Heraclitus' comment on Dionysus -- Mimetic Theory and Literary Study

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:18:53 04/20/08 Sun
Author: JPJ II
Subject: Heraclitus' comment on Dionysus

Heraclitus writes: "If it were not in Dionysus' honor that they make a procession and sing a hymn to [the] shameful parts, their deed would be a most shameful one. But Hades and Dionysus, for who they rave and celebrate the festival of Lenaea, are [one and] the same!"(translated by TM Robinson). Girard brought this up while we were reading his exposition on 'The Bacchae', and it fit quite well within the theoretical framework of his arguments. The commentary that I have been able to find on the fragment reveals that Freudian interpretations of the text are quite common though: "Is Dionysus to be equated with life and Hades, god of the underworld, with death? This is a reasonable assumption, and can then be unpacked, in Freudian terms, as a claim that the desire to reproduce oneself and the death-wish are (did we but know it) 'one and the same [impulse]'"(again, Robinson). While working within the Freudian paradigm, it becomes quite easy to make anything fit into the slots that Freud lays out. This particular critic also says that Heraclitus is not writing against the Dionysiac acts, but is instead defending the disgraceful rituals since they are in honor of the God. This seems to be a case where a modern Theory (Freudian Analysis) has forced itself onto the past more than a little. Mimetic Theory seems to make more sense of this text while remaining dependent on it than does Freud. Though one could say that Girard does the same thing as the Freudian here, his reading of this text requires less outside input than does Freud and it remains sustainable by the short fragment alone.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]