By Ishaan Singhee
The theatre has been at the forefront of writing and has long been used to measure the gold standard for acting. Modern theatre’s origins can be traced back to the Greek amphitheatres which were the muse/source of many great playwrights such as Sophocles, Euripides, and Shakespeare. Their works have given the world numerous characters that have stood the test of time. Characters written by these playwrights such as Oedipus, Antigone, and Hamlet are still well-acclaimed across the world. Despite this, one character that has acted as a common thread across the work of playwrights has not been given their due credit: the messenger.
The messenger has remained an enigmatic character in theatre. The messenger can be traced through various eras of theatre and has remained a prominent part of larger-than-life Greek tragedies. Sophocles was an ancient Greek tragedy writer who was known for diverging from the norms of theatre and pushing the boundaries of Greek tragedy. Sophocles understood the importance of the messenger and used the character in various forms to help shape his illustrious narratives. In Antigone, Sophocles masterfully treads a narrow line without crossing it, by using the messenger to recount the deaths of Antigone, Haemon, and Eurydice. As Bradford Harrison writes, “The play Antigone by Sophocles, and Medea by Euripides all present the conventional figure of a messenger at the climactic junctures of the play. Each messenger brings appalling and shattering news that is deeply disturbing for the audiences and henceforth reflects on that shock.” Essentially, the messengers in plays do what modern technology such as cell phones do in today’s day and age.
Furthermore, the use of the messenger did not end with the death of Sophocles. It is important to know that the messenger has since been a recurring character in numerous forms. Shakespeare has also extensively made use of the messenger in his renderings. Shakespeare, for one, understood that the audience will subconsciously register the actions taking place both on and off-stage. His plays often required major developments of the narrative taking place off-stage. He has often used the messenger as a device to deliver these major developments taking place off-stage. According to Lloyd Davis, “It is estimated that Shakespeare uses messengers five times as often as other playwrights of the time, taking advantage of their practical and symbolic potential.” Shakespeare believed that messengers were expedient figures of dramatic texts and they were useful to set up colourful situations and explain actions taking place off-stage. Shakespeare’s use of the messenger can be seen in his acclaimed play King Lear. In King Lear, extensive use of letters seems to be the main means of communication, allowing the messenger to play a vital role to connect various characters such as the Duke of Kent and Cordelia. Shakespeare’s use of messengers can also be seen, as Lloyd Davis notes, in “Antony and Cleopatra‘s thirty-five messenger episodes help stage its mix of sensuality and power by connecting Rome and Egypt, marking changes in space and time, indicating prestige and power, revealing, and developing character.”
The messenger has found its way even in modern theatre through Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead which is an absurdist, existential tragicomedy that follows the journey of two messenger/courtiers, based on characters from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. This modernist portrayal of the messenger received criticism because the critics were disappointed with Stoppard’s use of the messenger as the lead character. Numerous theatre critics were angered, as they believed that the importance given to the messenger/courtier deviated from the traditional place of the messenger in Greek tragedies. The messenger, although a recurring character, continues to be brushed aside and is rarely considered an eminent addition to a play.
Despite the noteworthy use of the messenger by distinguished playwrights such as Sophocles, the messenger continues to be used as a “use and throw” character in most Greek tragedies and plays and tends to be overlooked. In Antigone, Sophocles has messengers narrating events taking place instead of portraying them directly; this breaks away from the theatre norm of “show, don’t tell.” The messenger helps shape the audience’s perception of the characters’ emotions, whilst not overburdening the play. Sophocles’ use of off-stage actions is brought to light by the messenger’s literarily evocative monologues. It is eminent to look upon the relevance of the messenger in theatre (specifically Antigone), and the need for off-stage actions.
Furthermore, as art imitates life, it is important to note that the messenger is often not allowed to be a leading character to fit ‘class norms’ assigned to characters. This distinction reflects class and societal structures in plays so that the dramatists can add depth to their characters. The messenger represents a subaltern class of people that are put in an absurd situation of constantly engaging with royalty. The messenger represents a master-servant relationship with the king. In Antigone, the messenger (servant) is seen bringing disturbing news to Creon (master). Creon speaks down to the messenger when he converses, as he not only comes from a better financial stature but is also from a higher class compared to the messenger. Creon represents the top of the food chain and is a leading character in the play Antigone. The prominent class distinction is visible in Creon’s manner of speaking; therefore, it is not uncommon to overlook the rather ‘menial’ character (the messenger) alongside Creon in the scene. The class distinction between the messenger and the characters he interacts with can often determine the manner in which we perceive the messenger’s relevance to a play such as Antigone.
Sophocles is known for breaking away from theatre norms in his tragedies and Antigone is no exception to this. Certain events in Antigone are narrated rather than depicted breaking away from the conventional theatre norm of “show, don’t tell.” Sophocles chooses to narrate events that have taken place in the past as well as the present to fit his narrative through speeches given by the messenger. The messenger’s speeches can account for off-stage actions and stage restrictions. There is a clear pattern of the messenger or someone acting as a messenger (like the guard) to enter immediately after the choral song as in the case of Antigone. This facilitated scene shifts, which was essential in the Greek amphitheaters as it was open from all sides and did not have curtains. The entry of the messenger acts as a pivoting point in a play and allows a new background to be set via the messenger’s speech.
It is imperative to understand that the audience takes notice of the various character and their positions on stage, of movement or absence of movement, or appearance and manner. Playwrights are burdened with the responsibility of telling elaborate tales by painting a vivid picture within the confinements of a stage. Greek playwrights only had the provision of storytelling to convey the narrative to the audience, and no other practical devices such as multiple sets or props could’ve been used. To compensate for the lack of practical devices in dramaturgy, the messenger acted as an indispensable character. Lynette Wofford writes, “The messenger is also used to maintain the unity of place. This is a practical matter of dramaturgy. It was only with the invention of the proscenium and the curtain that it became possible to change the dramatic location of a play out of the sight of the audience by shifting around furniture and backdrops behind a closed curtain.” Greek amphitheatres did not have the provision for the set to be changed without disrupting the flow of the play. Hence, Sophocles uses the messenger to narrate the burial of Polynices’ body and the banishment of Antigone to the cave (Lynnette Wofford).
Further, Greek tragedy disallowed bloodshed/murder and is especially frowned upon if suicide is portrayed within a scene (Bradford Harrison). Lynnette Wofford writes, “Violence and death normally take place offstage and are narrated rather than being shown directly. This is a convention consistent across all ancient tragedy, and may be for religious or ethical reasons.” Antigone was estimated to be written in 5 B.C. and the portrayal of things such as death was considered to anger the gods within Greek mythology. Since most Greek playwrights such as Sophocles are seen using religious connotations when representing their character’s belief system, it is safe to assume that the plays were written in a manner sensitive to people’s religious and cultural beliefs. Moreover, something as taboo as suicide cannot be portrayed in Greek tragedies, despite the necessity of it within the screenplay. The messenger is used seamlessly to incorporate essential scenes/ portrayals of death by narrating them in an evocative manner, as is seen in Antigone. Sophocles uses the messenger to paint the picture of a tragedy such as the death of Antigone rather than depicting it directly.
The messenger is more like the audience than realized, as he acts as a silent observer of events being depicted in the play and has no participation. He is merely an eyewitness like the audience, but the messenger has an obligation to fulfil to his master. The messenger gives eyewitness accounts from his point of view allowing it to be untainted by bias, allowing the account to be just a part of the larger narration rather than altering the emotion trying to be invoked by the story, as seen in Antigone: “Although the messenger’s character is not explored to a great extent in Antigone, the messenger embodies the value of honesty when speaking and thus their recollection of acts can be trusted and taken as an ultimatum” (Bradford Harrison).
The manner in which the messenger speaks in Antigone has a certain gravitas to their dialogue despite speaking to someone from the upper class. The messenger’s delivery of speech is piercing to the ears of the characters, even though the character maintains a respectful distance from those of the bourgeois class. As Bradford Harrison writes, “The intensity of the speech further accentuates the climactic points of Antigone, Sophocles relying on the power of the messenger’s word to allow the audience to appreciate the portrayal of Creon’s consequences.” Sophocles’ use of descriptive/provocative literary scenes in the monologue delivered by the messenger, helps paint a picture with words rather than depicting it. The messenger helps further accentuate the tone/themes of the play by capturing the audience with a dramatic exchange of dialogues. Compelling the audience to invoke the more visual side of their minds, it allows the audience to make their own interpretations and create “a terrifying atmosphere leaving the audience in awe.” Further, it helps the audience connect to the play and feel a part of it. As Bradford Harrison writes, “A sense of pathos is particularly evoked when the messenger tells Creon that Eurydice cursed him with her dying breath.” Messenger’s news and commentary allow the audience to realize the way Creon contributed to the death of his loved ones and the burden/consequences of these deaths. Essentially, the messenger also acts as a way for Sophocles to fill the gaps and help the continuity of the play, allowing for a smooth flow of the play, without feeling the need to add too many unnecessary characters. This further helps the understanding of the audience, without necessarily changing sets and depicting every minute detail.
Most importantly, the messenger acts as a catalyst of emotions in plays such as Antigone. The messenger is a character that is not directly related to any of the people to whom he is delivering news to or delivering news of. The messenger has no emotional attachment to these characters but only has a master-servant relation. In Antigone, the messenger has been tasked to deliver the news of death, whilst portraying the emotion of a stoic/third person character who is pained by the tragedy that has befallen, but not on a personal level. This can be used to draw a parallel to the feeling of the audience towards the death of a character like Eurydice, who is introduced only in the climactic stage. By not being personally related to Antigone, Haemon, or Eurydice, the messenger allows Creon to have an emotional reaction. This makes the pain portrayed by Creon in the scene tenfold and emotionally richer. This scene not only acts as a moment of realization for Creon, but it allows Creon to show character development. It further allows Creon to express sorrow straying away from his character of an iron-fisted/God-complexed ruler. While Creon has an emotional awakening, it is easy to overlook the messenger’s role in helping nurture this scene. While acting as an additional character of Antigone, the messenger not only has relevance to the story but also assists Creon to mould the emotional richness demanded by Sophocles’ screenplay. Additionally, the messenger’s delivery of the news of death, instead of the portrayal of death, allows the audience to look past the death itself and focus on the emotional implications of such a tragedy.
In conclusion, the role of the messenger in Sophocles’ Antigone offers not only practical benefits to the play but theological and philosophical insights as well (Bradford Harrison). The messenger’s speeches are important elements of Antigone, helping evoke emotions amongst the audience without having to depict certain rather sensitive issues such as suicide. The messenger’s relevance in theatre is unquestionable, as it has stood the test of time. The messenger has been widely accepted as an important element of storytelling throughout history by great playwrights such as Sophocles, Shakespeare, and Stoppard. In the modern era of theatre, the role of the messenger has been defined by long monologues that come along with it. This is a new beginning for the messenger’s character, yet it continues to be underappreciated by the theatre community.
Bio:
Ishaan Singhee is a third-year law student at OP Jindal Global University with a strong passion for theatre and film. His previous publications critique various legal provisions and public policy. His research interest lies in international policy and diplomatic relations.
***
Like Cafe Dissensus on Facebook. Follow Cafe Dissensus on Twitter. Follow Cafe Dissensus on Instagram.
Cafe Dissensus Everyday is the blog of Cafe Dissensus magazine, born in New York City and currently based in India. All materials on the site are protected under Creative Commons License.
***
Read the latest issue of Cafe Dissensus Magazine, “Epidermal Metaphors and Narratives in India”, edited by Elwin Susan John, Sophia College, Mumbai, India.
Cafe Dissensus Everyday 