CHAPTER VI_Man's descent from the gods

DIONYSUS THE MAN

It is a pity that I cannot allow myself enough room to deal with these

mythological questions more fully. I have been obliged to give but the

merest outline both of the Promethean and the Dionysian myth. I can

only hope that the details I am able to give will prove sufficient

to enable the reader, not only to learn something about the myths

themselves, which other books on the subject do not tell him, but also

to follow the reasoning which I have based upon the bold outlines given.

In the Dionysian myth, I am faced with a peculiar difficulty, because

so little of the scholarly explanation and interpretation of it appears

to be of the slightest use.

If all the stuffy archæologists of the year 14,017, having found the

remains of a machine-gun of the year 1917, insisted upon explaining

it as an instrument for rapidly sowing a field with broad beans,

because they refused to believe that the people of Europe in 1917,

who were said to be so highly cultivated, could possibly have used

such a disgusting instrument for warfare even against savages, much

less against one another, it would be rather uphill work for one

single individual, who was not an official archæologist, to prove

that the instrument really was used for the purpose of killing young

men, and that, moreover, in a certain war which occurred about

the years 1914-1918, millions of healthy, brave and charming men

were actually killed in this manner. Such allegations against our

ancestors, particularly when they are supposed to have been civilised

and _Christians_, moreover, are so _very_ unpleasant! And since all

thought and the formation of ideas is becoming more and more hedonistic

every day,--that is to say, propositions and beliefs are no longer

accepted on their merits but according to whether they evoke pleasant

or unpleasant fancies in the minds of the majority[166]--we must assume

that if “Progress” continues at its present rate, the only test of the

validity or truth of a proposition in the year 14,017 will be whether

the average old spinster or old washer-woman considers it a comforting

thought or not. If she does not, it will be regarded as untrue.

I feel in regard to my interpretation both of the Promethean and of the

Dionysian myth, that I am somewhat in the position of the non-official

archæologist above mentioned, and that since the explanations I offer

are not as “pleasant” as those usually presented to the lay public,

they will run a considerable risk of being regarded by this same public

as not quite as “true” as the customary ones.

But I am inured to this attitude and I shall not allow it to deter me

from proceeding with the interpretation of the Dionysian myth and cult

on the lines I have laid down.

In the first place, however, I must warn the uninitiated reader against

the danger of believing that the bare outline I have given of the

Dionysian myth is anything more than a rough, deliberate, though pretty

thorough, simplification of the vast complex of legends and fables

with which the name of Dionysus is identified. So intricately involved

with one another are these various aspects of the myth, that it would

be impossible in the small compass of this book to deal with them

adequately. I was therefore compelled to treat the question on simple

and broad lines, leaving it to those who are interested to investigate

the matter further in the mass of literature, whether German, French,

English or classical, which has grown up around the subject.

All I could do was to select the essential features; they are

sufficient for my purpose; and I have satisfied myself from my study

of the authorities, that had I embarked upon my undertaking with the

determination to present the myth with very much greater elaboration, I

should have served no more useful purpose than to increase the bulk of

the present volume.

To return to Dionysus, the great medicine man, we have seen that he is

called the Healer. But he is also called the Doctor (ἰατρός), and not

only because he discovered the most potent and most pleasant _nostrum_

(Wine), but also because he taught men, as Plutarch says, to hold ivy

in high esteem.[167] We have also seen above that he was the great

patron of the bees and taught men the therapeutic use of honey.[168]

Thus we are to conceive of him primarily as a wizard in that art of

life by which precisely the richest sources of vitality which nature

possesses are tapped and turned to valuable account. We must disabuse

our minds entirely of the impression that his connection with wine, the

principal one in the popular mind for centuries, was anything more than

one of the many attributes of his manifold character.

He came some time after the world had grown impossible as the result

of the Promethean crime--just as Noah, after the parallel disasters

that overcame his people, once the sons of god had mingled with the

daughters of men, himself regards it as one of his first post-diluvian

duties to plant the vine.[169] But Dionysus’s range of remedies covered

almost everything that may properly be regarded as a source of vigour

and a means of curing or resisting disease. Personally, I am not

inclined to exclude even fermented milk from among the contents of his

vast natural medicine chest, though the oldest of all these I believe

to have been honey, fresh fruit and raw meat.

It is possible that barley wine, millet wine, fermented milk, and

even grape wine, may have been added to his supremely wise initial

discoveries by himself later in his own lifetime, or by other men

after he had died, and that possibly these later discoveries, if they

were later discoveries, became through tradition incorporated in his

original teaching, so that even the names of later medicine men became

absorbed in his own and identified with it; but what is of supreme

importance in understanding him and his cult is, that he it was who,

in a moment of extreme distress handed suffering mankind a number of

first-class protective beverages and foods, which not only corrected

the mistakes of their early Promethean civilisation, but also gave them

a new vigour, a new spirit, and a new intensity of sexual potency,

unknown except to their pre-Promethean ancestors.

I say honey was probably one of the first of these, because the use of

mead was so universally distributed among all the peoples of primeval

Europe, that it must have a very hoary antiquity.[170] Now it is

interesting to note that the association of honey with the idea of

medicine is also of very great antiquity. W. H. Roscher tells us that

from the earliest times honey was thought to have properties which both

secured good health and lengthened life, and that it was used in the

curing of innumerable diseases.

I am not a believer in etymological methods of demonstration, but

I quote the following as interesting in this connection. “The very

Avestic word for wine shows that it was a drink sweet as honey. This

Avestic word is _madho_, which corresponds to the Sanscrit _madhu_,

Latin _mel_, and French _miel_. The root of the word shows its

medicinal virtue. It comes from an old Aryan root, _mad_ or _madh_ =

Latin _mederi_, meaning to make a remedy, from which comes our English

word medicine.”[171]

Even in ancient India the drink Soma must probably have been introduced

later than mead, as we find the former sometimes called _madhu_ in the

texts.[172]

The ancients were well aware of the old association of mead and honey

generally with therapeutic powers of a high order. Aristotle, speaking

of honey and wine, etc., says: “To know how to apply them for the

purposes of health, and to whom, and at what time, is as difficult as

to be a physician.”[173] Pliny, too, writes as follows: “As to honey

itself, it is of so peculiar a nature that it prevents putrefaction

from supervening, by reason of its sweetness solely.... It is employed

with the greatest success for affections of the throat and tonsils, for

quinsy, all ailments of the mouth, as also in fever when the tongue is

parched. Decoctions of it are used also for peripneumony and pleurisy,

for wounds inflicted by serpents, and for the poison of fungi. In

paralysis it is prescribed in honied wine, though the liquor also has

its own peculiar virtues.”[174]

And further: “[Hydromel] which is made of skimmed honey is an extremely

wholesome beverage for invalids who take nothing but a light diet

... it reinvigorates the body, is soothing to the mouth and to the

stomach, and by its refreshing properties allays feverish heats. I find

it stated too by some authors that to relax the bowels it should be

taken cold, and it is particularly well-suited to persons of a chilly

temperament, or of weak and pusillanimous constitution, such as the

Greeks, for instance, call ‘mycropsychi.’”[175]

Pliny has other passages in which he refers to the value of honied wine

as a “stimulant for failing appetite,” as a “laxative,” and gives the

example of Pollio Romilius who lived to a great age, over a hundred

years, on honied wine and bread alone.[176]

Diogenes Laertius speaks of Pythagoras as being content with honeycomb

and bread,[177] while in the _Geoponica_ we read that honey makes men

long-lived, and that a diet of bread and honey alone preserves all the

senses perfect. “Democritus being indeed asked how men might become

healthy and long-lived, said: ‘If they supplied the external parts of

the body with oil and the internal parts with honey.’”[178]

Hosts of other passages could be quoted.

According to Spencer’s explanation of sacrifices, which in his opinion

were merely offerings to the great ancestor, either to feed his spirit

or to propitiate him, we would expect sacrifices of honey to have been

made to the gods of Greece by their worshippers, because since we are

told that honey was the food of the gods (we are informed that Zeus was

brought up on it) we should naturally expect it to be given to them

in sacrifice. And this is indeed what took place. Death offerings in

Greece frequently consisted of honey. Pluto, Hecate and the Furies all

received honey sacrifices. In fact honey is probably meant by nectar

and ambrosia. It was the oldest medicine of infallible effect, the

first panacea, the food that secured a long life, and therefore the

food of immortals.

It is a pity that more experiments have not been made with honey by

modern authorities on dietetics; because as I have already pointed out,

since it constitutes a satisfactory whole food for a certain section

of the animal kingdom, it is safe to conclude that it contains all

the necessary vitamines. It is probably on this account that it was

found so useful by the ancients for every sort of ailment and bodily

affection.

I mention raw meat as one of the earliest products to be included among

Dionysus’s list of therapeutic and natural foods. I shall at present

only refer to a few of my reasons for doing this. In the first place,

I would remind the reader of what I have already said concerning the

medicinal value of raw meat; I would also recall the custom, even

among such people as the Eskimo of the present day, of making raw meat

an essential portion of their diet, bearing in mind that the Eskimo

have a singularly restricted range of foodstuffs to draw upon and

therefore that they have to be careful to absorb a sufficient quantity

of “protective” food; and lastly I would refer to two of Dionysus’s

most perplexing epithets: _Omestes_ and _Omophagos_, both of which mean

_raw-flesh-eating_.

How can we account for these epithets unless we suppose that he must

have set the example of eating raw meat himself, or taught it as

part of his wonderful therapeutic doctrine? It is in keeping with

everything we have said about him and everything we know about him. It

is consistent with his general doctrine of health and vigour, and we

must bear in mind that he lived at a time probably near enough to the

pre-Promethean era to enable him to know that men must have lived on

raw meat in the Golden Age.

As far as raw meat was concerned, therefore, it did not necessarily

constitute a very original portion of his doctrine. Arguing from his

knowledge of the Golden Age, which tradition told him had preceded

the Promethean era, he may simply have concluded that, at least

experimentally, a return to one of the staple articles of diet of that

age might be a good thing; and in the event the experiment proved

successful. It must, however, have constituted an important part of his

dietetic doctrine, otherwise he would scarcely have been called, among

other things, _Omestes_ and _Omophagos_.[179]

His insistence upon the virtues of fresh fruit would also be the

natural outcome of his upbringing and his knowledge of plant and tree

life. It is said that his title _Dendrites_ was given him because

the notion of his being the cultivator and protector of the vine was

extended to that of his being the protector of trees in general. I

should be inclined to reverse this order and to say that the tending

of the vine was only one of his functions as _Dendrites_. However,

the point is not important. The fact to note is that fresh fruit must

be included among the earliest of the products associated with his

therapeutic doctrine. He was probably a great eater of fresh fruit

himself, and his followers became so likewise.

The transition from the idea of mead, or fermented honey, to other

fermented drinks, was doubtless an easy one, and even if Dionysus was

not the inventor of them all, it is easy to see how readily he would

have been credited with their discovery once his towering personality

had been stamped on the minds of the remote ancestors of the ancient

Greeks through his great reputation as a therapeutist and therefore

thaumaturgist. The two ideals, as the life of Christ shows, are closely

associated in the mind of antiquity, and very rightly too.

Now the therapeutic value of the wines brewed from the grape, barley

or any other seed, have been known for centuries by science and for

thousands of years by unscientific man.[180] Their tonic value has

been recognised by medical men of all epochs, while their virtues as

laxatives, aids to digestion (particularly needed when cooked food is

partaken of plentifully) and stimulants both of the body and the mind,

are proverbial.

All the virtues of the fruit or the grain, intensified by fermentation,

and, in the case of partially germinated grain, _actually created

by the process of preparation_,[181] are absorbed in the resulting

beverage, and protect not only against disease, but also add to the

joys of life, enhance bodily vigour, neutralise the bad effects of

injudicious cooking upon the digestive organs, strengthen the sexual

powers, and lighten the heart generally.

I think there can be no doubt that the great decline in the resistance

offered to disease which has been noticeable in Europe in the last

three hundred years, and has made careful sanitation, antiseptic

washes, and disinfectants of all kinds such an essential part of the

life of modern man that without them he could scarcely be expected to

survive, is largely due to a proportionate decline (_a_) in the quality

of our fermented liquors, and (_b_) in the amount of fermented liquor

that is consumed by the mass of the people.[182] For as we have seen in

the case of King Jamshed, the enormous advantage of fermented liquors

is this,--not only do they offer the precious protective qualities

of the fruit and the grain in an intensified form, _but they make it

possible for man to derive benefit from these precious qualities in all

seasons and climes_, that is to say, independently of the locality he

happens to be in or of the time of year at which he feels he requires a

restorative.

This is the great virtue of the cordials Dionysus introduced: _they

made it possible for man to resist deficiency diseases, in spite of a

diet that offers no compensations for the cause of the trouble, and

they also enabled him to do this at all times of the year and in any

clime_.

It has been argued again and again by authorities whose degrees and

honours literally fill their title-pages, that alcohol is not good for

the human body. I do not accept this view. There may be truth in the

view that large amounts of alcohol are bad; but that alcohol taken

moderately is bad, I do not believe. I would refer the reader to the

_Lancet_ of March 30th, 1907, where a large number of doctors repudiate

the allegation that the medical profession are opposed to the use of

alcohol. I would also refer the reader to Professor Attwater’s[183]

investigation into the liquor problem which was conducted with a

Committee of fifty, and finally to Dr. C. Mercier’s “Inaugural Address

on Drunkenness and the Physiological Effect of Alcohol,” delivered

before the Midland Medical Association in November, 1912.

In all these papers the reader will find considerable doubt cast upon

the glib assertion repeated so irresponsibly everywhere to-day that

alcohol is of no value to the human body, or that it is directly

pernicious.

It would be a simple matter, if one could spare the time over such

futilities, to show that the harmless gramophone, the innocuous piano,

and the apparently innocent cinema, were also harmful when indulged in

to excess; but what purpose would the demonstration of such a truism

serve?

I am, however, not deeply concerned with this campaign against alcohol.

I think it stupid, puritanical and misanthropic; but it affects neither

the credo of Dionysus nor my present argument. Its most pernicious

and dangerous aspect is that it would fain throw a net wide enough to

include the credo, the wondrous therapeutic doctrine, of Dionysus, and

thus bring other things besides alcohol to nought.

For what did Dionysus stand for? In addition to the other products I

have already mentioned he stood for wine, ale, cider, mead, perry and

ivy-juice. But how much of this hated alcohol is there in the modern

representatives of these liquors?

In champagne and burgundy: 10 to 13 per cent.

In claret: 8 to 12 per cent.

In cider and perry: 5 to 9 per cent.

In strong ale: 5 to 9 per cent.

In light ale: 2 to 5 per cent.

(The figures for mead and ivy-juice, I have, for obvious reasons, been

unable to obtain.)

From this list the reader will be able to judge of the dishonesty of

those who, under the cover of an attack on alcohol, would like, if they

could, to rope in those precious liquors with which Dionysus may be

said to have saved mankind under a Promethean civilisation.

Even the strong liquors, such as gin and rum, only have 40 per cent.

of alcohol in them. But I am not speaking of these. I am speaking of

the great known wines and of the precious liquors brewed from barley,

apples and pears. No one has yet advanced a sound scientific case

against these. How could they?--seeing that there is not a civilisation

on earth that has achieved greatness that was not built up on one or

more of these? But, as I say, under the dishonest cover of an attack

on alcohol, against the abuse of which several scientists of repute

have admittedly advanced cogent arguments, it has unfortunately

become customary of late to assail these precious beverages as well.

Ignorance could not be exploited with more diabolical ruthlessness.

The dictionary contains no epithet sufficiently insulting with which to

dub the maniacs who endeavour to confuse so vital an issue as this in a

manner so transparently unfair.

When it is known that the growth of alcoholism in France was coincident

with the phylloxera crisis which so seriously reduced the consumption

of the natural wines in that country; when, too, we bear in mind that

the evils of drunkenness in England are the direct results of the

poisoning and vitiating of the once pure old ale that can, without

romantic fulsomeness, really be said to have made England what she

was at her zenith in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries;

when I say I am prepared to prove the proposition that two of the

fairest civilisations the world has ever seen,--that of England in

the centuries of Elizabeth and Charles I.[184] and that of Egypt at

the dawn of history,--were the creation of ale-drinking communities,

how can anyone who really values his reputation for fair-play--not

to mention historical accuracy--still maintain that wine and ale are

legitimately included in a campaign against alcohol?

It seems a waste of time to repeat all the arguments I have already

brought forward elsewhere to show how great was the value of the old

ale of England, and how unscrupulously its precious virtues were one

by one destroyed, as the result of the reforms introduced by the

Puritans in the seventeenth century.[185] I have shown how very much

its qualities were impaired, in the first place by adulteration with

hops, later on by the introduction of inferior substitutes both for

hops and malt, until finally it became the poisonous, health-destroying

swill which we now call our beer,[186] and upon which we have allowed

our working-classes--the true backbone of England--to besot themselves

for over one hundred years.

I have shown how the Kings of the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth

centuries strove to keep this national drink pure and to supply it

plentifully to the masses of the nation,[187] and what universal

protest there was when, owing to the rise of the commercial and

profiteering spirit after the triumph of those enemies of man, the vile

Puritans of the seventeenth century, this precious national beverage

was turned into a draught of poison.

Our forefathers regarded ale with as much solicitude as bread; they

were equally valued as necessaries of life,[188] and their proper

distribution was the constant concern of English legislators.

There was no temperance agitation against the use of old ale in

England, any more than there was a temperance agitation in ancient

Greece against the use of the fermented drinks sacred to the name of

Dionysus,[189] for the use of both was attended neither by ugliness nor

ill-health. When the Puritans created a temperance movement it was, as

I have shown, for very different reasons from those which animate the

temperance movements of our own day.

But what is so strangely unfair and so transparently corrupt in the

whole of the modern temperance movement is that it never concerns

itself with the _purification_ of our national drinks, or of wine or of

any fermented liquor. It is as if those behind the temperance crusade

were glad to see the gradual deterioration of intoxicating liquors into

poisons in order that their case might appear the more plausible.

A truly patriotic temperance movement in this country would agitate

for a return to the pure ale of old England, and in France it would

concentrate upon the rigorous prosecution of all adulterers of

wine; for, to inveigh against intoxication, or the evils of beer

and wine-drinking, when the beer and wine available are admittedly

adulterated,[190] is obviously to take advantage of an accidental

feature not inherent in the products themselves, to deprive mankind of

the advantage of those products in their pure condition for all time.

Commercialism comes on the scene, unscrupulously deteriorates our

national drinks and turns them into harmful, or at least neutral drinks

for its own base ends; and then, if you please, has the impudence to

declare (as it has done in America) that for commercial and industrial

purposes the proletariat are more serviceable material if they are

deprived of these beverages.

Of course, this is admitted. But then who is responsible for the supply

of these deleterious or valueless drinks to the proletariat in the

first place?[191]

I wonder whether there is a single workman either in England or America

who has ever drunk a draught of ale such as Queen Elizabeth and her

ladies-in-waiting used to drink at every meal!--I know there is not

one,--not one! But it should be remembered that the old ale of the

Plantagenet and Tudor periods kept men in a state more exuberant, more

spirited, more lusty, than mere everyday health; it kept them above

all unusually potent sexually. This was what the Puritans were clever

enough to detect; and it was, I feel sure, by no means an accident

that one of the chief adulterants of ale tolerated by the Puritans

consisted of hops, from which _lupulin_--one of the most potent

anaphrodisiacs--is extracted.

It is impossible to believe that the great fermented drinks of

antiquity could have been anything but a precious boon and a godsend to

men, otherwise we are forced to regard as cynics and misanthropists

the races who deified the supposed original creators of them.

Read how the ancient Indian speaks of his Soma, remember how the

ancient Greek refers to his god Dionysus as the Saviour, the Healer,

and the Liberator; study the history of mead in Scandinavia, in Persia

and in Asia Minor; follow the civilisation of China up to the time when

it ceased to be a wine-drinking country, and compare its subsequent

with its former condition;[192] read of the Mexicans, the Peruvians,

the great Babylonians[193] and Egyptians and even the artistic Bushmen

of Africa, now alas! almost extinct;--everywhere, among all peoples,

you will find civilisation, art, culture, only where the health and

spirit-giving beverages of nature’s fermented fruit and grain have

made such achievements possible; for, as I shall show later, it is not

only in Greek mythology that Prometheus and Dionysus are opposed--this

conflict permeates every aspect of life ancient and modern, and it is

not merely coincidence that the most Promethean of modern countries,

America, should have been the first to suppress the cult of Dionysus

among its people.

On those who wish to argue that the great civilisations of the world

would have been possible without the fermented liquor, which is an

inseparable part of the diet of the people who were responsible for

them, it is surely incumbent to prove that a form of beverage so

distinctive and possessing such marked therapeutic value, was adopted

universally _without any regard whatsoever to the utilitarian ends

served by its adoption_. They must be prepared to show that the

consensus of opinion among thinking mankind of all ages points to

the conclusion that, although this form of beverage met no social

or cultural need, its universality is due to some perversity, some

superfluous and non-utilitarian appetite, which did not require to be

gratified in order to produce the results with which we are confronted

in all ancient and comparatively recent civilisations.

To argue merely on the evidence drawn from modern conditions is

vicious; in the first place, because beverages prepared from pure

natural products (fermented) are no longer accessible, except perhaps

to those who can afford to buy some of the good Continental wines;[194]

and, secondly, because the standard of health expected from the average

man and woman of antiquity and regarded as an essential factor of

happiness in the past, is no longer recognised or upheld among Western

peoples as the first necessity of a life worth living.

Another and very important aspect of this question to which one would

like to see the Temperance agitators give some prominence, is that of

the substitutes which modern conditions offer to those who are deprived

of sound and invigorating fermented liquors.

Read the books that have been written against alcohol. Where do you

find a single author who is honest enough to lay stress on the dark

side of his intended reforms? Where do you find an author who is

sufficiently in earnest about the welfare of his fellow-creatures to

point to the disastrous results of drinking tea and coffee--not to

mention any more harmful drugs? For every sound line that has been

written against alcohol, I am prepared to point to two that have

been written against these two pernicious beverages. As early as

the beginning of the last century, William Cobbett, in his _Cottage

Economy_, called attention to the evils arising from the increasing

consumption of tea and coffee in England, and deplored, as all friends

of humanity must, the corresponding decline in the production and

consumption of good English ale.

In my _Defence of Aristocracy_ I devote a considerable portion of a

chapter to this question of the pernicious substitutes to which the

masses of a nation are driven when their most wholesome beverages are

taken from them; and for the authorities whom I there adduce in support

of my arguments I beg the reader to refer to the work mentioned.[195]

When we recollect that tea, besides being in no respect a food, is

also, owing to its two principal chemical constituents--tannin and

caffein--directly harmful both to the digestion and to the nervous

system; when, moreover, we bear in mind that over 255,000,000 pounds of

tea are consumed per annum in the United Kingdom, and that it has been

calculated that the poor in London spend at least one-eighth of their

income in buying this drug, it behoves us to regard with considerable

caution any movement which, while it makes no reference to this aspect

of “Temperance,” seeks under the cover of a scientific attack on

alcohol to proscribe good wines and beers from the homes of a great

people.[196]

To sum up this all too brief outline of some of the leading features

of Dionysus’s therapeutic doctrine, we have seen that the wine of the

grape possesses the following virtues in a pre-eminent degree:--

1. It is a good tonic.

2. It is a valuable stimulant, both of the mind and body.

3. It is an excellent aid to digestion and assimilation particularly in

cases of constipation and dyspepsia caused by culinary errors.

4. It is a natural aphrodisiac.

5. It allows of the benefits derived from fruit being enjoyed at any

time, in any clime, and therefore does not restrict the consumer to any

locality or season.

6. And, above all, since the process of fermentation is believed

to be, in itself, productive of vitamines, it constitutes a good

compensation in cases when a diet is in any respect deficient, either

through the exposure of a vital food to heat, or because the necessary

vitamine-vehicles are not available.

Ale also possesses all these qualities,[197] and in addition, a strong

anti-scorbutic and nourishing virtue, owing to the fact that it is

prepared from partly germinated grain, and, moreover, contains the most

valuable form of sugar which is known as maltose.

Modern beer, of course, possesses none of these qualities.

It is unnecessary for me to continue the list, and to refer to mead,

cider, perry, millet-ale, etc., all of which truly formed part of

the Dionysian doctrine. I have said enough about the other beverages

already, I hope, to convince the reader at least of this, that when the

ancient Indian or Greek glorified his god Soma, or his god Dionysus, it

was for genuine and lasting benefits,[198] the evidence of which he saw

in himself and all his fellows, and that there can be no mystery, no

childish or empty phantasy about the worship of such a divinity, least

of all when the evidence of the myth connected with his name definitely

points to the nature of the bounties he dispensed.

Again, however, I feel I must lay stress upon an important aspect of

this question which, particularly nowadays, is likely to be overlooked

unless it is constantly reiterated. I refer, not to the cure of actual

deficiency diseases, for which the Dionysian doctrine was responsible,

though that was wonderful enough, but to the general alleviating

and invigorating effect upon the body as a whole which results from

correcting such slight though deeply depressing and debilitating

disorders as indigestion, constipation and the like. One of the first

functions to suffer in the case of faulty nutrition or in the event of

blood-poisoning, however slight, owing to a bad diet, is the function

connected with the joys of sex. And, when we think of how numerous and

how intense these joys can be, both in the spiritual and the physical

sphere, if the body is in a condition of exuberant health; when we

recollect, moreover, how many of the manly virtues and the womanly

interests centre around these functions, it is difficult to lay too

much emphasis on their importance, or to exaggerate the literally

delirious enthusiasm which must have possessed a people who, suddenly

bereft of the perfect exercise of these functions, found themselves

after a long spell restored to their pristine state of happiness by

Dionysus, and assured by his teaching against a relapse into their

former misery.

For, again, in regarding precisely these joys of sex, we must be

careful not to contemplate them either through the glasses of this Age,

or through the glasses of our own deteriorated vitality. We must try

to imagine what sex and its joys must have meant to primitive beings,

beings still unimpaired enough, despite their crude Promethean culture,

to tower far above us in all matters of the body and its functions.

Humiliating as it may seem, we must remember that we are _below par_ in

every respect, and that our standards are completely valueless except

for measuring varying degrees of ill-health.

Well then, if we bear all these things in mind, and in addition ponder

for a moment the extreme importance that healthy women must attach to

healthy sexual potency in men, if we reflect for a moment how much the

happiness of a robust, healthy woman’s life depends upon tenderness,

love and caresses from the male, and ultimately upon the bearing and

rearing of children,[199] we will at once perceive how severely sound

women are affected when men’s sexual potency is impaired. At least men

can get about other business; but what is woman--particularly primitive

woman--to do?

The period following upon the Promethean crime must have been one of

appalling tribulation for the women members of that primeval stock

which constituted the remote ancestors of the ancient Greeks. With

their men grown cold, unresponsive to their charms, and in some cases

perhaps quite impotent, what could they do? What had become of the

beauty of their lives, the joy of their lives, the _meaning_ of their

lives? Everything of value for them had at one stroke of the wand

been turned to dross and to emptiness. Life was a husk at which their

vigorous teeth gnawed in vain endeavour to discover the sweet kernel.

They thirsted to be taken, to be overcome, to be ravished. Instead they

probably had to woo, to cajole and to persuade. They were outraged in

their deepest instincts, by the inability to perform a function that

was the very essence of their being; they languished with but the

spectacle of their gradually vanishing youth and beauty to distract

them. The racial memories of a better age filled their fancy, so that

they were thrilled by the pictures their imaginations depicted; but

these pictures became realities to them only in their dreams, and

but helped to heap up the enormity of the contrast which actual life

presented.

Then, suddenly, a great teacher appeared from the woods, who took pity

on their lot. He saw with the eyes of a superior being the root of the

trouble, the cause of their men’s perennial lassitude and self-control;

and with his deep knowledge of nature and her secrets acquired in

the forest glades he had just left behind him, he set out to remedy

the evil that he recognised, and to put an end to the suffering that

offended his vision on all sides. He preached his doctrine swiftly and

with authority, for there was no time to lose. He taught the women the

magic virtue of herbs, of fruits, of raw meat, and above all of honey

and of mead. They listened, for he was young and handsome; and they

obeyed, for they were desperate. Quickly the new teaching was learned,

the kitchens hummed with unwonted business, the din of shattered

pottery rent the air as superfluous stewpans were flung for ever on

the dust heap, and the forest rang with the voices of eager wives and

virgins, trying to recall precisely what it was that the handsome young

man from the woods had recommended.

Fingers and arms were repeatedly stung by the infuriated bees, legs and

feet got caught and entangled in the pricking brambles, hair fell down

and became woven with leaves and branches, night came on and some were

lost, while others pursued their search with firebrands and bonfires.

What did it matter now--what did anything matter? Zeus had promised

only Hope:--this man, this wonderful, handsome, young man from the

woods had promised something tangible, something almost forgotten,

something immensely precious,--could they be blamed for behaving like

furies?

That night the first of the Dionysia was celebrated: dishevelled women,

frantic with the promise of joy and already delighting over fulfilling

a portion of their creed, made their supper of raw meat in the heart

of the woods, while they searched and searched for the precious

ingredients of the coming elixirs. Mad and wild women, forgetting both

decency and humanity, rushing and darting hither and thither, like

untamed animals, filling their baskets in the fury of delirium, and

eager but for one great moment--the moment of the experiment when they

would test the truth of the wood-wizard’s words--sang, shouted and

danced in a transport of joy.

Imagine then their redoubled enthusiasm when they found that he had not

deceived them! Picture the intensity of their ecstasy and gratitude

when they saw that he was a true prophet!

Can it be wondered at that Dionysus was the exception among the Greek

gods, and that he was served only by women? Is there any mystery now

in the “mysteries”? Does the reader understand why the virgins, and

not the hall-porters of the period, bore the phallus among the fruit

in their baskets at the Dionysia? And is not even the fury of the rite

explained, as also the fact that it was held in the darkness of night?

Are not these mad dishevelled women which we see depicted by Greek

art as taking part in the festival of Dionysus just what we should

expect? Drunk with enthusiasm, mad with gratitude, wild with eagerness,

even down to the eating of raw meat which was one of the essential

features of the festivals--all is now surely clear enough. _Omestes_,

_Omophagos_: the reader remembers these epithets! Can he doubt now that

this ceremony of eating raw meat at the Dionysia was intended to recall

that essential portion of the great teacher’s creed?

It was Dionysus against Prometheus, Life against Death, the erect

obelisk against impotence, sickness and disease. And Dionysus

triumphed! No wonder the women were so grateful; no wonder they were

so wild; but they were better and healthier women, they were also more

wicked and more sinful, more positive and more hearty women, and, on

that account, more desirable women than the women of to-day.

* * * * *

It is generally known that at the festivals of Dionysus, which were

called Bacchanalia, Dionysia, or Orgies, the god was served by

priestesses called Bacchantes, Lenæ, Mænades, Thyiades, Mimallones,

Clodones or Bassaræ. These women are usually represented almost naked,

decked with garlands of ivy or vine-branches, a thyrsus, hair in

frightful disarray, and wildly dancing and running. They utter strange

cries, rage with mad enthusiasm, clash different musical instruments

together, and hold swords or serpents (both phallic symbols) in their

hands. In the processions they wore tamed serpents in their hair,

while the Canephoria, as I have already mentioned, were virgins who

carried baskets of fruit with a phallus, usually carved out of fig-tree

wood, lying among the fruit. One of the most important rites at these

festivals was the sacrifice of an animal sacred to Dionysus, and its

carcass was usually torn frantically to bits by the Mænades and eaten

raw.

This celebration of the Dionysian mysteries presents a number of

problems which are hardly dealt with satisfactorily by the mythologians

whether of antiquity or of the present day.

In the first place, why should Dionysus be an exception among the gods

of Greece, and, contrary to custom, be served by priestesses instead

of attendants of his own sex? F. A. Voigt is one of the few who raises

this problem; but he does not attempt to solve it. He simply says that

it is characteristic of all the oldest practices of the cult.[200]

Secondly, why should these women attendants be such furies? Why should

they behave like raving madwomen? Voigt says: “The tearing of the

sacrificial animal by the Mænads appears to be genuinely orgiastic,

like the outcome of wild and Heaven-ordained madness.”[201]

What is the explanation of this? Nor should the actual eating of the

torn fragments raw be regarded as an unimportant part of the ceremony,

simply because in plastic representations of this aspect of their cult

the Mænads only appear with pieces of the mutilated beasts in their

hands; for, as Voigt points out: “The fact that the eating of these raw

fragments is not depicted, is simply owing to the æsthetic difficulty,

or impossibility, of representing this plastically, and does not

point to the relative unimportance of the omophagic feature of the

celebrations.”[202]

Modern mythology offers no satisfactory replies to these questions.

It attempts to explain the orgies by suggesting that they were an act

of sympathising with life and of recapitulating life in nature, its

movements and contrast, the joy and sorrow of life on earth. Or, again,

it suggests that they constituted a periodic debauch to symbolise the

fact that man is master on earth and is able to do everything he likes,

and consequently that he can without scruple commit every act which law

and order at ordinary times forbid.

Neither of these suggested explanations is worth a moment’s

consideration, because they do not even account for the exclusively

female attendants, let alone their characteristic demeanour.

Modern mythologians suggest that the tearing of the sacrificial animal

to pieces symbolises the tearing of Zagreus (Dionysus) to pieces by the

Titans.[203] But surely, if that were so, the Mænades would scarcely

have celebrated this tragic occurrence, so disastrous to the world, by

eating the raw flesh of their god and eating it with such fury! This

obviously will not do.

It is also suggested that the annihilation of the sacrificial animal

(or man originally[204]) symbolised the destruction of earth’s

vegetation by winter. But then, as Voigt very reasonably points out,

if that were so why was the youth of the animal or man always insisted

upon? If the young animal or boy symbolised the earth’s vegetation, it

must have been the vegetation of spring, not of winter. But this was

not the idea.[205]

Again, the rural Dionysia, it has been suggested by modern

mythologians, are no doubt to be compared to similar festivals

which were traditional in France and in Germany, and are probably

counterparts of them.[206] In France, for instance, on the _Dimanche

des Brandons_, which is the first Sunday in Lent, the peasantry used to

run through the fields, gardens and vineyards with lighted fire-brands

“to call them to fertility and to rid them of weeds”; while bonfires

were lighted in the market-place, and around these the people would

dance. In Germany and the Tyrol the peasants also used on certain

specified occasions to march in procession through the fields, clanging

cymbals and ringing bells, in order to “awaken the corn.”

But I see not the faintest trace of resemblance between these rural

festivals in France and Germany and the Dionysia. In the first place,

if the Dionysia are counterparts of these, why do women play the chief

rôle in the Greek festival? Have not men also good reason to awaken

the corn? And, furthermore, where is the all-pervading worship of the

phallus which is inseparable even from the rural Dionysia?

These rural Dionysia, it has been said by certain other great

authorities, were simply bucolic celebrations of the wine harvest.

But as Mommsen points out, and I thoroughly agree with him, they

were nothing of the sort. Read what occurred at the festivals, note

when they were held, remember what was drunk at them, and it becomes

plain that they had nothing in common with the celebration of a

wine-harvest.[207]

Meanwhile, of course, a satisfactory answer to the most perplexing

features of the Dionysia has not been found, and is not offered by

modern or even ancient mythologians.

If, however, we regard the whole of the Dionysian mysteries as a

traditional celebration of a stupendous event, an immense triumph--the

victory of a suffering, debilitated and gradually disappearing race

over the causes of all their misery;--if we regard them as ceremonies

symbolic of the mad joy and gratitude which must have been felt when

Dionysus first conquered Prometheus, then, it seems to me, everything

becomes plain.

It is the women who suffer most from the asperities of a Promethean

civilisation, just as it is the women who are suffering most to-day.

It is the women, the very essence of whose nature is tortured and

outraged when, owing to a Promethean civilisation, their men cease from

being men, cease from being male, prehensile, virile, violent and even

seductive.

If, then, we can postulate, as we very well may, a creature more

innocent in her desires, more unsophisticated in her appetites, less

tolerant of male self-control and less enamoured of it, than modern

woman; if we can picture a creature frank and passionate enough to

show mad enthusiasm when the deepest roots of her nature, from being

poisoned to death, are suddenly liberated, nurtured and brought back to

healthy life, and we are also able to imagine her wild gratitude to him

who effected this salvation,--then what mystery does there remain in

these Dionysian mysteries, what difficulty, what problem?

As I have already said, even Dionysus’s most perplexing epithets,

_Omestes_ and _Omophagus_, become once more quite clear, after having

had their true meaning concealed for millenniums; and he, the great god

himself, emerges from the investigation, not as the patron of pointless

lust, debauchery, drunkenness and licence, but as the Liberator, the

Healer, the Great Doctor, the Saviour of mankind, who released the

human race, and particularly the women, from the appalling consequences

of the Promethean crime, and whose name will therefore rightly be

associated for ever by grateful humanity with the magic cordials for

which his great genius was primarily accountable.

This was the first Renaissance, the first re-birth of health, beauty,

vigour and joyful life; and by the side of the stupendous artist who

was responsible for it, men like Donatello, Michael Angelo, Leonardo da

Vinci and Raphael, appear as mere gnomes, pygmies, dwarfs or children.

The Promethean civilisation was a failure,--it was worse, it was a

racking torment. Dionysus alone made it bearable; he alone overcame

it, and so corrected or neutralised its evils as to make life not only

possible under it, but also joyful, vigorous, spirited, glorious, and

thrilling into the bargain. You cannot logically attack Dionysus,

therefore, and all he stood for, without also insisting upon going

back to pre-Promethean days; for those were the only days that could

dispense with his teaching, his therapeutics, his magic cordials--in

fact, his whole doctrine of salvation. To deprive us in post-Promethean

days of the benefits Dionysus confers, is thus tantamount to the

Promethean crime itself,--it is even more heinous than the Promethean

crime; because _now we know_, and the people of those days did not

know. Now we realise what all this means; we are aware of the very

doubtful blessings that hail from any Promethean quarter, and wherever

we hear the cries “Abolish Dionysus!” or “Down with his creed!” we

cannot refrain from thinking that we are once more in the presence

of the most savage enemies of mankind. The antithesis is radical.

Prometheus _versus_ Dionysus. It is, as we have seen, a very old

conflict. If you insist upon having a Promethean civilisation, you are

in mercy bound to have Dionysus and all that his doctrine means.

FOOTNOTES:

[166] As an instance of this, how many people, I should like to know,

have ever tried to divorce from the idea of Heaven and an after-life

the pleasant and comforting thoughts which cluster round it, and then

proceeded to question honestly and searchingly whether it can possibly

be true. Are not the pleasant associations of the thought responsible

for three-quarters of the bias in its favour? Let the reader by way of

experiment tell his circle of friends a truth either about humanity

or about the world which is distinctly unpleasant. He will find that

more than half the incredulity he encounters, particularly among smug

sentimental women, will not be based upon an impartial examination of

his evidence for the unpleasant truth, but upon the unpleasantness

of the truth itself. If he would like a truth to experiment with, I

recommend him to tell his middle-aged spinster-friends some of the

truths discovered by psycho-analysis.

[167] See Creuzer, _op. cit._, vol. iii., p. 92.

[168] According to a legend which was probably of primeval antiquity,

although it is only handed down by Ovid, Dionysus was supposed to have

discovered the use of honey as a food in Thrace. See Ovid Fast, iii.,

735 _et seq._

[169] See Gen. x. 20: “And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he

planted a vineyard.”

[170] See W. H. Roscher, _op. cit._: “Ein berauschender Honigtrank

spielte bei den Griechen vor Einführung des Weinbaues eine grosse

Rolle.” Article, “Nektar und Ambrosia.” See also Roscher’s remarks in

the pamphlet on Nectar and Ambrosia already quoted, in which on p. 26

he says: “Ein solches berauschendes Honiggetränk nennt man bekanntlich

_Meth_, und es ist nicht zu bezweifeln, dass dieser, wie bei andern

Völkern, so auch bei den Griechen der Urzeit, welche noch keine

Weinkultur kannte, die Rolle des Weines spielte.”

[171] See _Wine among the Ancient Persians_, by Jivanji Jamshedji,

(Bombay, 1888), p. 4.

[172] See Kuhn, _op. cit._, p. 131.

[173] _Nic. Ethics_, V. ix. 16. Translated by R. W. Browne, M.A. (Bohn).

[174] _Natural History_, Book XXII., chap. 50 (24). Translated by J.

Bostock and H. T. Riley (Bohn).

[175] _Natural History_, Book XXII., chap. 51.

[176] _Op. cit._, chap. 53.

[177] _Life of Pythagoras_, xviii.

[178] _Op. cit._, xv., 7. Translated by Rev. T. Owen. According to

Athenæus, the Pythagoreans were saved from blindness and other eye

troubles owing to their diet of bread and honey.

[179] Just as Völcker has pointed out that the true meaning of the

Prometheus myth was forgotten from the time of Homer and Hesiod onward,

I feel convinced that the true meaning of more than three-quarters

of the Dionysian myth was forgotten long before historic times. I do

not believe that Dionysus as the raw-meat-eating deity has ever been

satisfactorily explained, even by ancient writers, and all kinds of

far-fetched interpretations have been advanced, most of which strike

too wide of the mark to be worth considering.

[180] There is a curious old legend told of the Persian King Jamshed,

the fourth monarch of the Peshdadyan Dynasty (the Yima Khshæta of the

Avesta, and the Yama of the Vedas), which curiously confirms this old

association not only of wine with medicine, but of the first connection

of fermentation with therapeutics. It relates how King Jamshed was so

very fond of grapes which grew only in summer, that he once ordered

a large quantity to be deposited in a jar for his use in winter when

they were very rare. On sending for the jar after some time, he found

the juice of the grapes fermenting, and, thinking it was turning into

a poisonous liquid, he ordered the jar to be marked “Poison,” and

placed it in an out-of-the-way corner of the royal storeroom so as to

be beyond the reach of anybody. A maid-servant of the royal household

knowing of this, and feeling very much dejected owing to a distressing

indisposition, resolved to commit suicide by taking some of this

“poison.” She stealthily repaired to the royal store-room at night,

and took a generous helping of the contents of the “poison” jar. But

to her surprise instead of its killing her, she found herself on the

following morning so much better that she renewed the treatment until

she was completely cured. Thereupon she communicated the matter to the

King, who was greatly pleased with the discovery. It is said that in

memory of this event wine is sometimes called _Zeher-i-khoosh_, _i.e._,

“pleasant poison” in Persia, even to the present day. See Jivanji

Jamshedji, _op. cit._, p. 2.

[181] There are reasons for believing that the process of fermentation

in itself is also responsible for the production of vitamines.

[182] It is interesting to note in this connection that the Great

Plague of 1665 in England occurred one generation after the Puritans

had begun to play havoc with the people’s great protective beverage Ale.

[183] An excellent summary of the report of this investigation is to be

found in A. L. Simon’s _In Vino Veritas_ (London, 1913).

[184] One of the first occasions on which ale was mentioned in the laws

of England, was during the reign of King Ini of Wessex.

[185] See my _Defence of Aristocracy_, chap. v.

[186] Mrs. Rink has pointed out to me that besides the reasons given in

my _Defence of Aristocracy_ for the deterioration in the quality of old

English ale--the great wholesomeness of which she also demonstrates--it

should not be forgotten that the commercial spirit which led to the

introduction of hops into ale brought about the necessity of _cooking

the wort_, a process which satisfactorily destroys the valuable set

of accessory factors which the malt contains. Thus the resulting beer

is made practically valueless, as the Official Committee’s Report on

vitamines frankly admits. See p. 61.

[187] It was even given with success to infants and children. John

Locke, the famous philosopher, actually recommends it to be given to

children. See his _Some Thoughts Concerning Education_ (ed., 1693), p.

16.

[188] See W. T. Marchant, _In Praise of Ale_, p. 52.

[189] See Lewis Richard Farnell, D.Litt., M.A., F.A.S., _The Cults of

Greece_, vol. v., p. 122: “Nor did wine-worship clash at all with the

best morality or the hygienic doctrines of the people or the people’s

teachers, for drunkenness was never a serious social evil for Hellas,

nor did the philosophers preach against intemperance as a national

danger; nor again were the modern appliances known whereby wine has

become a thing vile and corrupt.”

[190] The wines not universally so, but the beer almost universally so.

Even Smollett, however, in his time, complained of the adulteration of

wines in England.

[191] The reason why a national movement for the purification of

intoxicating liquors could never succeed in countries like England,

France and America under present-day values, is obviously because

it would by its very nature be tantamount to an anti-commercial or

anti-profiteering agitation. And since the governing classes of these

countries have for many generations consisted largely of the chiefs of

commerce and industry, such a movement would never be allowed to effect

any useful reforms.

[192] According to the Rev. Justus Doolittle, _Social Life of the

Chinese_, vol. ii., p. 30, the Chinese do not now make wine from the

juice of the grape. See also Professor H. A. Giles, _China and the

Chinese_ (New York, 1902), p. 136: “Grape wine was used down to the

fifteenth century, if not later.” Now the cultivation of the poppy for

the manufacture of opium began in China in the seventeenth century. See

_Encyclopædia Britannica_, 11th edition, vol. vi., p. 177.

[193] See André L. Simon’s interesting work _Wine and Spirits_

(Duckworth, 1919), p. xi: “Quite recently the laws of Khammarubi, King

of Babylon about 2250 +B.C.+, have been discovered and deciphered, and

have aroused a great deal of interest. This sovereign appears to have

been the great legislator of his dynasty; his laws contain the most

precise regulations concerning the sale of wine, and show us the poor

retailer of wine to have been harassed by a very severe legislation

even in those times. Fines were not in vogue, but loss of a limb or

of life was the penalty incurred by the seller of wine who gave bad

quality or short measure or allowed riotous conduct on his premises.”