Dionysos Revenge

7/30/2019 Dionysos Revenge

1/19

Harvard Divinity School

Dionysos's Revenge and the Validation of the Hellenic World-ViewAuthor(s): Park McGintyReviewed work(s):Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 71, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Apr., 1978), pp. 77-94Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity SchoolStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509776 .Accessed: 18/07/2012 07:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press andHarvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hdshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1509776?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1509776?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hdshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/19

DIONYSOS'S REVENGE AND THE VALIDATION OF THEHELLENIC WORLD-VIEWPark McGintyLehigh UniversityBethlehem, PA 18015

Stories of mortals offending the gods and being punished for theirimpudence occupy a prominent position in Greek religious tradition.Almost all of the major deities receive some affront, and the manner inwhich they avenge themselves is a significant, though usually minor,component in defining their nature. In the case of Dionysos, however,the pattern of affront and vengeance occurs too often to be a mereepisode in the god's history and instead forms one of the centralmythical features by which he is characterized.The accounts are too numerous and too variedeven to summarize, sothat here will be presented only a schema of the major types of action.Generally, Dionysos is presented as moving with his cortege from placeto place bringinghisworship to mortals. Resistance to Dionysos and hiscult occurs with varying intensity. In some accounts his antagonistactually assaults him physically,1 akes himcaptive,2or kidnapshim.3 Inone account, the mortal attacks only the god's cortege of maenads.4Inother instances the mortal rebuffs him when he offers his worship,5insults some aspect of his cult,6 or mistreats persons who have beengracious to him.7 Whatever the level of offense given, it is unfailingly

'Lycurgus:Homer Iliad 6.130-40; Sophocles Antigone 955-67 and later accounts. Alsoin the Perseus accounts: Pausanias 2.20. 4; 22.1; 23.7-8, Nonnus Dionysiaka 25-47, andthe Deriades account: Nonnus Dionysiaka 21-40.2Lycurgus in the fragments of Aeschylus and Naevius. For Aesch. see A. Nauck,

Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta2(Leipzig: Teubner, 1926) frgs. 58-62; H. J. Mette,Die Fragmente der Tragodiendes Aischylos (Berlin:Akademie-Verlag, 1959)frgs. 72-76.For Naevius see n. 41 below. Also Pentheus in Euripides Bacchae 433ff. and lateraccounts.3TheTyrrhenian pirates: Homeric Hymn 6, and later accounts.4Boutes: Diodorus 5.50.5Pentheus. The daughters of Proitos: Hesiod Eoiae, in R. Merkelbach and M. L. West,Fragmenta Hesiodea (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967)frg. 131(=Apollodorus 2.[26]2.2). Alsothe daughters of Minyas: Ovid Metamorphoses 4.1ff.; Plutarch Quaest. Graec. 38;Antoninus Liberalis Metamorphoses 10; Aelian Varia Historia 3.42. Also Orpheus:

Aeschylus (=Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta2frg. 22).6The daughters of Eleuther: Suidas, s.v. icXaPcvaLyitcat6vvaov.7The murderers of Ikarios: Hyginus Fabulae 130; Nonnus Dionysiaka 47.34-225.


3/19

78 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWpunished,8 in most cases by Dionysos himself, though sometimes byothers. The retribution is always severe. Sometimes the offendingmortal is imprisoned,9 made ill,10driven mad," blinded,12or killedrelatively directly,'3 though sometimes in a quite painful manner.14 nmany cases his punishment is even more exquisite, usually associatedwith a temporary insanity inflicted by the god. In this madness themortal either kills himself15or some loved one'6 or places himself in asituation so that he will be killed by a loved one.17 In other cases,Dionysos transforms the offenders into animals.18Finally, in one latesource Dionysos continues the mortal's punishment in theunderworld.19Though details vary over time, the basic structure of themyths remains constant throughout antiquity.

Scholars have advanced several interpretations of these stories inDionysiac mythology, some of which are helpful, some not; yet none istotally satisfying.20Often the primarydeficiency of these explanations is8The only exception is that of Perseus, who, because he was acting as the protege ofHera, does not representa mortal insulting a god of his own initiative. In Schol. T on II.14.319: (in H. Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Ilidem vol. 3[Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974]

641), Eustathius 989.23: Perseus throws Dionysos into the Lernean lake. Dionysos faresbetter in other accounts of this episode. In Pausanias (2.20.4; 22.1; 23.7-8) after theconflict Dionysos wins the worship of the Argives; in Nonnus (Dionysiaka 25.47)Dionysos relents from killing Perseus only at the behest of Hermes.

9Lycurgus: Sophocles Antigone 955-65.'OHyginusFabulae 730:the daughters of the Attic shepherdswho had murdered Ikariossufferfrom a pestilence until they memorialize Erigone, Ikarios'sdaughterwho had killedherself out of grief.'Generally the madness is followed bydisaster. Inthe daughtersof Eleutherepisode (n.6, above), however, the madness is curedwithout lastingeffects once Dionysos is honored

properly.'2Lycurgusblinded by Zeus: Nonnus Dionysiaka 21.'3Lycurgus:Homer //. 6.130-40; Deriades: Nonnus Dionysiaka 21-40.'40rpheus dismembered alive by the Bassarides: Aeschylus (=Nauck, TragicorumGraecorum Fragmenta2,frg. 22); Lycurgus torn apart by horses: Apollodorus 3.5.1.'5Boutes:Diodorus 5.50.1-5; Lycurgus: Hyginus Fabulae 132.'6Thewomen of Argos devour their own nurslingsafter the impiety of the daughters ofProitos: see n. 5. The Minyades kill one of theirchildren: see n. 5. Lycurgusis portrayedinlate accounts as killing his wife, or child, or both: Apollodorus 3.5.1; Hyginus Fabulae132.'7Much of the horror of the Bacchae results from the double madnessDionysos imposesin order to have Pentheus destroyed by his own mother. This scenario remains stable inlater accounts."The Tyrrhenian pirates into dolphins: Homeric Hymn 6 and later accounts. The

Minyades into flying animals: see n. 5.'9Lycurgusmust continually fill a leaking vessel: fragment from anon. pap. in D. L.Page, Select Papyri, vol. 3 (London: Heinemann, 1962) 520-25.20Idiscuss older interpretations of Dionysiac mythology in general, relating thesereadings to underlyinghermeneuticalpresuppositionsin my Interpretationand Dionysos.Method in the Study of a God (The Hague: Mouton, 1978).


4/19

PARK McGINTYthat they have simply ceased to be relevant. Advances in the humansciences have outdated many of their presuppositions and have shiftedthe focus of interest to other issues. The present paper is intended toapply a new theoretical model, the Berger-Luckmann "socialconstruction of reality"approach2'to these "resistance-"or "vengeance-myths."It will argue that these myths are bestunderstood as ideology,22i.e., as representing narratives which define the Greek universe ashierarchical by nature and by design and which thereby justify theasymmetrical allocation of power, privilege,and statusamong gods andmen. I argue, then, that the most central function of the vengeancemyths is as a mechanism for social control by reinforcing acceptedconcepts of social stratification. This is not to say that themythographers were self-consciously using mythology to mystify thecredulous or using religious beliefspurelyfor secularends. Certainlyforthe most part they shared the underlying assumptions which the mythseffectively embody. These assumptions included belief in a supernaturalrealm analogous to and, in large measure, providing the model for thehuman order. Therefore, at least in Hellenic times, most of thosecommunicating the myths would have understood themselves aspresenting the inevitable and proper nature of things rather than asvalidating a certain historically bound set of social rules. In general,

21Thebasic references for this approach are Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann,The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1966), and PeterBerger, The Sacred Canopy (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1969). Much recentanthropology has moved in the same direction. Cf. esp. the work of Clifford Geertz, MaryDouglas, and Victor Turner. While the work of Claude Levi-Strauss has applications toshowing how essential categories organize the "shape"of social worlds, from the presentperspectiveit is too formalistic to elucidate the way the myths arelinked to social, political,and economic realities. While the argument of the present paper could be described asshowing how the vengeance myths mediate certain contradictions within Greek society,both the contradictions and the mediations are historically bound to a specific system ofsocial relationships and hence do not representany inherent propertyof the human mind.The appreciative critique of Levi-Strauss by Kirk (Myth [Berkeley: University ofCalifornia, 1973] 42-83) is helpful, especially in his suggested modifications of thestructuralist method (pp. 73-77). Kirk's insistence on the fortuitous nature of muchmythical material is doubtlesslycorrect, but it should be supplemented byawareness of thepolitics involved in creating and transmittingmythology. Myths after all were told to andfor specific constituencies who had ways of making their approval and disapproval felt.22Theword "ideology" s used herein a value-free sense to referto structured deas whichfunction both to define a world (to serve as a map or model of reality) and to orientpeople's behavior in that world (to serve as a blueprintor modelfor reality). While oftenrestricted to thought systems which servespecific interest groups, "ideology"is here usedin the broadersense because it is the only term which implies both an organizedset of ideasand a dynamic process through which these ideas become the "real world" of a personappropriating them. "Worldview,"although helpful, connotes too much passivity;while"propaganda,"although includingthe dynamicaspect involved in "world-appropriation,"is too pejorative.

79


5/19

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWbecause these assumptions were so pervasive as to be unconscious, themythographers would not have been aware of transmitting basicassumptions in narrativeform. Nevertheless, the most salient effect ofthe mythswas to communicate two "truths."First,differentpersonsandgroups each occupied a clearly defined "place" in the universe withattendant rights and responsibilities. Second, the moral nature of theuniverse was such that any challenge to this hierarchywas unjustifiedand bound to be punished. The myths thereby revealed the properbalance between different constituencies, divine and human. In sodoing, they mitigated tensions between Dionysiac religion and otherfacets of Hellenism and at the same time showed that Dionysos was apowerful bulwark of the Hellenic ethos rather than, as many moderninterpretations have suggested, its antagonist.

Mythology and World ConstructionThe presentinterpretationassumes that at the empiricallyobservablelevel all cultures, hence all religions, are constructed by humans forhumans.That is, they result from the selection-sometimes thought out,sometimes "revealed," often made without conscious decision-of

certain possibilities for understanding and acting in the world, aselection, then, which implicitlyexcludes competing possibilities. Sincehumans are not bound by instinct and must be taught how to be properpersons in their respective societies, a great number of culturalperformances are required simply to convey the "true"state of realityand therebyto encourage properbehavior. This transmissionof cultureis complicated by the fact that societies generally fulfill someconstituencies' needs better than others. Hence, different groups havedifferent interests at stake when it comes to perpetuating ortransforming given sociocultural patterns. Those who benefit from thecurrentpatternswill tend to act to preservethem. Those whose lot is lessfortunate will tend, usually, to seek thecompensations which the culturemakes available in lieu of fuller satisfaction. Sometimes, however, theywill actively seek to change the sociocultural order better to servetheirneeds. Thus, at any given moment, the accepteddefinition of reality mayhave a relatively precarious hold over the members of the society.Developments at all levels of the society create new possibilitiesand newimperatives, necessitating in turn the continual validation, defense, andrepair of the current social world. The basic argument of this paper isthat the Dionysiac vengeance myths representa complex mechanismforregulatingthe Greeksocial world, guidingboth the thoughts and actionsof several different constituencies so as to reconcile them to the overalllegitimacy of the Hellenic cosmos.

80


6/19

PARK McGINTYBefore discussion of the particular vengeance myths themselves,two further points which bear on the process by which Dionysosachieves both his assumed realityand his forcefulness in Hellenicculture

need to be covered: (a) the place of violence in society and (b) theinternalization of symbolic social facts, especially deities, by persons insuch a way that these symbols assume the status of paramount reality.While not inevitably related, in the present circumstance these twoissues coalesce so as to make Dionysos a credibleavengerof the order ofthings and hence an effective control mechanism, even though from thescientific point of view he is merely a symbolic social entity.a) It is a sociological commonplace that violence or, what is moreusually the case, the threat of violence stands as a foundation of socialorder. Since not all needs in any human group can be satisfied, menorganize society so that the gratification obtained by obeying the socialrules seems preferableto the likely resultsof disobeying them. The morecredible the threat of violence and the more intense its threatenedlevel,the less likely is behavior defined as deviant by those enforcingthe rules.Gods, then, would be very effective control mechanisms since, bydefinition, they are more powerful, more knowing, and often moreirascible than men.

b) The second point concerns the manner in which persons learnabout their world, that is, the manner in which reality is sociallyconstructed. As argued powerfully by Berger and Luckmann,23 ocialworlds are constructed through a dialectical process of externalization,objectivation, and internalization. That is, in order to exist, humansexternalize their thoughts, desires, and emotions in publicly observableaction. When shared with others, this action (speech, gesture, role, etc.)attains the objectivestatus of a social fact. Persons, especiallythe young,learning the accepted rules of a given social order then internalize thesesocial facts as part of the inevitable nature of things.In this manner at a certain moment someone, through language andother symbolic behavior, expressed or externalized the concept ofDionysos as an objectively existing supernatural personality. Sharedwith others, this symbolic reality became a social fact which then wasinternalized as real by increasing numbers of individuals. The morenumerous his worshippers, the more obvious the god's existence andpower seemed, especially to newergenerations enteringthe culture afterthe beliefs had become common. In this way Dionysos's devotees wouldcome to see the god as just as real as a ruler who had never been seendirectly but whose existence seemed to be verified bynumerous indirectproofs.

23The Social Construction of Reality.

81


7/19

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWOnce Dionysos had become partof the supernaturalsociety which themajority of the Greeks accepted as constituting the upper reaches oftheir own society, he, like the other deities, could serve as a credible

threat against disobeying the rules of this hierarchy. Though, as will bespelled out later, Dionysos himself serves as the occasion fortemporarily suspending certain of the generally observed social andreligious worlds, he does this in such a manner that fundamentally hedefends rather than subverts the accepted hierarchy. Thus, the socialorder was protected against deviant behavior by the threat of violence,both human and divine. The Dionysiac myths gain their complexityfrom the fact that different constituencies could read them asthreatening different things. As such, they possess at least two differentlevels of meaning: (1) as expressing Hellenic social assumptions, (2) asexpressing uniquely Dionysian matters. The remainder of this articlewill spell out these respective levels of meaning.

1. Vengeance Myths and Hellenic Social Assumptions.The vengeance myths associated with Dionysos correspond closely tothe Hellenic portrayal of the proper relations between gods and men.Stories of conflict on both the divine and human levels are so common

as to prove that conflict was a central leitmotiv of Greek culture. Thegods squabble with one another; humans fight; the gods use humans toget back at one another; humans appeal to the gods to champion theircause against that of other mortals. Such an understanding of theuniverse implies a network of relationships,both divine and human, rifewith serious tensions. Yet the situationdoes not reflect a state of war butrather a tempestuous family of individuals, each pressingclaimsagainstneighbors and relatives. Such a worldview then would lead men to seethe internal struggles as an inevitable result of powerful and competingwills and would thereforeplace a premiumon conflict reductionand onthe virtues of civility, flexibility, and diplomatic skill. As the negativeexamples of Hippolytus, Pentheus, and, though in a differentmanner,Creon demonstrate, wisdom dictated that faced with competingdemands one accept gracefully the ambiguity of things.One way to insure proper order is for the powerful to make randomchecks on this desired civility, rewarding its presence, punishing itsabsence. Indeed, in numerous myths this is precisely what the Greekgods do. When graciously received, they bless their hosts with someboon, usually associated with their divine personality. When repulsed,they manifest their divine powers destructively, creating sometimesnatural, sometimes social disasters for their antagonists.24

24Forreferencesto this topos, see the following: A. P. Burnett,"Pentheusand Dionysos:Host and Guest," Classical Philology 65 (1970) 24-25, nn. 8-9; G. Procacci, "Internoa un

82


8/19

PARK McGINTYWhenseen as anexampleof thegenreof theoxenia, hereception f agod by mortals, the vengeance myths reveal their value asencouragementso properbehavior.Theyshow thatthe differentevels

withinthe Greekhierarchy nterpenetrate, ut alwaysat the initiativeand underthe control of the higher evel.A god maychoose to takeamortal over,andit isexceedingly isky or the mortal o turnhimor herdown. Let a mortal, however,overstephis or her place,even to theextent of unintentionally eeing a deity naked, and the mortal isdoomed. Thus, throughoutGreek mythologythe situation occursrepeatedlywhere hosegoingalongwith hewishesof the morepowerfultend to be rewarded,while those resistingalmost withoutexceptionsuffer. In many cases the process of destruction s presentedas apracticallyautomaticresponseto disobedienceon the part of one'sontological nferiors.Often the punishmentby the deity is nothing more than theexaggeration f ordinarily eneficialdivinepower o adestructiveevel.Forexample,Dionysos'smother,Semele,broughtonherowndoombydemanding hat Zeus,herlover,show himselfto her as he did to thegods.Compelledbyhisown swornoath to obeyherrequest,Zeustookon histhunderboltnatureand inso doingblasted hehaplessSemele.25TheDionysiacvengeancemythsreveala parallel esponseorelationsthat,hadtheynot beenviolated,wouldhave beenmutually atisfying.Simply by overemphasizing spectsof his naturewhichwereinitiallyoffered in a benign form, Dionysos destroysthose who refuse hisblessings.Many of the instancesof his vengeance, n fact, representmerelycruelsimulacraof his ordinary ult.Boutes'madplummetntothe wellis anironicparodyof Dionysos'sownmythicalplunge nto thesea andLerneanLake,as is theseawarddriveof theTyrsenian irates.WhenLycurgus illshimself,hiswife,orhis son withan axthinkinghathe is choppingdowna vine,heacts under he delusionhatheisstriking

Episodo del Poema di Silio Italico (7.162-211)," Rivista Philologia 42 (1914) 441-48, esp.442, n. 1;J. Fontenrose, Philemon, Lot and Lycaon (University of California Publicationsin Classical Philology 13;Berkeley, 1945)93-120, esp. 94-102, and nn. 15-16. Burnett, 15,n. 1, makes the relevant observation that the theme of divine punishment is central toseveral tragedies (Aeschylus: Persae, Prometheus, Agamemnon; Sophocles: Ajax, Trach-iniae, Oedipus Tyrannus; Euripides: Hippolytus, Bacchae) and important in others(Euripides: Hercules Furens, Andromache). Furthermore, the notion that gods will, as amatter of course, punish those slighting their TLM4J is perfectly congruent with Hellenicideas; Dodds cites, in addition to Dionysos's demandsfor honor (Bacchae 208-9, 319-21),that of Aphrodite: EuripidesHippolytus 7-8, and that of Thanatos: EuripidesAlcestis 53.Finally, for recentanalysis integrating Dionysos's destruction of Pentheus into the generalphenomenon of Greek gods destroying mortals, see Jeanne Roux, Euripide: LesBacchantes (Paris: "Les Belles Lettres," 1970) 34-42.5PindarOlympian Odes 2.25-27; Euripides Baccae 1-3; Ovid Metamorphoses 3.259-315.

83


9/19

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWat a property or symbol of the god. When marvels appearjust beforeDionysos drives his victims mad, they are in the form of Bacchicmanifestations: wine, honey, ivy, vines, aromatic smells, snakes, lions,tigers, panthers, bears, the sounds of timbrels, flutes, horns, andcymbals. The madness itself is, of course, simply the mania intensified,while the child murders are cruel travesties of the mountaintopdiasparagmoi, where animals were torn apart at the culmination of theecstatic worship. In essence, when Dionysos sees his mania refused, heimposes it involuntarily but, like the unmasked glory of Zeus beforeSemele, now raised to an intensityincommensuratewith humanpowers.Potentially joyful, the ecstasy now destroys.There are, however, a number of other mythsin which the outcome ofDionysos's appearanceto mortals is fortunate. Incompatiblewith otherinterpretationsof the resistance-vengeance mythology, they supporttheview that the myths are basically validations of proper divine-humanrelationships. Furthermore, they suggest that the typical vengeancemyth (divine appearance, rejection by humans, divine punishment) isbut the negative instance of the more basicform of the theoxenia: divineappearance, reception by humans, divine recompense. In the positiveinstances, humans welcome Dionysos graciously26or defend him fromattack by others.27 n response, he rewards them with some blessing,28saves them from possible hardship,29or when that is impossible,memorializes them30 or provides some other recompense.31As in thecase of his vengeance, the god's rewards are also congruent with hisgeneral nature and worship: the gifts of translation to a happierexistence, ecstatic worship, and the joys of wine.

26Ikarios: see n. 7 above; Brongos: Nonnus Dionysiaka 17.37-86; Falernus: SiliusItalicus Punica 7.162-211; Oeneus: Hyginus Fabulae 129;the inhabitants of Naxos (whoallowed Dionysos to have Ariadne): Seneca Oedipus 488-96; cf. Propertius 3.17.27-28;and the Egyptians: Diodorus 3.73.5-6.27The helmsman of the Tyrsenian or Tyrrhenian pirates: Homeric Hymn 6; OvidMetamorphoses 3.582-691; Kutis, the wife of Lycurguswho urgeshim not to resist: Anon.pap., (ed. Page, n. 19above); Charops, the Thracianwho informs Dionysos of Lycurgus'sevil intentions: Diodorus 3.65.5-6, and Cadmus and Teiresias: Euripides Bacchae 170-369.

28Ikarios,Brongos, Falernus all get wine; the helmsman in the Homeric hymn is made"entirely blessed," 7racv6hf3ov;Charops gets Lycurgus's Thracian kingdom andknowledge of the initiatory rites.29Kutis,Lycurgus'swife, is saved from destruction; so too the Tyrrhenian helmsman.30After he tragic deaths of Ikarios and Erigone, Erigone is memorialized in the Aiorafestival (Hyginus Fabulae 130)and/ or she and herfather,along withtheirfaithfuldog, aretranslated into constellations: Nonnus Dionysiaka 21-40.3'Cadmos and his wife, though having to suffer many hardships, are eventually to bebrought ot the Land of the Blessed: Euripides Bacchae 1330-39.

84


10/19

PARK McGINTYWhen taken with the stories of destruction, these myths offer theGreeks a clear and religiously reasonable choice: accept the divine

presenceand be happy or resistand be destroyed. And it is clear from thetotality of descriptions of Dionysos's relationships with mankind thatthe Greeks did not usually perceive his presence to be oppressive.Indeed, the entire first partof Euripides'Bacchae evokes thejoy given byDionysiac worship when properly accepted.32Another powerfulindication that the vengeance myths areideologicalsupports for the divine hierarchyis the fact that the myths consistentlyportray antagonism to Dionysos as culpable. Furthermore, Dionysosenjoys the support of all the other Hellenic deities with theunderstandable exception of Hera. This is clearly the case from theearliest parts of the tradition. In Homer, for example, it is Zeus whoblinds Lycurgus for having attacked Dionysos.33 There is no need tointerpretthis as evidence of Homer'scontempt for Dionysos's unnaturalcowardice and inability to take care of himself,34 especially sinceDionysos seems to have been portrayed as a child.35The tone of theepisode is sympathetic to Dionysos and hostile to Lycurgus. Afterhaving been blinded by Zeus, Lycurgussoon dies "since he was hated byall the immortal gods" (irei a&avaroloLv&arjXxOerTOrrao OELatv).36The lesson is that Dionysos is part of the divine family and ought not tobe opposed, not that he is pusillanimous and an easy victim.The most powerful demonstration of Dionysos's congruence withHellenic views on gods and men comes from tragedy. The two mostimportant tragic figures exemplifying the error of impiety towardsDionysos are Lycurgus and Pentheus. Though the complete works arelost, fragments remain from the tetralogy dealing with Lycurgus byAeschylus, revealing striking similarities to Euripides'treatment of thePentheus episode in the Bacchae. Like Euripides'Pentheus, Aeschylus'sLycurgus speaks contemptuously of Dionysos's weakness andeffeminacy.37 Apparently as a warning, Dionysos fills the house or

32Cf.Jacqueline de Romilly, "Le theme du bonheur dans les Bacchantes," Revue desEtudes grecques 76 (1963) 361-80; R. P. Festugiere, "La signification religieuse de laparodos des Bacchantes," Eranos 54 (1956) 72-86.33Il. 6.139.34As Guthrie does ingeniously in The Greeks and their Gods (Boston: Beacon, 1955)165.35Hehas "nurses" rtOe1aL); and when he dives into the sea, Thetis, in maternalfashion,takes him to her breast (OErTt6' vred:aro K6Xhrr eL&6Tra).n Nonnus (20.4), even as amature god Dionysos flees, but only after Hera tricks him into taking off his armor and

frightening him with thunder.3611. .140.37Nauck,Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta2,frgs. 60-62; Mette, Die Fragmente derTragodiendes Aischylos, frgs. 72-74. For discussion see Mette, Der verlorene Aischylos

85


11/19

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWpalace with his presence and causes the roof to shake like a maenadrevelling.38The ending is unknown, but clearly Lycurgusis punishedbythe god or his representatives.

Aeschylus is suggestive but it is Euripides who, in the Bacchae,presents the richest rhetoric about Dionysos's legitimacy and thefoolishness of rejecting him. There is, of course, considerabledisagreement over Euripides'attitude towards the god.39Yet the dramais consistent with other expressions of Dionysos's place in Hellenismand, used judiciously, can serve as an index of traditional conceptions.The entire momentum of the play works to establish Pentheus aswrong. The rhetoric marshalled to convince him that the worship ofDionysos is properconforms so closely to what is thought of as typicallyHellenic that it could come from Apollo's temple at Delphi. Throughoutthe play Pentheus is judged not merely for impiety (e.g., 490) but forviolating ancestral traditions &s 0' 6o1AtrXtKacp6va, "as old as timeitself" (201). Both Cadmus (331) and the Chorus (387-89, 890-92)interpret his resistance as a violation of law. Dionysos himselfcontinually uses the rhetoric of "wisdom"(641: Trposaouoov av6p6s) of"moderation"(641: oawpov', 1341: coxpovev) and of "understanding"versus "folly" (39: iK1a06ev, 480: aclaOEZ,490: 4aaOiar, 1345:cUWOe0'),40o exhort Pentheus and the city of Thebes into the properbearing. Even the most "Apolline"of all sentiments-"know yourself,""know that you are but a mortal"-is quite at home in the developingtension. In their first encounter (506; cf. 635-36) Dionysos warnsPentheus that he does not know his own true identity or his own limits.Later,just before Dionysos turns on Pentheus to lure him to his deathon Cithaeron (794-95), he advises him that it would be better to makethe proper sacrifices than "to kick against the pricks, a mortal againstgod." Earlier (396-97) the chorus had already spoken againstoverstepping proper human boundaries. Thus, the hybris of Pentheusgoes well beyond a youthful defensiveness; it is a rebellion against theordained nature of the universe. And finally, Dionysos invokes the kingof the gods on his side. Zeus, he replies (1349) to Agave's lament, longago ordained things to work out this way.(Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963) 136-41; Louis Sechan, Etudes sur la tragedie dans sesrapports avec la ceramique (Paris: Champion, 1926) 63-79.

38jvOovaLo 6v)6&lua, faKXEeL arTyrl7( ragicorumGraecorumFragmenta2, rg. 58; DieFragmente der Trag6dien des Aischylos, frg. 76).39Forreview discussion of general scholarly positions see the following: for pre-1912interpretations, Rene Nihard, Le Problkme des Bacchantes d'Euripide (Louvain: Ch.Peters, 1912) 9-14; for more recent materials, E. R. Dodds, Euripides' Bacchae2, pp.xxxix-1; Jean Carriere,"Surle message des Bacchantes,"L 'Antiquiteclassique 35 (1966)119, n. 7.4OCf.Burnett, 21. Also see Festugiere (80-81) for a discussion of the contrast betweene6J5, "he who knows," and a&aO6, "the uninstructed," as used in the Bacchae.

86


12/19

PARK McGINTYThus, Dionysiac mythology in the earliestliterature,both Homer andthe tragedians, clearly supported the classical virtues of piety andavoidance of hybris, i.e., of stepping out of one's place in the scheme of

things. As time passed, poets seem to have transmitted the myths morefrom aesthetic than from religious concerns, so that it is risky to takelater literary versions of the myths as reflections of contemporaryreligiosity. Nevertheless, the structure of the vengeance myths remainedremarkablystable through the time of Nonnus.41 To the extent (and itmay have been negligible) that the Hellenistic and Roman readerslooked to the myths for a definition of the nature of reality, they wouldhave confronted an unvarying demand that humans be subservient togods.If, indeed, the vengeance myths did reinforce the general Hellenicreligious ethos from the earliest period, then there is no reason tocontinue to define Dionysos as the antithesis of Apollo, with the latterrepresenting genuine Hellenism and the former,an alien regression.It istrue that the Greeks frequently employed binary oppositions. It is alsotruethat in many respects Apollo and Dionysos differmarkedly.Yet it istime to admit that the standard Apolline/Dionysiac dichotomies-law/ disorder; boundary-maintaining/ boundary-breaking; Olympic/chthonic; idea/will; dream/intoxication; masculine/feminine; polis-oriented/ individualistic-while they may help clarify the nature of thegods, can be pushed too far. By fixating on such structuraloppositions,one freezes Dionysos and Apollo into a static and misleading mold.Apollo too has his disruptive side, his strange connections to theunderworld, his own mania. Conversely, Dionysos was often seen as agreat agent for civilization and order as the Greeks knew it. It is notinsignificant that in Sophocles' Antigone, one of the most harrowingdramas of excess in Greek tragedy, it is Dionysos that the chorusinvokes to heal the city of its troubles and reestablish it in its propercourse (1115-54). To be sure, the god's connections with Thebes wouldpredispose one to think of him, but he would hardly have been invokedhad he been conceived of solely as a deity of excess and madness.

4'The third century B.C. Roman tragedy Lycurgus by Naevius seems clearly toreproduce the general structure of Aeschylus's Edonoi and centers on divine punishmentof hybris. (See E. H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin [4 vols.; London: Heinemann,1936] 2.122-35). By the time of Roman ascendency the myths were so common that theyno longer needed full telling but could function as a literarytopos. Authors could simplylist key names and artistspaint key figures of those punished(Horace Carmina2.19.14-16;Diodorus 3.65.4; 4.4; Ovid Tristia5.3.39-40) or those blessed(Philostratus Imagines 1.25)or groups containing both (Pausanias 1.20.3;Propertius 3.17.21-28; Longos Daphnis andChloe 4.3; Seneca Oedipus 435-96) and these figures could function as shorthand slogansto evoke images of divine power and to warn against impiety. Finally, Nonnus collectsalmost all of the vengeance myths and supplies his own supplements, in general changingthe myths only to heighten the power of Dionysos.

87


13/19

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWIn effect, the vengeance myths present Dionysos as consistent withother deities in upholding the Hellenic order. Dionysiac excess is a

response to betrayal or attack, not a necessary property of the god. Intelling these myths the Greeks reiterated the complex hierarchy ofrelationships on both the divine and the human levels and, moreimportantly, represented this hierarchy as a unity. Since Dionysos ispart of the religious system, whoever assails his presencenot only insultsan individual god but also ultimately impugns the integrity of the entirepantheon. While there are indisputable tensions within the divinefamily, there is a more important solidarity, so that it is most precariousfor mortals to try to play off one deity against another.42

Stories such as the vengeance myths would make it exceedinglydifficult for a Greek to ignore any important sphere of the religious life.This is not only because the myths could be expected to instill fear butalso because they portray a god making just claims but rejected orassaulted by objectionable mortals. The story line makes it generallyimpossible to sympathize with the mortals and not to sympathize withDionysos. The myths would then represent negative models of humanaction, inculcating not only respectand awe for the deity but also a senseof shame at the ingratitudeof men. In essence, the audience is forced tochoose for the gods against men. This situation is repeated many timesthroughout Greek literature, much of which concerns reflections onhuman duty to the gods. By this repetition the sense of the divinepresence becomes quite powerful, no matter how ambiguous it appearsfrom the perspective of human self interest. Also, through theideologically clever maneuver of making the humans the villains, themyths solve the problem of theodicy43and thereby provide a ready-made justification for violence in the actual Bacchic cult, such as thehunting and occasional murder of the descendents of the Minyades bythe Dionysiac priest during the Agrionia.44 Men initiated thedisequilibrium in their relationship to Dionysos. If this disequilibriumstill producesaftershocks,humanshave no one to blame but themselves.The resistance myths postulate man's permanent debt to Dionysos,which can be discharged only through proper religious observance.Furthermore, since the resistance myths are paralleled by stories ofhuman ingratitude and disrespect to other deities, there is an overallideological momentum demanding obeisance to all of the gods.

42Thatgods could force mortals into opposing other gods does not, of course, argueagainst the fact that mortals were not to initiate such opposition on their own.43Cf.Berger(The Sacred Canopy, 54-80, esp. 73-78) for discussion relatingtheodicy toman's choice for the divine "other"and against himself.44PlutarchQuaest. Graec. 38.

88


14/19

PARK McGINTYOn a different level the myths stand as an implicit curb againstdestructive action on the part of the devotees. Lycurgus, the daughtersof Cadmos, of Minyas and of Proitos all cause or directly inflict death,but only because they stand under the condemnation of the god. Themyths, hence, associate anti-social action with improper rather thanproper divine-human relations and, despite their violence, indirectlycelebrate a harmonious world.

2. Vengeance Myths and the Special Characterof Dionysos in Greek ReligionWhile it is true that the myths reinforce the logic of Greek religion,

there are important ways in which they point to the special status ofDionysos in Hellenism. Stories of resistance are much more importantin the lore about Dionysos than in that of any other deity. Other godsmay be occasionally insulted, rebuffed,and abused;but none so often asDionysos. Also peculiar to the Dionysiac myths is the fact that in mostof them people are resisting the god's gift-his mania and its attendantexultation-rather than some act of aggression or demand forunpleasant service. It may be true that some persons resist submittingtheir reason to extrarational forces, but in the historical period we haveno evidence that the actual devotees did fight the mania or find itthreatening. The psychological theory of resistance is suggestive, but itdoes not solve the puzzle of stories which portray certain peoplejoyously accepting a cultic ecstasy while others violently repulse it.Like much of Dionysiac religion, stories of resistance to ecstasy mayalways elude thoroughly satisfactory explanation. However, recentanthropological scholarship points to exceedingly suggestiverelationships between ecstatic movements and socioeconomic realitiesand may help reveal tensions reflected in the myths and the solution tothese tensions which the myths aid in bringing about. In EcstaticReligion,45 I. M. Lewis argues convincingly that one entire genre ofpossession cults representsan oblique aggressive strategy on the part ofpersons who are socially marginal, i.e., persons preventedfrom playingthe role in society that they feel is due them. By opening themselvesup toecstatic possession, these persons temporarily are able to breaktraditional role stereotypes and to undergo experiences and claimprivileges ordinarily denied them. Because it is the god or spirit orancestor who possesses and acts through them, they are not heldresponsible for suspending daily patterns and behaving in anextraordinary fashion. Lewis sees Dionysiac religion as one instance of

45EcstaticReligion: An Anthropological Study of Spirit Possession and Shamanism(Baltimore: Penguin, 1971).

89


15/19

90 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWthis peripheral possession, largely because of its presumed appeal towomen and to men of low social status.46According to Lewis's theory,by participatingin the mania, thedevotees both expresseda mildprotestagainst social inequitieswithout seriously challenging them and enjoyed

46EcstaticReligion, 101. The assertion that Dionysos was a god primarilyof the lowerclasses is difficult, if not impossible, to verify or refute. G. Aurelio Privitera(Dioniso inOmero e nella poesia greca arcaica. [Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo, 1970] 21-27, passim)presentssuggestive evidence that Dionysos was both known by the Mycenaen aristocracyand venerated by the nobility of the archaic and classical periods. Dionysiac religion is,however, complex; and the socially powerful could have worshipped Dionysos as god ofwine and drama without associating themselves with the orgiasticcult which, after all, isthe catalyst for the violence in the resistance-vengeancemyths.The centralissue is actuallywhether it was primarilythe socially marginal who were the carriers of the ecstatic cult.Surviving evidence suggests that indeed it was the "relatively deprived" members ofsociety, especially women, who were most attracted to the ecstatic cult. (References towomen and the orgia are assembled in Farnell, Cults, 5.297-99). Relative deprivation, asrecent discussions (cf. David Aberle, "ANote on Relative Deprivation Theoryas Appliedto Millenarian and Other Cult Movements"in W. A. Lessa and E. Z. Vogt, eds., ReaderinComparative Religion2[New York: Harper& Row, 1965]537-41; John Gager, Kingdomand Community [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975]27-28, 94-96) make clear,is not a static, objectivecategory but rather refers to a discrepancy between what a personor group sees as legitimate expectations on the one hand and actuality on the other. Thisdiscrepancy between what is hoped for and what is attainable could then be sufficient tolead even prominent but frustrated figures to participate in the orgia. Given that Greekhistorians concerned themselves with the powerful, it is not surprising that the onlyhistorical devotees of the ecstasy whose social backgroundwe know(Olympias, mother ofAlexander, and Skylas, a Scythian king)werepowerful figures. What is striking,however,is the fact that both were barred from playing fully the role he or she desired. Herodotus(4.78-80) explicitly states that Skylas, even though king, was dissatisfied with Scythianculture and preferred disguising himself as an ordinaryGreek and participatingin Greekcustoms to being a Scythian. The rest of the Scythian leadership found their King'sparticipation in the Dionysiac orgia shameful and brought about hisdeath. Olympias, forher part, though close to the pinnacle of Macedonian leadership,was constantly thwartedfrom the level of power she so clearlycraved. The royal women of Macedonia, no matterhow talented, occupied (and, more important for the presentdiscussion, could expect tooccupy) positions of subservience relativeto the men surroundingthem, a fact emphasizedby Alexander's alleged remark (Plutarch Alexander 68) that his mother's assumingcommand in Epirus was a wise choice since the Macedonians would never submit tohaving a woman as king. (On the disparity betweenthe abilities of and the opportunitiesfor Macedonian queens, see G. H. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens [Baltimore: JohnHopkins Press, 1932]esp. 1-17.) Thus, according to the interpretationoffered here, bothSkylas and Olympias, though powerful in one sense, were, in another sense, powerless tofulfill their most basic aspirations and hence sought compensatory satisfactions in theDionysiac ecstasy. Similarly in the Bacchae (11.185-90) Cadmus and Teiresias, the onlymale devotees of Dionysos, are both essentiallypowerless, and explicitly contrast thejoysof the Dionysian ecstasy to the burden of old age. Once one notes that the devotees of theecstatic cult tend to be those who are blocked from the full exercise of their powers, it ispossible to abandon the traditionalbut fatuous sexist interpretationsthat see women as bynature more prone than men to the Bacchic orgia.


16/19

PARK McGINTYa brief respite from their drudgery and boredom. De Romilly has wellexpressed this escapist aspect of the cult by calling it "an evasiontowards God."47

Yet whereas possession cults guarantee certain benefits for marginalsocial classes, the more powerful persons in the society havecountervailing strategies to contain these outbursts. In the firstplace, ina sophisticated, class-stratifiedsociety, the elite would want to sparethecommunity such possession cults because the latter would seem inappallingly bad taste, much in the same way that contemporary upper-class Christians tend to find speaking in tongues by lower-classChristians an embarrassment. Secondly, however mild or temporary,such protests against the prevailingsocial order are always threatening.Lewis'stheory is helpful in that it not only makes sense out of possessioncults but also leads one to predict reactions against such cults. As ananthropologist, Lewis primarilytreats tribalcultures,where accusationsof witchcraft serveas the main mechanism for the upper-class"counter-attack"; but his analysis is relevant for the Greek situation.In the tribal context, while possession frees the ecstatic fromresponsibility for his actions, it often also taints him with suspicion. Heis now perceivedas chargedwith supernaturalpowerswhich can be usedmaliciously, and his social superiors can accuse him of being a witchwho employs black magic and can discipline him accordingly.Applying Lewis's analysis to the Dionysiac vengeance myths, we canlink the religious tensions to underlying social tensions. Lewis'stheorysuggests that in part the ecstatic cult was a religious response tostraitened social circumstances and that at some level it was seen intension with dominant cultural and social values. The motif ofresistance to this cult would then be an ideological equivalent towitchcraft accusations: the protest by the dominant social group48against the protest of the subordinate religious group; in other wordsresistance against resistance. In this case rather than accusing theDionysiac votaries of witchcraft, the mythical superior group, when itattempts any justification at all, justifies its opposition in terms ofallegiance to more "established" deities, thereby impugning theDionysiac cult as a betrayal of traditional values.What makes the vengeance myths so complex is that both viewpointsaremaintainedand hencepresentedto the audience at the sametime. Onthe one hand, the dominant ideology emerging from the myths is that

47De Romilly, p. 365.48Whatever he actual historical relationship between Dionysos and the rulingclass, inthe myths the number of kings, rulers,and apparently"established"matrons resistingtheecstatic cult is striking.

91


17/19

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWDionysos indeed does belong within the accepted structure and thatappeals to some greaterallegiance elsewhere are misguided and deservethe punishment they receive. At the same time, because the resistancemyths recur so frequently, they, in effect, celebrate resistance to theecstatic cult and form, as it were, a kind of narrative"minorityreport"on the place of Dionysos in the overall system.Thus, what is expressed is not a conflict between establishedHellenism and an upstart interloper but a set of tensions betweenlegitimate but divergent religious (and social) allegiances which themyths resolve into a remarkably precise formula for coexistence. Theplayers in the dramasmay have been obliterated by the god's legitimatefury, but they have delivered their cautionary message to all who heartheir tale. At the same time the victorious Dionysos delivers his owncaution against opposing a god. Becausethe mythsare tales of misdeedsjustifiably punished rather than of rawpowerand irascibility,they meshinto the wider ideology of moderation, justice, civility, reciprocity,balance, and self-knowledge and therefore validate the unspokenassumptions of Hellenic religion. There is a broad cultural synthesisimplicit in the resistance myths; and it depends on resolving severalantithetical strains into, if not a compromise, a fragile equipoise whereall voices are heard and the ultimate outcome is meaningful in terms ofthe Greeks' shared values.Beneaththe cultural synthesis, however, the mythsderivetheir powerfrom the fact that contending classes would each be able to focus ondifferent aspects of the myth and see its own values upheld. Thecommon people, just as they prayed to the "lesser"deities for aid inpractical matters, would tend to identify with the fortunes of gods likeDionysos who were not at the center of power. Following the career ofDionysos they would realizethat, although he might be rebuffedby highand mighty mortals, he had the final word. He not only offered his giftsbut also imposed hiswill on mortalsof everystatus. Ultimately, throughthe ecstasy Dionysos forced all to put aside the discriminatingcharacteristicsof rank and privilegeand lose themselves in a new socialand cosmic harmony.49The message of the myths is clear: those whopridefully refused the momentary, ecstatic unity and equality paiddearly for their arrogance.

49The irst section of Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedystill representsone of the mosteffective evocations of the suspension of social barriers produced by the Dionysianecstasy.In light of the powerful appeal of the laterDionysiac cult as a salvation religion, it is notunreasonable to speculate that the Bacchic ecstasy may have served, from a very earlyperiod, as a catalyst for inchoate eschatological longings for a society both egalitarianandjoyful.

92


18/19

PARK McGINTYThe elite, on the other hand, could take comfort from another layerof

meaning. While it is true that the myths present the downfall of thepowerful, this downfall occurs only at the hands of the more powerful,i.e., the gods. Although in terms of content the mythsmay representthemomentary triumph of the values of the dispossessed, in terms of formalrelationships they are quite explicit in affirming that anyone whoviolates his rank in the social structure of gods and men is impudent,immoral, and doomed. The myths, then, may have allowed for thetemporary suspension of rules but only by legitimatingthis suspensionin terms of more fundamental rules which upheld clearly defined powerrelationships.By accomplishing this balance the vengeance myths perform one ofthe central functions of an ideology: defining the authentic nature of thecommunity. On the supernatural level the myths demonstrate thatthough the divine "family"is rife with tensions, each individual deitywithin it shares the basic value that mortals must bow to immortals andeach is readyto act to support this value. On the human level the mythsalso demonstrate a generally unified community, within which thediverse needs of different segments deserve respect.In their own way the resistance myths help prevent the formation ofan outcaste group. In terms of the socially marginal, who might bestigmatized because of low-class religious values and therefore becomeeven more marginal, the myths serve as a sanction in the name of Zeusand the entire religious structure for their religion of compensatoryecstasy and release. Conversely, the myths do register what may besubsurface objections of the socially powerful but only to negate them.Portraying such objections as illegitimate and potentially catastrophic,the myths discourage any kind of class-sanctioned religiousexclusivismand, more important, any persecution.50

In one sense the stories do create an outgroup, but it is a mythologicalone-the mythical antagonists of Dionysos who, ironically,understanding themselves as attacking the real outgroup, learn theirmistake only at the last, tragic moment. Yet there does not seem to havebeen any historical parallel to the mythical opponents of the god. Itwould be unwarranted to say that because the myths presented aconsistently dark picture of attempts to reject Dionysiac worship, noone ever seriously tried. Nevertheless, the myths do, through negativeexample, hold up a picture of a unified society of gods and men as a

50The nterpretation offered here, while agreeing with the folk-historical school thattensions which might have led to a resistanceto Dionysos may have been present,finds noneed to postulate an actual opposition and sees the myths as adefense against, rather thana memory of, such a situation.

93


19/19

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWsource of blessings and of a conflict-ridden society as a source ofdisaster. Obviously more than religious ideology is required to keeppeace, especially in class-stratified societies. However, ideology is onecomponent in this process, and the resistance myths are a sufficientlysophisticated narrative embodiment of shared valuesto haveservedthisfunction. Behind the antagonism and the violence, the clear message isthat, within the social network of Greekgods and men, thingsarebetterwhen each segment is guaranteed its own proper sphere. Byacquiescingto the rules of the system, all are allowed to make their contribution tothe "right"order of the universe.

5'I wish to thank Professor C. Robert Phillips (Department of Classics, LehighUniversity) for criticisms of this paper.

94

Dionysos Revenge

Documents