Pentheus and the Spectator in Euripides' "Bacchae"

Author(s): James Barrett

Source: The American Journal of Philology , Autumn, 1998, Vol. 119, No. 3 (Autumn,
1998), pp. 337-360
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1561675

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The American Journal of Philology

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR
IN EURIPIDES' BACCHAE

James Barrett

In an article examining the various reports from Cithaeron in

Euripides' Bacchae, Richard Buxton argues against reading th
tives of Euripidean messengers as impartial or transparent ac
the events they describe. In concluding his careful analysis of
sengers in this play he claims that "these narrators too stan
within the drama" (1991, 46).1 From articulating what disting
narratives of these figures, Buxton proceeds to including the me
with the other dramatis personae in a single category of tho
the drama." The narratives of the messengers, like everythin
onstage, Buxton argues, are imbued with their own distinctiv
and rhetoric: "in no two cases is the relationship between con
narrator identical" (1991, 40). His argument directs itself aga
dency among critics silently to grant a distinct and privilege
the narratives of tragic messengers.2
Buxton's analysis complements that of de Jong (1991), wh
against the practice of regarding the messenger's narrative a
leged form of discourse. Buxton in fact rejects the use of the ter
senger" in the singular as injuriously general and neglectful of "t
tle divergences between the reports" (1991, 46). But laudable a

iBuxton's focus is on the two messengers, but he includes the "nar

Dionysos (23-42), Pentheus (215-25), and the servant (434-50) in his discussi
Bierl 1991,193. When I speak of "messengers" I mean the herdsman who enters
the servant who enters at 1024.

2Buxton (1991, 46 n. 14) cites Barlow 1971 as an example of this tendency. Like
de Jong (1991, 63-64), he unfairly ignores the qualification Barlow offers in acknowledg-
ing that the status of the messenger is complex and that the poet seeks to establish an un-
problematic figure in the messenger against the constraints of the tragic stage: "The
dilemma of the poet is to create through this narrative medium the illusion of undistorted
information, while at the same time presenting this 'fictive fact' in such a persuasive way
that it is accepted by the audience without question" (1971, 61, emphasis added). See also
Heath 1987, 44.
American Journal of Philology 119 (1998) 337-360 ? 1998 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
338 JAMES BARRETT

the attention it pays to rhetorical

Buxton's formulation simplifies th
des' play. Rather than being "firm
occupy a place on the stage very dif
tis personae. A reading founded o
shows that an important part of
rected at the status of the messen
they define and are defined by P
produces messengers substantially
tators-in-the-text"3? and in so do
possible on the tragic stage while
within the play's metatheater.
The metatheatricality of the pl
position in recent years. The stud
(1985, 205-58)4 remain central to
theater, while that of Bierl (1991,
sights of Segal and Foley close to th
in principle from the fact that Di
the focus of the play: with this as a
that we read it as a prolonged reflec
Both Segal and Foley astutely d
Dionysos as director and Pentheu
marks: "As an actor among actors
the other characters in the orches
and instructing his 'actors' for th
225). Pentheus' pilgrimage to Mou
and the sparagmos that forms the
nysos' direction a performance aki
sos at Athens. Indeed, the play-wi
the play we call Bacchae.
As Segal and Foley have show
spectator is central to the play's m
rate "drama" organized by Dionys
the Maenads in the mountains whi
the audience in the theater, want
spectator in the theater, he is tem

3I borrow this felicitous phrase from Br

4Foley 1980 is an earlier version of this

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 339

see the "performance" on the mountain. In fact, t

importance of vision underlies much of the metat
prospect of seeing the Bacchants marks a turning
Dionysos asks him:

pouXr] acj)' ev OQ80L ovyytaQrwievac, ISelv; (811)

Do you want to see them sitting together in the mountains?

And if Dionysos' taunt,

oi)X8TL Geaxfig ^atvddoov jtQoGu^iog ei,5 (829)

You are no longer eager to be the spectator of Maenads,

suggests the parallel with the audience, it does so in terms of vi

deed, the word 6Eatf|g defines the audience in terms of visi
larly, Pentheus himself, so the messenger tells us, emphasize
sion with seeing the Maenads:

IlevGeug 6' 6 tXti^icdv GfjXuv oi>x oqoov ox^ov

eXe^e xoidd'' rQ ^ev', ov \iev eaxa^iev,
oux e^ixvoupm jjmvdSoov oaaoig voGoov
6x6o)v 6' eV, d^pdg eg eA-dxriv vtyavxzva,
i'6oi^i' dv OQGwg |Aaivd6o)v alo^QOvgyiav. (1058-62)
Pentheus, the wretch, not seeing the group of women, said such things as
these: "O Stranger, from where we stand I cannot reach the impostor
Maenads with my eyes. But if I climb the tall fir on the hill I could see th
Maenads' disgraceful behavior clearly."

The text simultaneously places great emphasis on Pentheus' desir

to pass through town unobserved and to watch the Bacchants withou
being detected. To this end Dionysos garbs him with a full Dionysia
costume, including wig, peplos, and thyrsus (831-35).6 Once on t
mountain, of course, Pentheus proposes, in the passage cited above, t
mount the fir tree. From above he should not only have a good view b
also remain undetected, as the vertical movement implies a withdraw

5I follow Dodds's text (1960). Others punctuate this as a question.

*See Foley 1985, 224.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
340 JAMES BARRETT

from the horizontal field of action. Indeed this is what Pentheus himself
anticipates:

eXdxaiaiv 6' e^iov xqi^oo Se^iag, (954)

I will conceal my body among the fir trees.

To which Dionysos pleonastically responds:

XQIJI^T] OV KQVtylV f]V G? XQU(|)9f]Vai XQ^^V,

eXGovxa SoAiov ^laivdSoov xaxdaxojtov. (955-56)
You will hide yourself in a hidden manner as you should be hid
cretly going to spy on the Maenads.

Here Dionysos repeats the word "spy" (xatdoxojtov) from

where he had applied the term to Pentheus for the first tim
offers not only a view, but a secretive one: Pentheus imagine
invisible spectator.
His hopes are dashed, or rather, inverted, as he become
the unseeing spectacle, as the messenger reports:

03(j)6r] Se ^i&Mov f\ xaxelSe ^laivdSag. (1075)

He was seen more than he saw the Maenads.

On both counts of vision and visibility the events on the mountain r

verse the plan of his desire.7

THE SERVANT

As Pentheus fails to become a spectator, however, Dion

only one who "remains a spectator" (Foley 1985, 212). A
critics as Pentheus wants to be to the Maenads, the me
true spectator of Dionysos' drama on the mountain. He

7Foley comments: "Pentheus, representing his city, goes to the mou

to be a spectator. Instead, his sight changes, and he becomes a spectac
while the god alone remains a spectator" (1985, 212).

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 341

tirety of what transpires, including Pentheus' transfo

tator to spectacle. He alone remains unseen.8
The text, however, prepares us to overlook the
successful spectator. The elaborate dressing-scene
trip to the mountain emphatically distinguishes Pe
nist from the messenger. When Pentheus says,

xo^ii^e did ^learjg \ie 0r](3aiag xQovog*

^i6vog ydg auxoov ei^i' dvrjQ xoA^oov x66e, (961-62)
Take me through the middle of the Theban land; for I am the only
among them daring to do this,

we may readily acquiesce in his claim to uniqueness. And Dion

response,

^lovog ov jtoXecog xfjaS' imegxa^iveig, ^ovog, (963)

Alone you struggle for this city, alone,

with its emphatic repetition of [xovog, initial and final, again encour
us to view Pentheus' position as unique. By the same token, the
parability of Pentheus' role as spectator-become-spectacle const
the ambiguity both of the dressing scene and of lines 961-63: the
ing of Pentheus, while ostensibly (in Pentheus' eyes) designed to
him to pass unobserved, really, of course, marks him as the prot
of the play-within-the-play. As he thinks he is disguising himsel
to become an unseen spectator, he places himself in the center o
nysos' play. These two scenes, then, clearly work to distinguish Pent
as unique in his role as would-be spectator. He is unique, howeve
in being a spectator, but rather in failing to become one.
The messenger himself reveals the significance of his own ro
he begins his narrative in the first-person plural, he enumerat
members of the embassy:

8Dionysos as the stranger, of course, vanishes; but this avenue is not open to
mortals. Or, he goes unseen only by disappearing, while the messenger remain
scene and still goes unnoticed.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 342 JAMES BARRETT

ejiei Geodjrvag xfjaSe 0Ti(3aiag xQ?

Xuiovxeg e^e(3ripiev Aacojtoi) Qodg,
Xejtag KiGaiQobveiov elaepdXXopiev
IlevGeug xe xdycb?Seajioxn ydp efo
^evog 6' 6g r\[dv jto^utog rjv Gecooiag. (1043-47)
When we had left behind the dwellings of the Theban countryside and t
waters of Asopus, we entered the rocky scrub of Mount Cithaeron, P
theus and I?since I was following my master?and the stranger who w
our guide in the embassy for viewing the spectacle.

There were three, he says: Pentheus, the stranger, and himself. Th

lines not only establish his claim to presence at the scene; they al
place him alone as the eyewitness on the mountain. Whereas the m
senger's use of BeooQiac; at line 1047 underscores Pentheus' desire (
subsequent failure) to become a spectator, to watch unseen, it simu
neously signals the eventual success of the messenger on this score.
The messenger goes on to emphasize that the strategy of seei
unseen included him:

jtQooxov [iev ovv jtoiriQov i?op,ev vdjtog,

xd x' ex jtoScbv aiynXd xai yXobacrng djto
acp^ovxeg, obg OQCp^iev ovx OQob^ievoi. (1048-50)
First we came to the grassy glen and kept silent, not a word on our
tongues, so that we might see without being seen.

He alone accompanied Pentheus and the stranger, and he (too) watch

secretly.
Perhaps most telling is Agave's instruction to the women as Pen?
theus is up in the tree:

c()eQe, jteQiaxaom xiw^w

jtxoQGou AxxpeaGe, pmvdSeg, xov d^ipdxrjv
Gfjo' (bg etao^iev, ^ir]S' djtayye&r] Geou
Xoooug xou(|)aLOug. (1106-9)
Come on, grab a branch, Maenads, an
climbing beast, lest he report (djtayy

In terms that invoke the role of th

the motivation for the hunt that will

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 343

the drama organized by Dionysos is announced by A

that Pentheus may do what the messenger?who r
course?does. Until this moment Pentheus and the m
allel lives.
That the role of spectator aimed at by Pentheus entails or creates
the possibility of reporting?as Agave makes explicit?is alluded to al?
ready in the messenger's opening words. At line 1047 (cited above) he
calls the journey to Mount Cithaeron a BeooQia. Beyond the mundane
meaning of "viewing," this term often carries connotations of both re-
sponsibility and authority. Those sent in an official capacity by the city?
to athletic games or to the oracle at Delphi?embark upon a theoria. It
is the charge of such persons accurately to report what they "see." The-
ognis invokes this burden of accuracy:

xoqvou xai axdGjxTjg xai yvobpiovog dvSga Geoopov

ei)Gi)xeQov XQ*1 epiev, KiJQve, ^>vXaooo\iEvov,
(bxivi xev IIuGwvl Geoi3 xQr|oaa' lepeia
6n4>f]v ar](af|vr] movog e? dduxoir
oi>xe xi ydp jtQoaGeig oi)6ev x' exi c()dQpiaxov euQOig
oi)6' dc()eXd)v Jipog Gearv dpjt^axiriv jiQO(j)i>Yoig. (805-10)
A theoros must be straighter than a straightedge or a plumbline, Cyrnus,
more reliable than a compass and very careful?he to whom the priestess
of the god at Pytho gives an oracular sign from the sumptuous shrine; for
you won't find a solution by adding anything and you won't avoid offend-
ing the gods by omitting anything, either.

However we read the relationship between theoros and poet in The-

ognis,9 the emphasis this passage places on the reliability of the one un-
dertaking a theoria is striking: nothing must be added to his report and
nothing taken away. With the institution of theoria demanding such a
theoros (or at least the pretense of one), the messenger as he embarks
on his narrative quietly clothes himself with the mantle of one granted
a privileged, authoritative voice. He (along with Pentheus) goes not
merely to watch; he goes with the task of watching with special care. His

9Nagy reads this passage as a moment of self-authorization on the part of The-

ognis: "Just as the priestess... semainei 'indicates' the message of the god, so also the
poet speaks authoritatively, as if a lawgiver" (1990, 165). See also Nagy 1985, 37, on the
poet as theoros.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
344 JAMES BARRETT

invocation of the theoria implies

though organized by the polis itself
If the messenger succeeds where
report from the mountain to the
be sure, succeeds in passing unsee
mountain itself. Not only do we k
presence onstage toward the end o
Agave and the other women, but
work than Agave's limited vision
tently remains disengaged from t
himself at the scene does he overtly
ity as eyewitness is marked by m
ment. Having established that he w
first of Pentheus' mounting the fir
stranger's disappearance. The mom
same moment Pentheus becomes v

ooov ydQ ovjio) SfjXog f|v Gdoocov d

xai xov ?evov [xev ovxex' eiaoQ&v jtaQfjv. (1076-77)
He was just becoming visible sitting on high when the stranger w
longer to be seen.12

Just as Pentheus achieves the position that he hopes will fulfill his w
he becomes fatally visible to all. And at this same moment Dion
vanishes from sight. This miraculous moment marks Pentheus
center of the spectacle and engages both the visible Pentheus an
invisible Dionysos in a reciprocal relation which seems complete
embrace: the seen and the unseen "appear" simultaneously and d
one another. But in this moment, as the text works to establish this

10Massenzio (1969, 85-89) examines the failings of Pentheus' vision?he

would be a theoros. De Jong comments: "On the level of external communicati
tween Euripides and the spectators), the words [jto^utog OeooQiag] indicate a rit
cession, with Pentheus the victim about to be sacrificed" (1991, 36).
11 See ood) at line 1063. Of course he speaks in the first-person again in conc
at 1148-52. De Jong (1992, 578) takes oqCo at 1063 as one of many signs of this
ger's focalization, in support of her claim that "le messager, comme tous les nar
ne peut pas echapper a sa focalisation" (576). This thesis forms a substantial part of
gument in her 1991 monograph as weil.
12My translation here follows Dodds (1960 ad loc).

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 345

of Dionysos and Pentheus as broad and comprehens

ber of the party performs a different kind of disapp
is unaccounted for, beheld by none even as an abse
bility on the mountain finds a parallel in the theat
messenger elude the women; he escapes the attentio
weil. Indeed, the success of his performance is con
critics addressing the play's metatheatricality have
status as invisible eyewitness on Mount Cithaeron.
A substantial amount of criticism of the pl
Pentheus' (failure in his) mission to Mount Cithae
the hands of the Maenads bear witness to his aliena
sition to the society of Dionysiac worshipers as we
disturbed psychological state. Segal, for example,
failure to neurosis: "He [Pentheus] would be a spe
but not as a member of an audience in a theatron.
eur, isolated in his private neurotic world... . H
participatory community established by true thea
Dionysus" (1982, 263).13 But in a drama so concern
explanation may seem incomplete. While it surely s
with respect to the society of Dionysiac worshipe
broadest sense and to his state of mind, Pentheus'
theatrical in that it demonstrates the condition of and the constraints
upon the dramatis personae. Pentheus desires to become a spectator o
the metatheatrical drama on the mountain, and for him to do so woul
mean ceasing to be an actor while gaining the ability to "authorize a
view" (Browne 1986,109). But it is precisely this that he fails to do. Th
thrust of the metatheatrical commentary here suggests that he simpl
cannot leave behind?even temporarily?his position as a figure const
tuted and determined by his status as actor in the drama; he can only re?
main "within the drama," his perceptions, understanding, and speech
bounded by the greater and more comprehensive view of the real spec
tators, the invisible audience in the theater. As Bierl comments con
cerning Pentheus' fall from atop the fir tree, the moment which graphi-
cally marks the reversal of Pentheus' status, turning spectator into actor,

13Foley reads Pentheus' demise as following on his status as "an enemy to festival"
and his "attempt to exclude festival and its benefits from his recently formed and crude
hierarchical city" (1985, 231, 241). On Pentheus' psychological state see, e.g., Seidensticker
1972; Sale 1972; LaRue 1968.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
346 JAMES BARRETT

"Der Sturz symbolisiert die Tatsac

Buhne geworfen wird, wo er 'mit
privilege of the anonymous and un
and judge the dramatis personae, w
tors onstage, and the failure of P
theatrically enacts and reaffirms thi
If it seems tautologous to argue
abandon his position as actor to be
this claim lies in what it says abou
is, if Pentheus' failure to become
metatheatrical terms, the success
ruled out on the same grounds. In
does succeed and in so doing threat
possible on the tragic stage: contra
occupies a position substantially "ou
spectator status and remains invis
these counts, furthermore, has ach
cism.) Indeed, the play-within-the
to watch unseen is not entirely off
sonae. And the case of the first m
the activities of the Maenads on Mo
vant is not the only messenger endow
ship which is marked by a virtual i

THE HERDSMAN

The herdsman arrives to tell of the marvels performed

chants, and although he does not tell us explicitly where h
infer that he was with the cattle he mentions at 677-78.
tion seems evident a bit later, when he and his fellow h

14As he is about to meet his end Pentheus tries yet again to escape th
his status by removing his mitra (1115-16): in metatheatrical terms he att
his costume (Segal 1982, 228). Foley points out that Pentheus' opposition to
pressed primarily as a failure of sight, or a failure to benefit from the
Theoria, as we have seen, implies a privileged kind of viewing, such as t
ence in the theater. Vernant (1990, 43) describes the relation of the audien
tants of the fictional world in complementary terms. On Vernant's formu
see now Gould 1996, 218-21, and Goldhill 1996, 244-46.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 347

(722-23). Indirectly, then, we get an idea of where

events which make up his story.
This position remains virtually unchanged until 73
him (with the other herdsmen) fleeing the attacki
we do not hear where they go, Dodds (1960 ad 751-
them to flee toward Thebes.15 After describing th
the herdsman proceeds to tell of the "flight" of the w

XO)Qoi3oL S' wox' OQviGeg aQGetom Sq6[xco

jteSioov vjtoxdaeig, al Jtao' Aaamoij QoaTg
evxaQjtov expdXAovai OrjPaioov oxdyvv
eYaidg x' 'EQuGgdg G', al KiGaiQoovog Xijtag
veoGev xax(pxr|xaaiv, waxe jtoXifxioi,
ejteajteaoiJaai Jtdvx' dvoo xe xai xdxco
Siec^eoov. (748-54)
Like birds aloft they spe
abundant Theban crop
they fell upon Hysia an
and turned them all up

Even if we take into

herdsmen "would pass
flight," it would be eas
have witnessed all that
flew "like birds."16 No
which is standard for a
curs?but the context makes clear that even if he had tried he would
not have succeeded: the special power of Dionysos was obviously t
enabling force for the women.17
His account of the women's return to the spot where his narrat

15Seaford concurs (1996 ad 748-52).

16Roux (1970 ad loc.) remarks: "il ne s'agit pas ici d'une simple figure de style, m
d'un nouveau miracle."

17Verrall (1910, 86) takes a different view, rejecting the herdsman's report as un
lievable: "The man does not know what he saw, and is not making any attempt to cons
his memory and reproduce the record." Oranje, however, dismisses Verrall's argum
claiming that by means of "the messenger speech the spectator comes face to face
events in the play which are enacted off-stage. The level of reality cannot be tamp
with" (1984, 74 n. 183).

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
348 JAMES BARRETT

begins is equally unrealistic, for

there, but that they went to the sp

naXiv 6' ex&Qovv 66ev exivrjoav J

XQrrvac; ejt' auxctg ac; avfjx' auxalg
vi/ipavxo 6' alfxa, axayova 6' ex jtaQ
yX(boox\ 6QaxovT8g e^e^ai&Qvvov XQ00S- (765-68)
They turned back whence they had come, to the very springs the go
made flow for them. They washed off the blood, and snakes licke
the drippings from their cheeks.

If, as Dodds suggests, the herdsman fled to Thebes immediately afte

attempted ambush of Agave, he would not have been once again
mountain to witness this.
It would be easy to show that this messenger's narrative clearly ex-
ceeds what he could realistically know.18 But my interest is not to prove
the messenger a liar. This would tell us little, if anything. The impor?
tance of the remarks above lies in what they tell us about the messen?
ger's self-representation. Here we see him appropriating a freedom of
movement within the scene he describes that is clearly the province of
one not confined by the limits placed on a "real" eyewitness: indeed, as
his comparison of the women's flight to that of birds recalls certain
Homeric similes, so his freedom from the realistic constraints of the
scene he describes and his virtually disembodied presence at that scene
recall the narrative practice of the epic bard.19 He claims a place within
his narrative that at once allows him to see and prevents us from seeing
him.
The absence of any indication of his whereabouts after line 734
(where he and the other herdsmen are pursued by the women) aids his
project greatly. He tells us only that he went away from the spot of the
ambush, without indicating a direction. Agave, it seems, has chased the
messenger not only out of his ambush, but out of the narrative alto-
gether. For the remainder of the narrative there are no first-person ex-

18Dodds remarks: "The Herdsman is allowed to round off his narrative by describ-
ing what he cannot well have seen" (1960 ad 765-68). And surely he is right to add that
this "is not unusual, and does not authorize us to regard him as a liar."
19 See Barrett (1995, 550-54) for a discussion of epic narrative and that of the mes?
senger in Aeschylus' Persians.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 349

pressions, and indications of what he saw are either

by oblique or impersonal means. For example, he t

xai xfjv [xev dv Jtooaetdec; evGnXov jtoqiv

\xvK(x)\xEvr\v exovaav ev xbqoTv 6i^a-20 (737-38)
And you would have beheld her holding the well-teated, mooing h
torn apart in her hands-

Not much later he employs an impersonal expression:

ovmg xo 6eivov f)v Gea^i' I6etv, dva?. (760)

Then there was a terrifying sight to behold, lord.

These subtle forms of self-excision aid in his perform

miracle of locomotion as he tracks with his narrative the miraculous
deeds of the Bacchants.21
These references to impersonal vision (760) and to what "you"
would have seen (737-38, 740) serve another function as well. This de-
tachment from his own point of view of what the messenger claims to
have seen seeks to normalize his privileged status. "You, too," he tells
Pentheus, "would have seen all this." But as will become clear, Pentheus
would not (and in the end did not). Pentheus, most of all, would not
have seen. When he does finally get a view of the women, he says:

ovx e^ixvov^ai ^aivddcov ooooig voGoov. (1060)

I am not able to reach the impostor Maenads with my eyes.

This invocation of Pentheus' potential (safe) witnessing o

herdsman saw?the very witnessing which becomes the ob
theus' desire, central to the metatheatrical manipulations
makes clear the privilege inherent in the messenger's visi
status as spectator.
The narrative of the herdsman, however, also offers a
lenge to my claims about the play's messengers. He tells

20Similarly at 740, el6eg 6' dv.

21 This is not to deny that these lines may serve other purposes as we
it is clear that the herdsman's use of the second-person encourages
Pentheus' desire to see the women himself.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
350 JAMES BARRETT

and his comrades watched the mir

they hid in ambush, and attempted
the invisible spectator, this messen
the action as he leaps at Pentheu
scene appears to confirm Buxton
"stand firmly within the drama," it
does not successfully attain the rol
For the first thirty-nine lines of
hear of only one herdsman, namely
when he says, for example, that he
chants. After describing in detail t
on the mountain, he turns to speak
Suddenly we find that he was not

?vvr|X,6o[iev de |3ovx6X.oi xai Jtoifxev

xoivcov Xoyoov dobaovxec; aXkrikoiq eq
(bg 6eivd 6qq)oi Bavfxdxoov x' ejtd^ia. (714-16)
We cowherds and shepherds assembled to compete with eac
tales of their terrifying and amazing deeds.

At the moment when we first hear of their discussion and

ambush of the Bacchants, these intrusive elements?which
tion to the action of the messenger rather than to his vi
deflect our attention from its focus on the messenger onto
a whole. The quoted speech at 718-21 directs our attention
men and away from the women, but as it does so it somew
the messenger himself by offering us the words of anothe
the group. We hear one of the herdsmen speak, but the narrat
remains "silent": it is the urbane herdsman who speaks:

xai xig 7ikavr\c, xax' aoxv xai xql(3o)v Xoycov

eXe^ev ek; ajtavxac;- (717-18)
And someone who wanders through
spoke to everyone-

The group, swayed by the slick talk

719) the women, and they therefore
"Le berger impie reprend les p
232)," remarks Roux (1970 ad 719), a

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 351

forme moins dramatique le sort qui attend Penthee,"

observation on the part of the spectator in its sel

Gdfxvcov 6' eMoxi^o^iev (f>6paic;

XQtJipavxeg avxovg. (722-23)
We hid in the foliage of the bushes, co

But the hiding and mere observation

their ritual shaking of the thyrsoi an
near the herdsman and he springs for
to the fact that he acts alone (xdycb,
the initial oqoo of line 680?and also f
proper?he uses the first-person sing

xuQel 6' Ayavrj jiXnaiov QQCpaxouad \

xdycb '?ejtr|6r]o' obc; avvaQjtdom GeXcov
>.6x^T]v xevcbaac; evG' exQirnxofinv 6e^iag. (728-30)
Agave came leaping near me and I, wanting to grab her, sprang fo
from the thicket where I was hiding.

As he leaps out of the bushes, he ceases to be a mere witness, an

emphasizes this in distinguishing himself again from the group of her
men. As he leaves behind the literal cover of the ambush, he aban
the status achieved by the messenger who reports the death of P
theus: his attempt to catch Agave marks his attempt to become an
in his narrative and the focus of our attention. The impact of this
toward involvement in the action is augmented by the physical fact th
his leap takes him from his place of hiding, where he has been vir
invisible.
The herdsman's role as near-protagonist (of his narrative), how?
ever, is short-lived and finds a telling end. At this charged moment,
with the messenger suspended in midair, his account turns to Agave:

f] 6' dvepdnoev rQ 6Qo^id6eg e^iai xvvec;,

GnQcb^ieG' dvdocov xcovd' vn9, aXk' ejteaGe ^ioi,
ejreoGe GtJQaoic; 6id %EQ<bv dmXianevai. (731-33)
And she howled: "My running dogs, we are being hunted by these
But follow me, follow armed with your thyrsoi."

22See also Buxton 1991, 42-43.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
352 JAMES BARRETT

The herdsman remains aloft, "wa

Agave. Precisely at the moment w
to take part in the action he finds
leap that never reaches its target, I s
tus of this (and the later) messeng
disembodiment which both makes
described and also denies him the a
ports. Indeed, one might with pro
Akhilles' frustrated attempt to em
sleep (//. 23.99-101) or that of Ody
embrace the shade of his mother (
ers reach toward a realm that is off-
tempts to leap from his position as
As the text shows that this leap does
it cannot succeed: not only does th
cess to the kind of privileged spec
this privilege marks him as a figure
What next transpired we do not
the herdsman gives way to a colo
lowing Agave's remark:

flfxelc; \xev ovv cfjevyovxec; eE,r\kv'E)a\i

(3axx?v ojraQayfxov.... (734-35)
We fled and escaped the bacchic sparag

Given that the Bacchants possess rema

have been a trivial affair for the herdsm
tion the plausibility of their escape to n
ting the stage for his attack and insinu
his story, the herdsman suddenly cease
The sudden and dramatic appearance of
story?xdycb '^8Jtr|6ria'?calling attent
narrative, vanishes as quickly as it com
upon the herdsman as would-be actor in
ponder the absence of any interaction
And this absence repeats and extends th

23 Cf. Antikleia's explanation of the gap betwe

6ixn eoxi Pqotcov, emphasizing the impropriety, or

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 353

he fails to occupy the position of actor and instea

eyewitness (and narrator).
That the two messengers together share the pr
ship and occupy a realm that is off-limits to Pen
clearer by the journey of Pentheus from Thebes
For it is the first angelia that brings Pentheus to t
The first messenger's narrative not only introduces t
senger as hidden spectator; it also paints a picture
shortly after will so eagerly want to see. Or, it offer
Pentheus (mis)takes for aiaxQOUQyia (1062). Upon
messenger's report, Pentheus immediately ord
women. But this plan is short-lived. Dionysos inter
to make a deal which Pentheus suspects is a trick,
Pentheus with a private viewing. It is, of course, this
Pentheus latches onto, revealing his profound curi

Al: PoijXt] 0(j)' ev oqcoi ouyxaGrjLievac; I6elv;

Ile: LidXiaxa, livqlov ye bovq %qvoov oxaGtiov. (811-12)
Dion. Do you want to see them sitting together in the mountains?
Pen. Definitely. I'd give a lot of gold.

These lines have been much discussed, with attention paid to the verb
of seeing and its implications for a psychological study of Pentheus.24 If
it is profitable to read Dionysos' offer with emphasis on the final wor
(i5eiv), we should also remember that Pentheus has just been presente
with a lengthy and marvelous portrait of 0(j)' ev opeor auyxaOr^xevag
Pentheus' fascination, well-described by Dodds, seizes upon the possi
bility of seeing what he has just heard.25
Pentheus' desire to see for himself what the herdsman has alread
seen confirms what becomes clear in the second angelia: namely, th
the status of spectator aimed at by Pentheus strongly resembles and
modeled on the privileged position of the messenger(s). The first mes
senger's narrative, then, occurs as the anticipation of Pentheus' desir
it not only gives rise and structure to his desire but makes it overwhelm-

24Dodds remarks: "It is the answer, if not of a maniac, at least of a man whose re-
actions are ceasing to be normal: the question has touched a hidden spring in Penthe
mind, and his self-mastery vanishes" (1960 ad loc). See Segal 1982, 225; Gregory 1985, 2
25McDonald comments: "Penthee ne peut tirer un enseignement d'une parabole o
de la parole. II ne croit que ce qu'il voit..." (1992, 233).

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 354 JAMES BARRETT

ing: he must see what occasions th

original moment witnessed by the
second messenger succeeding whe
have come full circle.26 It is the p
they alone?share that is the objec

CONCLUSION

I have shown that we need not look outside of the play its
model of what Pentheus seeks in metatheatrical terms: his desire to be?
come a spectator clearly aims at acquiring the kind of privileged view
point that the messengers have. If the play's metatheater reveals that
the two messengers mark out and occupy the position of "spectator-
in-the-text," it remains to ask whether the play's reflections upon th
status of the spectator extend to tragedy more broadly, whether, that is,
other tragic messengers share the privilege accorded these figures in
Bacchae. Answering this question would require, needless to say,
much larger study. Here I simply offer the results of this analysis a
a model for approaching the messenger elsewhere and suggest briefl
how this model may be more broadly relevant.
Metatheater enacts a form of commentary on the institution of
theater per se and thereby invites examination of theatrical perfor?
mance in the terms set forth by the metatheater. In this way we may
consider, for example, the theatrical audience in terms of Pentheus' suf
fering and ask whether their/our experience is in some sense a meta?
phorical sparagmos;27 or we may examine the festival context of the
tragic performances in terms of Bacchae's complex metatheatrical ex
ploitation of festival and ritual themes.28 Similarly, the metatheater's
incorporation of the familiar figure of the messenger invites us to exam?
ine the conventional messenger as a tragic "institution" in terms of th
play's presentation of the servant (and the herdsman).29 Such an exam
ination, I suggest, would show that the metatheater here reveals how

26As Foley observes: "The first messenger-speech gives Pentheus the precise sce-
nario for his own death" (1985, 244). See also de Jong 1992, 574, 579-80.
27As Segal suggests (1982, 218 and 225); cf. Foley 1985, 220.
28As Foley does so well (1985, 205-58).
29It is true that insofar as the servant acts as spectator in the metatheater the text
also invites us to examine the role of the audience in the terms set forth by the servant's
role in this capacity. I take up this issue below.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 355

tragic messengers acquire the privilege of spectato

to their successful functioning in their appointe
form of autopsy that makes the tragic messenger
bodies the very principles of spectatorship evide
theater. Specifically, the narrative strategies as h
plicit claim of a virtually disembodied status; a co
the events narrated; a position noticeably "outside
haps, the borrowing of features of epic narrative
the tragic messenger's claim to the privileged sta
tator. As such, elements constitutive of the trag
appear in the metatheater underlined by the p
spectatorship as central to Dionysos' manipulation
thermore, in presenting a messenger outside t
herdsman) who shares essential traits with and w
functions in some senses in tandem with the messen
theater (the servant), the play as a whole suggests
cal interest in the messenger applies more broad
two messengers to their shared status of unseen s
to consider this status as one that goes beyond eit
individuals.31

30 Although many critics have understood the tragic messe

of "transparent window upon the truth" (Michelini 1982, 75
whose second chapter takes aim at what she calls the "objectiv
marks of Oranje (above, note 17)?there has to date been little
senger's discursive privilege, even if illusory, is produced. S
61-63. Many of the formal features of this conventional figure
in particular Knox 1948; Keller 1959; Erdmann 1964; Stanley-Por
ular qualities to which I here refer have not been studied. I wou
ics who have read tragic messenger-speeches as transparent
cisely because of the strategies here identified. This, however,
Let me here simply suggest that we can see confirmation of th
in the tragic messenger's claim to invisible eyewitness statu
Orestes, as the Phrygian exangelos tells his improbable story, t
asking, ov 6' r\oQa nov tot'; (1425). Here, the barb goes straight
claim of a status that answers weil to the description "disemb
loc. Winnington-Ingram reads this performance as a sign of
134-35; cf. 130-32). On parody and the self-reflectiveness of thi
31 It is possible, of course, to point to moments of explicit
messenger-speeches, as it is possible to perform the kind of
1991, discerning traces of any given messenger's focalization. M
messengers always unproblematically achieve the status de
Rather, I would suggest that one strategy of the tragic messen

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 356 JAMES BARRETT

This essay principally addresse

Bacchae. In claiming that the met
the messenger as a "spectator-in-
also raises a question concerning w
the audience seated in the Theate
messenger an enlightening model
though I have argued that within
Pentheus stands out as a would-b
that in some ways he is a more co
theater than is the messenger. With
sees, we are in the same positio
from recovering the original mom
too, must remain satisfied with h
observed, Pentheus' status as spec
of the sparagmos symbolically re
ence in the theater: "In order for the 'sacrifice' at the center of the
rite-spectacle to work for them [the audience], they too must rel
quish some of their distance; they must become participants" (198
225).32
But if it is fruitful to consider Pentheus as a model of the theatri-
cal audience, it is equally compelling to consider this group in terms of
the messenger's status as spectator. The latter, that is, does contribute to
the metatheater's construction of the audience's role. And as this dou-
bling of metatheatrical spectators suggests, the audience in the theat
experiences more than a symbolic sparagmos. Just as the servant ap
propriates the vocabulary of the theater (or pilgrimage) in order to
buttress his claim of privileged spectatorship (OewQia at 1047), so t
metatheater reaffirms the status of the audience members as theoroi
endowed with the qualities displayed by the messenger. The theater
dience, the metatheater tells us, is made up not only of a group of

in a variety of ways, most of which remain implicit. (I hasten to add that this strategy
not the only one employed by tragic messengers. They must also, for example, estab
their status as eyewitnesses to the events reported, and this imperative can conflict wi
the claim to the kind of spectatorship discussed here.) Elsewhere (Barrett 1995) I have a
gued that the messenger in Aeschylus' Persians constructs for himself a similarly pr
leged position as spectator in his narrative. This argument, however, draws heavily on
Persian messenger's use of epic narrative style.
32Much the same might be said of the audience from an Aristotelian point of vie
experiencing pity and fear is a form of such "participation."

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 357

dividuals succumbing to emotional and psycholog

consists also of those engaged in a collective, tran
what is staged. That is, not only are the spectators in
like Pentheus, to become "actors"; they also comm
sive, masterful view while they are endowed with th
vulnerability of the messenger on Mount Cithaero
The metatheater, then, posits an audience with
both participant and observer.33 This double statu
of the ambiguity of performance in the theater:
speaking truth;34 as representation endowed with
the pretense of actors which manages to elicit the
the action's reality.
If it seems unremarkable that the metatheater
a view of the theatrical audience, it is important
nificance of the inclusion of this twofold audienc
the-play. By incorporating the messenger as spect
extends its interest in the audience beyond the ps
tional as it exhibits a keen awareness of the audience's civic role. Just as
theoria implies a civic purpose expressed in the eyewitness' report, so
the messenger shows himself to be adept at turning spectatorship into
narrative. And as theoria is the distinctive mark of both messenger and
audience, we may read the metatheater's treatment of spectatorship as
including an indication of the civic charge inherent in such spectator?
ship: the audience members, as theoroi, are granted a privileged, con-
templative view and are endowed with both the ability and the re-
sponsibility to "report" what they have seen. As such, the metatheater
pictures tragedy both as an occasion of Dionysiac experience, however
mediated in its theatrical form, and as the subject of contemplation and
public discourse.35
As such, the metatheatrical handling of spectatorship posits a con?
tinuity between the experience of the audience in the theater and life in
the city. And this continuity bridges to some extent the "gap between
the power of illusion within the fiction and the power of the fiction to

33This is perhaps appropriate for a drama so concerned with doubling. See Segal
1982, 27-54; Foley 1985, 241-43.
34Cf. Segal 1982, 232-40.
35 The herdsman announces as much soon after entering: fjxoo fygaoai aoi xai jto^ei
XQf^cov (666).

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
358 JAMES BARRETT

convey truth," which gap, Segal ar

(1982, 237). Segal sees this disjunct

Through his metatragic criss-crossi

ticipant and spectator, fiction and
tance between what can be lived and what can be said, what can be
grasped by the symbolic fictions of poetic representation and what can be
communicated in everyday language. How much of what we experience in
the theater (of Dionysus) can we bring into the rest of our lives? Does the
self that surrenders to the power of the Dionysiac illusion overlap with
the self that performs the daily responsibilities of worker, citizen, spouse,
parent, friend? Pentheus and Agave's experience does not leave us san-
guine. (1982,236-37)

But that of the messenge

sentation of spectatorsh
we are able to narrow Se
sentation of the audienc
this gap: as "victim" of a
power of Dionysiac illusi
ship into "narrative," tr
subject of public discourse

University of Mississippi
e-mail: jasb@olemiss.edu

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barlow, Shirley A. 1971. The Imagery of Euripides: A Study in t

of Pictorial Language. London: Methuen.
Barrett, James. 1995. "Narrative and the Messenger in Aesch
AJP 116:539-57.
Bierl, Anton F. H. 1991. Dionysos und die griechische Tragodie: Politische und
"metatheatralische" Aspekte im Text. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Browne, Nick. 1986. "The Spectator-in-the-Text: The Rhetoric of Stagecoach."
In Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A Film Theory Reader, edited by Philip
Rosen, 102-19. New York: Columbia University Press.

361 thank Pietro Pucci, the Editor, and an anonymous referee for their helpful com?
ments and suggestions.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PENTHEUS AND THE SPECTATOR 359

Buxton, Richard. 1991. "News from Cithaeron: Narrator

Bacchae." Pallas 37:39-48.
De Jong, Irene J. F. 1991. Narrative in Drama: The Art ofthe Euripidean
ger-Speech. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
-. 1992. "Recit et drame: le deuxieme recit de messager dans Les Bac-
chantes." REG 105:572-83.
Dodds, E. R. 1960. Euripides' Bacchae. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford Univers
Press.

Erdmann, G. 1964. Der Botenbericht bei Euripides: Struktur und dramatische

Funktion. Diss. Kiel.
Foley, Helene. 1980. "The Masque of Dionysus." TAPA 110:107-33.
-. 1985. Ritual Irony: Poetry and Sacrifice in Euripides. Ithaca: Cornell Uni
versity Press.
Goldhill, Simon. 1996. "Collectivity and Otherness?The Authority of the
Tragic Chorus: Response to Gould." In Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek
Theatre and Beyond, edited by M. S. Silk, 244-56. Oxford: Oxford Uni?
versity Press.
Gould, John. 1996. "Tragedy and Collective Experience." In Tragedy and the
Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond, edited by M. S. Silk, 217-43. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gregory, Justina. 1985. "Some Aspects of Seeing in Euripides' Bacchae." G&R
32:23-31.
Heath, Malcolm. 1987. The Poetics of Greek Tragedy. London: Duckworth.
Keller, J. 1959. Struktur und dramatische Funktion des Botenberichtes beiAischy-
los und Sophokles. Diss. Tubingen.
Knox, B. M. W. 1948. Traditional Structure and Formula in the Tragic Messenger
Speech. Diss. Yale.
LaRue, Jene. 1968. "Prurience Uncovered: The Psychology of Euripides' Pen?
theus." CJ 63:209-14.
McDonald, Marianne. 1992. "L'extase de Penthee: ivresse et representation
dans Les Bacchantes d'Euripide." Pallas 38:227-37.
Massenzio, Marcello. 1969. "Cultura e crisi permanente: la 'Xenia' Dionysiaca."
SMSR 40:27-113.
Michelini, Ann N 1982. Tradition and Dramatic Form in the Persians of Aesc
lus. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nagy, Gregory. 1985. "Theognis and Megara: A Poet's Vision of His City." In
Theognis of Megara: Poetry and the Polis, edited by Thomas J. Figueira
and Gregory Nagy, 22-81. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
-. 1990. Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore
and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Oranje, Hans. 1984. Euripides' Bacchae: The Play and Its Audience. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
360 JAMES BARRETT

Roux, Jeanne. 1970 and 1972. Eurip

Lettres.

Sale, William. 1972. "The Psychoanalysis of Pentheus in the Bacchae of Euripi?

des." YCS 22:63-82.
Seaford, Richard. 1996. Euripides: Bacchae. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
Segal, Charles. 1982. Dionysiac Poetics and Euripides' Bacchae. Princ
Princeton University Press.
Seidensticker, Bernd. 1972. "Pentheus." Poetica 5:35-63.
Stanley-Porter, D. P. 1968. Messenger-Scenes in Euripides. Diss. London.
Vernant, Jean-Pierre. 1990. "Tensions and Ambiguities in Greek Tragedy
Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece, edited by Jean-Pierre Vernan
Pierre Vidal-Naquet, 29-48. New York: Zone Books.
Verrall, A. W 1910. The Bacchants of Euripides and Other Essays. Cambr
Cambridge University Press.
Willink, C W 1986. Euripides: Orestes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winnington-Ingram, R. P. 1969. "Euripides, Poietes Sophos." Arethusa 2:1
Zeitlin, Froma 1.1980. "The Closet of Masks: Role-Playing and Myth-M
in the Orestes of Euripides." Ramus 9:51-77.

This content downloaded from

200.123.191.1 on Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:20:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms