Starting from the two possible definitions of theomachy, as a fight involving the gods (e.g. Iliad 21, known as the Iliadic theomachy, although only since Plato Resp. 378d), and the fight of an individual against the gods as an act of hybris (Pentheus in Euripides Bacchae 45, 325), Benchikh-Lehocine reviews the figure of the theomachos, both the martial figure, and the metaphoric usage of the term to describe any action considered impious. Vian 1988, Chaudhuri 2014, and Bolt 2019 serve as preliminaries for a bold study of the occurrences of the term θεημάχος in both poems by Nonnus of Panopolis, the Paraphrase of the Gospel of John and the Dionysiaca. Considering their length (48 books of Dionysiaca, 21—admittedly shorter—books of Paraphrase) and the differences in theme (the god Dionysus, the retelling of the Gospel of John) and mood (playful celebration of classical culture in the Dionysiaca vs. theologically infused text in the Paraphrase) of the two poems, this is no mean feat. It also showcases the challenges and rewards of reading the two texts together.
The first call to arms in Combattre les dieux is the early reminder in the first chapter that, although the notion of fighting the gods is consubstantial with Greek culture, composites of the radicals θεός and μάχη do not occur at all before the fifth century (the above-mentioned Plato and Euripides being some of the earliest), and in fact peak in the fourth c. AD, when they feature in Christian authors and scholia, where they often describe verbal or attitudinal forms of opposition against the divine, rather than physical, violent confrontation. The presence of theomachic vocabulary in the Dionysiaca and the Paraphrase, Benchikh-Lehocine claims, is an epic first, even though Iliad 21 has been referred to for some centuries as the Theomachy, and Nonnus makes poetological use of this source. The battle of the gods of Dionysiaca 36 features no theomachic vocabulary, whereas the Pentheid, an epic retelling of Euripides’ Bacchae, does.
Chapter 2 gives a detailed overview of the 32 occurrences of theomachic vocabulary in both poems. Benchikh-Lehocine notes that most theomachoi are so by hypallage: thus, Lycurgus has a theomachic axe (D. 20.186); the senseless Indians are warned against preparing themselves for a theomachic fight (D.14.274 μὴ μόθον ἐντύνητε θεημάχον, ἄφρονες Ἰνδοί); the words of Caiaphas, the High Priest, are theomachic (P. 18.66 [Καϊάφα] θεημάχον ἴαχε φωνήν). Those qualified by such means share a number of character traits that allow the author to conclude that the theomachos is a true character type in the Nonnian poems, and that those traits also appear in other characters (such as Hera in the Dionysiaca and Judas in the Paraphrase) who are not awarded that particular label.
The core sections of this book, essential for future discussions of both Nonnian poems, are chapters 3 (description of the behaviour of theomachoi) and 4 (analysis of theomachic speeches), where those character traits are evaluated.
Theomachic behaviour includes a display of hostility, hybris, impiety, disregard of the obligation of welcoming strangers (i.e. no ξενία), and obduracy. In the Dionysiaca hostility, as displayed by individuals such as Pentheus and Lycurgus, takes the shape of physical violence and displays of bellicosity that are linked to Ares, as well as barbaric cruelty. On the contrary, in the Paraphrase this hostility is metaphoric: the text focuses on images of war (especially in the scenes of attempted stoning), the intentions and machinations to harm and the description of Jewish groups as armies. In this case, Nonnus approaches the Joannine figures through the models of the mythical tradition, so that the High Priests become potential Lycurguses.
The descriptions of impious behaviour go in the opposite direction. Impiety, understood as the involuntary oversight or voluntary transgression of the respect and reverence due to the gods (σέβας), is particularly developed in the Paraphrase. Here it is expressed through the opposition εὐσέβεια / δυσσέβεια, and elaborated with derivations from πείθομαι (ἀπειθεῖς), associated to μανία and λύσσα, and described spatially as a detour from the right path. The impiety of Lycurgus and the Indians (especially Deriades) in the Dionysiaca is better understood against the background of the Paraphrase.
In the case of the lack of xenia there are very clear models of the opposite behaviour (theoxeny) in both poems: in the Dionysiaca, Brongos (bk 17), Staphylos and his family (18) and Icarius (47); in the Paraphrase, Mary of Bethany and her sister Martha (bk 11). As in the case of hostility, Lycurgus’s attitude towards Dionysus is physical (he charges against him with a raised axe when the god visits), whereas in the Paraphrase the narrative revolves around the metaphoric reception (expressed with vocabulary related to δέχομαι) of Jesus’ revelation and message, so that theomachoi are those who reject his person and all he stands for.
The case for obduracy is phrased differently: in the Dionysiaca it is referred to the repeated theomachic behaviour of some characters who do not change course despite being given ample warnings of the likely outcome of their attacks against Dionysus (Deriades and the Indians are defeated several times; Lycurgus charges a second time against Dionysus; Pentheus does not alter his behaviour despite being warned by Tiresias). In the Paraphrase the consistent behaviour of Jesus’ opponents is presented as a consequence of their (metaphoric) deafness and blindness.
The analysis of the presentation of the theomachos is completed in chapter 6, where the author explores the continuity of the narratives of Theomachy and Typhonomachy, Titanomachy and Gigantomachy. The Giants functioned as archetypic examples of violence directed against the divinity, were born of the earth and displayed serpentine elements. Because Giants (conflated at some point with the Titans and Typhon) were theomachoi, Nonnus presents his Dionysiac theomachoi as autochthonous (born of the earth) and gigantic, as visible in descriptions of the Indians (especially their leaders Orontes, Morrheus, and Deriades). This reference helps us to see the Hebrews who oppose Jesus because their earthly ties conflict with Jesus’ celestial nature, in a different light.
Chapter 4 focuses on the speeches of theomachic figures, often explicitly introduced with verbs of mocking (κερτομέω), menacing (ἀπειλέω), and expressions of the speaker’s wrath (βαρύμηνις, χόλος). The core of such speeches in both poems involveslies about the divine nature of their opponent (Dionysus in the Dionysiaca, Jesus in the Paraphrase), but the specific insults differ. Thus, in the Dionysiaca Dionysus is called a coward whose behaviour is guided by fear, effeminate, and a magician intent on manipulating simple souls into believing he is a god. In the Paraphrase the main accusation against Jesus is that he does not uphold the traditional law, because he breaks the rules of the Sabbath, speaks sheer blasphemies, is a delusive preacher, and behaves like an enemy of the Jewish nation. These speakers contrast Jesus’ behaviour with their own respect of the law given by Moses, a self-portrait disavowed by Jesus himself, Nicodemus, and the narrator. Additionally, in the Dionysiaca (but not in the Paraphrase), those speakers menace Dionysus with chaining him and destroying his attributes, as well as the enslavement and killing of his allies.
Chapter 5 delineates a clear difference between the Dionysiaca and the Paraphrase in the divine response to theomachic behaviour. Divine responses are necessarily absent from the economy of the narrative in the Paraphrase because the Gospel of John focuses on the description of the offenses and does not mention (eschatological) punishment, discernible only in the case of Judas. On the contrary, retribution and different forms of punishment feature frequently in the Dionysiaca: metamorphoses, both physical (Tyrsenian pirates, Actaeon, Niobe) and modification of the claimed identity of the theomachos (Aura ceases to be a parthenos), mania (Agaue and the Argives), blindness (Lycurgus), humiliation (in opposition to theomachic arrogance—the Indian warriors and chieftains are defeated by the Bacchic women after they deride them and the effeminate Dionysus; Lycurgus immobilised by a Bacchante is turned into vine), death (massacres of the Indians; metaphoric in the case of Nicaea whose carefree life is extinguished when she becomes pregnant by Dionysus).
As a scholar of Nonnus I am extremely grateful to Benchikh-Lehocine for reading Dionysiaca and Paraphrase side by side and for highlighting how what might look as scattered details in the construction of theomachic figures form indeed a tapestry, the visualisation of which is key to understanding the literary making of the constant confrontation of Dionysus with his enemies in the Dionysiaca and Jesus with those who antagonise him in the Paraphrase. The detailed discussion of the similarities and differences between the two poems helps us understand how Nonnus operated with one and only Weltanschauung that could show up in different forms and with different vocabulary.
References
Bolt, T. J. (2019), “Theomachy in Greek and Roman Epic”, in Christiane Reitz and Simone Finkmann (eds.), Structures of Epic Poetry. Volume II.1: Configuration, Berlin / Boston, 283-316
Chaudhuri, Pramit (2014), The War with God: theomachy in Roman imperial poetry, Oxford
Vian, Francis (1988), “La théomachie de Nonnos de Panopolis et ses antécédents”, Revue de Études Grecques 101, 272-292