10 The rule of Dionysus in the light

of the Orphic theogony (Hieroi

Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies)
Marek Job

Introduction
There can be no doubt that the myth of Dionysus Zagreus played an important
role in the ancient reflection on the nature of ruling.1,2 This is why examining
in detail the way in which the myth portrays Dionysus’ part in governing the
world may cast light on how the ruler was perceived in the Graeco-Roman
world. Judging from the preserved fragments of the so-called Orphic theo-
gonies, there can be little doubt that the classic succession myth that ends, as
presented in Hesiod’s Theogony, with the establishment of Zeus’ rule over the
cosmos stood at the centre of their narrative structure. However, in the
late-antique compilation of Orphic poetry known under the title of Hieroi
Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies, an additional theme was introduced to the theogonic
myth, namely the one in which Zeus gave power over people and gods to his
little son Dionysus, who soon after was murdered by the Titans. This story of
the death of Dionysus was, and sometimes still is, regarded by scholars as an
independent myth constituting the key to understanding many soteriological
and eschatological texts associated with the Orphic religious movement. There
is no convincing proof, however, that the story was a part of any Orphic
theogony before the Hieroi Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies was compiled. An
mportant question then arises: was this addition only an innovation of the
late-antique compiler of Rhapsodies or was it a theological idea rooted in the
earlier literary and iconographic tradition, in which a unique relationship
between Zeus and Dionysus was highlighted? After a brief discussion of
contemporary views on the character and content of Hieroi Logoi, I proceed to
examine the cosmological role of Zeus in Orphic theogony. Next, I discuss the
main themes of the Dionysus myth within the Rhapsodies. In the last section of
the chapter, I offer some reflections on the possible meaning of the ambiguous
Orphic fragment mentioning the joint rule of Zeus and Dionysus.

Hieroi Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies

Modern researches in Orphism usually accept the idea that for the authors
of Late Antiquity the main source of knowledge on tradition, mythology or
162 Marek Job
theology connected to the mythical figure of Thracian bard Orpheus was
a theogonic poem known under the title of Hieroi Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies.
The work itself did not survive to modern times, but references to it –
be they direct quotes or paraphrases – can be found in existing writings of
Neoplatonic philosophers and Christian apologists. These references in turn
allowed classical philologists to collect a large set of fragments, and from
those to reconstruct parts of the poem. However, the structure and the time
of composition of the Hieroi Logoi remain uncertain.3
The first mention of ῥαψῳδίαι Ὀρφικαί was made by Damascius, a
Neoplatonist from the turn of the sixth century, in his work De principiis.
He also mentions the titles of two other, earlier theogonies he was familiar
with – a theogony of Eudemus of Rhodes, and the Hieroi Logoi by
Hieronymus of Rhodes and Hellanicus – but his work implies that he only
had direct access to the Rhapsodies, since he calls them ‘the standard
Orphic Theogony’ (συνήθης Ὀρφική θεολογία).4 The question of whether
the various theogonies are interrelated, whether they used some single poem
with mythological themes as a model that was reworked and restructured
by subsequent authors, remains under discussion. Some schools of thought
insist that the Orphic tradition continued unchanged and conservative in
subsequent theogonic texts. Others – let us call them the constructivist
approaches – maintain that the Orphic content was reinterpreted constantly
in the telling, and thus enriched and expanded with new ideas, made to fit
the intellectual and spiritual needs of a given time period. It is with those
two approaches in mind that we will now take a look at the modern ideas
on the character of Rhapsodies.
According to Martin West, who was the first to propose a detailed and
erudite reconstruction of the orphic cosmologies, the Rhapsodies were
composed in the Hellenistic period (between the first century BCE and
the second century AD) by a single author, who, having formed a cohesive
whole out of the contents of earlier theogonies (mainly those by Eudemus,
Hieronymus and Hellanicus), created a single, long narrative in 24 songs.5
This poem told the story of how Time (Chronos), the primal origin of all,
began organising the space around (or rather within) it, and through the
god-king of light, Phanes, who was hatched from a cosmic egg formed in
the Aether, created the world. Phanes, an androgynous being, begets the
goddess-queen Night (Nyx) by itself. After that, the poem goes on to de-
scribe the Orphic variant of the succession myth (Uranus–Cronus–Zeus–
Dionysus). The final, climatic part of the theogony, its last song, is supposed
to be the tale of the creation of humanity, and of the divine rule of the last
hypostasis of the primal Phanes, that is, Dionysus, earlier murdered by the
Titans but then resurrected by Zeus. It should be noted that Martin West
was not interested in the context (Stoic or Neoplatonic) in which the
fragments he used for reconstruction were cited in the literature of Late
Antiquity. West decided that this context had no bearing on the mythical
narrative of original, or at least ancient, Orphic tradition.6 West’s opinion
Rule of Dionysus in the Orphic theogony 163
on the uniformity of the Rhapsodies is supported by many subsequent
scholars,7 although there are critics who questioned the way in which West
has reconstructed the structure of the poem. These critics additionally point
out – and this is quite important for this chapter – the ways in which some
motifs in Orphic poems were either fleshed out or toned down, added to or
subtracted from, by the authors who recreated them in subsequent centuries
and who hailed from various intellectual milieus.
The main point of controversy is Martin West’s claim that there exists a
manuscript tradition of Orphic cosmogonic poems. Having reconstructed
the content of the theogonies of which fragments exist, starting with the
oldest, written on the Derveni papyrus (probably the sixth century BCE),
West created a stemma that purportedly illustrates the existing links be-
tween the theogonies.8 To explain the absence of some mythological motifs
in all the poems, West has also assumed that these motifs were present in
the original Orphic theogony, which he named the Protogonos Theogony.
However, the existence of this text is not supported by the sources.9
What, then, could the Hieroi Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies be, if it is not a poem
that relates a cohesive myth of cosmos creation and resembles Hesiod’s
Theogony in form? Radcliffe Edmonds was the one to try and answer
that question. Because the surviving fragments contain demonstrable dis-
crepancies, Edmonds claims that the Rhapsodies were ‘a loose collection of
Orphic poetry, containing various poems composed and reworked over the
centuries by various bricoleurs’, and therefore were more akin to the
Sibylline Oracles.10 This theory has some important consequences for our
understanding and interpretation of the mythical motifs therein. Firstly,
the Rhapsodies as a whole did not necessarily concentrate on theogony;
they may simply have contained some poems on the subject and presented
variants of the theme. This means these poems could have coexisted with
other ones on different subjects (eschatological, soteriological). Secondly, if
we assume that the collection was an effect of bricolage, then it must have
mixed contents originating in different periods of time (from archaic to
imperial). This in turn means that some of the poems did not contain purely
Orphic content (whatever such content might be) but were the result of a
fusion of Orphism with the theological and philosophical ideas of the
period in which they were written.11 Thus, it comes as no surprise that
Neoplatonic philosophers claimed that the text of the Rhapsodies, or the
work of Orpheus the theologian, expresses through metaphor and allegory
a reality which they described discursively.
According to another interesting theory on the content of the Rhapsodies,
they purportedly resembled Ovid’s Metamorphoses. In this variant, the
text divided into 24 books could have begun, as Ovid’s work did, with a
long cosmogonic poem, which would then pass on to other mythological
songs attributed to Orpheus.12 This chapter is based on the idea that the
Rhapsodies gave a single, coherent cosmogonic and theogonic myth, as did
the first book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses.
164 Marek Job
Zeus, the creator of the world
There is no doubt that the myth that was fundamental to Hesiod’s Theogony,
the most famous work on the creation of the world and on the origin of
gods, describing the succession of gods (Uranus‒Cronus‒Zeus), was also an
important part of the Orphic cosmogonic narratives. However, Hesiod’s
version ends with establishing the rule of Zeus, while the Rhapsodies tell of
Zeus designating young Dionysus as his successor. To describe the character
and meaning of the reign of Dionysus as stipulated in Hieroi Logoi, we must
therefore start with the cosmogonic role of his father, Zeus. Let us then start
with the events of Orphic theogony in medias res. Zeus, the new king of the
gods, poses the following question to the primal goddess, Night:

μαῖα, θεῶν ὑπάτη, Νὺξ ἄμβροτε, πῶς, τάδε φράζε,

πῶς χρή μ’ ἀθανάτων ἀρχὴν κρατερόφρονα θέσθαι;
πῶς δέ μοι ἕν τε τὰ πάντ’ ἔσται καὶ χωρὶς ἕκαστον13;
Mother, supreme among gods, immortal Night, tell me how,
how can I instill vaillant rulership among the Immortals?
And how can I make all as one and yet remain individual?14

The goddess advises him:

αἰθέρι πάντα πέριξ ἀφάτωι λαβέ, τῶι δ’ ἐνί μέσσωι

οὐρανόν, έν δέ τε γαῖαν ἀπείριτον, ἐν δέ θάλασσαν,
ἐν δὲ τὰ τείρεα πάντα, τά τ’ οὐρανὸς ἐστεφάνωται.
αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν δεσμὸν κρατερὸν περὶ πᾶσι τανύσσηις
σειρὴν χρυσείην ἐξ αἰθέρος ἀρτήσαντα.15
Surround all things with indescribable Aether
place the Heaven in the centre, endless earth and sea within it,
and all the constellations that surround the Heaven
and when you hang the golden chain of the Aether
you will gird all with a strong bond.

Zeus, following the goddess’s advice, swallows Phanes-Ericapaeus and, since

it was Phanes’ power that held the initial creation together, the universe
cannot continue to exist. Therefore, it ‘follows’ its creator into Zeus’ entrails:

ὣς τότε πρωτογόνοιο χαδὼν μένος Ἠρικεπαίου

τῶν πάντων δέμας εἶχεν ἑῆι ένί γαστέρι κοίληι,
μεῖξε δ’ ἑοῖς μελέεσσι θεοῦ δύναμίν τε και ἀλκήν,
τοὔνεκα σὺν τῶι πάντα Διὸς πάλιν ἐντὸς ἐτύχθη.16
As he swallowed the power of the primal Ericapaeus,
he had the form of all things inside him
mixing the power and might of a god in his members.
Thus, everything was united anew inside Zeus.
Rule of Dionysus in the Orphic theogony 165
Why does Zeus decide to recreate the world? Dwayne Meisner17 proposes to
interpret the act of swallowing the primal creation in the context of the inner
coherence of a succession myth structure. The main question would there-
fore be: what does Zeus gain by swallowing Phanes and the entire original
creation? The answer lies within the question that Zeus poses to Nyx. The
king of the gods wants a mandate to reign over the humans and the gods,
instead of being simply another successor (after Uranus and Cronus) of the
real god-king Phanes. To become the first among gods and consolidate his
power, he must therefore take on Phanes’ role and create the world anew.
On the other hand, those scholars who lean towards an allegorical inter-
pretation of the Neoplatonic philosophers – who have discussed these cited
fragments extensively – state that ‘Zeus’ dilemmas … are … a metaphorical
presentation of one of the fundamental questions posed by Greek philo-
sophy, which is … the problem of one and many’.18 This approach finds
that the most important consequence of Zeus swallowing Phanes is not
his power, but his position as the god-creator of the divided universe.
Neoplatonic philosophers, when interpreting the fragments of Rhapsodies
cited above, used their own terminology to describe the various levels of
metaphysical reality. In this approach, Phanes, according to philosopher
Proclus, symbolised the intelligible model (παράδειγμα) situated in the
highest level of the Mind sphere and filled with non-material Platonic Ideas.
Zeus swallowing Phanes was an image of Demiurge that contemplated Ideas
from the intellectual level and reproduced them on lower levels of reality.
Therefore, he became for the intellectual world the same thing that Phanes
was for the intelligible sphere. However, even though Zeus the Demiurge is
similar, on a lower level, to Phanes the Model, he is not able to, or rather not
capable of – being too far removed from the source of power that is the
perfect One (represented by primal Chronos in the Rhapsodies) – main-
taining the level of unity characteristic of the higher Mind sphere. He
therefore creates a number of divine beings, which correspond more or less
to the Olympian gods.19

Dionysus Zagreus: the myth in the Rhapsodies

The myth describing the tragic story of Dionysus, son of Persephone and
Zeus, who had already received the royal throne and sceptre from his father
as a child, but who was dismembered and devoured by the Titans, is seen as
the climactic part of the Rhapsodies and the most original and important
part of the Orphic theogony by those who see the Rhapsodies as a single,
cohesive poem. Cited fragments, commentaries and paraphrases of the
myth found in late antique works and collected by Alberto Barnabé allow
us to distinguish the following motifs in the mythical narrative:

1. Zeus, in the form of a serpent, rapes his daughter Persephone.

Persephone gives birth to Dionysus.
166 Marek Job
Nonn. Dion. 6.155‒160 (=OF 283)
Παρθένε Περσεφόνεια, σύ δ’ οὐ γάμον εὗρες ἀλύξαι,
ἀλλὰ δρακοντείοισιν ἐνυμφεύθης ὑμεναίος,
Ζεύς ὅτε πουλυέλικτος ἀμειβομένοιο προσώπου
νυμφίος ἱμερόεντι δράκων κυκλούμενος ὁλκῷ
εἰς μυχὸν ὀρφναίοιο διέστιχε παρθενεῶνος
σείων δαυλὰ γένεια.
O maiden Persephone, you could not know how to avoid your nuptials,
but you were united with a bridegroom in a serpentine wedding
when Zeus, many-coiled, in a changed shape
crawled as a serpentine bridegroom, twisting and turning
with flowing grace, into the dark, virginal chamber,
shaking the hairy jowls.
Schol. Lucian. 52.9 (=OF 280)
λέγουσι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ τερατίαν γενέσθαι καὶ εἰς δράκοντα
μεταμορφωθῆναι καὶ τῆι ἰδίαν θυγατρὶ μιγῆναι.
He [Zeus] is said to have done an astonishing thing and to have
changed into a serpent and united with his daughter in that form.
Procl. In Cra. 85.18 (=OF 281)
φασὶν τὴν Κόρην ὑπὸ μὲν τοῦ Διὸς βιάζεσθαι.
It is said that Kore was raped by Zeus.
Schol. Lucian. 52.9 (=OF 283)
καἰ ἄλλος ὁ Σαβάζιος λεγόμενος… ἐκ Διὸς καὶ Περσεφόνης.
And another Dionysus, called Sabazios … was born of Zeus and
Persephone.
2. Dionysus is given to the care of the Curetes.

Procl. Theol. Plat. 5.35 (=OF 296)

οὗτοι γοῦν οἱ θεοὶ καὶ τήν βασιλίδα Ῥέαν λέγονται φρουρεῖν καὶ τὸν ὅλων
δημιουργόν, καὶ μέχρι τῶν αἰτίων τῆς μεριστῆς ζωογονίας τε καὶ
δημιουργίας προϊόντες τήν τε Κόρην ἐν ἐκείνοις καὶ τὸν Διόνυσον
ἐξηιρημένους τῶν δευτέρων φυλάττειν.
And it is said that these deities [the Curetes] protected queen Rhea and
the demiurge of all things and, coming close to the very origin of the
division of living things and creation [which also means Dionysus] they
protected Kore and Dionysus, who are among those origins, devoid of a
secondary nature.
3. Zeus proclaims Dionysus the new king of the gods.

Procl. In Cra. 55.5 (=OF 299)

καὶ ὁ Διόνυσος <ὁ> τελευταῖος θεῶν βασιλεύς παρὰ τοῦ Διός· ὁ γὰρ
πατὴρ ἱδρύει τε αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ βασιλείῳ θρόνῳ καὶ ἐγχειρίζει τὸ σκῆπτρον
καὶ βασιλέα ποιεῖ τῶν ἐγκοσμίων ἁπάντων θεῶν·εκλῦτε, θεοί· τόνδ’
ὔμμιν ἐγὼ βασιλῆα τίθημι λέγει πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ὁ Ζεύς.
Dionysus, the last king of the gods [received his power from Zeus] as
Rule of Dionysus in the Orphic theogony 167
well, since his father sat him on the divine throne, put the sceptre into
his hand and made him king of all the cosmic gods. Listen, ye gods, I
give you this king, said Zeus to the gods.
4. The Titans ambush Dionysus: they paint their faces with plaster and
lure Dionysus with toys and a mirror. They then kill him, dismember
his body, boil it and eat it.

Nonn. Dion. 6.169‒173

οὐδέ Διὸς θρόνον εἶχεν ἐπὶ χρόνον· ἀλλά ἑ γύψῳ
κερδαλέῃ χρισθέντες ἐπίκλοπα κύκλα προσώπου
δαίμονος ἀστόργοιο χόλῳ βαρυμήνιοις Ἥρης
Ταρταρίῃ Τιτῆνες ἐδηλήσαντο μαχαίρῃ
άντιτύπῳ νόθον εἶδος ὀπιπεύοντα κατόπτρῳ.
He [Dionysus] did not stay on Zeus’ throne for long, because
cunningly disguising their deceitful faces with plaster
led by their hatred of the implacable goddess Hera
the Titans killed him with a knife from Tartarus
as he gazed into the misleading reflection in the mirror.
5. Athena saves the heart of the murdered Dionysus and brings it to
Zeus.

Procl. H. 7.11‒15
ἢ κραδίην ἐσάωσας ἀμιστύλλευτον ἄνακτος
αἰθέρος ἐν γυάλοισι μεριζομένου ποτὲ Βάκχου
Τιτήνων ὑπὸ χερσί, πόρες δέ ἑ πατρὶ φέρουσα,
ὄφρα νέος βουλῇσιν ὑπ’ ἀρρήτοισι τοκῆος
ἐκ Σεμέλης περὶ κόσμον ἀνηβήσῃ Διόνυσος.
You [Athena] who saved the heart of the king Bacchus
from dismemberment in the dome of the sky
when he was torn by the hands of the Titans, and took it to father
so that, by the unspeakable wish of the father,
a new Dionysus grew in Semele in the cosmos.
6. Zeus strikes the Titans with lightning. The third generation of humans
is created from the ashes and smoke of the Titans’ bodies.

Olymp. In Phd. 1.3

εἶτα τὸν Δία διεδέξατο ὁ Διόνυσος, ὅν φασι κατ’ ἐπιβουλὴν τῆς Ἥρας
τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν Τιτᾶνας σπαράττειν καὶ τῶν σαρκῶν αὐτοῦ
ἀπογεύεσθαι. καὶ τούτους ὀργισθεὶς ὁ Ζεὺς ἐκεραύνωσε, καὶ ἐκ τῆς
αἰθάλης τῶν ἀτμῶν τῶν ἀναδοθέντων ἐξ αὐτῶν ὕλης γενομένης
γενέσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.
After Zeus, the power was inherited by Dionysus, who was said to be
torn apart and consumed by the Titans due to Hera’s ruse. The enraged
Zeus smote them with lightning, and from the charred smoke that was
left, matter was created and humans were born.
168 Marek Job
7. Dionysus is reborn by Semele.
See 5 mentioned previously.
8. Dionysus rules together with Zeus.

Procl. In Ti. 3.316 (= OF 300)

κραῖνε μὲν οὖν Ζεὺς πάντα πατήρ, Βάκχος δ’ ἐπέκραινε.
Father Zeus ruled all, and Bacchus exercised the rule.

Dionysus Zagreus: the myth outside the Rhapsodies (sources

and discussions overview)
If the original source for the late-antique quotations given above was really
Hieroi Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies, then we can suspect that the myth of
Dionysus torn apart by the Titans was present there in that form. However,
the contemporary scholars were much more interested in the way the myth
functioned outside of the context of theogony. This was because it was seen
as a key to understanding the Orphic doctrine, especially its anthro-
pological and soteriological components.20 In this context, the information
supplied by Olympiodorus, a Neoplatonist from the sixth century AD, is
especially important. In his commentary to Plato’s Phaedo, Olympiodorus
tells the story of humanity’s origins from the ashes of the Titans struck
down by Zeus after they had tasted Dionysus’ flesh (see 6.) and, while he
clearly alludes in it to the Dionysian–Titanic elements of human nature, this
remark inspired modern scholars to additional conclusions. It was assumed
that the central part of the ancient Orphic movement was the belief in the
primal, Titanic guilt of humanity, which had to be erased through parti-
cipation in secret Orphic mysteries (teletai). This idea was strengthened by
the discovery of what is known as the Orphic gold tablets, which are seen as
alluding to the Titanic nature of the souls of the deceased (ποινὰν δ’
ἀνταπέτεισ’ ἔργων ἕνεκ’ οὔτι δικαίων: ‘I have been punished for an unjust
act’21). They also mention those who were initiated into the Bacchic mys-
teries (μύσται καὶ βάχχοι22), the salvation granted by Dionysus (σὲ ...
Βάκχιος αὐτὸς ἔλυσε23: ‘Bacchus himself liberated you’) and the grace of his
mother Persephone (νῦν δ’ ἱκέτις ἥκω παραὶ ἁγνὴν Φερσεφόνειαν | ὥς με
πρόφρων πέμψηι ἕδρας ἐς εὐαγείων24: ‘I now come as a supplicant to
Persephone, so that in her grace she sends me to the dwellings of the im-
maculate’). Therefore, the myth of Dionysus torn apart by the Titans, in the
form that we know from the Rhapsodies fragments cited in Late Antiquity,
should already have existed in earlier periods. The most commonly quoted
source that is used to support the idea that the myth was already present in
the Archaic period25 (sixth century BCE) is a fragment of a lament by
Pindar, cited by Plato in the Meno dialogue when discussing me-
tempsychosis:
Rule of Dionysus in the Orphic theogony 169
οἷσι δὲ Φερσεφόνα ποινὰν παλαιοῦ πένθεος
δέξεται, εἰς τὸν ὕπερθεν ἅλιον κείνων ἐνάτῳ ἔτει
ἀνδιδοῖ ψυχὰς πάλιν,
ἐκ τᾶν βασιλῆες ἀγαυοὶ
καὶ σθένει κραπνοὶ σοφίᾳ τε μέγιστοι
ἄνδρες αὔξοντ’: ἐς δὲ τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον ἥρωες ἁγνοὶ
πρὸς ἀνθρώπων καλεῦνται.26
Those who pay Persephone for her past suffering
will have their souls guided by her back into the sun in the ninth year
great kings and strong, swift men they will grow up to be
and wondrous in knowledge; forever they will be known as sacred
heroes among men.

And yet this fragment poses some problems. In the context of the Dionysian
myth, the ‘past suffering’ of Persephone is usually interpreted as her grief
for her murdered child.27 However, myths concerning Persephone make
another interpretation possible: her suffering may be due to her abduction
by Hades and forced separation from her mother. It is therefore quite
possible that Pindar’s verse cited above refers to the myth known from
Homer’s hymn to Demeter.28
Another passage used to prove the ancient origins of the Dionysus
Zagreus myth is the fragment of Plato’s Laws, where the Athenian stranger
describes immoral behaviour to Mergillos of Sparta:

ἐφεξῆς δὴ ταύτῃ τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡ τοῦ μὴ ἐθέλειν τοῖς ἄρχουσι δουλεύειν

γίγνοιτ᾽ ἄν, καὶ ἑπομένη ταύτῃ φεύγειν πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς καὶ
πρεσβυτέρων δουλείαν καὶ νουθέτησιν, καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ τέλους οὖσιν
νόμων ζητεῖν μὴ ὑπηκόοις εἶναι, πρὸς αὐτῷ δὲ ἤδη τῷ τέλει ὅρκων καὶ
πίστεων καὶ τὸ παράπαν θεῶν μὴ φροντίζειν, τὴν λεγομένην παλαιὰν
Τιτανικὴν φύσιν ἐπιδεικνῦσι καὶ μιμουμένοις, ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ πάλιν ἐκεῖνα
ἀφικομένους, χαλεπὸν αἰῶνα διάγοντας μὴ λῆξαί ποτε κακῶν.29
Next after this form of liberty would come that which refuses to be
subject to the rulers; and, following on that, the shirking of submission
to one’s parents and elders and their admonitions; then, as the
penultimate stage, comes the effort to disregard the laws; while the
last stage of all is to lose all respect for oaths or pledges or divinities,
wherein men display and reproduce the character of the Titans of story,
who are said to have reverted to their original state, dragging out a
painful existence with never any rest from woe.30

Bearing in mind the aforementioned words of Olympiodorus, scholars have

assumed that when Plato writes about the ‘character of the Titans’, he refers
to the Orphic anthropogony and the guilt of the murderers of Dionysus
inherited by the humans.31 However, nothing in those words of Plato
precludes the interpretation that the ‘character of the Titans’ refers simply
170 Marek Job
to Titanomachy, widely known in the Greek world, wherein the Titans dare
to attack mount Olympus and threaten the divine order.32
Therefore, the literary sources of the Archaic and Classical periods do not
clearly prove the existence, in those periods, of the myth of the dis-
membered and reborn Dionysus, and thus do not prove its importance for
the Orphic mysteries of that time, either. However, the stories of
Persephone’s motherhood, and of Dionysus’ sparagmos and rebirth, are
noted in the literature as early as the early Hellenistic period. We learn that
Dionysus Zagreus is the son of Zeus and Persephone from an existing
fragment by Callimachus: Υἷα Διώνυσον Ζαγρέα γειναμένη33 (‘Having born
a son Dionysus Zagreus’). Philodemus, an Epicurean, cites the work of a
Hellenistic author Euphorion of Chalcis (about 275 BCE) and probably
Orphic poets (Ὀρφικοί) in his treatise On Piety, saying:

[Διονύσωι δέ φασιν]
[εἶναι τρεῖς γενέ-]
[σεις, μίαν μὲν τού]
των `τὴν ἐκ´ τῆς μ[ητρός]
ἑτέραν δὲ τ[ὴν ἐκ]
τοῦ μηροῦ [Διός, τρί]-
την δὲ τὴ[ν ὅτε δι]-
ασπασθεὶς ὑ[πὸ τῶν]
Τιτάνων ῾Ρέα[ς τὰ]
μέλη συνθε[ίσης]
ἀνεβίω{ι}. κἀν [τῆι]
Μοψοπία[ι] δ’ Εὐ[φορί]-
ων [ὁ]μολογεῖ [τού]-
τοις. [οἱ] δ᾿ Ὀρ[φικοὶ]
καὶ παντά[πασιν]
ἐνδιατρε[ίβουσιν] …34
[They say that Dionysos had three births: one] of these is that from his
m[other], another [that from] the thigh [of Zeus], and the third the one
[when] he was torn apart by [the] Titans and came back to life after
Rhea reassembled his limbs. (space) And in [his] Mopsopia Euphorion
agrees with this (account); [the] Orph[ics] too dwell on (it) inten-
sively.35

This passage lacks three other motifs that probably appeared in the
Rhapsodies: the Titans eating Dionysus’ body, the Titans being struck by
Zeus’ lightning and humanity being created out of Titans’ ashes. The first
two appear in Plutarch’s On the Eating of the Flesh:

τὰ γὰρ δὴ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον μεμυθευμένα πάθη τοῦ διαμελισμοῦ καὶ τὰ

Τιτάνων ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τολμήματα, κολάσεις τε τούτων καὶ κεραυνώσεις
γευσαμένων τοῦ φόνου.36
Rule of Dionysus in the Orphic theogony 171
For the stories told about the sufferings and dismemberment of
Dionysus and the outrageous assaults of the Titans upon him, and
their punishment and blasting by thunderbolt after they had tasted his
blood.

The third motif, however, can only be found in the works of the
Neoplatonic philosophers, and no antique source mentions the idea of the
primal guilt of the Titans being inherited by humanity. This idea has
recently been revised and refuted by Richard Edmonds, a scholar of
Orphism. Convincingly arguing that the idea comes from modern scholars
who have erroneously interpreted the words of Olympiodorus, Edmonds
rekindled the discussion about the meaning of the Dionysus Zagreus myth
for the Orphists.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the myth about the fate of Dionysus,
culminating in his dismemberment by the Titans, existed at least as early as
Hellenistic times. There is no proof of it being part of any theogony before
the Hieroi Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies, however. Introducing the idea of
Dionysus’ kingdom seems to be an original idea of the author or the
compiler of the Rhapsodies. Perhaps Lech Trzcionkowski is right when he
argues that the collection is a late creation (fourth or fifth century AD) and
that the myth of Dionysus’ dismemberment, expanded with additional
content, was added to the original Orphic theogony as known from the
Derveni papyrus under the influence of Christian theology.37

The reign of Dionysus

We have already mentioned that the central point of Hesiod’s Theogony
was the beginning of the reign of Zeus. The existing fragments of the
Derveni papyrus suggest that the oldest known version of the Orphic poem
did not deviate from that pattern:

[νῦν δ’ ἐστί]ν βασιλεὺ[ς] πάντ[ων, καί τ’ ἔσσετ’ ἔπ]ειτα.38

He is now the king of all, and will be forever.

The idea of the Orphic poet, or compiler – the author of the Rhapsodies –
that Zeus should pass on the kingly sceptre to Dionysus, could be
considered quite radical in the light of the traditional Greek polytheism. As
Robert Parker has noted, it meant that ‘the world, in its current state, was
under the control of a power other than Zeus’.39 This theological
remark leads us to re-examine the question of the internal logic of the
poem, and to ask whether the intention of the author really was to say that
Dionysus was a more important god than Zeus? The only scholar who
proposed an interpretation of the Dionysian story within the narrative of
the Rhapsodies is, again, Dwayne Meisner.40 He proposes to see the murder
of Dionysus as one of those situations that cemented Zeus’ position as the
172 Marek Job
only king of gods and men. In Meisner’s approach, the Titans eating
Dionysus are attempting to destabilise the divine order established by Zeus
after he had recreated the world – a symbolic reversal of the act of swal-
lowing Phanes. This interesting idea has some similarities to Hesiod’s
Theogony, where Zeus also had to contend with the Titans, who attacked
Mount Olympus and tried to depose him. When Dionysus is reborn,
Meisner argues, his status is changed: he is no longer the king of gods, he
shares power with Zeus, as supposedly stated by an extant fragment from
the Rhapsodies (see motif 8): κραῖνε μὲν οὖν Ζεύς πάντα πατήρ, Βάκχος δ’
ἐπέκραινε. However, both the meaning and the position of this fragment in
the Rhapsodies are uncertain. Alberto Bernabé,41 in his reconstruction of
Hieroi Logoi, places it before the scene where the Titans dismember
Dionysus, which would mean that the young god shared the power of Zeus
before his murder. The verb κραίνω can mean ‘to reign’, but it can also
mean ‘to complete’. The verse κραῖνε μὲν οὖν Ζεύς πάντα πατήρ, Βάκχος δ’
ἐπέκραινε could, therefore, point to the special relationship of those two
gods, where Dionysus completed Zeus’ creation – he was a crowning touch
to it. Unfortunately, the fragmented nature of the surviving text prevents us
from stating what the nature of this ‘completion’ would be.
Although we cannot fully reconstruct the story given in the Rhapsodies,
there is no doubt that the inclusion of the Dionysian content to the
well-known ancient succession myth makes Dionysus into one of the most
important gods in the cosmic plane. His tragic death and resurrection were
the events that led to the final defeat of the Titans – the forces of chaos and
dispersion – and to conserving the Olympian/Zeusian order. Making the
god of wine into the successor or co-monarch of Zeus in the Rhapsodies is
not only a strong deviation from Hesiod’s vision of theogony, but also from
the modus operandi of Zeus known from other mythical narratives. Zeus
has contended numerous times with someone who could have deposed him
(such as, for instance, Achilles).42 However, we should remember that in
the existing comments of Neoplatonic philosophers, who knew the entire
Orphic theogony and could understand it within the vast context of the
spiritual heritage of ancient Greece, the idea of the reign of Dionysus does
not seem to spark any theological controversy. Even if we accept that
the Neoplatonic works do not aim to present the typical beliefs of an
average Graeco-Roman polytheist, such a radical – as noted by Parker ‒
departure of Orphic authors from the established image of Zeus as the one
and final ruler of the universe would probably invite some comment. How
can we explain the lack of such comment? It would seem that in the
Rhapsodies, and in other Orphic theogonies, the idea of Zeus’ supremacy
was already underlined by his act of recreating the universe. In the Hymn to
Zeus – the most famous and possibly best-conserved fragment of the Hieroi
Logoi – Zeus is shown as the god from whom everything originates (Διὸς δ’
ἐκ πάντα τέτυκται43), the reason for all things (ἀρχὸς ἁπάντων44). The
frequency with which the myth of Zeus creating the world is discussed not
Rule of Dionysus in the Orphic theogony 173
only by the Neoplatonists but also by the Christian apologists in their
polemic texts shows that, at the time, the audience of the work had
no doubt about the story of Zeus being the most important part of the
narrative. All events happening after that one took place in a world where
the most important god was its creator, Zeus. Dionysus receiving the title of
king from his father does not, therefore, negate Zeus’ supreme position.
In the Commentary on Phaedo by Damascius, we find support for this
interpretation of the joint rule of Zeus and Dionysus. When discussing the
importance of initiations for the soul, the philosopher states that they allow
a soul to return to its creator, Dionysus,45 who in turn, due to sitting on his
father’s throne, is ‘strongly placed in Zeus’ whole life’.46
None of the surviving fragments of the Rhapsodies indicate that
Dionysus retains the title of king after his murder and rebirth, although
the passage already cited (see 8.) shows that his position remains strong in
the divine hierarchy. It should not surprise that the combination of the
story of the murder of Dionysus, which was important to the Orphic
authors at least from the Hellenistic period onwards, with the older
succession myth (appearing already on the Derveni papyrus) results in a
new image of Persephone’s son. It would seem that exalting Dionysus
Zagreus – a god important for Orphic soteriology and eschatology – or at
least pinpointing his position in the world of gods and his relationship
with Zeus, was the intention of the author (or compiler) of the
Rhapsodies. But does the effect of this mythological bricolage ‒ Dionysus’
high position in the hierarchy and his complementary role to Zeus –
require the context of the Orphic tradition to be understood? Research on
Dionysian iconography made by Cornelia Isler-Kerényi shows that the
image of Dionysus as a guarantor of the stability of the cosmic order – the
order being identified as that of Zeus – appeared as early as the first half of
the sixth century BCE. Isler-Kerényi has interpreted three scenes showing
the god of wine on Athenian vases: the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, the
return of Hephaestus to Olympus and the Gigantomachy and, according
to her, the common component of all these situations is the conflict that
threatens the Olympian balance of the world.47 The artists’ vision in these
images shows Dionysus as the one who actively solves the crisis.
Therefore, the poetic and mythogenic invention of the author of the
Rhapsodies does not necessarily aim to dispute the traditional vision of
the Greek polytheism. It would seem that the idea that Dionysus plays a
special role in keeping Zeus’ order was present in Hellenic culture
long before Hieroi Logoi. This, in turn, explains why so often Dionysiac
features were in Antiquity an important element of the leaders’ public
persona: to them – just as to their subjects ‒ Dionysus was the god who
maintained and actively defended the worldly order, the divine son who
ruled jointly with his father, the one who implemented Zeus’ policy. What
other divinity of the Graeco-Roman pantheon would provide a better
legitimation for their rule?
174 Marek Job
Notes
1 See chapters by Doroszewski and Hernández de la Fuente in this volume.
2 This chapter is part of a research project on Dionysus and the religious
policy of the Roman emperors (2bH 15 0163 83) that was generously
financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the years
2016‒2019 within the National Programme for the Development of
Humanities.
3 Herrero de Jáuregui 2010, 32–33.
4 Dam. Pr. 123.
5 West 1983, 246–251. Reconstruction of the myths found in the Rhapsodies:
70‒75. Alberto Bernabé arranged the fragments of the Rhapsodies found in
ancient literature following West’s reconstruction in OF, p. 97‒292.
6 West 1983, 224.
7 Such as Bernabé and Casadesús 2008, 310–322.
8 West 1983, 264.
9 Meisner 2018, 14; Trzcionkowski 2013, xxxvi.
10 Edmonds 2013, 149. The discrepancies signalled by Edmonds were studied in
more detail by Meisner 2018, 171–182. As for the similarity between the
Rhapsodies and the Sibylline Oracles, the same interpretation was proposed by
Trzcionkowski 2013, 123.
11 Edmonds 2013, 155: ‘many of the verses in the Orphic Rhapsodies must have
been composed by Stoic and Platonic Orphicists, whose theological ideas shaped
the Orphic mythic narratives as much as Sibyllists’ did theirs’. Meisner 2018,
163: ‘We can see the operation of bricolage in the way the author(s) of the
Rhapsodies reworked old narratives, added new elements, and engaged with
new ideas: for example, attaching the story of Phanes before Night, introducing
the royal sceptre, and expanding the Orphic Hymn to Zeus in a way that seems
to reflect philosophical ideas’.
12 Meisner 2018, 167.
13 OF 237.
14 If not otherwise stated, all translations of ancient sources are mine.
15 OF 237.
16 OF 241.
17 Meisner 2018, 220, 223.
18 Świercz 2008, 62. One of the most famous scholars of Orphism, Alberto
Bernabé, has similar ideas, see Bernabé and Casadesús 2008, 316. Betegh 2004,
175–179, discusses the problem of one/many as the main motif of the Orphic
theogonies.
19 Procl. In Ti. 1.450.27‒451.7. Discussed in more detail by Brisson 1995, 77–86;
Meisner 2018, 219–236. See also the table illustrating the way the Rhapsodies
content matches Proclus’ system, created by d’Hoine and Martijn 2017,
323–328, on the basis of material collected by Luc Brisson and Gerd Van Riel.
20 Macchioro 1930, 101.
21 Thurii gold tablet 6 = OF 490.
22 Hipponion gold tablet = OF 474.16 B.
23 Pelinna gold tablet = OF 485.2.
24 Thurii gold tablet 4.
25 See, for example, Johnston 2007, 66–93.
26 Pl. Men. 81b–c.
27 Bernabé 2010, 437–438.
28 See the discussion on this problem in Edmonds 1999, 304–305.
29 Pl. Leg. 3.701c.
30 Tr. R.G. Bury.
Rule of Dionysus in the Orphic theogony 175
31 Such as Guthrie 1952, 156.
32 Linforth 1941, 343–344.
33 Call. fr. 43.117. This passage appears in Etymologicum genuinum (ninth cen-
tury), prefaced by a comment telling of Zeus’ intercourse with Persephone. A
critical discussion of the passage can be found in Trzcionkowski 2013, 292–296.
34 The text, translation and commentary can be found in Henrichs 2011,
61–68.
35 Tr. A. Henrichs.
36 Plut. De esu 996c.
37 Trzcionkowski 2013, 124: ‘Possibly, during the redaction process, the codex
gained its most important innovation – the myth about the death of an innocent
victim, Dionysus, was combined with the story of the origins of humanity,
probably under the influence of Christian theology’.
38 OF 13 F.
39 Parker 1995, 494.
40 Meisner 2018, 273–277.
41 OF, p. 246.
42 Meisner 2018, 275.
43 OF 243.2.
44 OF 234.6.
45 According to the Neoplatonic, allegorical reading of the story of Dionysus in
Rhapsodies (known as the metaphysical exegesis), the body of Dionysus is
equated with the soul of the universe. See Pépin 1970, 308–310.
46 Damasc. In Phd. 1.168.1–4.
47 See Isler-Kerényi 2007, 216: ‘Whether it is on the occasion of the wedding of
Thetis and Peleus, the Return of Hephaestus to Olympus, or of the
Gigantomachy, Dionysos always tends to strengthen the cosmic order personi-
fied by Zeus. His is essentially the action of a mediator and of a peacemaker in
extremely critical situations of conflict in which the equilibrium of the world
runs the risk of being upset’.

Bibliography
Bernabé, A. (2010) ‘The Gods in Later Orphism’, in J. Bremmer and A. Erskine
(eds.) The Gods of Ancient Greece. Identities and Transformations, Edinburgh
University Press, 422–441.
Bernabé, A. and Casadesús, F. (2008) Orfeo y la tradición órfica. Un reencuentro.
Madrid, Akal.
Betegh, G. (2004) The Derveni Papyrus. Cosmology, Theogony and Interpretation.
Cambridge University Press.
Brisson, L. (1995) Orphée et l’Orphisme dans l’Antiquité gréco-romaine. Aldershot,
Variorum.
d’Hoine P. and Martijn, M. (2017) ‘Appendix I: Proclus’ Metaphysical and
Theological System’, in P. d’Hoine and M. Martijn (eds.) All From One. A Guide
to Proclus, Oxford University Press, 323–328.
Edmonds, R. (1999) ‘Tearing Apart the Zagreus Myth. A Few Disparaging Remarks
on Orphism and Original Sin’, Classical Antiquity 18.1, 37–72.
Edmonds, R. (2013) Redefining Ancient Orphism. A Study in Greek Religion.
Cambridge University Press.
Guthrie, W. (1952) Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement.
London, Methuen.
176 Marek Job
Henrichs, A. (2011) ‘Dionysos Dismembered and Restored to Life: The Earliest
Evidence (OF 59 I-II)’, in M. Herrero de Jáuregui, A.I. Jiménez San Cristóbal,
M.A. Santamaria et al. (eds.) Tracing Orpheus. Studies of Orphic Fragments
in Honour of Alberto Bernabé, Berlin, De Gruyter, 61–68.
Herrero de Jáuregui, M. (2010) Orphism and Christianity in Late Antiquity. Berlin,
De Gruyter.
Isler-Kerényi, C. (2007) Dionysos in Archaic Greece. An Understanding through
Images. Leiden, Brill.
Johnston, S.I. (2007) ‘The Myth of Dionysus’, in S.I. Johnston and F. Graf (eds.)
Ritual Texts for the Afterlife. Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets, London,
Routledge, 66–93.
Linforth, I.M. (1941) The Arts of Orpheus. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Macchioro, V. (1930) From Orpheus to Paul. New York, Henry Holt & Co.
Meisner, D. (2018) Orphic Tradition and the Birth of the Gods. Oxford University
Press.
Parker, R. (1995) ‘Early Orphism’, in A. Powell (ed.) The Greek World, London,
Routledge.
Pépin, J. (1970) ‘Plotin et le miroir de Dionysos (Enn. IV, 3 [27], 12, 1–2)’, Revue
Internationale de Philosophie 92, 304–320.
Świercz, P. (2008) Jedność wielości. Świat, człowiek, państwo w refleksji nurtu
orficko-pitagorejskiego. Katowice, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Trzcionkowski, L. (2013) Bios–Thanatos–Bios. Semifory orfickie z Olbii i kultura
polis. Warszawa, Sub Lupa.
West, M. (1983) Orphic Poems. Oxford University Press.