Christ's Church and Eternity; Augustine, City of God (2B) A quickish guide

Why you might read the City of God?

The City of God is one of the oldest well known Christian theological works outside the Bible. Augustine is considered one of the church fathers. His work helps to expand on the Bible. In doing so he sets the foundation for theologians to come after him.

As history, it gives a snapshot of the Roman empire. It does this by reacting to what is going on in the empire. It also gives us a snapshot of early Christian Theology. Thus, we can compare to modern-day examples.

The Story of the City of God

Book XVII:

This book covers, from the establishment of the kingship to the minor and major prophets. Augustine is focused on the prophecies of Christ and his bride, the Church. He starts with David and his reign and what the prophets said to and about David and his son Solomon. 

He then sidesteps and spends some time in David's own prophetic works, the Psalms. He attributes all 150 psalms to David. He then picks a few out for specific treatment.  In an aside, he apologises to those of his readers who know more about the psalms. This aside explains why he is not more thorough in his dealings with the psalms, that this explanation does not fit into his purview of this work.

He finishes up with the works of Solomon, both of the canon and deuterocanonical. From these works, he pulls the prophecies of Christ and his church.

Augustine does not spend much time on the prophets themselves. He sees the prophets as more straight forward. Simpler in the understanding of their allegory and simpler to discern where there is an allegory. Where there is historical fact and where there is both. It brings us to the New Testament but does seem to leave quite a bit lacking. 

Book XVIII:

The first half of this book is dedicated to going through biblical times and placing the Kings of Israel. Then, matching those Kings with their Assyrian and Roman counterparts. The translation notes say that only some of these are correct but they were correct at the time Augustine wrote them. Augustine then moves onto the prophets. His main point is, to show how the prophets prophesied Christ. He continues to give a list of kings of Isreal and Judah, as well as every prophet in the scriptures.

Augustine spends the tail end of this book discussing and refuting some pagan heresy. These are around the length of Christianity's survival. He also deals again with heresy inside the church. He discusses the accepted, even today, idea that some in the church are not true disciples.

Book XIX:

This book starts with a secular look at the Supreme Good and the Supreme Evil. Augustine defines the Supreme Good as what is to be desired and the Supreme Evil as what is to be avoided. He first discusses the philosopher's definitions of good and evil. Though they do differ, they can be distilled down to the two ideas of virtue and pleasure. 

He continues in the following chapters to contrast this with the Christian view. This is the view that the Supreme Good is to praise and worship God. As well as that, all other things (like virtue) flow out of this, rather than being things to pursue in their own right. 

The rest of the book flutters through a range of topics from friendship to allegiances. From war, to slavery, to sin. Finally, from hope to oracles about Christ, from those worshipping other "gods".

Augustine finishes off this book with a discussion of eternal life. For believers the felicity with God. And for non-believers in eternal separation and the "second death". 

Book XX:

This book deals with the final judgement and the resurrection of the body, as part of the final judgement. Augustine starts with the book of Revelations, then progresses on to support his view with the Old Testament books of Daniel, Isaiah and Malachi. His view is centred around the idea that Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. He spends some time discussing whether those living will die and then be resurrected. He concludes that this is most likely as the prophecy's all talk about the resurrection of all humans. He explains that being caught up in the air is the death phase for those still alive at the time of the resurrection.

He also spends some time on the 1000 years that the devil is bound. He questions whether that is the same as the 1000 years that the church and Christ reign before the final judgement. Finally, he weakly concludes that they must be the same: that the three and a half years the devil is loosed must be either included or directly after the 1000 years but that the 1000 years cannot be precise. This is because scripture says that no one knows the day or time of the second coming but God himself. We see 1000 years used approximately in other parts of scripture as well.

Book XXI:

This book is focused on the eternal damnation of those who are not Christians. As well as the various heresies that had come up against the eternal nature of the fire. Also, whether God in his mercy could ever leave someone in the fire.

First, Augustine combats the non-believers' objections to the eternal fires of hell. In doing this, he goes off on a seeming tangent into the wonders found in the world. The eventual point of this tangent is that the pagans are quick to believe those wonders. Even though they seem to be contrary to nature and logic. How can they then refuse to believe in hell and its conditions? When their objection is that its existence is illogical and unnatural.

Then he gets into the meat of his argument. He is against the idea that eternal damnation would be escapable for unbelievers. But that through a raft of possible avenues they would only serve some time in the fires. If this is true of unbelievers, would God's grace not extend to the demons and to Satan himself? He counters this with scripture which describes hell as both eternal and going on forever and ever. He concludes that these other ideas are heretical, that is contrary to scripture. He also concludes that there is no basis for them.

Book XXII:

Augustine wanders a little bit in this book. But his main focus is the fate of Christians and what eternal life will look like. 

Miracles are dwelt on at some length. Augustine first spends a large amount of time recounting miracles. These were miracles he had either known about or heard about. His point was to show that miracles of God were still evident in his time and that their purpose is to point people towards Christ. He contrasts these miracles of God with the work of the demons. The demon's works are always of lesser impact and often not being a full blessing. He points to the Egyptian magicians in the Exodus account. How there "miracles" were of lesser scale. As well as the possible use of trickery in their ability to replicate the plagues.

He then returns to the question of bodily resurrection. He refutes the Platonists who argue that something physical can not be made eternal as well as those who deny we will have a any physical body after the Resurrection. He then spends some time talking through what exactly our bodies will look like. Will we all be made equal? Do we take the idea literally of being made like His son? Is there still male and female?

He concludes that we will have our own bodies, that there will be male and female and that we will be fully formed and adult in our prime.

He finishes with a short discussion of eternal life as the perpetual sabbath for man and God's good.

What others have to say about the City of God

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says "The monumental apologetic treatise De civitate dei (City of God) argues that happiness can be found neither in the Roman nor the philosophical tradition but only through membership in the city of God whose founder is Christ."

And from Columbia College, "To do this, Augustine puts forth two main arguments in City of God. The first speaks directly to those who had criticized the Christian God for failing to protect Rome and its citizens."

Reflections on the City of God

Book XVII:

It struck me that Augustine believed all the Psalms to be written by David though he remarked carefully that others disagreed with him. The rebuttal he offered for known challenges was uncharacteristically weak.  He uses the prophetic nature of some to try and pass off the uses of names from later periods. In modern times the first half of Psalms is generally attributed to David. While the second half to an author or authors unknown.

It seems at times in Augustine's writing that he is grasping a little. Grasping to call sections prophetic of Christ and the Church. He seems to be of the opinion that every piece of the Old Testament can be interpreted as prophetic. While some modern scholars agree, there is also a lot who would say that it is stretching. 

Book XVIII:

 Augustine argues that the Septuagint is divinely inspired in its translation. It was ascribed to 72 translators that translated separately.  Yet they came to the exact same version of the translation. This has been debunked in more modern times. Found to be unsupported by the historical evidence. He tries to explain the differences between the two translations of the day. These being the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The Vulgate was, in Augustine's time, recently translated from the Hebrew. The Septuagint by contrast was translated through two languages. He tries to show both being true even though they were different. He seems to not want to discredit the older translation. It is more commonly acknowledged now, that there were errors in the Septuagint. These errors mainly arose from double translation. It is also acknowledged that the Vulgate was more accurate to the original Hebrew texts.

Augustine also spends some time refuting the 10 persecutions theory. This theory was common in his day. He does so by pointing out that it makes little sense to start from the Roman persecutions. Because the martyrdom of the early church needs to be taken into account. This is an interesting heresy around when Christ will return. It is not one we would tend to be taken in by today. Not because we are any smarter or more Godly. But rather that we have the evidence of many, many persecutions all around the world to look to. 

Book XIX:

The hard thing about this book has been a plethora of topics. This time I'm struggling to see a central connecting thread. It's not the first time that Augustine has spanned a huge amount of topics. But, previously, I found it a little easier to see his central topic.

Augustine's comments on the Oracles about Christ from outside the Hebrew scriptures. This is quite interesting to me and I'll do a little more research into it at a later date. It would be interesting to know if they were actually written before the time of Christ. I wonder if, with a modern understanding, they are now seen to be retrospective of that time. The other possibility is that Augustine has overreached. The Oracles may not be about Christ but are just that normal level of vague that we see from ancient world Oracles.

There is also the chapter on an Oracle of Apollo. A man asks the Oracle what should he do about his wife being Christian. The Oracle advised that he should leave her because of the Christian faith. He is quoted as saying "let her go as she pleases, persisting in her vain delusions." This gives us an interesting view of how Christianity was seen by the Greeks in antiquity. It would also be very interesting to know Augustine's source. 

Book XX:

Augustine believed the 1000 years that the Devil was bound had started. This, in the bible, is directly before the last judgement.  We can see now, in modern times, that one of two things is true due to the final coming not having come yet. One that he was wrong and we will see this binding of the devil at a later date. Two that 1000 years is a very approximate time in this part of scripture. In saying that the bible does also say that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord. So who knows how long in absolute terms the 1000 years in the text is. But to take most of the bible literally you can't pick and choose too much on what is and isn't literal. I tend to think he was mistaken in thinking that the 1000 years had begun.

Book XXI:

Augustine's conclusions in this book are correct about these heresies. He does not deal with the grief and disbelief that goes with the formulations of those heresies. That those unbelievers are destined for suffering in the fires of hell for all eternity is hard to grasp. For the unbeliever, it can bring him to faith with fear of that eternity. But for the Christian, it holds fear for others. We want there to be a way for those who do enough good or those who are loved by us to still go to eternal bliss with God. And being fundamentally lovers of God we try to wrestle with not seeing them again in eternity. This can feel that God is being too harsh or unmerciful. We must remember that God's mercies are for this life and that we as believers have a duty to help others into belief. This is the time of opportunity not after they have fallen to the first death. If we hold instead to these heresies, we will miss the opportunities now. 

Book XXII:

The sheer amount of miracles recalled and written by Augustine is astounding. The great thing is that he does not lose sight of the purpose of those miracles, to bring people to faith. His discussion on whether we would have physical bodies was an eye-opener. I had not considered any reason that they wouldn't be. That is the simplest reading of the text. The views he disputed brought the discussion back to that simple reading of the text. 

While I do not think the Ages of Revelation and the Church is analogous to the 7 days of the week.  I especially do not think the Sabbath holds as much weight as Augustine thinks it does. It is still interesting to look at the Resurrection as a perpetual sabbath. That is as the perpetual Day of the Lord. A perpetual time of being with and praising God in all His goodness and majesty. I don't remember there being anything in the scriptures about the week being done away with. That would suggest that work 6 days and rest one as the Sabbath would continue. Work would be fulfilling and with our eyes fixed on God.

Comparisons with Other Texts

Again I will only be comparing this book to itself. This is due to my lack of peripheral knowledge due to starting this list before finishing my BC list. 

Augustine continues in dealing more with scripture as we have seen in the first half of this Part. Again he does occasionally reference Plato or other philosophers. He does spend more time focused on Heaven and Hell.  Which to my way of thinking is more of what he has said he is setting out to do. 

Unlike Dante's Divine Comedy, Augustine's versions of heaven and hell are more in line with the bible. He does not posit a Purgatory which is an idea that came to rise in the Church between Augustine's and Dante's times. Augustine is a Bishop of the Church in his own time. Dante is a layman with an over-inflated sense of his own place in the world and history. It is no wonder their views on heaven and hell differ. For more on the works of Dante have a look at some of my earlier posts. Have a look at the discussion on the first book of the divine comedy,  The Inferno.

Conclusion

We have finally finished the City of God, thanks for sticking with me. We have looked at the final six books of this text. This is where Augustine finally gets into describing Heaven and Hell. He spends time dealing with heresies. These heresies are ones he sees around him, and some we still see today. Augustine has been focused and unfocused at different points in the work. His main point through the whole book has been, join the city of God. That is, join with Christ.

Have you read The City of God? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read The City of God but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of the City of God 

Tragedy after hope; Everything you need to know about Heracles by Euripides and why you'll want to add it to your Self Education

Changes

What's new? 

I've made some changes to the blog. First I've changed up the formating which I hope will make it easier to read. Second I've added some new sections. I hope these changes can increase clarity and interest value. 

Why might you read Heracles?

This book is one of the main sources for this part of the Herculean mythos. Heracles is a name variation on Hercules. This book details his madness and the killing of his first family. He did go on to have a second wife but that ends in tragedy as well. For more information on this see the Comparisons with other texts section below. Heracles is one of the most well known Greek Mythologies today. It is always worth going back to the original sources to read them for yourself. Rather than relying on just the scholarship of others.

For me going more in-depth into the Herculean myth was an eye-opener. I had only seen the Disney version before and the storybook version. The truth is more brutal than I had expected. 

I have gained a better appreciation of the fickleness of fate in the Greek understanding. As well as the pettiness and vindictiveness of the Greek gods. This has been reinforced by the rest of my reading too.

The Greek authors hold a prime place in my project. This is because the Greeks are the civilization that the western world stands on. There have been many things that have come after that have also shaped the western world. Much of it though starts with the Greeks.

Don't have time to read it? Want to get more of an idea about it before you choose to read it for your own Self Education? My next section will give you a brief summary.

The story of Heracles

As the play starts meet Amphitryon, known as the father of Heracles the one who raised him on earth. With him, we meet Megara, Heracles wife, and his three sons clinging to the altar of Zeus. They cling to the alter because they have been thrown out of their home by a usurper to the throne.  

Amphitryon and Megara are lamenting that Heracles has not arrived home. He is returning from the underworld which is his last labour. They also lament that the new ruler, killed Megara's father to take the throne. And is now planning on killing both them and Heracles sons. He includes the sons because he is afraid they will grow up and avenge their grandfather.

Lycus, the current ruler, enters and taunts them about being at the altar as if it will extend their lives. Both Megara and Amphityon plead with him to let the sons live in exile. Lycus orders that they are to be killed by the fire where they stand.

Megara relents and says if they must die they will do it honourably. She asks to first, go and get into burial clothes to fit the occasion. Lycus relents and opens the palace for them to do so and leaves. Megara and the boys enter the house getting ready. The chorus recounts Heracles' labours. Then they start also lamenting their old age and inability to stop this killing.

The family returns to the Alter in their funeral clothes weeping. 

Low and behold Heracles arrives and questions them on their state of dress and their tears. They fill Hercules in on what has been happening. Hearing this he pledges to kill the new ruler as well as the friends that have deserted the family in this time. Amphityon calls for a softer hand towards the friends. Heracles agrees and takes the family inside.

Lycus arrives with Amphityon to carry out the killings and finds them still inside. Amphityon will not go and get them so Lycus enters the house and is quickly killed by Heracles. 

Iris and madness arrive and quickly layout the plan for Heracles downfall. Iris leaves and madness enters the house, much commotion is heard. A messenger comes to the chorus on stage and retells that nights events. He tells of how Heracles in a fit of madness killed his sons and his wife. Heracles is now sleeping and is tied to the altar.

Heracles wakes up with no memory of the gory events and is confused and a little dazed. Amphityon has to inform him that there was no enemy but that he has done these awful things. Heracles hides his face under his cloak. Theseus arrives with an army from Thebes. He heard the news that a tyrant had taken over Thebes and has come to help Heracles reclaim it. 

Finding the gruesome scene he enquirers what happened and Amphityon fills him in. He comes to
Heracles as a friend and finds Heracles ready to kill himself. He eventually convinces him to live and come to Athens with him. Heracles pleads with this father to bury his sons as by law as their killer he cannot. Then satisfied about that he bid his father farewell.

Reflections on Heracles

 What cruel fate to have saved your sons from death only to have a god put you under madness to kill them yourself. It is no wonder he is suicidal to start with when he hears. Theseus is a good quality friend here. He is not worried by defilement or by Heracles' talk but rather there to help him move through it.

What I found odd with Heracles' madness that the chorus fills in time. Well OK, they are lamenting the madness. It feels a bit like filling time. While filling time the chorus mentions Enceladus who we have not seen anywhere in the play. He also doesn't get another mention in the play either. So, I have a bit of a search and found the Enceladus is one of the giants. The sons of earth and Saturn, and was mentioned by Hesiod. It is also, as a side note, the sixth-largest moon of Saturn's. So the passage that uses his name is saying he will destroy it all the same way Athene destroyed one of the giants.

We know little about Lycus other than that he is a foreigner. He also becomes the tyrant. As a non-
Theban who did not conquer by the war, he is a usurper to the throne he is currently holding. It is interesting that he is painted in such a light and it colours all the interactions we see with him. He is ready to put his predecessors family to the sword. And if they will not come away from the altar he will burn them alive there where they sit begging for a reprieve. As such he is portrayed as the villain of the piece and gets his comeuppance. You almost expect the play to be a comedy, in the old sense of the word. It leaves you hoping to have a happy ending but no such luck the play is only half done.

What others have to say about Heracles

Kathleen Riley writes, that the play is “violently broken into two apparently discrete dramatic entities or movements”. Yet they complement each other in a way only Euripides does in Greek.

Greekmythology.com says "One would expect from a traditional Greek play of the fifth century to end with Heracles killing Lycus, an act that simultaneously attests to Heracles’ heroism and validates the benevolence of the gods." As well as making the point that "this grand narrative is primarily one of friendship, something only humans seem to appreciate"

Ancient-literature.com says about Heracles' madness "that Heracles' madness follows anyway from his inherently unstable character." which is something I didn't pick up from the text but is evidently true.

Comparisons with other texts

In Medea we see a woman take bloody revenge for her husband taking another woman as his wife.
Here, by contrast in Heracles, we see a very laid back Amphitryon. Amphitryon seems at peace with Zeus having slept with his wife. He even raises the son as his own. It is that it is hard to take revenge on a god but he still could have taken revenge on his wife or the son that was born. I am unsure whether this is an unusual reaction of whether it is different between men and women. It may give us insight into how the Greeks saw these differences.

Woman of Trachis has a small reference to the story we see here in Heracles. There we see it mentioned offhand that Heracles had killed his first wife, it makes no mention of his sons. Woman of Trachis is a continuation of Heracles story after the events we see here in Heracles. This is interesting in that it suggests that the story of Heracles was well known earlier than I have it dated. Woman of Trachis in my chronology of authors it comes before Heracles. They may be closer in time than it seems by my list as I have not dated the individual works but rather the author.

Ion shows a very different treatment of the child of a god, where Apollo does everything in his power for Ion. By contrast, we do not see Zeus taking even the slightest hand in the event of Heracles. Zeus allows, by negligence, his wife Hera to cause such suffering.

Conclusion

Heracles by Euripides is the story of Heracles madness and his killing of his family. The themes are around family and friendship. These are shown in the interactions that deal with the time before and the aftermath of the madness. The fickleness of fate and the vindictiveness of Hera are on full display in this play. I have explored how Heracles fits into the landscape of Greek plays. We have also looked into how others see the play. There I found that other writers resonate with the idea that the play could have ended with the death of Lycus. Finally, I explained Heracles' importance to Greek mythology. As well as why it has a place in my Self Education.

Have you read Heracles? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read  Heracles but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of  Heracles.

Euripides, Electra; A different story

 

So this weekend we have a friend staying from about an hour away, she doesn't drive so I went and picked her up and we had a fun but short road trip back. Its been really nice having her here even if both my husband and I are tired from the week. We went driving both to the south out to Kinloch and out north to Lichfield just for some time in the countryside.

The Story
The play opens with Electra outside a peasant's home, who she has been married off to by her stepfather Aegisthus. Aegisthus has married Electra's mother after the two of them conspired and killed her father Agamemnon. Aegisthus has married Electra off to a peasant because he is scared that if her sons were to be of noble birth they would grow up and avenge their grandfather. The peasant reveals that he has not slept with Electra because he does not believe himself worthy of her. Electra also has an exiled brother who the king and queen are also scared of returning for vengeance. Electra leaves the home to go and fetch water.
Orestes, Electra's brother, and his friend arrive and discuss how they may find Electra to plot with her for revenge against their mother and her new husband. They choose to hide and observe the peasant women who are approaching carrying water. This peasant turns out to be Electra and she is openly lamenting the situation. Orestes chooses to approach but not to reveal himself. Electra is frightened and assumes they are there to do no good but Orestes quickly explains that they are friends of Orestes looking to find his sister and report how she is fairing. The peasant returns and invites them into his home, Electra sends him to an old friends house, the very one who smuggled out Orestes, to return with the old man and something to feed to their guests. 
The old man arrives and greets Electra and gives her a young lamb to prepare for the guests. When he is introduced to Orestes he observes him closely and then declares him to be Orestes. Electra does not initially believe him but he points out a childhood scar.
The siblings then plot to kill Aegisthus and their mother, which develops into two separate plots. One where Orestes kills the king at a feast he is preparing in a field and two that Electra will kill their mother after summoning her to meet her newly born son.
A commotion is heard off stage and Electra assumes the worst, that Orestes has failed, but before she can kill herself a messenger arrives telling of Oreste's victory. Orestes arrives with the body and head of Aegisthus in tow and regales Electra with the tale of how they were invited to the feast. And how while processing the bull for the feast he turned on Aegisthus and stuck him down in one blow. They also quickly convinced the servants not to attack them as it was a vengeance killing.
Electra instructs them to hide the body as she does not want her mother seeing it. Orestes gets cold feet and does not want to also kill their mother but Electra steels him to the task. Their mother arrives in all her finery and asks why she has been summoned. Electra informs her she needs help with the offerings to the gods for a birth as she had no one to help her deliver the baby. This entices her mother inside to give the offering, but Orestes is there laying in wait. The two siblings emerge in horror at what they have done together.
The spirits of Castor and Polydeuces arrive and speak of the two and predict their exile from Argos and that they will never see each other again. Orestes gives Electra to his friend as a bride and the spirits send them to Pallas, whereas, Orestes is sent to the Temple at Athens to seek the god's judgement and escape the furies. 

Reflections
It is interesting at the end of this version that Electra is part of the deed of killing her mother and also that she is not to be punished to the same extreme as her brother. You would think that they were equally guilty from their description of the death and yet they are not treated as equals by the furies, was it that Orestes was the one that fate had destined to do the killing and that is all that mattered or is it simply that exile is a new punishment for Electra but Orestes is already exiled, so is heaped with more punishment. Or is the crime a bigger affront to a man's honour in that culture than a woman's?

It is a little fantastical that the old friend can recognise Orestes not having seen him since he was a baby, but there is nothing in these works to suggest that they are seen as historical fact but rather for the entertainment of the masses, so maybe it's meant to be fantastical. That being said they were also a way of passing down common lore and, while exaggerated in places, the history of the peoples. 
The actions of the peasant show the strength of the class structure in the time of both the setting and the writing. It even shows with the fact he is never named in dialogue or even in the script. He sees himself as below his supposed wife, though it later comes out that he doesn't believe that the one who gave her to him, Aegisthus, had the right to do so. This calls into question whether he is truly married to her, which may also, at least in part, help to explain how he treats her.
The spirits of Castor and Polydeuces introduction, at the end, offer a great way to bridge the ending of the story and keep it from feeling like it ends quite so abruptly as some plays do. It is also a way to bridge this version of Electra with the continuing Orestes saga that we have already seen.

Comparisons
Let's start with the most obvious. Like Electra, by Sophocles, this tells the story of the death of Clytemnestra, Electra and Orestes's mother, from Electra's side of the coin. That being said it is a very different story with Electra not still being in the palace but rather being married off to a peasant. The inciting incident is the same and, due to the spirits at the end, the end result is much the same. You could probably even use the two versions interchangeably, even if you were doing the full Orestes saga.
The Libation Bearers has more in common with Sophocles' Electra than Euripides version, as it again has Electra still in the Palace and events all being based around the Palace.
The differences here, considering I am reading them in a rough chronology of the authors, can be seen as a development and embellishment of the same story and further research would probably show if these differences in version are due to time or a shift in location.
Like Medea, we are predominantly dealing with a revenge story. You could see a space for a play much like Electra after Medea, though as the revenge in Electra comes about as, from Clytemnestra's point of view, the revenge to the revenge that she reaped on her husband. In Electra, we are given extra information though: Clytemnestra was not faithful to either husband and that rather she killed her husband so she could be with another.

Have you read Electra by Euripides? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read  Electra by Euripides but haven't? Hopefully, this inspires you to take the time to do so.
Get a copy of  Electra by Euripides.

Euripides, Hecabe; A mothers sorrow

 

Well what a week, things have been crazy for my hubby at work so he has been pulling 12 hour days most days this week, so I haven't really seen much of him. I also ran myself out of energy Friday and had a lazier day, which was a nice change but at the same time I'm trying not to be annoyed at myself for taking a week day off. Other than that there hasn't been too much new, we did have some stunning days at the start of the week so I spent sometime outside in tee shirt and shorts, it was almost like summer. The rest of the week was cooler to remind me its only spring.

The Story
Hecabe starts with her son, Polydorus' ghost telling of the suffering to come. He tells of his death at the hand of Polymestor the king of Thrace where he had been sent for protection while Troy was under attack by the army of Agamemnon. Polymestor killed him for the gold he was sent with as a possible ransom for buying back his brothers in case the Trojans lost, his body was then thrown in the ocean. He also tells that his sister will be killed at the hands of the Achaeans as a sacrifice to the tomb of Achilles. And that his mother would see them both laid out dead the same day.
Hecabe enters with her daughter and is lamenting being taken into slavery. the chorus informs her that he has just come from the Achaean assembly and they have decided to sacrifice her daughter to Achilles, just as her brother ghost had predicted. Hacabe laments but her daughter laments only for Hacabe as she welcomes death as a princess to life as a slave.
Odysseus arrives to take her daughter to the tomb of Achilles. Hacabe pleads with him to go back and argue against this as repayment of her saving his life when he was spying on Troy. He argues that to do so would to be to not give Achilles his friendship in death and that is something he will not do. Hacabe then suggests her daughter pleads with him also but she replies that she is ready for death and will not oppose him and plead with her mother not to physically oppose him taking her away.
A messenger, Talthybius arrives and informs Hacabe that he daughter is dead and tells he of her noble death, and how she refused to be taken by force but gave herself to the priest, Achilles son, to be sacrificed. He also tells her how the Achaeans are preparing a tomb for her. Hacabe tells hims to go back and see that none of them touch her but leave her for her mother to prepare for burial. She also instructs her attendant to go and collect sea water for washing her daughters body and then head inside herself.
Hacabe's attendant returns with a body and calls Hacabe back outside. Initially Hacabe is confused as to why they have bought her daughters body to her but its is not long before they show her the body and she identifies her son.
Agamemnon comes looking for her as she has not arrived to bury her daughter and finds her distraught on the ground. she begs him to seek vengeance for her, at first he is hesitant because he will not avenge her daughter but once it transpires that her son has also been killed by the king of Thrace, he is much more sympathetic but will not raise a hand least his own Achaeans, who are also allies of Thrace be angered. Hacabe answer that with the help of the women she will take vengeance, all Agamemnon has to do is call Polymestor and his sons to come and see her at once.
Polymestor and his sons arrive and are quickly invited inside under the pretense of giving them hidden gold. Once inside the sons are killed and Polymestors eyes gouged out. He escapes the tent and calls for help from the Acheaens. Agamemnon arrives and wants to hear both  side to judge them. Polymestor confesses to killing Polydorus, but tries to argue that it was to please the Acheaen allies. Hacabe argues that he did it for the gold, Agamemnon agrees with her. Polymestor lists of some prophecies he has been given about Hacabes death and the death of her one surviving daughter Cassandra. Agamemnon has him taken away.

Reflections
It is interesting to me that Euripides found the need to have the Ghost of Polydorus at the start of the play as we do see the same information unfold as the play goes on, a modern writer would probably have let you find out those details as they came to light. that being said it does set the scene very clearly for what is about to transpire.
Agamemnon's slight about whether the woman/women could indeed reap vengeance upon a man in his prime is rather misguided but it is also a relic of his time, when woman were mainly seen in the softer side of the ledger. We wouldn't think too much about the idea that a woman might seek vengeance herself, but both the seeking vengeance and the feebleness of women has been put aside in this day and age. That being said Hacabes does give examples where a group of women have overcome in violence a group of men by sheer numbers, so it is not that woman is the more docile but rather the physically less capable without training to change that. I mean its why we still gender segregate most sports.
At first this seemed like it would be your average revenge story and then it would end abruptly after the violence, Euripides surprised me a little with continuing to have Agamemnon judge between the two and therefore show Hacabe's position as in the right and to condemn Polymestor to his fate without retribution. The play still ends abruptly with Agamemnon sending Polymestor away.
There is a tidbit about the battle of Troy that we have not yet seen in the texts to date, that is that Odysseus entered Troy as a spy, and not only that but was found out by a couple of the women. It would be very interesting to find out what he said, or is supposed to have said, to the women to get them to let him go free, hopefully we can see this in later texts.

Comparison
Unlike Medea we do have some context going into this story of revenge rather than the abrupt start of Medea. We know the outline of the Trojan war and that Troy lost so to find the queen of Troy as a slave of the Acheaens is a logical next step in the overarching story. That being said like Medea that play starts with an explanation of new wrongs committed against the mother figure Hacabe. Both stories are that of a woman in a compromised position reaching out and dealing vengeance to those who wronged her. the big difference being that Hacabe was judged as just following her violence where as the Medea just ends with Medea escaping. I wonder if this is because there is no taboo at the time against revenge killing, as we see in Hacabe, but there is a big taboo about killings ones own offspring, as we see in Meade.
In a way this story follows on from The Trojan Women though if it was a true sequel in the modern sense we would have expected some mention of Polydorus in the Trojan Women. In both plays Hacabe is lamenting being taken into slavery although The Trojan women is set before it has truly happened while the Medea is after they have been taken away by sea, if not very far. Both plays though deal with the death of children of the defeated faction, In Hacabe it is Hacabe's daughter and therefore the sister of Hector and in The Trojan women it is his son.

Have you read Hacabe? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read Hacabe but haven't? Hopefully this inspires you to take the time to do so.
Get a copy of Hacabe.

Augustine, City of God 2A; The nature of creation and story's up to the Promised Land

Today feels a little bit like summer is coming, the sun is out the birds are chirping and it's warm. That is one thing I have found since we have moved winter has felt a lot longer because its colder down/ up here. I should explain that Tokoroa is higher in altitude compared to Hamilton but it is south so in some senses it is both up and down. I do wonder if summer is going to be hotter though but I definitely expect it to be drier (Hamilton is in a swamp).

I continue to be glad that I split this book into four parts, even so it is continuing to be a mammoth task to get through although it is easier in writing style and content than The Histories, it is actually a larger book. 

The Story

Book XI

The main discussion of this book is around fallen angels. Augustine's conclusions are that they were created at the same time as the angels who have keep their focus on God rather than on their themselves. Their pride is the reason they turned away from God and were separated from God and the light and are now synonymous with darkness. He also proposes that the angels were created when light and darkness were created and refutes the idea that the angels were created with the separation of the water as some others have said. He also proposes that when the angels were created that God had foreknowledge of those that would turn away and as such he created both those that would be light and those that in time would be darkness. It is also posited that the "Good" and "Bad" angels are not the same but that although they both have the same knowledge, and eternal existence, that the "Bad" angels because they fell to their pride, they did not have the felicity of the eternal existence being with God who had created them.

Book XII
This book starts with continued discussion of the nature of the angels, both good and bad, and whether they are co-eternal with the father. Augustine counters this with the fact that the bible records them as being created beings even though they are not mentioned directly in the creation account as he discussed in the previous book. He then moves on to man and his place in creation as the greatest of the mortal beings. He wanders away from this point for a while to discuss whether God choose all of a sudden to create the world, or rather whether is had always been a part of his plan and being. Augustine chooses the latter as it is the only way God could be eternally unchanging. From this he launches off into a discussion about the foreknowledge God had about how humanity would fall to sin and that his saving move in the coming, dying and resurrection of Christ was all part of the original plan not a reaction to what happened. He comes back around to angels with a proof that they are not creators of the lesser beings in body, but not in soul, as the Platonist posit but rather that it is God the father who is creator of all including man body and soul.

Book XIII
We move on with this book to a discussion on the nature of mans souls and on the breath that God used to breath life into Adam. Augustine discusses both at length and concludes that mans soul is immortal and that the first death, that is the separation of the soul from the body, comes to all men through the fall to sin of Adam. That is to say that Adam before he sinned and walked away from God was immortal in both his body and his soul and that in the process of God punishing him for that sin his physical nature was changed and that all born through him, i.e. all humanity, now come to this first death. The second death he speaks of then is the judgment that is when the soul and the spiritual body are sent to their eternal punishment. That is to say that they are then separated permanently from God.
As part of his discussion the topic the breath given to Adam is much discussed raising ideas such as whether it was the Holy Spirit that was breathed out or whether it was just, as you and I would, a breath of air and whether it was the breathing into man a soul or whether he was already living having been formed by God. He also spends a little time discussing the differences in the method of creation between the animals and the personal focus we see in the creation of man.

Book XIV
This book deals mainly with lust and sex, mainly around the idea of whether there was the possibility of sex without lust before man first sinned. Augustine's position is that there would have still been sex for reproduction but that man would have had no lust towards eve and would have had full control of his reproductive parts rather than them "having a mind of their own" so to speak.

Book XV
This book starts with a quick out of sequence aside into the time of Abraham and Sarah and contrasts the child of promise, that is Sarah's child  Issac with, the natural child of Hagar, Ishmael. This is used as an example of the differences between the City of God and the City of Man.
We then jump back to the sons of Adam and Eve and their sacrifices to God. Cain, the elder, presents a sacrifice that is deemed unworthy and Able, the younger, presents a sacrifice that is worthy. Augustine spends a while discussing how the sacrifice was unworthy and how God had warned Cain not to step into sin. For those who don't know the story he then kills Able and is exiled by God. Adam and Eve have another son, Seth, who becomes the son through which their descendants are named  He follows from this into how the sons of Cain became the first city of man and how the sons of Seth became the first City of God on earth.
Augustine continues with exposition around the generations that are listed in Genesis and comes to the conclusion that they are not named for the first son but rather the sons named are the ones that lead in genealogy to Noah much like Matthews genealogy of Christ.
He finishes this book  by spending a little time on Noah and the Ark and defending their accuracy as historical fact as well as allegory.

Book XVI
This book covers from Noah to the promised land. Though it covers such a wide time span Augustine spends most of his time on the generations to Egypt with a tighter focus on the generations to Abraham. Augustine extrapolates the City of God in pilgrimage, as he calls the earthly City of God with those who are righteous through faith, to the two sons of Noah who covered his nakedness, that is Shem and Japheth. To these Noah pronounces blessings but to his middle son Ham he prophesy his offspring's conquest by those of his brother. Augustine sees Ham as the father of the city of man in this time period, with a belief that until the return of Christ there will be a city of man on the earth.
Augustine goes on to discuss the sons of Abraham first Ishmael, the son of the slave, then Issac, the son of the promise, and then the unnamed children that Abraham had with his new wife, which Augustine assumes to be younger, after Sarah's death. Again he spends sometime showing how they show the City of God and the city of man, he also spends sometime working through some of the allegory of the sons and how Issac can represent the church, that is Christians, as sons of the promise and of faith and how Ishmael can be seen as the Jews who are Abraham's descendants by blood. He also likens those who are heretics or otherwise mislead to the other children of Abraham in his late age, as they are a shadow of the promise without substance.

Reflections

Book XI

This book explores something I really hadn't thought much about. Did God know that the Devil and some other angels would break communion with him and fall to darkness? Well we know that God is omnipotent so he must have but Augustine hashes out the small details that go along with it. The other thing I had never noticed is that there is no mention of the angels in the Genesis account. We see them through the old testament and some even give their names so they clearly exist. Because of this Augustine spends some time on when they might have been created to show that they may not have been left out and that they could still have not been created before the creation story, and to in turn prove the completeness of the Genesis account.

Also rather surprisingly Augustine doesn't get around to declaring that the fallen angels are the demons of which he speaks of in earlier books though this seems self evident from the way he describes the fallen angels as darkness.

Book XII
This book, once you get past the meandering back and forward through topics, ends with a great discussion on God and his part in creating the world and how he chose to do it. Augustine points out that he created humanity from one man, but when he was creating other "beasts" the text suggests he created enough to fill the world all at once. What he doesn't point out but I think is worthy of note is the parallel between creating humanity through one man who sinned and therefore all die through one man, that Christ as one man defeats sin and death and brings life to all humanity.
Again I feel that having read the Platonists would give me more insight into some of his arguments against both the idea that the world is cyclic in that those who are born will be born again in physical bodies, that is to come back to struggle from felicity. Augustine refutes this with an argument again of how could man have eternal life in felicity if he must again come back to the struggle of life. It just means I have to trust Augustine's interpretations of the Platonist view. There is no remedy for that as I just haven't progressed far enough through the BC list to cover it and this was always the negative side of deciding to start one of my AD lists along side it.

Book XIII
I found the discussion on the breath given to Adam to be quite interesting, I had not put any thought previously into whether the breath of life given to Adam was indeed the Holy Spirit or just the breath of God. Augustine concludes that it is just the breath of God and that is also what I had automatically thought but it has been interesting to consider.
I also found the discussion on whether Adam was immortal in body before the fall interesting and another thing I had not thought about in my reading of the bible text. Augustine's conclusion that he must have been is both easy to accept and yet rather unnecessary to the general understanding of the text. Actually a lot of these later arguments are starting to fall into that category, but I guess without these answers there is many a way to fall into heresy.

Book XIV
Maybe it was just the subject matter but this book seemed to go over the same concept repeatedly without adding much. Augustine is clearly of the opinion that before that before the fall was without lust of the sexual variety but that sex for procreation was still possible even if all we know is that Adam and Eve didn't bear children before they first sinned. I think that sex was clearly designed for pleasure and as such there must still have been a depth of feeling and love involved with it before sin entered the human race. I think Augustine's idea of without lust is correct but I feel he takes it to far into the realm of lack of feeling.

Book XV
Augustine spends a fair bit of his time in this book discussing and then throwing out the idea that the years of the ages in the genealogies, and the heresy of the time, that the years in that ancient time were equal to 10 of our years. One of the problem with this is that it would make the fathers to young to be sexually mature when they are said to have had their son. This is a heresy that I had not previously heard of, but I am unsure whether this is because Augustine disputed it so well and the modern church has not returned to the heresy or rather if it is just because it was a little known heresy to start with.
Dovetailing with this is Augustine's point that the genealogy is of select people so that it comes to Noah rather than first sons. This again is something I had not really put any thought into but it does help to answer why they were so old when they had the listed sons and surely they were sexually mature before 100.
The other thing that came up that I was not aware of was that there were discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Vulgate translations. Augustine discusses the particular discrepancies between the ages when the sons were born between the texts and generally refers to the Vulgate as having come from the Jewish texts and the translated Greek Septuagint that he had previously been working from. I knew about both translations but had not realised that in writing the Vulgate there had been a return of fidelity in the text for the Latin reader.

Book XVI
I feel like I'm saying I hadn't considered an idea before a lot at this point. That being said when Augustine puts together the Allegory of Abraham's sons and the Jews, the Church and the Heretics it made me stop and think, I'm used to seeing prophecies of Christ and foreshadowing of his first(and second) coming through out the Old Testament, but I had never put any thought into the Allegory surrounding the Church as Christ's bride but also as a descendant of the promise through Issac. As it is in the Epistles I had considered that the Church were descendants of Abraham through faith but the idea that you could ascribe as allegory the Jews to Abraham's son Ishmael, his son by natural means, was something I had not considered. 

The fact that Augustine put so much into Noah's sons and their reaction to his nakedness really surprised me I had not spent much time considering the implications or even just seeing it as just this odd piece of the text. Augustine takes the sons reactions and points out that the one who is cursed is the one who's reaction was to go and tell the others, that is to point out the nakedness rather than the two who are blessed who show their father the proper respect and cover him without looking. Though I wonder how they could have done so if they had not been told about it by their brother. Some more pondering needed on this one.

Comparisons

As I have said before there is not much external I can compare this to at this point, so instead I will compare it to itself. This section of City of God moves away from external threats and deals more with heresy within the church, it does this so far by stepping through the text of the bible itself, though it still tries to only concern itself with the two cities.
It has been refreshing to move onto text that is based on something (or things) that I have read in detail, though this does not stop Augustine referencing a philosopher or two in the process.
Augustine continues to show a snapshot into the heresies (and apologetics) of the past, both those we still have some people falling for today, and some I have never heard of before.

Have you read The City of God? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read The City of God but haven't? Hopefully this inspires you to take the time to do so.
Get a copy of The City of God.

Euripides, Medea; Bloody revenge of the scorned woman

 

So its been a rather productive if uneventful week. I've finished Euripides and have a buffer setup out to late December. Which when you consider I restarted this blog with a buffer of two weeks, is a very nice change. But that will slow down now as I work on the History of the Peloponnesian War, which is a fair bit longer than one of the Greek plays. I'm not sure yet whether it will be one, two or four posts, we will see how long and how much content is in it.

The Story
We meet Medea wailing in anger and sorrow that her husband Jason has taken another wife and in effect divorced her in the process. Jason has married the kings daughter. Medea's anger includes cursing Jason, his new wife and the king himself. The counsel of her friends cannot turn away her wrath and when her children come home her attendant warns them not to come into her sight as she fears for even the sons safety.
Creon the king comes to meet with her and is so scared of her anger against him and his daughter that he sends her into exile. She begs him to let her stay but he is mostly resolute. He does concede to allow her the day to prepare for exile. Once he leaves she plots to kill the three before she leaves but is still of two minds about how to accomplish this, poison or by running them through, she knows if she takes the second road she will not survive the experience.
Jason then comes to meet with her to try and smooth things by  providing for her as she goes into exile with money and introductions to friends of his where she may find refuge. She in her rage refuses the help and his explanation that he was only trying to secure her and his sons future by marrying again of a better station. Still Medea's anger rages on.
Aegeus King of Athens arrives and tells her of his trip to Delphi to consult the oracle about his lack of children. Medea tells him of her exile and gets him to swear an oath that she will find sanctuary in Athens, he does put on one caveat though, that she must get herself to Athens, he will not take her with him.
Medea hatches a plan to kill her husband and the king, Creon, and his daughter with poison, but her plan requires that she also kill her two sons. She organises for the sons to petition the princess to petition the king to allow them to stay in Corinth with their father. As part of this petition she sends them with a gold circlet and a dress for the princess which she laces with poison.
The boys return from the palace and Medea weeps over them, until a messenger comes running in to tell her to leave now.
The messenger recounts the grisly deaths of both the Princess and the King. Medea is joyful at the news, but the messenger is both aghast at her joyfulness and pleading with her to get away before the mob comes to get her. Medea steels herself to do the awful deed of killing her two sons, their cries are heard from inside but the chorus does nothing about it.
Jason arrives to snatch his children away least the vengeful mob, expected with the death of the king and with the killer being their mother, get them . But is informed by the chorus that they are dead. Medea appears on the roof in a chariot sent by the sun with both bodies of the boys and after she and Jason trade insults she departs leaving Jason to his childless fate.

Reflections
What a depressing story, it starts with one tragedy that of a wife put aside  and ends with a mother killing her children. Medea's plan is hatched with little regard for anything but her vengeance, showing the audience both the anger of a woman scorned but also of the tragedy of pursuing a second wife. It does give us some insight also into the process (or lack there of) of divorcing in the ancient Greek world. It seems that for the man it was as simple as to marry another woman, but Medea comments that she could not have chosen to put her husband aside under any situation, it just wasn't open to her as an option. 
We see a very crafty woman in this play, she knowingly get the king of Athens to swear that he will give her sanctuary in full knowledge that she commit multiple acts of murder between him taking the oath and him having to fulfill it. From this I wonder how Aegeus reacts when he realises what he has agreed too, because sanctuary would mean not only that she could live in Athens but that Athens would not turn her over to justice at anyone hand outside of the city's, to borrow a modern term, jurisdiction.
The Princess in the play is the real tragedy, all she has done to deserve such an end is to marry the man the King has prescribed for her. I can't see her having been given any say in the matter, as, from what I know, this is still an age of arranged marriages where Kings and Lords are involved. While Medea is still right to be angry with her for taking her husband, the princess seems to have really gotten a rough deal.

Comparisons
While this is a tragedy like we see in Oedipus or in The Libation Bearers what we have not seen before is a play that starts in tragedy that is not a continuation of another play. And as such this is the first play that does not through events descend into tragedy but rather that starts there and descends but further.
Also unlike the Oedipus saga we do not see the consequences of such abominable acts. Oedipus we see live on dealing with his blindness and wretchedness where as Medea just ends with her flying off in a sun chariot to go and live in Athens as far as we know.
Unlike Ion where Apollo has actions that are a huge part of the story. In Medea we see no real interaction with the gods, save Medea's sun chariot at the end. This makes for a much more human story and yet it is just as tragic.

Have you read Medea, if so what did you think?
Want to read Medea but haven't? Hopefully this inspires you to pick it up.
Get a copy of Medea. 

Euripides, The Bacchantes; I am a god, treat me as such

Its been a week of two distinct sides, on one hand I've been very productive both last week and this week and now have a buffer through to the end of November, on the other hand we buried one of the members of our church after his very sudden passing. This week coming I get a reprieve from the Greek plays and am reading the Edda from my Ad lit list, so I'm looking forward to the change of pace.
We are getting used to being in Tokoroa now and it has been a little over two months. We have chosen a church and joined the local RSA/club so now we have somewhere to go and socialise on a Friday evening, not that we are big drinkers mind you but the company is good.

I have had to re-read this play as too much time had elapsed between when I first read it and when I went to write about it, this is not something I plan to do often. The lists are just too large to spend a double amount of time on something!

The Story
Dionysus arrives in Thebes with the intention of teaching them to worship him as a god. He starts by relaying the story of his birth, how he is the son of Zeus and of Semele. He tells of Semele's death by lightning bolt and how Zeus rescued him from that fate and sewed him up in his thigh as a womb until his birth. He says he will drive the woman of Thebes mad in punishment for the thought that his mother was killed because she claimed she would bear Zeus' son not because Hera was mad. 

Tiresias , the blind seer, arrives and calls for Cadmus and together they, forgetting their old age, discuss joining the revelers giving praise to Dionysus, with dancing. Cadmus' grandson Pentheus, the current king of Thebes arrives and chastises them both for being dressed for the festival, he commands that the mysterious foreigner be brought to him bound and that all worshipers be arrested and bound in fetters. The guards return with Dionysus in tow and after a little discussion with Pentheus, Dionysus being very oblique and not answering questions in a straight fashion, Pentheus orders him to be bound and put in the dark of the stable. Dionysus states that Pentheus will not be able to bind him, but is seemingly bound and placed in the stable. Dionysus then causes the ground to shake and walks out. Pentheus finds him at the gate, after he attempts to attack a apparition of him and in doing so destroys the barn. 

Then a herdsman runs up and tells of what is happening with the women in the woods on the mountain and how they are dancing, have been miraculously provided with milk and wine and honey seemingly by the divine. And how when the men tried to apprehend them they went mad and after the men escaped tore their livestock limb from limb and then continue on to destroy and ravage a couple of towns.

Pentheus then enraged calls for the arming of his troop but Dionysus suggests he goes and spies on the women. Pentheus retreats to make a decision. Pentheus returns out of his mind, as the god had asked for, and with Dionysus' help dresses himself as a woman. They both exit the stage and then a messenger returns and tells the tale of Pentheus death at the hands of his mother, after he climbs a tree to see him better and is betrayed by Dionysus, the woman then tear down the tree and tear him limb from limb. His mother then mounts his head on wand and takes it back to Thebes and proceeds to order a feast for the young lion she has killed barehanded. Her father Cadmus comes to her and helps lift the madness and shows her it is the head of her son. Dionysus returns in his glory as a god and pronounces the fates of the woman of Pentheus' house and that of his father. The women are to be exiled and Cadmus and his wife are to be turned to snakes. The play ends with a comment on the ferocity of the wrath of a god.

Reflections

This is quite an interesting read it is a winding of a story/myth over something that must have taken place at some point. That is that at some point the worship of Dionysus came to Thebes from the east. It is easy as a modern reader to think of the Greek gods as a static group but this reminds us that occasionally the Greeks still borrowed gods from other areas and that their beliefs weren't entirely static. 

The story itself is the basic trope of a god scorned and getting revenge, though it does have its little bit of interesting additions and distractions. One of these is that Dionysus is in what should be his home town and yet because it is his hometown the king thinks he knows better.

It is also interesting to me that we see so much anger and wrath from Dionysus and yet he is the god of, well to borrow a phrase, sex, drugs and rock and roll. This seems to be quite diametrically opposite, yet it cannot cause to much discordance to its original audience or it would not have survived so well.

Euripides has framed Pentheus in a very stubborn and unseeing light and yet it is a bit fantastical from his point of view that a god from the east would come and basically drive half his city mad. If you knew someone died before birth would you really trust a stranger that says he's him and that he is a god? So while it is easy to put Pentheus aside from the way he is portrayed he does actually have something of a point even if he turn out to be wrong in the end.

Comparisons

This is the first time in the Greek plays a god is not automatically in a place of worship. Never before has there been a question on whether a god should have been offered to, whether it happened or not. This automatic regard for the gods says a lot about the mind set of the Greeks at the time of writing. It is not the first time we have seen a god get angry over the lack of offerings or worship for example Poseidon and the tragedy that he heaps on Odysseus in the Odyssey. 

In contrast to Ion also by Euripides where Ion is a demigod at best, where as Dionysus while also being a child of a god and a mortal woman is given the title and power of a full blown god. There seems to be no clue in the text as to why there is the difference and as it is so far the only example of godhood where as there are many examples, Achilles, Hercules and more, where they were just demigods.

Have you read The Bacchantes? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read The Bacchantes but haven't? Hopefully this inspires you to take the time to do so.
Get a copy of The Bacchantes.