Dionysus’s cult already been known in the second millenium BCE in the Minoan civilization. He was a god of opposites – kind and gentle, but also savage and cruel. He was broader known in the Romans as Bacchus. In 186 BCE was, connected with him, certain act, which remains unclear until today…
In various popular magazines can be found widespread thesis that in this act was some “religious ground”. That’s absurd! How can anyone persecute a god who can take a revenge on them, like Dionysus took a revenge on pirates who kidnapped him?
It’s the same case with the allegedly killed of thousands of young peoples; it’s highly controversial. Ancient sources don’t give us “statistics”, numbers given in them don’t reflect reality. Nobody counted them. Julius Caesar in Gallic War (Bellum Gallicum) has written that Gallic army counted a million soldiers; it’s absolutely impossible.
Against common opinions, in 186 BCE bacchanalia hasn’t been forbidden. The proof of that is even a quick reading of the resolution of the Senate concerning them, where it’s said only about the prohibition of creating associations and about limits of number of participants and demand of formal permission on the exercise of a cult from praetor urbanus.
Dates which can be encounter (16-17 march), which are allegedly the dates in which the bacchanalia has been celebrated suggest that it was an official festival recognized by Roman authorities included to the ritual calendar. The Bacchic cult of that period wasn’t an official cult, but an unofficial one – Livy gives us no premises to recognize of existence any official forms of this cult. Moreover, the ceremonies in honour of Bacchus were celebrated at night, which exclude any form of official cult. At the top of that, describing Hispala’s account he wrote that since Paculla Annia from Champaigne became the priestess highly increase frequently of ceremonies – devoted them 5 days in a month. This march’s date refers to Liberalia, which has nothing to do with bacchanalia, which is, unfortunately, incomprehensible for many of the people describing it. Liberalia is official state festival in honour of the old-Italian god Liber identified with Dionysus in 494 BC.
Very amused me such fragment found on the Internet:
Any informations about bacchanalia we’ve got only from fierce enemies of this cult. One of them was a Christian apologist Minuncius Felix Octavius lived in turn of II I III century CE:
They recognize one another by secret signs and marks; they fall in love almost before they are acquainted; everywhere they introduce a kind of religion of lust, a promiscuous ‘brotherhood’ and ‘sisterhood’ by which ordinary fornication, under cover of a hallowed name, is converted to incest. (…) An infant, cased in dough to deceive the unsuspecting, is placed beside the person to be initiated. The novice is thereupon induced to inflict what seem to be harmless blows upon the dough, and unintentionally the infant is killed by his unsuspecting blows; the blood – oh, horrible – they lap up greedily; the limbs they tear to pieces eagerly; (…)”
– The Loeb Classical Library, G.P. Goold (ed.), Tertulian, Apology, De spectaculis, Minucius Felix, Octavius, London 1977, p. 337, 339
Analysis of this fragment is highly educational, because it shows how ends not-reading quoting sources. The Author doesn’t know what is he quoting exactly whereby didn’t avoid horrible mistakes, completely mixing things. First of all: “Octavius” is the title of the work wrote by Minucius (not any Minuncius) Felix. Secondly, these are words one of the interlocutors (the work has a dialogue form), some Cicilius, which spoke that about Christians. It’s one of the classical spots (similar in Tertullian) accusing CHRISTIANS sacrificing infants, blood drinking etc.
Small mention about that act is in Cicero’s work, which allude about it in half a sentence. In treatise On laws he wrote:
Our ancestors’ severity on this subject is shown by the old resolution of the senate concerning Bacchanalia, along with the inquiry [and] chastisement by the consuls through the addition of military force.
– Cicero, On the Laws, trans. D. Fott, p. 181
Translation – of course – is not literal. In original we have:
Quo in genere severitatem maiorum senatus vetus auctoritas de Bacchanalibus et consulum exercitu adhibito quaestio animadversio que declarat.
– Oxford Classical Texts, J. G. F. Powell (ed.), M. Tulli Ciceronis, De Re Publica, De Legibus, Cato Maior de Senectute, Laelius de Amicitia
What has to be understood as:
Such kind of ancestor’s severity shows old resolution of the Senate about bacchanalia orders an action taken by consuls with a military force.
There is no informations, against any fakes, about 5-years persecutions, and even about persecution itself (only about “an action” – quaestio animadversio), and the use of military force is foggy. The army was command by consuls, which, according to resolution of the Senate, had to take the action. Perhaps that is why Cicero mentioned the military force. Without a doubt, the Roman orator was exaggerate.
All sources needs to be reading critically. The case of bacchanalia had only a political context and we know a little about it, however how would an army acted? Where? The Senate’s resolution (Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus) was concerning an Italy (Roman allies – quī foederātī) not an entire Imperium Romanum. Moreover it didn’t forbid all the Bacchic cults as I already mentioned. Beside an army couldn’t enter to the Rome itself – it can’t cross pomerium (or pomoerium), that is to say the sacred border of the City.
The main account of the events of 186 BCE is the Livy’s account. We have there a vivid relations of crimes, killings and fornications allegedly committing by bacchants, especially on their secret meetings. Was it really like that? Rather not. Uncritical beli