Bacchic Vindication: A Character Analysis of Dionysus in Wole Soyinka’s The Bacchae of Euripides: A Communion Rite 

Attic Red Figure Painting by the Kleophrades Painter who lived from 510-470 BCE.

Attic Red Figure Painting by the Kleophrades Painter who lived from 510-470 BCE.

This article is two of three in a series on Bacchus/Dionysus, you can read the first one here, and the next one here.

Although Dionysus initially draws out sympathy from the reader, his vindictive nature over rules his actions. All the while his inclination for revenge, however macabre it may be, gestates. When you first meet the god Dionysus, he explains to the audience how the people of Thebes have done injustice against him; he then begins to lay out his revenge. Each line in his opening speech contains a wealth of subliminal information into his malicious tendency to those who were not initiated in his Bacchic mysteries. In his opening dialogue with the audience he states:

“Thebes taints me with bastardy; I am turned into an alien, some foreign outgrowth of her habitual tyranny,” [i]

Dionysus hints at his ill fated birth and the stigma behind it. The city of Thebes does not accept his deified birthright from Zeus, and, portrayed later in his introductory lines, is the Thebans attitude towards his mother Semele; “…bringing vengeance on all who deny my holy origin and call my mother—slut.”[ii] (This line also outlines to whom he will seek his revenge.) His mother was struck by a thunderbolt for looking upon the divine form of Zeus.[iii] But her death was taken by those in the city of Thebes as a sign of her infidelity to her husband as well as outlandishly claiming that Zeus fathered her son.  Zeus, being the god of oaths, punishes those who are unfaithful to their spouses; so it was right to assume the cause of Semele’s punishment. His status as an alien stems from his origins. This alienation angers Dionysus and further marks his status as simply a mortal born out of wedlock rather then being the son of Zeus. The rumor of his birth was misconstrued as him being taken by Zeus, who then sewed Dionysus into his thigh.[iv] This may be eluded to the description of “foreign outgrowth”. Later, the play pokes fun at this aspect with humorous, yet insightful vulgarity. :


“…Is the man

Not fully present in the seed? And the offspring

Of the son of Ichion, are they not even now ensconced

Within that dangling pouch between your thighs?

Offsprings whose genesis you now endanger

By sharp tongue wagging impiously?

It’s not for me to say if Zeus had his scrotum

Sewn to one side of his thighs or

In—between like – presumably – yours.”[v]

With this scene in mind, the “outgrowth” that Dionysus was from  Zeus’ scrotum. Such a concept is visited in the text once before, “a seed of Zeus was sown in Semele my mother”[vi],  it is obvious that the seed of Zeus dwells between his thighs. The “outgrowth” is simply talking about Dionysus as Zeus’ son, growing out of him becoming a “foreign” body shows his separation from Zeus.

Although the last part of the first sentence is contained as such, I feel that it relates to the prevenient sentence which reads:

“…her habitual tyranny. My followers daily pay forfeit for their faith.”[vii]

“her” in that portion is referring to the city of Thebes, and the tyranny of Thebes institutes edicts often against the followers of Dionysus; and because of that, they pay dearly. But in all cases they seem to have been set free, “In was no Human hands that snapped those chains, no/ Human cunning picked the locks on those/ Iron gates.”[viii];  they’re set free by none other then Dionysus himself.

The following sentence seems to be the most vindictively geared statement for his case of revenge on the city of Thebes:

“Thebes blasphemes against me, makes a scapegoat of a god.”[ix]

Being a god from the seed of Zeus, Dionysus feels he is due what is owed to him. Namely, the pouring out of libations, the wearing fawn skins, waving the thyrsus, and dancing in homage to him.  The fact of the matter is that the city of Thebes disregards his birth as divine from Zeus, so therefore, sees no reason to worship him. Their blaspheme is simply their refusal to worship and acknowledge him. For this reason, he becomes vengeful and takes on this vindictiveness.

In the second half of that sentence, he attributes the people of Thebes into making a scapegoat of him, which is only worsened as an insult because he is a deity. The occurrences of the Theban women heading for the hills to “frisk” each other and indulging in the many inebriated orgies in honor of Dionysus causes King Pentheus to blame Dionysus for their promiscuous activities, rather than the women for their own immorality.[x] Granted, they’re in a trance because of the influence of Dionysus, but the blame still rests on them for they had not willingly accepted Dionysus as a god.

This line is where he starts to portray that he is plotting against the inhabitants of Thebes, and they will not be able to refute his rightful place in the Pantheon. Dionysus says:

“It is time to state my patrimony—even here in Thebes.” [xi]

and within this statement, he portrays his worldliness and authoritative abilities that he will flex within Thebes. His “patrimony” refers directly back to how he is rightly apt to receive the mantle of godhood. He had inherited powers that he now wields vindictively against mortals who dare question his legitimate power. The portion that says “—even here in Thebes” shows that he has already been accepted as a god in other parts of the world, and when he is through, he will be god in the eyes of those dwelling in Thebes, or,  if need be, while they dwell in Hades.

The revenge of Dionysus is most keenly felt on the house of Pentheus, ruler of Thebes. The twisted and disturbing manner that he achieves his regicidal revenge  shows his vindictive, rather than a sympathetic persona. It is hard to be sympathetic to someone who is ruthless and hell-bent at decimating those who would dare scoff at his godly status. To be worthy of sympathy, he would have to be less malevolent and far more pitiful of a character. As it is, he does not require pity, but projects fear into the those who view him.


[i] Wole Soyinka, The Bacchae of Euripides: A communion Rite  (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), 1.

[ii]Ibid., 2.

3 “Semele, daughter of Cadmus king of Thebes, being beloved by Zeus, was beguiled by the jealous Hera into asking him to visit her, as he visited Hera herself, in the full glory of his god-head. He accordingly appeared before her in all his majesty as the god of thunder ; Semele, over- powered by his presence, was struck dead by his thunderbolts.” (see John Edwin Sandys The Bacchae of Euripides: With Critical and Explanatory Notes and with Numerous Illustrations From Works of Ancient Art. 3rd ed. (London: C. J. Clay And Sons, 1892), ix.

[iv] Wole Soyinka, The Bacchae of Euripides: A communion Rite  (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), 30.

[v] Ibid.,31.

[vi] Ibid.,2.

[vii] Ibid.,1.

[viii] Ibid.,40.

[ix] Ibid.,1.

[x] Ibid., 23.

[xi] Ibid., 1.

A Critical Review of The Bacchae of Euripides by Wole Soyinka


This article is one of three in a series on Bacchus/Dionysus, you can read the next one here.

In Wole Soyinka’s retelling of The Bacchae,[i] a classical Greek play, the tone has been  slightly altered to include a comedic aspect; which neither excludes the initial somber tendency nor does the plot deviate far from Euripides 5th c. script.  There are several instances in which comedy is inserted in the play that momentarily changes its tone. The majority of these instances is in the dialogue between the characters Kadmos and Tiresias. The comedic points, although vulgar, play an important role in creating a secondary tone in Soyinka’s version of The Bacchae. The first and second are both conversations between the Kadmos and Tiresias. The first is a misspoken line by Kadmos to the other, where as the second is a conversation between them about the origins of Dionysus. The third is an inebriated Pentheus speaking to Dionysus in disguise who incites him to see the maenads. In the retelling of the play, Soyinka has had to abandon the ending of the original and create a new ending because of the nature of the source in which substantial parts are lost.

In both texts, Tiresias is blind, but what is different is how they approach joining the worship of Dionysus. Kadmos does so in secret in Soyinka’s text, by hiding his fawn skin robes underneath his cloak, and devising a thyrsus that is collapsible,

KADMOS: …“See how it works? First collapsible thyrsus in all of Attica, in the whole  world maybe. Made it myself. Couldn’t trust the place joiner not to talk. Shows you how nervous I was, going all that length to disguise the obvious.”[ii]

The two intended to secretly travel to Mt. Kithairon, but before that, Tiresias asks if Kadmos is dressed to go and do Dionysus honor. At this point, Kadmos takes off his cloak to reveal his fawn skin in which the following lines ensue,

KADMOS: Aren’t I? (Takes TIRESIAS’ hand.) Here, feel that.  You won’t find finer foreskin except on Dionysus himself.”

TIRESIAS: He isn’t circumcised?

KADMOS: Who? Who isn’t circumcised?

TIRESIAS: Dionysus. What you said about his foreskin.

KADMOS: Did I? Slip of the tongue.

TIRESIAS: (considers it quite seriously). I wonder how many of that you’d need to make a Bacchic smock.

KADMOS: If that was what Dionysus demanded . . . a couple of thousand slaves forcibly circumcised . . . Pentheus could arrange it.[iii]

These lines change the over all tone completely from the beginning of the play which had been serious and vindictive. The reason for the secrecy were doubts that Kadmos had at joining Dionysus  as he worried  “it did not befit [my] age or rank.”[iv] The accidental “slip of the tongue” that Kadmos had turns from comedic back to seriousness as Tiresias actually considers the idea being discussed.

In the original, this scene is kept serious, and both characters are aware of each other’s devotion to Dionysus. Tiresias sought after Cadmus[v]  in a very upfront manner by saying,

TIRESIAS: …“Go someone, tell him that Tiresias is seeking him. He knows himself why I have come. He knows the arrangement I have made…to dress the thyrsus and put on skins of fawns and wreathe our heads with shoots of ivy.”[vi]

Among the two plays, this is one of the differences in plot. For the most part, Soyinka kept whole sections of dialogue from the original version and tended to only make minor changes such as spelling of character names and who said certain lines.

The next appearance of comedic insertion in the text comes again in a conversation between Kadmos and Tiresias. In the conversation, they talk about  the rumor of Dionysus’ birth  which was misconstrued as him being taken by Zeus, who then sewed Dionysus into his thigh.[vii] Tiresias pokes fun at this aspect with humorous, yet insightful vulgarity.


“…Is the man

Not fully present in the seed? And the offspring

Of the son of Ichion, are they not even now ensconced

Within that dangling pouch between your thighs?

Offsprings whose genesis you now endanger

By sharp tongue wagging impiously?

It’s not for me to say if Zeus had his scrotum

Sewn to one side of his thighs or

In—between like—presumably—yours.”[viii]

These lines appear in a more serious form with in the original text but are not spoken by Tiresias, but rather Pentheus to the two old men. He tells them the misconception of this story is due in part to an error of communication by mortals who came up with the concept that he was sown into the thigh.[ix] Pentheus does not go in any such detail as Tiresias does, whose comments were rather racy.

The final comedic addition that changes the tone can be found in the interaction between Dionysus and Pentheus as he dressed him in the costume of a maenad. As Dionysus put Pentheus into a trance like state, he became in a state akin to being on acid[x]; hallucinating Dionysus as a talking animal.

PENTHEUS: (with just a touch of tipsiness)

Yes, but listen. I seem to see two suns

Blazing in the heavens. And now two Thebes

Two cities, each with seven gates. And you—

Are you a bull? There are horns newly

Sprouted from your head. Have you always been

A bull? Were you. . .(He searches foggily in his brain.)

. . . yes, that bull, in there?

Was it you?

DIONYSUS: Now you see me as you ought to see. Dionysus

Has been good to you with his gift of wine.[xi]

This off balanced and humorous Pentheus is quite different from the serious overbearing one earlier in the play, both in Soyinka’s and Euripides’ version.  In the original, Pentheus only thinks Dionysus may be a bull, whereas in Soyinka’s version Dionysus actually becomes a bull with out any doubt in the mind of Pentheus as understood in the dialogue.

The ending of the two plays is the biggest difference,  yet is attributed to the fact that parts of the ending of Euripides’ Bacchae are lost. In Soyinka’s Bacchae, Agave successfully nails her son’s head to the archway in the palace, while in the original text, she merely carries it around until it becomes an object of recognition that causes a change of emotion in her. Soyinka follows through with Agave thinking the head as a trophy by tacking it to the wall, whereas the original Agave recognizes it as her son and does not proceed that far. The spot where he abandons the original ending is at the point of a blood like substance streaming forth from the mouth of Pentheus. It continues to spew outwards like a fountain and it turns out not as blood, but as Dionysian wine that characters, in a trance, drink.

Soyinka’s inventive writing and incorporation of a comedic tone in the retelling of this play, has given it new vigor while retaining its roots befitting a classic tragedy. With each of the artfully inserted comic lines, the play gained a new perspective. The characters of Tiresias and Kadmos became comic relief in Soyinka’s version which gave this play a breath of fresh air into the serious and direct original piece.

[i] Can be known as either The Bacchants or The Bacchantes.

[ii] Wole Soyinka, The Bacchae of Euripides: A communion Rite  (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), 25.

[iii] Wole Soyinka, The Bacchae of Euripides: A communion Rite  (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), 22

[iv] Wole Soyinka, The Bacchae of Euripides: A communion Rite  (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), 23

[v] Name given to the character of Kadmos in the original text.

[vi] Euripides and Moses Hadas. Ten Plays by Euripides. 3rd ed. (New York: Bantam Classics, 2006) 321.

[vii] Wole Soyinka, The Bacchae of Euripides: A communion Rite  (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), 30.

[viii] Wole Soyinka, The Bacchae of Euripides: A communion Rite  (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), 31.

[ix] Euripides and Moses Hadas. Ten Plays by Euripides. 3rd ed. (New York: Bantam Classics, 2006) 324.

[x] Lysergic acid diethylamide commonly abbreviated as LSD.

[xi] Wole Soyinka, The Bacchae of Euripides: A communion Rite  (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), 76.

A Lesson in Latin Linguistics Through Mycology

I started reading The Latin Sexual Vocabulary by J.N. Adams today, taking my time going through all the Latin sources he uses, quite fascinating. Anyway, I wanted to talk about the word uerpa which I shall remain aloof and not divulge the details of its meaning. Adams’ treatment of the words are so scholarly and it really tickles me pink (and plus, you’ll figure it out sooner or later anyway). So this tale starts out in the year 1775, a wonderful year in which the scrappy American Revolution was due to start and on European continent, a man named Otto Friedrich Müller, a naturalist, named an ascomycete fungi related to the morels. Now, I am no mycologist, (from the Greek μύκης, mukēs, meaning “fungus”) so please bear with me on the details. For those who are curious a dictionary will show that the definition of an ascomycete is simply “a large group of fungi characterized by the presence of sexually produced spores formed within an ascus. Also called sac fungus.” Now of course you must wonder what an ascus is, (I sure did!). Linguistically speaking, it is from the Greek word ασκος, askos, meaning “bag”. The definition of ascus is “a membranous, often club-shaped structure in which typically eight ascospores are formed through sexual reproduction of ascomycetes. How fun! Now that we are acquainted with the terminology, onward to the matter at hand. So, our man, Müller named a certain ascomycete fungi Phallus conicus. So this is where things get entertaining. Although retaining its name many other individuals attempted in vain to place it into different genera. In 1815, Olaf Peter Swartz decided  that naming this fungus (pictured below) Phallus conicus was far too obvious in meaning to the average lay person so he changed it to Verpa conicus.


Verpa conica

This alteration wouldn’t really be noteworthy, except the reason why he changed it. In all likeliness (mere conjecture on my part) it was to avoid potential ridicule. The joke really is funnier in Latin, so they say, and this is no exception. So I will let you in on the joke, the term verpa according to J.N. Adams is thus:

Verpa can also be classified as a vox propria for the penis; it serves as a complement of mentulaVerpais recorded in literature only in Catullus (28.12), Martial (11.46.2), the Corpus Priapeorum (34.5) and perhaps Pomponius (see below), but its currency in vulgar speech is established by its frequency in graffiti (see CIL IV.1655, 1884, 2360, 2415, 4876, 8617).1

So, in short, the words verpa and mentula in Latin, for all intents and purposes are the most obscene words for the male genitalia as far as scholars can tell based on literary and archeological evidence. A proper Roman like Cicero has simply refused to write mentula in response to a letter and instead he wrote “id  uerbum,” that word. It is hard to approximate just how improper it was to use these words in civilized conversation, but one can imagine its equivalent today would be approximately the four letter word for pudenda muliebria. I suppose, to take it a step further, one must know exactly why this word was such a big deal. The term verpa is a very specific word for the phallus. It has an explicit meaning of an erect phallus with the foreskin pulled back and the glans exposed. This was considered exceptionally rude especially  for the upper class who was well versed in Greek culture.  Using this post as a segue, look for my next post which will be a treatment of the phallus by Graeco-Romans. Here. 1. J.N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1982), 12.

Caligula’s Insane Antics


I bade you! Gather the seashells and fill your helmets and the folds of your gowns, they are the spoils from the Ocean, due to the Capitol and Palatine. -Caligula
Probably one of my favorite antics of Emperor Caligula who reigned from 37-41 CE. Growing up he was an army brat and nicknamed by the troops Caligula which is the diminutive caligulae, “little soldiers boot.” His father Germanicus waged war in Germania and was the reason for his son’s association with the military at such a young age. His disposition was quite disturbed and in the sources he is frequently described as sexually depraved, violent, and insane (if you can even believe the sources).

So let us move on to address the background of this story. One must begin with the source  called The Lives of the Twelve Caesars by C. Suetonius Tranquillus which was published in 121 CE. Although this source is questionable  since it is burgeoning with racy gossip and a satirical account of Julius Caesar, the bulk of the work concerns the end of the Republic and the period of Roman history known as the principate, ending with the Emperor Domitian. Due to the nature of the source, it must be taken with a grain of salt. However, it still is a fascinating story.
So, the full story goes something like this:

Caligula decided to invade Britain, so he marched to the shore adjacent to the isle with his legions. While on the beach, he set up the artillery facing the ocean, his troops took his orders, confused but unwilling to question the strategic application of the ballistae facing the crashing waves. Then, without warning, when the soldiers were confused on what he planned to do next, Caligula gave the signal to attack the Ocean and plunder the sea of its shells as spoils of war.

Suffice to say, he was murdered by his praetorian guard shortly thereafter, the first to have been assassinated in this manner, but surely not the last.

Ancient Executions, Most Unpleasant [Part 3 of 3]

The word crucifixion is a Latin derived word crucifigo a third conjugation transitive verb meaning to crucify, or attach to a cross. Although other cultures have used this method of execution such as the Persians and the Phoenicians, the Romans are particularly found of this form of torturous death reserved only for the lowest of the low. Pirates, deserters, and traitors are given this punishment whereas more proper Romans were given the option of suicide such as Petronius during the time of Nero, or beheading.
One of the most common misconceptions about crucifixion is due in part of the historical account of Jesus. Artistic depictions of his death depict the location of the nails in his palms, which is simply false. Victims of crucifixion would have the nail driven through the wrist which would support their bodily weight and cause extreme pain due to the median nerve that runs through the arm. Had someone been crucified with the iron nails passing through the palms, then they would have to have their arms somehow lashed to the cross itself since the palms would not hold the weight load. The majority of depictions of Jesus do not show these lashings, but if the Synoptic Gospels hold any truth to the account, then he most certainly would have been bound to the cross before the nails were driven into his flesh.

It is nearly impossible to find a picture of anyone being crucified that isn’t Christ, he has a monopoly on this execution. However, one of my favorite etchings of a Roman graffito is the Roman perspective of the self proclaimed Messiah.

Alexamenos worships his god

Alexamenos worships his god. 3rd century CE

According to a study done by Maslen and Mitchell,1 some possible causes of death for this method range from  cardiac rupture, heart failure, hypovolemic shock, asphyxia  and pulmonary embolism. Death could result from any combination of those factors or from other causes, including sepsis following infection due to the wounds caused by the nails or by the whipping that often preceded crucifixion, dehydration was also a factor depending on the environment and the length of time the victim was left upon the cross. 

In short, although this torture pales in comparison to others that I have discussed the past few days, this one is the most recognizable. Even today, in the Philippines there are people who preform live crucifixions in celebration for the Easter holiday. This practice is most unpleasant, and the worship of this painful execution is quite disturbing. If you really take a moment to pause and think about the grotesque imagery that is found in the Passion of Christ, it is enough to turn your stomach.

But this is why religion is so interesting, the rituals are what make it unique. This alone allows me to continue writing about it in complete fascination.



 1 Maslen, Matthew; Piers D Mitchell. “Medical theories on the cause of death in crucifixion”. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 (4): 185.

Ancient Executions, Most Unpleasant [Part 2 of 3]

Scaphism. Even the word itself sounds foreign. The name comes from the Greek word σκάφη, skaphe, meaning “anything scooped (or hollowed) out”. This torture was used in ancient Persia, and it one of the most gruesome forms of ancient torture that I have come across. Unlike the brazen bull, there are no real depictions of this, so I will let Plutarch, a Greek historian who lived from 46 – 120 CE speak on the history and nature of this delightful procedure.

 “Accordingly he [Artaxerxes I king of Persia r. 465-424 BCE] ordered Mithridates to be put to death by the punishment of the boats (scaphae). [For the murder of Cryus the Younger] The nature of this form of death and punishment is as follows: Two boats being built of the same size and shape, in the one they lay the man destined for the torture, and putting the other atop of him, join the two together in such a way that his hands and feet are left outside, while the whole of the rest of his body (except the head) is imprisoned. They supply the man with food, and by prodding his eyes with sharp points force him to eat even against his will. But on his eating, they pour by way of drink into his mouth a mixture of milk and honey, and smear his face with the same. Also turning about the boat they so arrange it that his eyes are always facing the sun, and his head and face are covered every day with a host of flies that settle upon them. Moreover as he does inside the closed boats those things which men are bound of necessity to do after eating and drinking, the resulting corruption and putrefaction give birth to swarms of worms of diverse sorts, which penetrating inside his clothes, eat away his flesh. For when, after the man is dead, the upper boat is removed, his body is seen to be all gnawed away, and all about his inwards is found a multitude of these and the like insects, that grows denser every day. Subjected to this form of torture, Mithridates actually endured the agonizing existence to the seventeenth day, before he finally gave up the ghost.” – Plutarch Life of Artaxerxes

Gruesome indeed. Aside from another source Zonaras, Annals, there is not much difference in the two accounts. As I could find no images or others sources I would be greatly interested to hear some other cases of this, perhaps being used in the Roman period, or any ancient depictions of this execution. Do let me know in the comments below.

Tomorrow I will be looking at crucifixion, the most common misconception and its origins as a Roman form of capital punishment which was reserved for the lowest of criminals. While suicide or decapitation was considered the method of execution for the citizenry. Suicide in particular was the means of death used by many Romans so they would retain their property and it was not inherited by the state.

Ancient Executions, Most Unpleasant [Part 1 of 3]

Capital punishment has always been cause for debate. Should the state be allowed to murder its citizens?  In the modern age, only forty of the 163 countries still have some form of the death penalty, including China, India, The entirety of the Middle East, and of course the United States. But by no means does the modicum of death meted out by the modern state even remotely close to some ancient methods of execution. Although one can assume that the way we execute prisoners today are “humane”, hanging, firing squad, electric chair, lethal injection, these all pale in comparison to the three forms of execution I will be looking at these three bizarre and unique forms of execution, namely the brazen bull, scaphism, and crucifixion.

The first of these that I will be talking about is the brazen bull. This method of death was first used by the tyrant Phalaris of Acragas in Sicily c. 570-554 BCE. The creator of the invention was Perillos of Athens. This invention was a large bronze cast bull, hollow on the inside with a door. The condemned were bound and shut inside the bull and a fire lit underneath. The mouth of the brazen bull was left open and the escaping steam and screams were meant to sound like an angry bull.
tumblr_m8w6gkqtQ41qme7gno1_400Fast forward to the persecution of Christians, it is reported that some saints of the church met their end by this particularly nasty form of execution. Makes being fed to the lions seems like a cake walk. There were three saints mentioned to have been killed by this. Saint Antipas in 92 CE by the Emperor Domition, Saint Eustace in 118 CE by Emperor Hadrian, and a woman by the name of Pelagia of Tarsus in 287 CE by Emperor Diocletian. However, the Catholic Church discounts the martyrdom of Saint Eustace according to the Martyologium Romanum (ISB 8-820-97210-7).
I think that the three reported cases of its use to kill Christians (and possibly Jews) could in fact, aside from the obvious death, be a theological attack. Although scholars in the early 20th century have linked it to the golden calf from Exodus, and then summarily dismissed the idea, I think they should no be so hasty. The imagery of a Christian being sacrificed within a large bull, the golden calf grown into adulthood is striking. Perhaps these emperors had a sick sense of humor and made this connection, or maybe not.

To take a brief look at the account of Pelagia’s death, here is an excerpt from the martyrdom of Pelagia of Tarsus.

Diocletian sentenced Pelagia to be burned in a red-hot bronze bull. Not permitting the executioners to touch her body, the holy martyr signed herself with the Sign of the Cross, and went into the brazen bull and her flesh melted like myrrh, filling the whole city with fragrance. St Pelagia’s bones remained unharmed and were removed by the pagans to a place outside the city. Four lions then came out of the wilderness and sat around the bones letting neither bird nor wild beast get at them. The lions protected the relics of the saint until Bishop Linus came to that place. He gathered them up and buried them with honor. Later, a church was built over her holy relics.

This account if full of typical imagery of a Christian martyrology. Her courage and stalwart faith the hallmark of any proper martyr. Most important is the mention of the whole city being filled with fragrance, some accounts specify the scent of myrrh, which is a motif I am currently exploring in other documents of this period. The cooperation of lions also has a storied history such as in the Old Testament book of Isaiah 11:6 or in the story of Daniel in the lion den.  On a final note, it would be interesting to so some forensic archeology and exhume the bones of this martyr for signs of her death.

Tomorrow I will be discussing the insanity that is scaphism.

Saint Antipas being roasted alive in a Brazen bull at Pergamon.

Saint Antipas being roasted alive in a Brazen bull at Pergamon.