Can Dionysus be Considered Evil in the Bacchae

Can Dionysus be Considered Evil in The Bacchae?

Dionysus, as one of the immortals, has the ability to do as he wishes with no fear of repercussion from anyone. Yet from a human point of view, it can be argued that his treatment of Pentheus in the Bacchae transcends the usual case of divine retribution and enters the realm of childlike vengeance.
Punishments for hubris were common, almost expected, in Greek society and it is not different in this play. Even from the first moments when Dionysus comes onstage, we know that Pentheus will be punished for his blasphemy and insults against the god.
There are countless stories of gods? retribution on mortals who have offended them. Even in the Bacchae itself there is reference to Actaeon, whose fate it was to ?be torn apart by packs of ravenous hounds which he himself had raised? because he had insulted Artemis by claiming that he was a better hunter. The Agamemnon, too, is centred on the gods and fate (the sacrifice of Ipheginia), as are the Oepidus plays. Yet in all of these plays, ?tuch? is mentioned. An element of chance is almost always involved in tragedies, as it is the unfortunate exploitation of a great man?s flaws which makes them so tragic. Yet in the Bacchae, ?tuch? is never mentioned in relation to Pentheus. This is powerful in the fact that the audience are in anticipation of Pentheus? death throughout the entire play but, unlike the majority of tragedies, they are aware that there is no element of chance ? it the force of the god?s wrath alone which evokes the sense of pathos from the audience. However, Pentheus himself uses ?tuch? in relation to what he intends to do to Dionysus should he be caught: the subtle undertone of this irony is present throughout the play.
We are meant to sympathise with Pentheus at the end of the play, just as we are meant to dislike him at the beginning. Yet however much we dislike him, there is always a part of us which feels that he is not as tyrannical as everyone else points out. His dislike for Bacchus and his rites is entirely human. He is the very young ruler of a relatively new city and as such is bound to make mistakes and rash judgments by reason of his youth. His thoughts are not entirely rational, however, (his seeming fixation on the sexual nature of the maenads), but they are understandable. He is a young, urban man who fears the unknown and the disruption of order and ensuing chaos which he believes will follow the arrival of these bacchants. His view of the world has been forcefully altered, and he is merely reacting to it. His view of women, for example, has been challenged and an ancient audience themselves would have felt their own views opposed. Men believed themselves to be above women merely as a matter of course, as free men were naturally above slaves. To see these women out of their homes, racing away to the mountains to hunt (a definitely male activity) and engage in other rites dictated by a foreigner was a strange notion to Pentheus, and he utterly disliked it.
Dionysus, on the other hand, was fully within his rights to punish Pentheus. His honour had been insulted by Pentheus? actions and, like any other red-blooded Greek man, wished to regain it. ?Timh? was such an important concept to the Greeks: Achilles sulks in his tent in the Iliad for the first 16 books, until he felt that his honour had been restored. Dionysus must have felt likewise, but he had the capabilities and power that no mortal could dream of, and this makes his revenge all the more brutal.
It can be argued that a god does not have to give reasons for his actions, and it is difficult to gainsay this. However, a god who is described by the chorus of bacchants in the play as a friend to mankind and patron of banquets and wine would not often be thought of as violent and vengeful; yet in the way he acts towards Pentheus and his family he is both. He acts in a way suited to an angst-ridden teenager, indulging in mindless overkill in a callous way: instead of just punishing Pentheus with death, he not only destroys him in the most brutal way imaginable, at the hands of his own mother, but also mentally and socially obliterates his entire family. His exile of Cadmus and all of the maenads is unjust and cruel. Cadmus himself had been honouring the god and coaxing Pentheus to as well, and had showed no signs of rebelling against the new rites. He even attempts to garland Pentheus? head and bring him along to take part in the rites. However, it can be argued that Cadmus is merely paying lip service to the god: when he tries to convince his grandson of the validity of the god?s power he says ??and even if he is not a god, as you claim, then at least say that he is and pretend that he is? so that honour might come to us and our family.? If this is the case, then it can be fair to assume that Dionysus was able to tell that Cadmus? piety was only a pretence, and thus just to exile him.
Yet it could be that Dionysus was merely acting in an egomaniacal way, asserting his authority with more severity than the occasion and offence warranted. His maddening of the women of Thebes was used as a warning to Pentheus and because he did not acknowledge this warning, it may have been considered acceptable for the god to kill Pentheus. But the manner of his death and the knock-on effect was unnecessary and simply gratuitous on Dionysus? part. To be torn apart by your own mother is an intrinsically horrible idea (that is what makes Medea inherently terrible) and must be considered one of the most awful acts imaginable.
What makes this act even worse, however, is the fact that Agaue does not even realise that she has committed such an atrocious deed. She comes to Thebes happy, glad that she has caught what she believes is a young mountain lion. When she asks to see Pentheus, to show him what she has caught because he will be proud of the honour she will have brought to her family: there is just something about that scene which is innately disturbing and essentially evil. Her despair, shame and bleak acceptance of her exile when she realises what she has done through the god?s possession is cruel on Dionysus? part yet somehow more noble on hers. She accepts her fate and calmly grieves for her son, which is at odds with the god?s overwhelming anger and violence. The last 400 or so lines of the play deal with repentance and forgiveness, yet Dionysus does not display either. He feels no shame for what he has caused, and does not forgive anyone ? he exiles all of Pentheus? family as a final show of his power.
Pentheus achieved true sight and belief right at the end, as the fogginess fades from his mind and he realises what is happening, but this is not enough for Dionysus. He would have achieved what he had hoped to with Pentheus? final understanding and destruction as his family, once removed from their trances, would believe in the power of Dionysus and accept him as a god; yet he continues, destroying the entire lineage of Cadmus, the very founder of Thebes, effectively obliterating them completely with their exile.
His actions are ill proportioned in relation to the crime committed. He behaves in a manner incomprehensible to the human mind: rash, vengeful and ultimately evil by human consideration. Yet there is no way that we can truly call his actions malevolent. All of the gods have had to punish humans for seemingly trivial intrusions and insults in order to protect and promote their divinity, most notably Hera, and it seems a matter of course for Dionysus to have taken steps to correct the miscreant. But from a human point of view, which is all we have to look from, his actions are over-the-top and unnecessary, taking steps which went too far in revenge for an infringement of the god?s ?timh?. He acts like a spoilt child who just happens to have the power to assert their authority, doing whatever he wants in retaliation knowing that he has no possibility of being reprimanded. His egocentric view dominates his rational mind and makes him behave in a decidedly evil way, but in the end even Dionysus can be excused. He is a young god, only having just arrived in Thebes, and he wants to spread the words of his power from this, the first city in Greece to have received his rites. It is therefore natural for him to feel insulted and angry at Pentheus and, if mortals had the abilities of gods?, many men might have done what Dionysus would do. Man is intrinsically selfish and self-important and if anyone could get away with destroying their enemies with no consequences then they might.
The difference between men and god?s mentalities is important in relation to the issue of Dionysus. Even though it has been argued that his response was overly harsh, it cannot be said to have never been likely. Dionysus, as with the all other gods, had simple enough rules. They expected only to be acknowledged as existing and sharing the world, and if a mortal invoked them or sacrificed to them it was pleasing. But Pentheus did nothing. It would have lessened Dionysus? anger if Pentheus had merely refused to believe in him, personally. It was when Pentheus deemed it necessary to forcefully and publicly refute the god?s existence that he overstepped the bounds. If Pentheus had thought straight, and not let his anger cloud his judgment, he may have been able to save at least the rest of his family even when he himself had sealed his own fate.