Talk:Dionysus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dionysus vs. Dionysos

Just wondering (since the article doesn't explain it, as far as I see): Is "Dionysus" the more commonly used form in English? How come? Why would a Latin (?) ending be put on a Greek name ending in "-os"? --93.212.232.58 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Dionysus" is by far the more common spelling in English, even though, technically, "Dionysos" is actually the original Greek form. Nearly all Greek names are Latinized in English. For instance, Alexandros becomes "Alexander," Loukianos becomes "Lucian," Ploutarchos becomes "Plutarch," and so on. The reason is because Latin holds a much stronger influence on English than Greek. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, schoolchildren were taught to speak Latin before they were taught to speak Greek, if they were even taught to speak Greek at all. Consequentially, all Greek names are usually Latinized when they are written in English. Some authors have rejected this and have tried to use the original Greek spellings, but most members of the general public seem to normally find the Greek spellings confusing, so most authors generally avoid using Greek names altogether whenever possible. Personally, I prefer the Greek spellings, but, here on Wikipedia, the Latinized spellings are the standard simply because they are more commonly used. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! (If there are any sources for this, it might be nice to have some short explanation in the article.) --93.212.230.88 (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not think there really needs to be an explanation in the article; the Latin form is so common I do not think people will question it. In any case, I do not think most members of the general public are even aware of the Greek ending. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate people, isn't it? :-) --93.212.230.88 (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Parallels with Christianity" section should be moved

An old discussion at Talk:Horus ruled that sections about parallels between Jesus and pagan deities should not be included in the articles about those deities and should instead be included in the article Jesus in comparative mythology. I agree with this conclusion because I do not think the alleged parallels between Jesus and Dionysus (which are all extremely shaky at the very best and outright fabrications at the very worst) are at all noteworthy in the context of describing Dionysus's cult and veneration during classical antiquity. As such, they should not be discussed in this article and should instead be discussed in the article where they are actually relevant. Currently there is a section in the Jesus in comparative mythology article on "Graeco-Roman mysteries," which seems to contain some of the information from the section in this article, but not all of it. My proposal is that the section from this article should be removed from this article and integrated into the section at Jesus in comparative mythology. I plan to do this myself, but I thought I would ask for feedback from other users before moving ahead with it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. I think that any thorough discussion of Dionysus should at least mention the parallels, which I think are more substantial than they are shaky. It's not necessary to conclude that Christ is a form of Dionysus assimilated into the traditions of messianic Judaism, in order to acknowledge the similar themes that might have been influential on the development of Christian tradition, or for that matter might have made Christian doctrines more familiar or palatable to potential converts. If these are removed from this article and made the subject of their own, or folded in with other parallels, will readers have to intuit that such articles exist and look for them in order to find a discussion that would have been perfectly appropriate here? At this point, I think the section should stay. P Aculeius (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course it should be mentioned, and worked in somewhere. At the moment the section here is much longer than the one there (making the "main" tag dubious). After checking, one might almost just swop them. I'm not entirely sure the various rambling and contentious sections at Talk:Horus can be taken as a very strong precedent. I see I was one of the very last participants there seven years ago, and the matter does now seem sorted and the talk page quiet. But in so far as there was consensus at the end, it was on my point that "The significant comparison, as far as it goes, is really a purely visual one between images of Isis & Mary with their respective infants", but this is no longer in the article, which it should be, imo. I notice that the theory that the Late Antique Dionysus cult became monotheistic is briefly covered at Jesus in comparative mythology, but afaics not at all here, which it should be. Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the parallels, whether "shaky" or not, are noteworthy and need to be thoroughly covered here. Of course any content found here that ought to also be included in Jesus in comparative mythology, should be, but that is irrelevant as far as this article is concerned. Paul August ☎ 12:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I see here, it seems like we have a consensus that the "Parallels with Christianity" section should be kept, but that the information in it should also be included in the article Jesus in comparative mythology and that the information from Jesus in comparative mythology not covered here should be incorporated into the section in this article. This sounds like a reasonable conclusion and I will implement it if no one objects within the next few days. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

a shinto god is equivalent to dionysus how?

While the Inari Ōkami article does link back to Dionysus, nowhere there (or here) is there an explanation as to why. There are hundreds of gods, goddesses and saints of wine throughout the world. Can whoever placed the link connect the dots to explain why the god of ecstatic dance and theater somehow has a Japanese counterpart that has nothing to do with either? Cheers! Xenomorph erotica (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The link to Dionysus at Inari Ōkami is in the "See also" section. The reason the link is there is because the deities are similar, not because they are necessarily equivalent or related to each other in any way. I think that the link to Inari Ōkami in the "See also" section of this article should be kept, but the part about them being equivalent should be removed because, while they are similar, they are not related. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I had never heard of Inari being compared to Dionysus before and since there were no references I was just hoping for some clarification. Thank you for responding so quickly. Xenomorph erotica (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. I am always willing to help improve the encyclopedia. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Euripides quote, and the identification of Dionysus' "blood" with wine?

The translation of the Euripides' quote seems questionable to me. Here is David Kovacs’ 2003 Loeb Classical Library Greek text and translation:

[275] τὰ πρῶτ᾿ ἐν ἀνθρώποισι· Δημήτηρ θεά—Γῆ

δ᾿ ἐστίν, ὄνομα δ᾿ ὁπότερον βούλῃ κάλει·

αὕτη μὲν ἐν ξηροῖσιν ἐκτρέφει βροτούς·

ὃς δ᾿ ἦλθ᾿ ἔπειτ᾿, ἀντίπαλον ὁ Σεμέλης γόνος

βότρυος ὑγρὸν πῶμ᾿ ηὗρε κἀσηνέγκατο

[280] θνητοῖς, ὃ παύει τοὺς ταλαιπώρους βροτοὺς

λύπης, ὅταν πλησθῶσιν ἀμπέλου ῥοῆς,

ὕπνον τε λήθην τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμέραν κακῶν

δίδωσιν, οὐδ᾿ ἔστ᾿ ἄλλο φάρμακον πόνων.

οὗτος θεοῖσι σπένδεται θεὸς γεγώς,

[285] ὥστε διὰ τοῦτον τἀγάθ᾿ ἀνθρώπους ἔχειν.

Two things are chief among mortals, young man: the goddess Demeter—she is Earth but call her either name you like—nourishes mortals with dry food. But he who came next, the son of Semele, discovered as its counterpart the drink that flows from the grape cluster and introduced it to mortals. It is this that frees trouble-laden mortals from their pain—when they fill themselves with the juice of the vine—this that gives sleep to make one forget the day’s troubles: there is no other treatment for misery. Himself a god, he is poured out in libations to the gods, and so it is because of him that men win blessings from them.

which substantially agrees with Gilber Murray’s 1913 Greek text:

[275] τὰ πρῶτ᾽ ἐν ἀνθρώποισι: Δημήτηρ θεά--

γῆ δ᾽ ἐστίν, ὄνομα δ᾽ ὁπότερον βούλῃ κάλει:

αὕτη μὲν ἐν ξηροῖσιν ἐκτρέφει βροτούς:

ὃς δ᾽ ἦλθ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽, ἀντίπαλον ὁ Σεμέλης γόνος

βότρυος ὑγρὸν πῶμ᾽ ηὗρε κεἰσηνέγκατο

[280] θνητοῖς, ὃ παύει τοὺς ταλαιπώρους βροτοὺς

λύπης, ὅταν πλησθῶσιν ἀμπέλου ῥοῆς,

ὕπνον τε λήθην τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν κακῶν

δίδωσιν, οὐδ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἄλλο φάρμακον πόνων.

οὗτος θεοῖσι σπένδεται θεὸς γεγώς,

[285] ὥστε διὰ τοῦτον τἀγάθ᾽ ἀνθρώπους ἔχειν.

and translation:

For two things, young man, [275] are first among men: the goddess Demeter—she is the earth, but call her whatever name you wish; she nourishes mortals with dry food; but he who came afterwards, the offspring of Semele, discovered a match to it, the liquid drink of the grape, and introduced it [280] to mortals. It releases wretched mortals from grief, whenever they are filled with the stream of the vine, and gives them sleep, a means of forgetting their daily troubles, nor is there another cure for hardships. He who is a god is poured out in offerings to the gods, [285] so that by his means men may have good things.

These translations seems significantly different than the translation given in the Taylor book, which identifies Dionysus' "blood" with wine.

Also note that the line numbers as given in Taylor 340-60 are different from those above, so either the Taylor numbers are in error (perhaps consistent with the fact that although they indicate 21 lines of text only 8 lines of translation are given) or they are using a significantly different Greek text, than Kovacs’ 2003 text.

Paul August ☎ 11:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I was just going off of the quote from that book, so I don't contest that those translations are more accurate. I leave it to others on whether or not the "Dry Food" and "Liquid Drink" warrants a place in the comparison section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabianzzz (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Judging by the versions and translations Paul August has presented here, I do not think that this text really belongs in the "Parallels with Christianity" section, since neither these translations seem to be describing anything along the lines of a "Bacchic Eucharist." I suspected that we would end up discovering something like this after further investigation; I did not recall reading any verses in The Bacchae explicitly describing wine as Dionysus's blood, which was the reason I removed the quotation in the first place. Sadly, many people, even some scholars, have an unfortunate tendency to interpret the belief systems of ancient, pre-Christian mystery cults in light of present-day Christian practices, which often, consciously or unconsciously, results in wildly inaccurate translations tainted by the translator's own knowledge of modern Christian rituals. On the other hand, even if the Taylor translation did turn out to be completely accurate, I am still not sure if it would be worthwhile to quote the entire passage; instead we could easily just quote a snippet from it, or omit the quotation entirely, since the subject of Bacchic "Eucharists" has already been fairly adequately addressed in the preceding paragraph. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Paul August ☎ 10:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:D648:4700:9C35:1153:615F:D430 (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified III

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dionysus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421032154/http://www.huss.ex.ac.uk/classics/conferences/pagan_monotheism/abstracts.html to http://www.huss.ex.ac.uk/classics/conferences/pagan_monotheism/abstracts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Dionysos WASN'T one of the Olympian Gods!!!

Ok to this "moron" Dionysus was one of the Olympian gods. He later replaced Hestia who willing gave her throne for him--72.208.241.90 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC).'

I have to admit that there always will be some morons to write on internet whatever comes up to their mind and mislead people. First of all Dionysos YES was a Greek god however he wasn’t among those of Olympus Mountain. Here comes a little lesson. The Olympians where six MEN and six WOMEN (Greeks always loved their women and thus they had equal number of Male and Female Gods). The gods and goddesses are Deus (ΔΙΑΣ), Hera (ΗΡΑ) Poseidon (ΠΟΣΕΙΔΩΝΑΣ), Athena (ΑΘΗΝΑ), Apollo (ΑΠΠΟΛΩΝ), Aphrodite (ΑΦΡΟΔΙΤΗ), Hermes (ΕΡΜΗΣ), Hestia (ΕΣΤΙΑ), Aries (ΑΡΗΣ), Artemis (ΑΡΤΕΜΙΣ), Hephaestus (ΗΦΑΙΣΤΟΣ), Demetra (ΔΗΜΗΤΡΑ). (I don’t care about the respective Latin stolen ones, and their Latin names as you can understand). As long as I know from the ancient scripts Dionysus never crucified nor died. After all he was god (immortal-if someone knows what I mean) and it was believed that he was leading most of the Ancient Festivities as he was the god of wine. As for the crucifixion thing I haven’t read that version of story to any Greek written scripts. Maybe that is another ignorant fiction outcome from some-idealist stupid, I Know Everything Person. Read and try to find the truth because truth is like diamond is hard to find, shines for ever, and it’s hard to destroy. Wake up people!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.120.169 (talk • contribs)

indeed you are right dear anonymus, and Wikipedia does have a Twelve Olympians article, so you could just have linked there instead of posting your little lesson. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can guess from the "Greeks loved their women" puffery and "Latin stolen" swipe, 94.68.120.169 is a Greek IP address. Someone should tell him that many of the Greek gods can be identified as Greek versions of more widespread Indo-European deities or near-Eastern deities. Perchloric (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Dionysus wasn't originally an Olympian god in most versions of the myth, but some sources say that he was. --Aristaios314 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Article Needs a Rewrite

Like many of our classical mythology-related articles, this article needs a total rewrite. Most obviously, it's extremely loose with sourcing, apparently reflecting an early Wikipedia stratum of playing fast and free with sourcing, and leans into generalizations throughout. Additionally, it gives no sense of chronology or sources, presenting the deity as frozen in time, as if the figure was immune to change in cult, representation, and associations. This article does not at all reflect where classical scholarship is on this figure in 2018, and it's a real shame. To solve these problems, we need a total rewrite in line with our well-developed and extremely well sourced Germanic mythology articles: to start, we need to lay out what the sources say in chronological order, segregate secondary commentary into relevant sections, and explicitly attribute all claims. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed.Paul August ☎ 19:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree. ICE77 (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Birth of Dionysus

I read 3 versions of the birth of Dionysus:

• Diodorus Siculus (Library of History, Book V 75.4)
• Hyginus (Fabulae, 167 and 179)
• Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 3.4.3).

This article says many things I did not find in the above. If any of you can point me to where the the things I am listing below are, it would be great.

1. "Dionysus's mother was a mortal woman, Semele, the daughter of king Cadmus of Thebes, and his father was Zeus, the king of the gods. Zeus's wife, Hera, discovered the affair while Semele was pregnant. Appearing as an old crone (in other stories a nurse), Hera befriended Semele, who confided in her that Zeus was the actual father of the baby in her womb. Hera pretended not to believe her, and planted seeds of doubt in Semele's mind. Curious, Semele demanded of Zeus that he reveal himself in all his glory as proof of his godhood". "Though Zeus begged her not to ask this, she persisted and he agreed. Therefore, he came to her wreathed in bolts of lightning; mortals, however, could not look upon an undisguised god without dying, and she perished in the ensuing blaze. Zeus rescued the unborn Dionysus by sewing him into his thigh. A few months later, Dionysus was born on Mount Pramnos in the island of Ikaria, where Zeus went to release the now-fully-grown baby from his thigh. In this version, Dionysus is borne by two "mothers" (Semele and Zeus) before his birth, hence the epithet dimētōr (of two mothers) associated with his being 'twice-born'."

The above has absolutely no sources. What's the original text for all the above? The only thing that I read gets close to the above, Hera turning into a nurse (Beroe) but not a crone, is Hyginus (Fabulae 167 and 179). I have not found any geographical information like Mount Pramnos in the island of Ikaria.

2. "A jealous Hera again attempted to kill the child, this time by sending Titans to rip Dionysus to pieces after luring the baby with toys. It is said that he was mocked by the Titans who gave him a thyrsus (a fennel stalk) in place of his rightful sceptre. Zeus turned the Titans into dust with his thunderbolts, but only after the Titans ate everything but the heart, which was saved, variously, by Athena, Rhea, or Demeter. Zeus used the heart to recreate him in his thigh".

What's the original text for all the above?

3. "Other versions claim that Zeus recreated him in Semele's womb or that he impregnated Semele by giving her the heart to eat."

The only thing that gets close to the above is the account of Hyginus (Fabulae, 167) that says Jupiter was able to recover the heart of Dionysus and put it into a potion which Semele drank (no eating is mentioned explicitly). I have not see any instance of recreating Dionysus in Semele's womb.

ICE77 (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete - Parallels with Christianity

This whole text is a description of pseudo-historians and supporters of the theory of the myth of Jesus, i.e. historical creationists. Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories [Erni] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry your comment was deleted. You might find it useful to be more specific about your criticism; as it is, it's rather general and may not apply to the entire section you're suggesting should be deleted. If you're arguing that Christianity owes nothing to the corpus of myth surrounding the worship of Dionysus, you seem to be on rather shaky ground. This has nothing to do with Christ myth theory, which is the proposition that Jesus was not a historical person, and not a majority view in historical or mythological scholarship.

I'm not sure what you mean by "historical creationists", since "creationism" is the doctrine that the world and the creatures in it (including man) are the product of deliberate acts by a divine, omnipotent being. This has nothing to do with whether Jesus was a historical person, or whether Christian mythology was influenced by the worship of Dionysus. Perhaps you mean that attempts to show such influence are in fact "creating history" out of whole cloth. But assuming this is what you mean, you're failing to distinguish between the concept of Jesus as a historical person, and the religious trappings of the Gospels and other "sacred writings" concerning him and the subsequent development of Christianity as a religion.

It's entirely possible to hold—as many scholars from varying backgrounds do—that there was an actual person named Jesus, who developed a following due to his interpretation of Hebrew scripture and religious practice, and whom after his execution was regarded or claimed by his followers to have been a divine messenger, or an incarnation of God—without drawing any conclusions as to whether he actually was divine. Many scholars approach the latter from a skeptical or even an atheistic view, without denying that such a person lived and died at about the time he's said to have lived, or that his followers attributed various supernatural qualities to him, forming the basis for the religion of Christianity.

It's also perfectly possible to argue, from a philosophical standpoint, that some of the religious doctrine surrounding Jesus is true, but that other elements were borrowed from the corpus of pagan rites and literature in the surrounding world. Unless your argument is that all aspects of the worship of Christ in whatever respect emanate directly from divine sources, without addition, interpretation, or embellishment by human authors, then the suggestion that such worship might have been influenced by the rites, doctrines, or philosophy of other ancient religions seems quite reasonable. It's not a conspiracy or fringe theory to argue that some aspects of Christianity may have been borrowed from, or developed alongside, similar concepts in other ancient religions.

I hope that this answers your concerns. By all means, please study up on the topic, and get back to us on this if you find more specific issues that still need to be addressed. In the meantime, you might want to review the summary of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on your talk page. There are useful tips and guidelines linked there, which could help you formulate future topics for discussion on Wikipedia. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone else think that the face of the statue in the pic looks kinda feminine? Dragonlover21 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Percy Jackson

He's also in Percy Jackson and the Olympian Series. Don't believe me? Look it up or buy the book I assure you he's in there. This information might be a wise thing to put in the reference section.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.134.20 (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What effect does him being mentioned in the book have on culture outside of the book? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Really Dragonlover21 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dionysus is a gynomorph?

According to the article on gynomorphs, Dionysus was considered...well, a gynomorph; and there is a source backing that up in said article. However, I can't find anything in this page about the god himself which explains this. Shouldn't the main article for this character mention this detail?Please stop. (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Etymology: dubious link with Demeter and Dione

I've twice deleted a paragraph claiming (a) that the name of Dionysus is related to that of Demeter, and (b) that his name is a combination of the names of Dione and Zeus. This looks like original research; it gives no citations for either claim, both of which are linguistically untenable in my belief and have not been advanced by any scholars I know of. Trecht (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)