“According to a legend, when Alexander the Great reached a city called Nysa near the Indus river, the locals said that their city was founded by Dionysus in the distant past and their city was dedicated to the god Dionysus. These travels took something of the form of military conquests; according to Diodorus Siculus he conquered the whole world except for Britain and Ethiopia.The Alexander story comes from Arrian’s Anabasis [one of my favourites], though it is worth noting perhaps – given Ronsard’s depth of learning – that Diodorus Siculus attributes this Eastern conquest to the Egyptian god not the Greek one. Apparently Hermippus’s comedies also back up the story of Dionysus conquering much of the known world. So what does all this mean for the poem? Basically, we end up with “Love is too strong for Reason; so the only option is to turn to drink, because Alcohol can conquer Love”! — One final note, on Blanchemain’s text. There is a small variant in line 3, which becomes “Va, badine Raison, tu te laisses desfaire” (“Go, playful Reason, you have let yourself be undone”); but more significantly he shows us that this poem and the next 16 in Helen 2 – i.e. numbers 21-37 – were all part of the ‘Amours diverses’ before being imported wholesale into Helen 2 when Ronsard compiled these volumes.
Jan1
Helen 2:21
Amour, tu es trop fort, trop foible est ma raison
Pour soustenir le camp d’un si rude adversaire.
Trop tost, sotte Raison, tu te laisses desfaire :
Dés le premier assaut on te meine en prison.
Je veux, pour secourir mon chef demi-grison,
Non la Philosophie ou les Loix : au contraire
Je veux ce deux-fois nay, ce Thebain, ce Bonpere,
Lequel me servira d’une contrepoison.
Il ne faut qu’un mortel un immortel assaille.
Mais si je prens un jour cest Indien pour moy,
Amour, tant sois tu fort, tu perdras la bataille,
Ayant ensemble un homme et un Dieu contre toy.
La Raison contre Amour ne peut chose qui vaille :
Il faut contre un grand Prince opposer un grand Roy.
Love you are too strong, too weak is my Reason
To sustain the attack of so aggressive an opponent.
Too soon, foolish Reason, have you let yourself be undone;
After the first assault they’ve taken you to prison.
I need, to save my half-grey head,
Neither philosophy nor laws; instead
I need that twice-born Theban, that good father,
Who will serve against the poison.
A mortal should not attack a god.
But if I take this Indian to myself one day,
Love, you will lose the battle however strong you are,
With a god and a man together against you.
Reason can do nothing worthwhile against Love;
Against a great Prince, one must set a great King.
A fairly straightforward poem, apart from the obscure mythological references! Who is the “twice-born Theban”, the “good father”, the “Indian”? It is Bacchus (or Dionysus). But where do the epithets come from?
Bacchus is “twice-born” because he was the child of Zeus and Semele. Because Semele insisted on looking upon Zeus in all his glory, which killed her, Zeus took the unborn child and sewed him into his thigh, from which he was later (at term) born. Although most tales have this happening in Thrace, Semele was a princess of Thebes, so some versions have a birth in Thebes – hence “Theban”. For instance, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus separates out two versions of Dionysus, an Egyptian god and a Greek one, and calls the latter ‘Theban’. It’s worth noting that the story of Euripides ‘Bacchae’, including the death of Pentheus, is set in Thebes and in this version (I think – though I shall have to go and re-read it!) Thebes is his birthplace.
So why “Indian”? There are versions of the story of Dionysus where he is said to have conquered the Indies – hence “Indian”. Wikipedia tells us: