The religion of Dionysus
Extract from chapter fifteen of "Primitive Materialism".
This latest stage [of the religion of Dionysus] has had many prophets, and the greatest of these is Friedrich Nietzsche. This new phase in the religion of Dionysus that Nietzsche represents is marked by a condemnation of Christianity,[1] and a longing for a world-affirming reality of spirit-living.
"… the satyr was the primordial image of man, the expression of his highest and strongest emotions, as an inspired reveller, enraptured by the approach of the god, as a sympathetic companion in whom the suffering of the god was repeated, as a messenger bringing wisdom from the deepest heart of nature, as a perceptible image of sexual omnipotence of nature, which the Greek was accustomed to observing with reverent astonishment."[2]
This does not correspond to the Greek epiphany of Dionysus; and if this whole passage were proceeded by “I wish …” – “If only, (I wish) the satyr were the primordial image of man…” – then we would have the right understanding of it, nor would the import of the passage be any the less significant. It is a remarkable statement of religious sentiment, made by a great soul as if all the anguish occasioned by twenty-five centuries of sexual repression were born down upon that one soul, and felt only by that soul.
"Oh, how differently, Dionysus speaks to me!"[3]
It is longing for transformation and says, if only Dionysus would appear to me, and transform the vine for me. Otto in like mood describes, “The most amazing miracle, however, was that of the so called ‘one-day vines’ … These flowered and bore fruit in the course of a few hours during the festivals of the epiphany of the god. … Particularly famous was the miraculous vine of Parnassus …”, which is described by Sophocles in Thyestes, “on Euboea one could watch the holy vine grow green in the early morning. By noon the grapes were already forming, they grew heavy and dark in colour, and by evening the ripe fruit could be cut down, and the drink could be mixed.”[4] He is embroidering the work of Sophocles and Euripides, who just because they mention the “miracle”, may not thereby have wished to attest to it. It is a modern longing for a transformation.
The detested antagonist of this desire is the perceived weight of Christianity. Nietzsche is, of course, condemning the Christianity of Calvin or medieval Christianity, for there are many forms of Christianity.
[1] It is medieval Christianity he is condemning. Modern Christianity has the potential to join the Dionysus movement, and is split in its response.
[2] Friedrich Nietzsche, Preface to Wagner, 1872, Section 8.
[3] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy. 1872. Section 6.
[4] Walter F. Otto, Dionysus, Myth and Cult. Translated with an Introduction by Robert B. Palmer. Spring Publications, Dallas, Texas. 1965. p.98 – 99.
"… the satyr was the primordial image of man, the expression of his highest and strongest emotions, as an inspired reveller, enraptured by the approach of the god, as a sympathetic companion in whom the suffering of the god was repeated, as a messenger bringing wisdom from the deepest heart of nature, as a perceptible image of sexual omnipotence of nature, which the Greek was accustomed to observing with reverent astonishment."[2]
This does not correspond to the Greek epiphany of Dionysus; and if this whole passage were proceeded by “I wish …” – “If only, (I wish) the satyr were the primordial image of man…” – then we would have the right understanding of it, nor would the import of the passage be any the less significant. It is a remarkable statement of religious sentiment, made by a great soul as if all the anguish occasioned by twenty-five centuries of sexual repression were born down upon that one soul, and felt only by that soul.
"Oh, how differently, Dionysus speaks to me!"[3]
It is longing for transformation and says, if only Dionysus would appear to me, and transform the vine for me. Otto in like mood describes, “The most amazing miracle, however, was that of the so called ‘one-day vines’ … These flowered and bore fruit in the course of a few hours during the festivals of the epiphany of the god. … Particularly famous was the miraculous vine of Parnassus …”, which is described by Sophocles in Thyestes, “on Euboea one could watch the holy vine grow green in the early morning. By noon the grapes were already forming, they grew heavy and dark in colour, and by evening the ripe fruit could be cut down, and the drink could be mixed.”[4] He is embroidering the work of Sophocles and Euripides, who just because they mention the “miracle”, may not thereby have wished to attest to it. It is a modern longing for a transformation.
The detested antagonist of this desire is the perceived weight of Christianity. Nietzsche is, of course, condemning the Christianity of Calvin or medieval Christianity, for there are many forms of Christianity.
[1] It is medieval Christianity he is condemning. Modern Christianity has the potential to join the Dionysus movement, and is split in its response.
[2] Friedrich Nietzsche, Preface to Wagner, 1872, Section 8.
[3] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy. 1872. Section 6.
[4] Walter F. Otto, Dionysus, Myth and Cult. Translated with an Introduction by Robert B. Palmer. Spring Publications, Dallas, Texas. 1965. p.98 – 99.
Questions
1. Is it correct to interpret Nietzche's work as the representation of a modern longing for a reformed religion, rather than as a historical statement about Greek religion?
2. Do we need this Dionysiac transformation of religion? Is Nietzsche right to long for change?
2. Do we need this Dionysiac transformation of religion? Is Nietzsche right to long for change?