays were only put on for a few days a year and theatres outside of Athens outside of performances would be used for other things, such as public meetings, also suggesting a “lack of importance” of theatre outside of the designated times and demographics.
However, exploring these theatre-centred festivals also makes it clear that religion was central to theatre and plays in general, often being related to Dionysus (god of theatre).
The three main festivals I will briefly cover are:
The City Dionysia, which is a drama festival held in Athens during what is now late March. It was put on to herald the coming of spring, Dionysus encouraging new growth. It ran for 5 days, including events such as the choral dithyrambic contests where tribes sang and danced hymns to honor Dionysus, and the komos which was a wild drinking procession. The opening ceremony held 5 comedies, and the following days would hold 3 tragedies and a satyr-play each day.
The Rural Dionysia, which is a drama festival held in the rural demes surrounding the areas in Attica in mid-winter. It would possibly hold revivals of the plays that were performed in the two other city festivals but for the more rural audiences.
And the Lenaea, a drama festival held in Athens in what is now January. Comedy seems to have been more important in this festival.
Clearly a lot of these festivals would centre on the worship of Dionysus and the plays themselves were surrounded by lots of worshipping events that increased the seeming importance of the plays themselves in how surrounded by excitement they were. And some more proof of the importance of religion within theatre would come in the physical factors of the theatres themselves, calling back to the thorikos and the theatre of Dionysus which both had an altar and religious sanctuary on either side of them. Furthermore, the importance of the priest of Dionysus coming to see the plays and having a special seat in the prohedria paired with the fact that a Dionysus statue would be brought to the theatre to almost watch over the audience as they watched the plays and the altar at the centre of the orchestra makes it undeniable that religion cannot be separated from the play-watching experience. There would be many religious sacrifices at the events surrounding the performances and Solon would even make theatre a strictly religious event during the 5th century.
The dramatic festivals were not isolated cultural events. They belonged to a much wider world of thysia — sacrifice — pompe — procession — choral song, communal eating, drinking and public celebration.
The Bacchae - an exploration of Pentheus' hamartia
Hello, this is the first of the many essays I'm planning to write in relation to ancient greek theatre (my exam on it is in less than 3 days). This essay in particular will focus on the Bacchae and specifically Pentheus' character.
If you are familiar at all with ancient greek theatre, or even if you've studied macbeth at GCSE level or similar you'll probably be familiar with the term 'hamartia'. When I personally studied Macbeth in English, we were told that the word 'hamartia' meant a character's 'tragic flaw' that leads to their downfall, in the case of Macbeth that would be his ambition. In some past paper questions the exam board suggests that Pentheus' hamartia is his "excessive curiosity". I’ll explore briefly how this could be considered as somewhat true.
Firstly, what Pentheus seems to be curious about throughout the play is the bacchant women, the “foreigner” (Dionysus) and their practices. Whilst this curiosity is somewhat masked by his apparent hatred of them, there is clear underlying interest here which Dionysus takes advantage of, therefore arguably being the “flaw” that leads to his downfall.
Once Pentheus is given the messenger’s speech about the miracles that the maenads performed on the mountain, he immediately goes to pursue the foreigner, claiming that there needs to be a war on the bacchants, “it has gone too far if we are to suffer this at the hands of women.” Arguably, Pentheus’ consistent pursuit of the bacchants here rather than feeling threatened to back off as the messenger speech containing many obvious supernatural influences suggests he should do is exactly the prying which leads him straight into Dionysus’ hands. The foreigner even directly tells him to back off, “you are not persuaded at all by my words, Pentheus… I tell you that you must not take up arms against the god”, to which Pentheus simply pushes back with “do not lecture me!”. It is clear here that Pentheus could’ve certainly been saved if he had simply listened to the warnings given by the foreigner, and the fact that he keeps pursuing the bacchants despite all evidence telling him not to is the exact way in which Dionysus is able to work out that this “curiosity” is his weakness in this exchange; the foreigner simply makes the sound “Ah…” and this moment is cited as the moment in which he figures out how to manipulate Pentheus’ intentions, “would you like to see them sitting together in the mountains?”. From this moment on, Dionysus goes on to entice Pentheus with the prospect of seeing the bacchants, even convincing him to dress as a bacchant himself by taking advantage of this curiosity. Pentheus almost seems to be completely hypnotised by Dionysus and agrees with every suggestion Dionysus makes almost immediately after this moment, “how clever you are- and have been all along!”. Because of Pentheus’ thinly veiled curiosity, he is therefore paraded through the streets of Thebes in female bacchant clothing, as well as led to the mountain and killed by his mother and aunts.
However, the idea that curiosity is what leads to his downfall is while immediately true, if we consider deeper than that, that idea is arguably against the entire fundamentals of the play’s morals, which seems to embrace freedom rather than suggest that interest in freedom is what can lead to a man’s downfall. The definition of hamartia as a 'tragic flaw' is not entirely correct, and it can be instead interpreted more as a 'tragic mistake', at least from what we see in ancient Greek theatre. Now, I’ll focus on why, if we are considering hamartia as a ‘mistake’ rather than a fundamental character flaw like his “excessive curiosity”, his downfall could be attributed more-so to his ignorance - the exact opposite of curiosity.
From the start, this is what Dionysus explicitly states is the reason behind his punishment of Pentheus, that his aunts, “the last people who should’ve done so,” had declared that he was not the son of Zeus, this same ignorant mindset being passed down to Pentheus, as he claims that Pentheus “now fights with the gods - with me! - leaving me out of his sacrifices…”. Here, Pentheus’ ignorance of Dionysus’ status is the reasoning behind his punishment, which he only goes on to cement when he imprisons the bacchant chorus as well as the foreigner himself, threatens to cut the foreigner’s religiously grown hair off as well as “cut his head from his body” and declares war against the bacchants entirely. In the exodos, Cadmus directly states the reasoning behind Pentheus being hunted down; “he did not revere the god.” His ignorance is what leads to Dionysus punishing him, rather than his curiosity.
Whilst the exploration before this part of the essay is certainly true, it is rather uninteresting because it is what we see on the surface level that almost anyone could pick apart. To go a little further with it, we could consider Pentheus’ hamartia as repression. This may, at first, sound a little too similar to ignorance, but I mean “repression” in the sense of sexual repression, and the rejection of the fundamental human condition.
This idea is something that Euripides explores a lot throughout the play, a main example of this being through the chorus. The chorus of the Bacchae stands out a lot in the fact that they are not a neutral party of the general audience within the context of the play, they are in fact both not from Thebes, coming from Persia and therefore of foreign to the city and to Pentheus, and are also heavily biased towards Dionysus. In the parados (the opening choral ode), they equate the idea of worshipping Dionysus, leading “a life of reverence”, with lots of natural imagery such as honouring “mother cybele” (goddess of nature & fertility), “garlanded with ivy”, “dappled fawnskins” and the “staff of wildness”. They even describe Dionysus as “a god with the horns of a bull… crowned with garlands of snakes”. There are clearly tons of links made between Dionysus and wild animals and nature, which ultimately also links in with his being the god of wine and madness too. Dionysus gives these women a chance to release their inhibitions and social statuses and join together in the madness of dance and wilderness, introducing the audience to the appealing idea that the bacchants promote; worshipping Dionysus = being freed from social structures. This is what we see with the Theban women abandoning their children to live away from society on the mountains, no longer having to carry the label of “mother” and instead being part of a community.
As the scholar Raeburn suggests, "Dionysus is with us just as much as aphrodite.” This want for madness is something that every human being yearns for, and we see Dionysus’ worship spread to even Tiresias and Cadmus who are old men, but still dress in feminine bacchant-wear because it makes them feel young and free. This desire is clearly in Pentheus too, which is why he tries so hard to and gets progressively more intense about his repression of this desire.
Now, this desire can certainly be considered simply a sexual longing to see the women on the mountain, which Pentheus assumes involves some sort of orgy (as implied by the women having their hair down and acting so wild, which was not something that mature women in ancient Greece would usually do in a non-sexual context). This is proven by the sexual assumptions Pentheus makes earlier on in the play about the foreigner too, listing off many reasons which paint the foreigner in a seductive light including his “blond hair smelling of perfume, his cheeks flushed, with the charms of aphrodite in his eyes.” Pentheus seems to associate anything mildly wild or out of societal standards and something sexual. And in that sense we can recontextualise his curiosity as his mixed feelings with sexuality, as Raeburn suggests, "Pentheus is both repulsed by sex & at the same time, unconsciously desires it: Dionysus is aware of this weakness & takes advantage of it by releasing in him exactly what Pentheus is trying to suppress" .
Whilst I probably can’t explore this section in an actual exam, I also wanted to touch on how Pentheus isn’t only sexually repressed in the sense that he really wants to see women having orgies, but also in the sense that he seems to be a very transgender character as well as showing obvious attraction to the foreigner (as seen in the extract above), too. I believe the tension he has with the foreigner is incredibly important in symbolising his attraction to the madness but also the repression he has from the madness in the form of internalised homophobia. And added onto this, I think Pentheus’ struggles with his curiosity vs ignorance also perfectly lends to his struggle with his own identity posed directly to him by Dionysus - “You do not know what your life is, nor what you are doing, nor who you are”. Euripides warns against repression here in this simple statement to Pentheus, he has no idea what his identity is or why he is acting the way he does because he is so repressed he can’t even pick his actions apart and he refuses to. Pentheus’ follow up to this statement from Dionysus is him simply recalling his name and title, “I am Pentheus, son of Agave and my father, Echion”, showing that he cannot describe who he is outside of his name and parents. Furthermore, there is importance in the dress that he is made to wear in the fourth episode. Pentheus is arguably under hypnosis in this section, and so his actions here could be seen as completely controlled by Dionysus, or, Dionysus representing his inner desires by releasing in him said desire in the previous episode, Pentheus being made to dress up happily in this episode is significant to his identity being much deeper than the ‘male king, son of agave and echion’ title he is given and strictly tries to conform to. He commits completely to the bacchant “disguise” even down to asking the foreigner which hand looks best to hold the thyrsus in, or asking him to readjust his hair in his headband again after shaking his head mimicking the bacchant worship happily in order to “adjust to the role”.
Pentheus: “You insist on spoiling me!”
Dionysus: “Such spoiling!”
Ultimately, the audience can’t help but feel bad for him because his repression and therefore rejection of Dionysus and therefore eventual death is entirely caused by internal factors taught by his mother and aunt. We are told at the beginning of the play that it is Pentheus’ mother and aunts that rejected and sexually shamed Semele (Dionysus’ mother), claiming that she had slept with a mortal man and had lied that it was Zeus that she slept with to protect her reputation. Cadmus also goes on to cement Pentheus’ gender roles by reminiscing after Pentheus’ death on him as a child, praising the way he would threaten others to protect him, praising his blind anger towards others, “no one who saw you would disrespect me in my old age, for you would have punished him as he deserved.” To a modern audience, Pentheus’ repression comes down to conservative values taught by his mother and aunts, from social conditioning within the family, which seems to make his death seem even more out of his control as his inner struggle would’ve made him doomed from the start to ever be able to accept Dionysus, or himself.
And in that sense, we can go even further and suggest that what the play is fundamentally about is Pentheus’ fight with his own sexuality. We know that throughout ancient greek literature and mythology there have been many interpretations of the gods representing parts of human nature, and this is no different with Dionysus who represents the need to be free. And so we can interpret Pentheus’ entire hamartia of ignorance against Dionysus fighting with his curiosity about the bacchants ultimately as him failing because he refused to accept Dionysus - his sexuality, his gender, his freedom of expression - therefore Pentheus loses to the repression of his own identity, and he dies begging his mother to recognise him “mother, I am your son, the son you gave birth to…”.
currently taking out my own thoughts and feelings on my gay vampire characters who have been through way worse than I have but they experience the same things a normal human guy going through exams and teenage confusion does trust me
