Introduction to the 'Dionysus and Politics' volume

Introduction Filip Doroszewski and Dariusz Karłowicz Dionysus and politics? Dionysus as a god who brings order and stability into the state? To the modern mind, taught as it has been by Nietzsche that Dionysus stands for chaos and madness, such an idea may seem strange, if not absurd. And yet, if we allow the voice of antiquity to speak for itself, we hear a strikingly different story. Here is a good example: ‘Have you imitated Dionysus in any respect? Have you been an inventor of any new blessings to mankind? Have you filled the whole of the habitable world with joy as he did?’1 These ironic words, addressed to the emperor Caligula by a Hellenised Jew, Philo of Alexandria (Leg. 88), are nevertheless deeply revealing, as they explicitly hint at a fundamental relationship between the Dionysiac imagery and the constructing of the political authority that existed throughout antiquity. This relationship can be traced back to as early as the world of archaic poleis. As shown by Cornelia Isler-Kerényi, in the myths central to early Greek cosmological reflection, Dionysus – the son of Zeus and protector of his rule – plays a key role in maintaining and restoring the order of the cosmos and, in consequence, that of the polis. Each time that the reign of Zeus is in danger, Dionysus helps to avert the threat and to preserve stability: this can be seen in (1) the role given to Dionysus at the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, which was arranged to prevent the sea nymph from giving birth to a son able to overthrow Zeus; (2) Hephaestus being made drunk with wine and brought back to Olympus, an event that brought a seemingly irresolvable cosmic conflict to a favourable end; and (3) the battle against the Giants, the forces of chaos hostile to the Olympian order, in which Dionysus was one of the protagonists.2 The implications that these myths have for the place of Dionysus in the polis are quite clear: the son of Zeus civilises and settles conflicts, thus allowing the polis to exist in peace. In a similar vein, Richard Seaford demonstrates the importance that the mythical arrival of Dionysus and his conflict with the royal household has in the Greek concept of democratic authority. Inclusive in character, Dionysiac festivals were an opportunity to celebrate social integration.3 Dionysus, the founder of viticulture and a giant-slayer, was also an archetype of the triumphant leader who civilised the remotest parts of the earth 2 Filip Doroszewski and Dariusz Karłowicz and brought people together under one rule despite their differences.4 The tradition of imitating and emulating the deeds of Dionysus starts with Alexander the Great, whose eastern conquests were soon linked in ancient historiography to the Indian expedition of Dionysus.5 From then on, imitatio Dionysi becomes a common feature in the portrayal of Hellenistic rulers as well as Roman leaders and emperors, in some cases taking the form of them assuming the very name of νέος Διόνυσος the ‘New Dionysus’, to mention just Ptolemy XII Auletes, Mithridates VI Eupator and Mark Antony.6 Actually, this may have also been the idea of Caligula: Philo, soon after the ironic words quoted above, denies the emperor the right to call himself the ‘New Dionysus’ (Leg. 90), and Athenaeus confirms that Caligula indeed used this title (Deip. 4.29). However, one did not need to actually pose as a new Dionysus in order to demonstrate one’s abilities as a ruler: less explicit allusions to the god usually sufficed to make one’s Dionysiac features conspicuous enough, with imitating Alexander the Great in the first place. The political significance of Dionysus is well attested both under the Republic as well as during Imperial times and can be illustrated with many more examples than that of Mark Antony and Caligula alone. In Vergil’s Aeneid, a manifesto of Augustan ideology, the ‘Dionysiac’ mission of conquering and civilising the world is a significant marker of Roman identity: in 6.801‒805, Augustus is depicted as a victor even more successful than Dionysus himself, and the Bacchae serves as an important intertext for a significant part of Aeneas’ wanderings.7 As can be understood from literary and archaeological evidence, many of Augustus’ successors intentionally used Dionysiac imagery in their propaganda in order to present their rule as legitimate and beneficial, to mention just Domitian, Hadrian and Septimius Severus.8 Finally, Imperial times saw the rise of Neoplatonist political philosophy in which Dionysus Zagreus, heir to Zeus’ throne torn apart by the Titans yet reborn, occupied an essential place.9 Roman political thought was informed also by the Greek myths of conflict between Dionysus and legal authorities. The stories of the mad god whose politically subversive cult posed a threat to kings and the rules of the polis shaped the minds of both those afraid of the cult’s negative influence upon morality and the safety of the state and of those who saw the cult as a way to confront political oppression. Even if only hinted at, the myth of Lycurgus and also that of Pentheus, especially in Euripides’ version, provided broader context for Livy’s narrative of the Bacchanalia.10 In contrast, there are many indications that the cult of Dionysus played an important ideological role for those who fought against the Romans in the Spartacus War.11 Given the prominence of the Pentheus myth in Plutarch’s Crassus, it is obvious that the Life deals not with a learned metaphor but rather with a sort of theology that interprets political events by means of the Dionysian myth.12 As can clearly be seen even from the brief overview offered here, the inseparable relationship between the cult of Dionysus and politics in antiquity emerged as early as in archaic poleis and continued to evolve until Introduction 3 late-antique times. Surprisingly enough, most monographs dealing with Greek and Roman political thought pay little, if any, attention to the essential role played by Dionysiac imagery. The only exception in which the name of Dionysus comes to the fore is the Bacchanalian affair, which has been widely discussed both in relation to Roman religion as well as in relation to Roman politics. Apart from that affair, however, Dionysus/ Bacchus is seldom mentioned in mainstream research on Greek and Roman political practice.13 To date, no monograph systematically addressing the role of Dionysus in Greek and Roman political thought has seen the light of day. In existing studies, interesting and valuable as they are, the issue has been discussed only partially or in passing. The present volume fills this important gap by introducing the political importance of Dionysus into the academic mainstream. It brings together 11 contributions from an international team of scholars, starting with four top specialists in the field, Cornelia Isler-Kerényi, Jean-Marie Pailler, Richard Seaford and Richard Stoneman. The contributors develop an interdisciplinary approach to the subject by combining sub-disciplines and types of evidence: historiography, poetry, coins, epigraphy, art and philosophy, while the chapters also follow a chronological order. Thus, the reader can follow how the political ideas and motifs rooted in Greek classical thought were continued, adapted and developed in successive periods, from Hellenistic to Imperial to late-antique times. The book therefore casts a decisive light on a still underrated aspect of Greek and Roman theological reflection on politics, and greatly helps to better understand the ancient thinking on the nature of ruling. The volume is organised into three parts. The first, ‘Dionysus and the polis’, discusses the place of the god in the politics of Greek city states. Chapter 1 by Cornelia Isler-Kerényi surveys the representations of the gigantomachy, a myth of central importance for understanding the political role of Dionysus, from the sixth century BCE to Pergamene art. In her richly illustrated text, Isler-Kerényi shows how Dionysus Gigantomachos, seen in the archaic and classical poleis as the keeper of Zeus’ order, became a patron deity of the Pergamene kings and, in consequence, of other rulers and emperors. Chapter 2 by Richard Seaford gives a completely new interpretation of the political significance of Dionysus in Euripides’ Bacchae, a play that made the god-fighting Pentheus an archetype of a bad ruler for the rest of antiquity. Contrary to widespread opinion, Seaford argues that there is no contradiction between Dionysus and the polis in the Bacchae: the only contradiction is the one that exists between the polis and Pentheus, who embodies the exact opposite of the city-state’s values. In Chapter 3, Dariusz Karłowicz examines the myth in which Dionysus peacefully resolves a bitter conflict between Hera and Hephaestus, and shows its profound implications for the political theology of the Dionysian cult. As Karłowicz demonstrates, the myth clearly reflects a strong belief that the Greeks held in Dionysus’ stabilising influence on the worlds of gods and men. The section’s concluding essay (Chapter 4) discusses the use made 4 Filip Doroszewski and Dariusz Karłowicz by Alexander the Great of Dionysus. Richard Stoneman surveys the Dionysiac motifs that occur in the history and the legend of Alexander to show how the famous conqueror was tightly linked with the god and thus provided a model for Hellenistic rulers and all neoi Dionysoi. Part 2, ‘Dionysus in Rome’, explores how Greek beliefs about Dionysus influenced Roman politics. In Chapter 5, Jean-Marie Pailler examines Livy’s account of the Bacchanalian affair. Pailler first uncovers the reasons for the suppression of the Bacchic cult in Rome in 186 BCE and then casts light on how Dionysus was worshipped under the Republic after the affair. Chapter 6, authored by Fiachra Mac Góráin, addresses Augustus’ attitude towards Dionysus and places it in a long tradition of imitatio Dionysi that dates back to Alexander the Great. Mac Góráin argues that, as presented in Virgil’s Aeneid, Augustan propaganda cultivates the two most Dionysian aspects of the princeps’ rule: the economic growth and spatial expansion of Rome. In Chapter 7, Filip Doroszewski examines Plutarch’s Lives of Crassus, Antony and Caesar to reconstruct the Greek writer’s political theology of the turbulent events that led to the end of the Republic and the establishing of the Principate. Doroszewski demonstrates that Dionysiac motifs constitute an essential part of this theology, as they serve Plutarch to portray three different types of leadership and the consequences they have for the state. Chapter 8 by Sławomir Poloczek considers three poorly investigated cases in which the figure of Dionysus was used to legitimise the imperial authority: those of Caligula, Domitian and Hadrian. The chapter clearly shows that cultivating various aspects of Dionysus, such as theatricality, military triumphs and mysteries, was an essential part of a ruler’s image, even under the early empire. Further arguments in favour of a firm link between Dionysus and imperial authority are provided by Małgorzata Krawczyk in Chapter 9, which discusses the religious policy of Severus and his sons in the light of numismatic and epigraphic evidence. Krawczyk’s analysis unambiguously shows that these sources present Dionysus as a tutelary deity of the Severan dynasty. Part 3, ‘Late-antique reflection on Dionysus’, looks at the theological and philosophical interpretations put on Dionysus’ political role under the later empire. Chapter 10 by Marek Job tackles the motif of Dionysus’ reign as presented in the Hieroi Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies, an Orphic cosmological poem written in late antiquity. Job attempts to answer the question of whether the cosmic role played by Dionysus in the late-antique Orphic poem complies with that alluded to in earlier sources, and concludes that it is essentially the same as it was in archaic political thought. The final chapter of the volume, authored by David Hernández de la Fuente, explores the Neoplatonic interpretations of Dionysus and the Dionysiac in late antiquity, and especially their implications for both the political and the cosmic order. The chapter makes evident that on the philosophical level, Dionysus-Zagreus, heir to the throne of Zeus, was a patron deity of the late-antique rulers. Introduction 5 What is characteristic of every mythical story is that it belongs to a distant past and yet it is perpetually re-enacted in the present. In the lives of the Editors specifically, the myth of political Dionysus began to be reenacted when they met in the winter of 2013, only for it to gradually gain even more actuality through an almost ritualised series of meetings in the Kawka café of the Powiśle area of Warsaw. The long-awaited epiphany, however, took place over several occasions in the years 2016‒2019 during a research project on Dionysus and the religious policy of the Roman emperors that was generously financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education within the National Programme for the Development of Humanities. As one of the results of the project, the Editors are happy to offer the reader this compact volume, which constitutes an excellent introduction to a subject that has largely been marginalised in the mainstream research on ancient politics. It is hoped that the volume will give a new impetus to further explore the politics of Dionysus in antiquity, and that other publications will soon follow to cast even more light on the subject. The Editors would like to thank other members of the research team ‒ Marek Job, Małgorzata Krawczyk and Sławomir Poloczek ‒ for a fruitful collaboration. Heartfelt thanks go to Jan Kozłowski and Robert Pawlik for their inspiration and support during the research project. Thanks go also to Tim Brombley and Damian Jasiński for diligently proofreading and correcting the entire manuscript, to Fiachra Mac Góráin, who offered invaluable help with English language revisions in some sections of the volume, as well as to Michał Strachowski, who prepared the map of Italy (Fig. 5.1). Finally, the Editors would also like to express their gratitude to the scholars who not only agreed to gather in the Natolin Palace on a cold day of January 2019 to discuss Dionysus but also undertook the challenging task of contributing to the volume. Warsaw, October 2020 Notes 1 Ph. Leg. 88 μιμήσω Διόνυσον; ε!ρετ"ς καιν#ν γέγονας χαρίτων $ς κε%νος; ε&φροσύνης κατέπλησας τ"ν ο'κουμένην;. Tr. C.D. Yonge. 2 Isler-Kerényi, C. (2007) Dionysos in Archaic Greece. An Understanding through Images. Leiden, Brill, 65‒105. 3 Seaford, R. (2012) Cosmology and the Polis: Social Construction of Space and Time in the Tragedies of Aeschylus. Cambridge University Press, 75‒95. 4 See Isler-Kerényi in this volume. 5 See Stoneman in this volume. 6 See Mac Góráin in this volume. 7 See Mac Góráin in this volume. 8 See chapters by Poloczek and Krawczyk in this volume. 9 See Hernández de la Fuente in this volume. 10 See Pailler in this volume. 6 Filip Doroszewski and Dariusz Karłowicz 11 See e.g. Piccinin, P. (2001) ‘Le Dionysisme Dans le Bellum Spartacium’, Parola del Passato 56, 272‒296; Piccinin, P. (2002) ‘Le Vésuve: un site bachique dans le Bellum Spartacium?’, Parola del Passato 57, 351‒356. 12 See Doroszewski in this volume. 13 To give just a few examples: on some 800 pages of The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought edited by Ch. Rowe and M. Schofield (CUP, 2000), the name of Dionysus/Bacchus occurs one time (excluding two mentions about the Athenian Theatre of Dionysus); S. Salkever’s The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Political Thought (CUP, 2009) has it twice; in R. Brock’s Greek Political Imagery from Homer to Aristotle (Bloomsbury Academic, 2013) claiming to be ‘the first systematic study of political imagery in ancient Greek literature, history and thought’, again Dionysus can be found only twice. Against this poor background, A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, edited by R.K. Balot (Blackwell, 2009) may seem an exception since throughout 700 pages, it mentions Dionysus/Bacchus eight times (bibliography excluded), four of them, however, occurring in relation to the Bacchanalian affair.