ΒΑΚΧΕΣ ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ (ΞΕΝΗ ΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΜΕ ΣΧΟΛΙΑ)
Roman fresco from Pompeii depicting Pentheus being torn by maenads
ΕΙΣ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΣ: THE TRAGIC PARADOX OF THE BACCHAE
INTRODUCTION [1]
[HEIS DIONYSOS 96]
Dionysos est double: terrible a !'extreme, infiniment doux. J.-P. Vernant
Ο Διόνυσος είναι διττός: ακραία τρομερός, απείρως ήπιος (J.-P. Vernant)
Every reader gets the Bacchae he deserves. No two scholars agree on the meaning of the play, let alone on the intention of its author. So from the middle of the last century onwards we can perceive a discouraging procession of conflicting interpretations, expanding alarmingly in the last few decades. Naturally, the continuous re-interpretation of the play entailed radically different views of the author's intention. "It seems impossible to establish agreement on the fundamental question: what effect did Euripides intend to produce on the Athenian audience for which these plays were designed? In the absence of such an agreement, the field is wide open for every man to make his own Euripides-the rationalist, the irrationalist, the political dramatist, the philosopher, the feminist, the radical, the reactionary or the mere bungler”[1].
Circa 1850, the earliest interpretation that deserves the predicate 'scholarly' pictured the Bacchae as Euripides' palinodia, a confession of his 'deathbed conversion', which made the grey poet return from the false track of sophistic agnosticism to the re-acceptance of pious religiosity and the service of the gods[2]. In the next generation it was argued that the Euripides of the Bacchae was not essentially different from the author of the
[HEIS DIONYSOS 97]
earlier work: if, indeed, the tragedy displays sentiments of authentic piety, this was not novel at all, and it went hand in hand with the criticism of myth so typical of Euripides' later plays[3]. Next appears a romantic Euripides, deeply influenced by the new ambience of primitive and ecstatic Macedonia, which led him to the discovery of the demonic and mystic aspects of religion[4]. This Euripides was in turn succeeded by the rationalist, who unremittingly denounced the excesses, delusions and cruelty of religion: tanta religio potuit .... [5]. In more recent times, we have become acquainted with Euripides as a (Freudian) psychologist, the discoverer of the tension between two contradictory aspects of a single religious phenomenon-blessed ecstasy side by side with bestial cruelty in Dionysiac religiosity - or in a single person-Pentheus' 'schizophrenia' apparent in the conflict between his stubborn defence of law and order and the 'repressed libido' manifest, for instance, in his voyeurism[6]. Though the latter approach still carries much weight in the discussion, in recent interpretations, following modish literary theories, the author more and more abandons the field to the work of art: recent structuralist and semiotic approaches offer a wealth of subtle analyses of contrast and unity in especially Dionysiac religion with its paradoxical coexistence of the codified standards of civic/cultural life and the chaotic/'natural' licence of maenadic ecstasy[7]. But it seems that structure has ousted both the author and his historical settings.
A different Bacchae not only yields a different author, but also different protagonists. "Pentheus .... is left harsh and unpleasant, and very close
[HEIS DIONYSOS 98]
to the ordinary tyrant" is the logical correlate of the 'deathbed conversion': in resisting the great god, the haughty monarch rejects everything that is valuable in religion. The rationalist Euripides, on the other hand, cannot but have devised Pentheus as "the finest character of the piece" (Norwood), marcilessly crushed by a cruel, arbitrary and à la rigueur, faked god. There are countless variations in the interpretation of Pentheus, ranging from the essentially pious character via the truly tragic hero to the theatre tyrant tout court who is characterized by 'stubborn blindness'9. In the latter, predominantly negative view, Pentheus inevitably loses tragic weight: "We have the ordinary hot-tempered and narrow-minded tyrant—not very carefully studied, by the way, and apparently not very interesting to the poet", as Murray saw it[10]. The logical consequence, then, is to reduce Pentheus' dramatic function to the mere task of e contrario illuminating the greatness of the god[11]. Here, in particular, the more balanced views of Dodds and Winnington-Ingram, who emphasize the essential coincidentia oppositorum in both Dionysiac religion and the human rebel, have done much to ban the prevailing positivist monomania that had gradually shackled the play and alienated it from its tragic nature. One of their most conspicuous achievements was to bring Pentheus back to the stage, albeit, as has been correctly contended, once behind the scenes his place is 'on the couch’[12].
[HEIS DIONYSOS 99]
"Did Euripides approve or disapprove of Dionysos? The question is silly" said the sensible Kitto[13], and the nearer we approach contemporary research the more he seems to be put in the right. For even for one who is not prepared to follow frenis remissis the protagonists of structural or semiotic theory, it will be difficult to deny that such recent interpretations as those by Vernant, Detienne and Segal have opened new perspectives on the essentially tragic nature of this tragedy[14]. More cogently than Dodds' psychological intuitions, the best products of recent research have at least taught us to appreciate the intrinsic ambiguities of Dionysiac religion as the potentially explosive incentives to a tragic paradox. When the first—substantially different—version of the present chapter appeared as an article in the Dutch journal Lampas in 1976, none of these structuralist interpretations had seen the light. Now that I have read (and benefitted from) them, I find that I have two reasons for satisfaction. The first is the remarkable correspondence between my own ideas and some of the major themes of these subsequent publications, especially the common emphasis on the intrinsic ambiguity of Dionysiac religion. The second is the equally remarkable difference in approach. Though I unconditionally adhere to the idea that the contradictions within Dionysiac ideology by their very nature may give rise to tragic clashes, my own point is an essentially different one.
I shall argue that Euripides was fully alive to the timeless ambiguity of Dionysiac religion, but that he exploited it for his own specific purpose, which aimed at converting the eternal Dionysiac ambiguity into a conflict manifest in the actual reality of his own time. In other words, I shall try to fill the gap which the structuralists have left by remaining too much "al di qua della ‘storia’”[15]. I shall argue that the poet deliberately presented Dionysiac religion as one of the new 'sects' that invaded Greece and especially Athens in his time. His chief purpose was not to evoke the innate paradoxes of Dionysiac religion, though they surely served him as a handle, but rather to question the nature of religious convictions in general, both the established and novel ones, by sowing doubt about their status and mutual relationship. For this reason he manipulated the para-
[HEIS DIONYSOS 100]
doxical aspects of Dionysiac religion by applying a stark historical distortion and cunningly mixing up the mythic past and tile historical present. Contemporary authorities, backed by popular opinion, condemned thy new zealots. In doing so they had the law on their side and so, from this angle, had Pentheus. However, the public knew that Dionysos was not a new god, but an ancient, accepted, civic deity. Seen in this light Pentheus was not right. I hope to show that the Bacchae is the tragedy of two conflicting positions which, though both right in principle, make theimselves both guilty of asebeia. And this is a truly tragic paradox. Furthermore, I shall argue that in the context of this tragic objective, Euripides was the first Greek author to recognize and design the image of a revolutionary new type of god and the concomitant religious mentality, an image which, though no doubt tolerated by the unique nature of classical Dionysos, must have been particularly fostered by the presumptions of the new 'sects'. Deities of this nature only came to prosper in the Hellenistic and Roman period, where they became ‘routinized’ just as Dionysos had been long before.
In developing my ideas I start from the following assumptions, which it will for reasons of space be impossible to argue in any detail here:
1) A new interpretation of the Bacchae can do without a detailed survey of the literary history of the play. No new theory, however, can boast independence from previous research. The reader will soon discover my indebtedness to, for instance, Winnington-Ingram and especially Dodds, not to mention more recent authors. He will also find that my interpretation, though excluding some, certainly does not dismiss all previous views of the tragic clash between god and king.
2) As I said in the introduction to this book, there is in my view one indisputable precondition to embarking on an (historical) interpretation of a work of art: the conviction that the ancient audience and the modern reader share the basic human qualities necessary to provide an at least provisional platform for understanding the meaning of the work, as it was intended by the author (which does not exclude the existence of other meanings). After characterizing Euripides as "the man of hard analytic vision who sees the here and now truly and exactly for what it is, B. Knox 16 continues: "he must have intended (my italics H.S.V.) to produce this unsettling effect, which disturbed his contemporaries as it disturbs us: to leave us with a sense of uncertainty”. Though fully aware of its blasphemous infringement upon structuralist,
[HEIS DIONYSOS 101]
post-modernist or post-post-modernist confessions I endorse this point of view. No literary theory will ever be able to discard the significance of the public's reactions to especially Euripidean drama. When in Aristoph. Thesmoph. 450-1, a seller of wreaths for statues of the gods claims that Euripides has spoiled her livelyhood because "by working in tragedies he has persuaded men that gods do not exist", this speaks volumes on the immediacy of the audience's involvement. And this leads us to my third point.
3) The quest for the meaning of a text is hopeless without a certain knowledge of the expectations one may presuppose in the audience. This involves the task of investigating as far as possible the social and mental experience of the Athenians of the late fifth century. For my subject this will require, first, an analysis of the new cults and the reactions they provoked in Athens, and, second, an assessment of the position of the orgiastic and maenadic aspects of Dionysiac religion in Greece. In confessing my belief in a historical approach to the work of art, I feel buttressed by the remarkable recent reappraisal of the historical Sitz im Leben for the understanding of Greek tragedy[17], which had somewhat faded into the background, no doubt under the influence of the combined forces of psychological and structuralist approaches. However, not a little alarmed by such over-enthusiastic historicists who, for instance, manage to stage Dionysos as the mythical double of Alcibiades[18], I wish to concentrate on general tendencies as traits d'union between the fiction of tragedy and the historical reality of its social setting. Whenever I do believe that close reflections of specific details can be detected, I hope they are more convincing than the identification just mentioned. Thus I hope implicitly to demonstrate the truth in the words of a great philologist: “the works we have got: Euripides—that is: these eighteen plays. In them indeed is all the history of his time; but not in the form of a running commentary on
[HEIS DIONYSOS 102]
the issues of the day. Every experience and every idea that stirred his age, every hope that winged, every despair that bent it: they have all been absorbed, by a genius of unlimited perception and penetration, into objective world of art"[19].
1. HAILING NEW GODS IN ATHENS
1. New gods and their reception
The Olympian family of the archaic and early classical period strikes us as an established and fairly static society. Foreign gods could be admitted, it is true, but admission to official cult was only granted on condition that the new god submitted to the local nomoi of the polis. In view of the tolerant[21] and inclusive nature of polytheism, we should be less surprised by the fact that foreign gods did find their way into the Greek pantheon than by the fact that so few availed themselves of the opportunity. Strabo, in a famous passage (10, 3, 18), praises Athenian hospitality, including tolerance towards foreign gods: "for they welcomed so many of the foreign rites that they were ridiculed by comic writers", but he menions only the Thracian Bendideia [Βενδίδεια] and the Phrygian rites of Sabazios. Granting that there must have been more foreigners—albeit hardly in the official circuit—than are documented in our sources, and ignoring the ones that are of no particular interest to our purpose—such as Hecate, Ammon, and Greek migrants like Pan or Asclepius[22] – with half a dozen
[HEIS DIONYSOS 102]
ΣΗΜΕΙΩΣΕΙΣ
1 B. Knox, Word and Action. Essays on the Ancient Theater (Baltimore-London 1979) 330.
2 This interpretation has been defended by, among others, Tyrwhitt, Lobeck, K. 0. Muller, Nagelsbach, also followed by Rohde and the young Wilamowitz. The idea has not died out yet: in the introduction to his Bude edition of the Bacchae (Paris 1961) 236 f., H. Gregoire still adheres to it, and it is not completely absent from]. Roux's commen-tary either. See on the 'palinode' theory in general and the contribution by Nietzsche in particular: A. Henrichs, The Last of the Detractors: Friedrich Nietzsche's Condemnation of Euripides, GRBS 27 (1986) 369-97, esp. 391 ff. For this rapid history of Euripidean scholarship I am specially indebted to the surveys by H. Merklin, Colt und Mensch im 'Hip-polytos' und den 'Bakchen' des Euripides (Diss. Freiburg im Breisgau 1964) 30-9; J. M. Bremer, De interpretatie van Euripides' Bacchen, Lampas 9 (1976) 2-7; Oranje 1984, 7-19.
3 Thus by and large: Hartung, Tyrrell, Sandys, Kraus, Wecklein.
4 Dieterich, Schmid, in a way also Wilamowitz: Traces in Roux.
5 The extremes in the notorious theories of G. Norwood, The Riddle of the Bacchae (Manchester 1908), who, however, recanted his earlier views in Essays on Euripidean Drama (London 1954) 52-73, and A. W. Verrall, The Bacchants of Euripides and Other Essays (Cam-bridge 1910) 1-163. Recently, Lefkowitz 1989, argued that, though the picture of impiety derives from Euripides' own dramas, any character in Euripides who expresses 'phi-losophical' notions about the gods does so out of desperation. Ultimately the gods will prove-not always to the character's satisfaction-that they retain their traditional power.
6 Fundamentally in Dodds 1960, already foreshadowed in his: Euripides the Irrationalist, CR 43 (1929) 97-104, and Winnington-lngram 1948. Cf. also G. M.A. Grube, Di-onysos in the Bacchae, TAPhA 66 (1935) 37-54. Apart from their contributions to our in-sight into the psychology of Pentheus, their influence has been particularly fertile in the exploration of the typically ambiguous nature of Dionysiac piety, as it is for instance ex-plored in Musurillo 1966, Cook 1971, and recent structuralist works.
7 Segal1982; 1986, with serious attention for psychoanalysis. See esp. 'Pentheus and Hippolytus on the Couch and on the Grid: Psychoanalytic and Structuralist Readings of Greek Tragedy', ibid. 268-93; Vernant 1986a and 1986b. 8 The problems connected with the pursuit of the author's intention had long been recognized: "Hinter dieser frommen, allzu fromm dramatisierten Legende ( .... ) ist der Dichter abgetreten. Man riit bis heute daran herum" (K. Reinhardt, Die Sinneskrise bei Euripides, in: E. R. Schwinge [ed.), Euripides [Darmstadt 1968] 506).
ΑΠΟΗΧΟΙ ΤΩΝ ΒΑΚΧΩΝ ΣΤΟ 3ο ΒΙΒΛΙΟ ΜΑΚΚΑΒΑΙΩΝ[100]
Οι Μακκαβαίοι εμφανίζουν κάποιες υποδηλωτικές συγγένειες με τις Βάκχες του Ευριπίδου. Πρωταγωνιστές και των δύο έργων είναι βασιλείς που γίνονται θεομάχοι. Ο Πενθεύς και ο Πτολεμαίος Δ' ο Φιλοπάτωρ προσπαθούν αδιάφορα να κατασκοπεύσουν πράγματα που δεν θα έπρεπε, και ο καθένας υποφέρει για τις επαναλαμβανόμενες ύβρεις του. Κάθε βασιλεύς προσπαθεί επίσης να σκοτώσει τους θιασώτες του θεού εναντίον του οποίου αγωνίζεται, και ο καθένας τιμωρείται με διαταραχή της ψυχικής του καταστάσεως. Οι Μακκαβαίοι αναπτύσσουν περαιτέρω το θέμα της θεομαχίας τονίζοντας τους συσχετισμούς μεταξύ του Διόνυσου και του Πτολεμαίου Δ΄ Φιλοπάτορος — του «Νέου Διονύσου». Ο Γιαχβέ - YHWH θριαμβεύει αβίαστα πάνω στον «Νέο Διόνυσο» με τις ίδιες τις συσκευές του Διόνυσου — ύπνο και λήθη. Κατά ειρωνικό τρόπο, ο Φιλοπάτωρ μπορεί να εξυπηρετήσει τον Διόνυσο μόνο με την ευχαρίστηση του Γιαχβέ - YHWH. Ο εβραϊκός λαός στην Αίγυπτο μπορεί κάλλιστα να βρίσκεται υπό την εξουσία του Φιλοπάτορος, αλλά ο Φιλοπάτωρ κυβερνά μόνο με την εξουσία του Θεού του Ισραήλ. Ο Ιουδαιστής / Χριστιανός συγγραφέας, λοιπόν, αντλεί από τη λογοτεχνική κληρονομιά των Ελλήνων για να υποτιμήσει τις διονυσιακές αξιώσεις του Φιλοπάτορος, όμως χωρίς αποτέλεσμα.
ΒΙΒΛΙΟΓΡΑΦΙΑ
https://books.google.gr/books?redir_esc=y&hl=el&id=5fWxUKirtYEC&q=THE+TRAGIC+PARADOX+OF+THE+BACCHAE#v=snippet&q=THE%20TRAGIC%20PARADOX%20OF%20THE%20BACCHAE&f=false
Versnel, H. 1998. "ΕΙΣ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΣ: THE TRAGIC PARADOX OF THE BACCHAE," in Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion 1: Ter Unus. Isis, Dionysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism (Series: Studies in Greek and Roman Religion, Volume: 6/1), pp. 96-205.
https://www.greek-language.gr/digitalResources/ancient_greek/library/browse.html?text_id=116
Μνημοσύνη. Ψηφιακή Βιβλιοθήκη της Αρχαίας Ελληνικής Γραμματείας, s.v. Βάκχες
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614326
Cousland, J. R. C. 2001. "Dionysus theomachos? Echoes of the Bacchae in 3 Maccabees," Biblica 82 (4), pp. 539-548.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.academia.edu/50771831/Dionysus_and_Politics
Seaford, R. 2021. "The politics of Euripides’ Bacchae
and the preconception of
irresolvable contradiction," in Dionysus and Politics. Constructing Authority in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. F. , Doroszewski and D. Karłowicz, London / New York, pp. 18-31.
I will maintain that, contrary to a widespread view of Bacchae,
(§1) Pentheus does not embody the values of the polis: quite the reverse;
(§2) there is no contradiction between Dionysos and the polis: quite the reverse;
(§3) there are reasons why the punishment inflicted by Dionysos would have seemed to the Athenian audience justified, especially given
(§4) the very dangerous political circumstances in which the play was written, which have been ignored by its interpreters;
(§5) there is no unresolved or irresolvable contradiction, whether within the Dionysiac or between the Dionysiac and Pentheus;
(§6) liberating ourselves from the PIC can be advanced by understanding its historical origin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------https://journals.calstate.edu/jet/article/view/2336/2109
Harte, R. J. 2018. "Comparison as poetry: Reading Euripides’ Bacchae and the Zhuangzi," Journal of East-West Thought 8 (3), pp. 31-58.
CHINA ..
Abstract: This essay has two major parts. First, a comparison between poetry and comparative work itself. Second, a comparison of the Zhuangzi and Euripides’ Bacchae. Comparison is like a poem in that both are imaginative constructions that rely on the creativity of the comparatist or poet. Comparison
and poetry take features of the world and alter them in such a way as to suggest an alternative. The Zhuangzi and the Bacchae, via the theme of forgetting, do the same thing—unsettle our fixed suppositions or knowledge. The argument that a comparative work is like a poem thus relies on the comparison of Zhuangzi and Euripides as an illustration. Both the Zhuangzi and the Bacchae invite a relinquishing of fixed knowledge, and depict a human nature that is tenuous and given to change. This article suggests that a similar experience characterizes the practice of comparison, and that such an experience is something we often see in poetry.
ΣΗΜΕΙΩΣΕΙΣ
[1]. Versnel 1998, p. 96 fe.
[1]. Versnel 1998, p. 96 fe.
[100]. Cousland 2001.
ΒΙΒΛΙΟΓΡΑΦΙΑ
https://journals.calstate.edu/jet/article/view/2336/2109
Harte, R. J. 2018. "Comparison as poetry: Reading Euripides’ Bacchae and the Zhuangzi," Journal of East-West Thought 8 (3), pp. 31-58.
https://www.academia.edu/50771831/Dionysus_and_Politics
Seaford, R. 2021. "The politics of Euripides’ Bacchae and the preconception of irresolvable contradiction," in Dionysus and Politics. Constructing Authority in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. F. , Doroszewski and D. Karłowicz, London / New York, pp. 18-31.
https://www.greek-language.gr/digitalResources/ancient_greek/library/browse.html?text_id=116
Μνημοσύνη. Ψηφιακή Βιβλιοθήκη της Αρχαίας Ελληνικής Γραμματείας, s.v. Βάκχες
https://online.ucpress.edu/ca/article/41/2/4/194831/Migrant-Refusals-The-Inoperativity-of-the-Asian
Luigi Battezzato. 2022. "Migrant Refusals: The Inoperativity of the Asian Bacchae in Euripides," Classical Antiquity 41 (2), pp. 4–15. ISSN: 0278-6656(p); 1067-8344(e)
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02a8qVAzyQ4pxw19aY71k7FQuX2DHRtjYy1G7r495BRPDCrtyopKX6aHEw5rRe84Ngl&id=100052896971032&__cft__[0]=AZVnhHu7Xc5uKS1AgyE-T98zSUOxHOqlwJSkrzUK3rifb1E2MTzwmHI0X8It7F2-I58mEAPd-5CwhoQNJn2Bkn6haH4NJ7g2MverYpD0WNU-POyMjfd4mqCQNKBfa9-J_ec&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
ΒΑΚΧΕΣ ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ: Ο ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΗΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΑ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΚΑ ΑΝΑΚΤΟΡΑ ΕΙΣΗΓΕΙΤΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΑΚΟ ΜΟΝΟΘΕΪΣΜΟ!..https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0D977nj5qBc5KCFx33KVqMVezCz7S9BnZFHgtrQ3st94PNpATyXJ7MJU9Twrw8z8fl&id=100052896971032&__cft__[0]=AZV-ye0gb0axWNBiW4juUVnjiKEcGdX69unqlOespiiHiy8FzAUVhiHlQrQJcUQSKR7Z4OBxovOcINK0tPpuEZ1DKejX6WyF4fKDLn7_OQThK6PK8xwt2N4jgVYko-4FS-E&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
ΒΑΚΧΑΙ & ZHUANGZI (Comparison as poetry: Reading Euripides’ Bacchae and the Zhuangzi, Harte, R. J. 2018)
Harte, E. J. 2018. "Comparison as Poetry: Reading Euripides’ Bacchae and the Zhuangzi," Journal of East-West Thought, pp. 31-58.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0zxquA5xFpwpmney9tYAZdJEzGd3tbUdfAw5YPAopc1wcJxDTcAfgjpL9B9xYXTqZl&id=100052896971032&__cft__[0]=AZXTrLJL-FypAFdMM6IV7S_JbI4tgpbDeLmfqNjVecn4WKnVWGrMB7RI1unwUxurF37F-iavnuLsREgq6Pl56NQV7kI9Obc9lL19Qn5pDBGJKH5L9T9tvtalyowAQOHuguanImmxd0E4NT3OqIuyaLO_YsyCeqyRCp9Tpmq3Od4Q2g&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΜΑΤΟΛΟΓΙΑ: 'ΑΣ ΞΑΝΑΓΥΡΙΣΟΥΜΕ ΣΤΗΝ ΑΡΧΗ..'
https://books.google.gr/books?id=in76OsuzkBMC&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=Dionysus+and+the+Hippy+Convoy:+Ritual,+Myth,+and+Metaphor+in+the+Cult+of+Dionysus&source=bl&ots=ZhkgwGw_fw&sig=ACfU3U1H-X_XnQgwiP52EXUTzOE60AlM-g&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX5ZLR0eSCAxWrh_0HHWNzBE8Q6AF6BAgeEAM#v=onepage&q=Dionysus%20and%20the%20Hippy%20Convoy%3A%20Ritual%2C%20Myth%2C%20and%20Metaphor%20in%20the%20Cult%20of%20Dionysus&f=false
https://academic.oup.com/book/46996/chapter/422656934#no-access-message
Gould, J. 2001. "Dionysus and the Hippy Convoy: Ritual, Myth, and Metaphor in the Cult of Dionysus," in Myth, Ritual Memory, And Exchange: Essays in Greek Literature and Culture, pp. 269–282.
Abstract
Dionysus is on the move. In one sense, of course-the sense which may provide an explanation, if not an excuse, for my original rather flippant title-he always has been: I shall come back to that. But in another, the last few decades have seen a major re-examination of the god, his myth and his cult and in consequence the whole image of Dionysus has sharpened and shifted considerably, even if in a characteristically multiform way. This is a good moment, then, to take stock of our present sense of the power of Dionysus and of the way, or better ways, in which that power was perceived and mediated through language, imagery and ritual.
It is right that we should start with the work of Albert Henrichs, who more than any other single individual has been responsible for this re-assessment of Dionysus. In a whole series of articles beginning with his first study in 1969,' of two third-century Hellenistic inscriptions from Miletus, the one the tomb-stone of a priestess, the other the record of a contract for the sale of a priesthood of Dionysus Bacchios,2 Henrichs has insisted on a sharp distinction both between the cult of Dionysus and his myth and between the divergent roles of the two sexes in the [NEXT PAGE IS 270] worship of the god. The cult of Dionysus for men centres on the ritual drinking of wine (in which women never take part), while maenadic dancing in honour of the god is the exclusive preserve of women. The boundaries between these roles are never crossed nor the line of demarcation blurred. 'Wine-drink-ing maenads are as unheard of in real life and actual cult as male maenads.' The exception that proves the rule for Henrichs is the example of Pentheus in Euripides' Bacchae: Pentheus goes to the mountain to participate in Bacchic ritual as a 'maenadic transvestite' and his fate on the mountainside confirms 'the exclusive nature of rnaenadic Henrichs stresses the 'wide discrepancy between the mythic conception of the maenad in literature and art as opposed to the ritual maenadism that emerges from historical authors and the epigraphical record'.
The article from which I have been quoting[3] is an elegant demolition of the widespread belief that two passages in Bacchae establish the existence of a 'single male celebrant' in Bacchic ritual—the male leader of the thiasos, identified with the god himself. Henrichs shows that the 'male celebrant' is a phan-tom created by misplaced and unnecessary textual emendation and that the mystic identification of god and worshipper is the product of the influence of Romanticism on nineteenth-century scholarship. He also reminds us that E. R. Dodds, earlier the most influential adherent of the view that Henrichs is attacking, abandoned his support for it in a brief addendum to his note on Bacchae 135 published in the 1960 second edition of his great commentary, though that change of mind has had almost no effect on subsequent discussion of Dionysiac ritual, which remains committed both to the 'male celebrant' and to the iden-tity of god and worshipper.4 That last point is worth a moment's pause. It should remind us that the question of Dionysus is one of those questions the answers to which have to satisfy requirements that go beyond and may even displace rational demands for adequacy of evidence and cogency of argument.
https://books.google.gr/books?redir_esc=y&hl=el&id=77M8AAAAIAAJ&q=bush&fbclid=IwAR2XnL1hCxUKhg-kDA8UusGmPspfbdP5di0TR5CYLtZjx-YU1RnytwkzR1s#v=snippet&q=bush&f=false
Jacobson, H. 1983. The Exagoge of Ezekiel, Cambridge Univ. Press.
4. The burning bush (90-131)
We are, as Gutman has noted (47), thrown into this scene in medias res, for Eusebius (or Polyhistor) has not preserved it from the beginning. Moses' opening word in our text is έα, that common expletive `gasp of astonishment,' which regularly expresses surprise,[1] as he [PAGE 98] suddenly notices the spectacle of the burning bush. He comments on the unbelievable nature of the phenomenon, and decides to approach and examine it. All this is quite in keeping with the brief Biblical account at Exodus 3.2-3, though the effectively direct, terse and unadorned style of the Bible vanishes in Ezekiel’s attempt to enhance the dramatic quality of the scene, beginning with Moses’ exclamation of surprise (nothing of the sort in Exodus) and continuing with the explicit and repeated emphasis on the miraculous nature of the event: σημείον, τεράστιον, απιστία, τεράστιον μέγιστον, ού πίστω φέρει ; all in contrast to the Septuagint's το όραμα το μέγα τούτω. Verses 96-11.2 are manifestly based on God's speech at Εxod. 3.5ff and in most ways are an accurate reflection of the Biblical text, though Ezekiel both expands and contracts it, to some degree simply by incorporating narrative elements of the Biblical account into the speech, but also by utilizing Scriptural material that is not present in this immediate Exodus passage. Thus, God declares that Moses may not behold Him, whereas God says no such thing in the Biblical bush scene. This is merely implied in the narrative wherein it is written απέστρεψεν δε Μωυσής το πρόσωπον αυτού.[2] It seems not unlikely that after 99 Moses would shrink or turn away, especially since θάρσησον ω παί at 100 seems well suited to some such demonstration of fear or hesitation on his part. It would also come at precise the same point as in the Biblical narrative where Moses turns aside immediately after God announces that it is indeed He who addresses Moses. On the other hand, when God declares that His recollection of the patriarchs has impelled Him to free the Jews from bondage (104-7) Ezekiel is introducing here Biblical material which both precedes and follows the bush-scene but is never a part of it. For in the narrative at the end of Exod. 2 we read that εμνήσθη ο Θεός της διαθήκης αυτού της πρός Αβραάμ και Ισαάκ και Ιακώβ (24); again, when Moses has been scorned by Pharaoh and rejected by his fellow Jews God reassures him by telling of His covenant with the patriarchs which He has now called to mind (6.3-5). Thus, as we have seen elsewhere, Ezekiel feels free to use material from one episode in another when it suits his needs and purposes.
Two questions of stagecraft:[3] first, does the presence of a bush on fire - indeed bush on fire which is not consumed - preclude the possibility that this scene was meant for the stage?[4] It does not. We [PAGE 99] have ample evidence that Greek plays included representations of phenomena that would have demanded a sophisticated and highly developed stagecraft to be depicted in a naturalistic fashion. Thus, the chorus at Barchae 596ff beholds a fire around the tomb of Semele, just as Moses sees the fire of the bush. Whether Euripides managed this in some realistic way or simply relied upon a convention signalled by the chorus' outburst we cannot say. And of course more elaborate events occur, most notably the earthquakes that 'take place' in the Bacchae, Prometheus Bound and Heracles. Again, how — or if — these were realistically achieved we do not know.[5] But surely there is no problem in assuming that Ezekiel could achieve the relatively simple phenomenon of a burning bush, even a miraculously burning bush.[6]
The second question is the voice of God. The theological implications are discussed elsewhere; for the moment it suffices to say that Ezekiel had no qualms about representing God speaking in a play - and even 'on stage' (if we assume a staged performance). Even from the Greek perspective the presence of a divine voice with no body visible would not have presented any problem. While the gods did routinely appear in concrete form on the Greek stage, there are occasional instances of a disembodied divine voice, as. at Bacchae 576ff when the voice or Dionysus is heard but he is not seen.[7] The actor would have spoken from off stage. We can assume that here too the actor speaking the words of God would have done so from off stage. A Greek audience might not have been surprised at the failure of God to appear since Greek tragedy itself rarely (if ever) puts Zeus on stage.[8] In the prologue scene of Aeschylus' Psychostasia Zeus apparently appeared weighing out the souls; whether he spoke disputed.[9]
At verse 99 God reveals to Moses the divine nature of the speaker, ο δε εκ βάτου σοι Θείος εκλάμπει λόγος: the ‘word of God' rings out fron the bush.[10] Wieneke accurately observed that (εκ)λάμπω is used in standard Greek writers of sound as well as of sight, noting inter alia Aeschylus' φωνήν.. όψει. (PV 21).[11] The verb εκλάμπει, as Gutma has noted (50) is also suitable because of the context of the burning bush.
The association of a verb of primarily visual significance with the voice or speech of God in an event intimately tied to the Exodus is [PAGE 100]
4. H ΚΑΙΟΜΕΝΗ ΒΑΤΟΣ (στίχοι 90-131)
Είμαστε, όπως έχει σημειώσει ο Gutman (47), σε αυτή τη σκηνή στην μέση της πλοκής (medias res), γιατί ο Ευσέβιος (ή ο Πολύιστωρ) δεν την παραδίδει από την αρχή. Η αρχική λέξη του Μωυσή στο κείμενό μας είναι το έα, αυτή η κοινή εκφραστική «αναπνοή έκπληξης», που εκφράζει τακτικά έκπληξη,[1] καθώς [ΣΕΛΙΔΑ 98] ξαφνικά παρατηρεί το θέαμα της καιομένης βάτου. Σχολιάζει την απίστευτη φύση του φαινομένου, και αποφασίζει να το προσεγγίσει και να το εξετάσει. Όλα αυτά συμβαδίζουν με τη σύντομη Βιβλική αφήγηση στα εδάφια Έξοδος 3.2-3, αν και το ουσιαστικά άμεσο, λιτό και αδιάκοσμο ύφος της Βίβλου εξαφανίζεται στην προσπάθεια του Ιεζεκιήλ να ενισχύσει τη δραματική ποιότητα της σκηνής, ξεκινώντας με το επιφώνημα έκπληξης του Μωυσή (nothing of the sort in Exodus) συνεχίζοντας με τη ρητή και επαναλαμβανόμενη έμφαση στη θαυματουργή φύση του γεγονότος: "σημείον, τεράστιον, απιστία, τεράστιον μέγιστον, ού πίστω φέρει"; όλα σε αντίθεση με τα παρατιθέμενα στην Βίβλο των εβδομήκοντα "το όραμα το μέγα τούτω". Οι στίχοι 96-112 βασίζονται προφανώς στην ομιλία του Θεού στην Έξοδο. 3.5 επ. και με τους περισσότερους τρόπους είναι μια ακριβής αντανάκλαση του Βιβλικού κειμένου, αν και ο Ιεζεκιήλ το επεκτείνει και το συστέλλει, σε κάποιο βαθμό απλώς ενσωματώνοντας αφηγηματικά στοιχεία της Βιβλικής αφήγησης στην ομιλία, αλλά και χρησιμοποιώντας Γραφικό υλικό που δεν υπάρχει στο αυτό το άμεσο απόσπασμα της Εξόδου. Έτσι, ο Θεός δηλώνει ότι ο Μωυσής μπορεί να μην Τον βλέπει, ενώ ο Θεός δεν λέει κάτι τέτοιο στη Βιβλική σκηνή του θάμνου. Αυτό απλώς υποννοείται στην αφήγηση όπου γράφεται: "απέστρεψεν δε Μωυσής το πρόσωπον αυτού".[2] Δεν φαίνεται απίθανο μετά τον στίχο 99 ο Μωυσής να συρρικνωθεί ή να απομακρυνθεί, ειδικά επειδή το "θάρσησον ω παί' στον στίχο 100 φαίνεται πολύ κατάλληλο για κάποια τέτοια επίδειξη φόβου ή δισταγμού εκ μέρους του. Θα ερχόταν επίσης ακριβώς στο ίδιο σημείο όπως στη Βιβλική αφήγηση όπου ο Μωυσής παραμερίζεται αμέσως αφού ο Θεός ανακοινώνει ότι είναι πράγματι Αυτός που απευθύνεται στον Μωυσή. Από την άλλη πλευρά, όταν ο Θεός δηλώνει ότι η ανάμνησή Του για τους πατριάρχες Τον ώθησε να ελευθερώσει τους Εβραίους από τη δουλεία (104-7), ο Ιεζεκιήλ εισάγει εδώ βιβλικό υλικό που προηγείται και ακολουθεί τη σκηνή του θάμνου αλλά δεν αποτελεί ποτέ μέρος του . Γιατί στην αφήγηση στο τέλος της Εξοδ. 2 we read that εμνήσθη ο Θεός της διαθήκης αυτού της πρός Αβραάμ και Ισαάκ και Ιακώβ (24); και πάλι, όταν ο Μωυσής περιφρονήθηκε από τον Φαραώ και απορρίφθηκε από τους συμπολίτες του Εβραίους, ο Θεός τον καθησυχάζει λέγοντας για τη διαθήκη Του με τους πατριάρχες, την οποία τώρα έχει θυμηθεί (6.3-5). Έτσι, όπως έχουμε δει αλλού, ο Ιεζεκιήλ νιώθει ελεύθερος να χρησιμοποιεί υλικό από το ένα επεισόδιο στο άλλο όταν αυτό ταιριάζει στις ανάγκες και τους σκοπούς του.
Δύο ερωτήματα της σκηνικής τέχνης:[3] πρώτον, η παρουσία ενός θάμνου στη φωτιά - πράγματι θάμνος στη φωτιά που δεν καταναλώνεται - αποκλείει την πιθανότητα αυτή η σκηνή να προοριζόταν για τη σκηνή;[4] Δεν το κάνει. Έχουμε [ΣΕΛΙΔΑ 99] άφθονες αποδείξεις ότι τα ελληνικά έργα περιλάμβαναν αναπαραστάσεις φαινομένων που θα απαιτούσαν μια εξελιγμένη και εξαιρετικά ανεπτυγμένη σκηνογραφία για να απεικονιστεί με νατουραλιστικό τρόπο. Έτσι, η χορωδία στις Barchae 596ff βλέπει μια φωτιά γύρω από τον τάφο της Σεμέλης, ακριβώς όπως ο Μωυσής βλέπει την φωτιά της βάτου. Αν ο Ευριπίδης το κατάφερε αυτό με κάποιο ρεαλιστικό τρόπο ή απλώς βασίστηκε σε μια σύμβαση που σηματοδοτήθηκε από το ξέσπασμα της χορωδίας, δεν μπορούμε να πούμε. Και φυσικά συμβαίνουν πιο περίτεχνα γεγονότα, κυρίως οι σεισμοί που «λαμβάνουν χώραν» στις Βάκχες, στον Προμηθέα Δεσμώτη και στον Ηρακλή. Και πάλι, πώς — ή εάν — επιτεύχθηκαν ρεαλιστικά δεν γνωρίζουμε.[5] Αλλά σίγουρα δεν υπάρχει πρόβλημα να υποθέσουμε ότι ο Ιεζεκιήλ θα μπορούσε να επιτύχει το σχετικά απλό φαινόμενο του φλεγόμενου θάμνου, ακόμη και ενός θάμνου που καίγεται από θαύμα.[6]
https://www.academia.edu/4360430/_Inconsistencies_in_Greek_and_Roman_Religion_I_TER_UNUS_Isis_Dionysos_and_Hermes_Three_Studies_in_Henotheism_Leiden_1990_270_pp?fbclid=IwAR3mZ2BTKcFw-jO0OjCU4bMXPRMavlAy_IWjpFsPCrWWLOfSn9B--aRx7J4
Versnel, H. 1998. Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion I. TER UNUS. Isis, Dionysos and Hermes: Three Studies in Henotheism, Leiden.
Ο Ευριπίδης υπήρξε ο πρώτος Έλλην συγγραφέας που αναγνώρισε και σχεδίασε την εικόνα ενός επαναστατικού, νέου τύπου θεού και την συνακόλουθη θρησκευτική νοοτροπία, μια εικόνα που, αν και αναμφίβολα ανεκτή από τη μοναδική φύση του κλασικού Διονύσου, πρέπει να είχε ενισχυθεί ιδιαίτερα από τις αντιλήψεις που εισήχθησαν από τις νέες θρησκευτικές «αιρέσεις». Θεότητες αυτής της φύσεως ευημερούσαν μόνο κατά την Ελληνιστική και Ρωμαϊκή περίοδο, όπου κατέστησαν συνήθεις & του συρμού («ρουτινοποιήθηκαν») ακριβώς όπως ο Διόνυσος πολύ πριν.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-hellenic-studies/article/abs/bacchae/845390CAE8CA128364CC6A76F6C7CAA8?fbclid=IwAR2incQcgqUUWt2sIqfdm-yUrNykU0ADHrAc12tkSTOwEzzTZp2yokZmbG8
Glover. M. R. 2013 [1929]. "The Bacchae," JHS 49 (1), pp. 82 - 88.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Οι Βάκχες παραμένουν γρίφος. Είναι δύσκολο να αρκεστούμε σε μια ερμηνεία του έργου που κάνει τον Διόνυσο ήρωα, και μάλιστα τον προσεγγίζει / προσομοιάζει με τον Χριστό. Ο Διόνυσος ομοιάζει περισσότερο με τον Ιούδα: χαϊδεύει τον άνθρωπο που θέλει να σκοτώσει (1. 933). Είναι εξίσου δύσκολο να πιστέψει κανείς ότι είναι, όπως είπε ο Πενθεύς, ένας απλός ανθρώπινος υπνωτιστής, ένας γόης ἐπῳδὸς (1.234) και ένας απατεών. Γιατί το έργο είναι η ιστορία του πώς ο Πενθεύς, ενεργώντας με βάση αυτήν την πεποίθηση, καταστράφηκε εντελώς.
Προτείνω να υποστηρίξουμε, πρώτον, ότι ο Ευριπίδης είναι εδώ, όπως και αλλού, ρεαλιστής, δίδοντάς μας μια εικόνα της λατρείας του Διονύσου όπως ήταν στην πραγματικότητα και ότι τα θαύματα εννοούνται ως απόδειξη της παρουσίας κάποιας υπερφυσικής δυνάμεως, και δεύτερον, ότι αν θέλουμε να μάθουμε την κρίση του για αυτήν τη θρησκεία, θα πλησιάσουμε τη σκέψη του, αν όχι το λεξιλόγιό του, λέγοντας ότι του φαινόταν διαβολική.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614326
Cousland, J. R. C. 2001. "Dionysus theomachos? Echoes of the Bacchae in 3 Maccabees," Biblica 82 (4), pp. 539-548.
ΑΠΟΗΧΟΙ ΤΩΝ ΒΑΚΧΩΝ ΣΤΟ 3ο ΒΙΒΛΙΟ ΜΑΚΚΑΒΑΙΩΝ
Οι Μακκαβαίοι εμφανίζουν κάποιες υποδηλωτικές συγγένειες με τις Βάκχες του Ευριπίδου. Πρωταγωνιστές και των δύο έργων είναι βασιλείς που γίνονται θεομάχοι. Ο Πενθεύς και ο Πτολεμαίος Δ' ο Φιλοπάτωρ προσπαθούν αδιάφορα να κατασκοπεύσουν πράγματα που δεν θα έπρεπε, και ο καθένας υποφέρει για τις επαναλαμβανόμενες ύβρεις του. Κάθε βασιλεύς προσπαθεί επίσης να σκοτώσει τους θιασώτες του θεού εναντίον του οποίου αγωνίζεται, και ο καθένας τιμωρείται με διαταραχή της ψυχικής του καταστάσεως. Οι Μακκαβαίοι αναπτύσσουν περαιτέρω το θέμα της θεομαχίας τονίζοντας τους συσχετισμούς μεταξύ του Διόνυσου και του Πτολεμαίου Δ΄ Φιλοπάτορος — του «Νέου Διονύσου». Ο Γιαχβέ - YHWH θριαμβεύει αβίαστα πάνω στον «Νέο Διόνυσο» με τις ίδιες τις συσκευές του Διόνυσου — ύπνο και λήθη. Κατά ειρωνικό τρόπο, ο Φιλοπάτωρ μπορεί να εξυπηρετήσει τον Διόνυσο μόνο με την ευχαρίστηση του Γιαχβέ - YHWH. Ο εβραϊκός λαός στην Αίγυπτο μπορεί κάλλιστα να βρίσκεται υπό την εξουσία του Φιλοπάτορος, αλλά ο Φιλοπάτωρ κυβερνά μόνο με την εξουσία του Θεού του Ισραήλ. Ο Ιουδαιστής / Χριστιανός συγγραφέας, λοιπόν, αντλεί από τη λογοτεχνική κληρονομιά των Ελλήνων για να υποτιμήσει τις διονυσιακές αξιώσεις του Φιλοπάτορος, όμως χωρίς αποτέλεσμα.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perris, S. and F. Mac Góráin. . "The ancient reception of Euripides’ Bacchae from Athens to Byzantium," in Dionysus and Rome. Religion and Literature (Trends in Classics - Supplementary Volumes 93), ed. F. Mac Góráin, pp. 39-84.
σελ. 69
Ιεζεκιήλ: Εξαγωγή (3ος–2ος αι. π.Χ.)
Η Εξαγωγή, μια δραματοποίηση της ζωής του Μωυσέως σε ελληνικά τρίμετρα που πιθανότατα συνετέθη στην Αλεξάνδρεια, περιέχει έναν ή δύο κειμενικούς απόηχους των Βακχών. Σύγκρινε Ex. 234–35 / Bacc. 1077–83, Ex. 235–36 / Bacc. 274. Υπάρχουν επίσης τυπολογικοί παραλληλισμοί στην αφήγηση της Ερυθράς Θάλασσας, στη σκηνή της φλεγομένης βάτου και στην συνολική υπόθεση της θεομαχίας. Κείμενο: TrGF I, 288–301. Κείμενο, μετάφραση και σχόλια: Jacobson 1983;
Lanfranchi 2006; Kotlińska-Toma 2015, 202–33. Δείτε και Ξανθάκης-Καραμάνος 2001; Whitmarsh 2013, 211–27, ειδικά 218–19 σε τραγικά υποτυπώματα - hypotexts (συμπεριλαμβανομένων των Βακχών).
σελ. 77
Στις Ιστορίες 61 (Chil. 6. 556–86), ο Ιωάννης Τζέτζης παραθέτει ρητά και παραφράζει τόσον την μυθική (μυθικῶς) ιστορία του Ευριπίδου από τις Βάκχες όσον και την αλληγορική (ἀλληγορῶν) αφήγηση του «Ιωάννη». Και σε μια επιστολή που απευθύνεται στον «Ισαάκ Κομνηνό» [Ισαακίω τω Κομνηνώ, P. A. M. Leone, ed. 1972. Ioanes Tzetzes, Epistulae, https://archive.org/details/ioannistzetzaeep0000tzet/page/10/mode/2up?view=theater], ενώ συζητούσε για διάσημες προσωπικότητες που πρόδωσαν την οικογένειά τους, ο Τζέτζης αναφέρει «Η Αντιοχεία [και η αφήγηση του] για την Αγαύη που πρόδωσε τον γιο της μέχρι θανάτου» (Ep. 6.14.1–2 Leone). Το FHG περιλαμβάνει το απόσπασμα του Τζέτζη ως μαρτυρία προς τον Ιωάννη της Αντιόχειας (Hist. Chr. F7, βλ. παραπάνω). Η νέα έκδοση του Roberto όχι. Ο Τζέτζης χρησιμοποιεί το «Ιωάννης ο Αντιοχεύς» για να αναφερθεί είτε στον Ιωάννη της Αντιόχειας είτε στον Ιωάννη Μαλάλα. Με βάση τις αφηγηματικές λεπτομέρειες, ωστόσο, φαίνεται πιο πιθανό ότι ο Τζέτζης αναφέρεται εδώ στο Historia Chronica του Ιωάννη της Αντιόχειας, το οποίο ούτως ή άλλως αξιοποίησε πολύ τη Χρονογραφία του Μαλάλα.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.greek-language.gr/digitalResources/ancient_greek/anthology/literature/browse.html?text_id=358&fbclid=IwAR11ku1FImSse4_tnVETftIjpac9_t1uzWo8UzTqlvjzNWRkgE77c1tHedg
Και είδαμε τότε από τον ουρανό μια μεγάλη λάμψη
σαν να ᾽ταν λάμψη από φωτιά
-όπως πιστεύουμε, ήταν εκεί ο θεός και τους βοηθούσε.235
Όταν έφθασαν ήδη πέρα από τη θάλασσα,
ένα πελώριο κύμα εβόγγαε πλάι μας.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.academia.edu/38022005/5348_Ezekiel_Tragicus_Exagoge_7_40_50_54_Excerpts_THE_OXYRHYNCHUS_PAPYRI_VOLUME_LXXXIII_London_2018_14_19?fbclid=IwAR0vs8kzWO98mOX6gEH76p69t5YpNrZRpLhdiUPkpAT3913WLSm82tdzKE4
5348. Ezekiel Tragicus, Exagoge 7-40, 50-54 (Excerpts), THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI VOLUME LXXXIII (London 2018) 14-19Daniela Colomo
--------------------------------
https://www.greek-language.gr/digitalResources/ancient_greek/library/browse.html?text_id=116&page=24&fbclid=IwAR2Y8dYrVfUhQ6Pizm-X93CHuz3aczpifCciALKTRUjGAD35zEAPQijrK78
Βάκχαι (1077-1083)
Γιατί καλά καλά δεν πρόφτασε να φανεί καθισμένος ψηλά,
και άξαφνα ο ξένος είχε γίνει άφαντος.
Μια φωνή —πιστεύω του Διονύσου—
αντήχησε από το βάθος του αιθέρα:
«Γυναίκες, φέρνω εκείνον που χλευάζει εσάς,
1080εμένα και τα όργιά μου.
Τιμωρήστε τον».
Όσο μιλούσε, ανάμεσα στον ουρανό και στη γη
είχε απλωθεί ένα φως ιερού πυρός.
Σίγησε ο αιθέρας,:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Βάκχαι (273-78) : Αυτός ο θεός ο νέος,
που εσύ τον λοιδορείς,
δεν θα μπορούσα να σου εκφράσω
πόσο μεγάλος θα γίνει ανά την Ελλάδα.
275Δύο πράγματα, νεαρέ, είναι τα πρώτα στον κόσμο:
η Δήμητρα η θεά — είναι η Γη
(λέγε την με το όνομα που θέλεις, το ένα ή το άλλο)·
αυτή τρέφει τους θνητούς με τα στερεά.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου