Nothing about virgins or wise men or being born in a manger with angels talking to shepherds. This is because as Mark writes, the myths surrounding Jesus' birth had yet to be incorporated into Christian mythology, and Mark has not done so. Many other myths of the Christian community, including several of the miracle stories, were included by Mark in his gospel.
This is because Mark was a simple man and tended to accept these traditions at face value, and because they elevated Jesus in the minds of his readers. The next of the canonized gospels to be written was Matthew. The author of Matthew was a well-educated conservative Jew, trained in the nuances of the Levitic tradition, and was intent on showing the Hebraic world just what Jesus had to offer them.
Writing a decade or so after the Second Temple was destroyed in the abortive Jewish uprising, Matthew was determined to explain to the Jewish world just who Jesus was and to show Judaism that there was an alternative to the Rabbinic tradition that was developing; i. Matthew's conservatism is the source of the hellfire and damnation in Fundamentalist Christian conservatism. Indeed, without Matthew in the canon, there would be few other biblical references to it.
Matthew had a fire and a passion about him that well outran his qualifications as a scholar of Jewish law. Even though he was well versed in it, the attempt to prove his case by quoting Jewish law proved to be, well, disastrously badly done. Matthew used as his primary source the gospel of Mark. In doing so, he incorporated many of Mark's myths and added a few of his own, changing bits of the story line here and there to better make the points for his Jewish audience. For example, to make his case that Jesus was the promised Messiah, he heightened the miraculous and altered detail, to the point of obvious error.
A case in point is the geneology with which he begins his narrative: he deliberately left out detail in order to have seven generations each from Abraham to David and David to the Exile, and the Exile to Jesus.
This has left some to suggest that Matthew couldn't count very well, as his geneology conflicts with other genealogies in the Old Testament. If he was aware of these discrepancies, his attempt to deify Jesus for a Jewish audience certainly overruled them. What Matthew was to the Jews, Luke was to the gentiles. Luke, unlike Matthew, was the consummate scholar. Fluent in Greek, almost certainly a gentile himself, Luke saw the need to write a gospel to explain the new religion to the gentile community, and so he wrote one.
Like Matthew before him, he had a copy of Mark and used it liberally, quoting long sections and adding twists of his own to suit his needs. Above all else, Luke was an evangelist. His mission was to make this Jewish sect a relevant religion for the gentiles who had nowhere else to turn in the search for a strict moral code by which to live.
Judaism required circumcision, an obvious disadvantage, and besides, it was a tribal religion whose members tended to view gentile converts with skepticism, if not outright racial discrimination. With the ascent of Domitian to the Roman throne in 81 c. Hence his address of the document to "The most excellent Theophilus. The Kingdom of Christ is proclaimed as being "not of this world," an obvious attempt to assuage Roman suspicions of a conspiracy at work.
There are many other examples, which, like the above, bring this gospel into conflict with the others in Luke's attempt to dress up the story for an official Roman audience. The last of the four gospels is, of course, the Gospel of John. Though a favorite of the literalists, this gospel ironically takes great delight in poking fun at literalism. Chapters 3, 4, 6 and 8 all have stories in which those who have taken the word literally have been made fun of.
John's gospel is skillfully crafted, the work of a true scholar, a deeply religious man, who well understood that myth and meaning are the substance of scripture, not the literality of the words themselves. Who John was we are not sure, but it appears he could have been a disciple of the two Johns of Ephesus, one of which was John Zebedee, spoken of by Mark, or John Zebedee's son.
John wrote his gospel in the early years of the second century, nearly a century after the events he recorded allegedly transpired. John wrote his gospel with an eye to the growing rift between Judaism and Christianity, and sought to heal it by bringing the two together.
He tried to do so by fashioning a mythology that would be acceptable to both: quoting liberally from respected and appreciated Jewish literature and by incorporating a mythology of Jesus that sought to fulfil Jewish law and prophesy.
In so doing, John created a gospel that broke so completely with the gospels that proceeded it, that it is directly appealing to the Jews who found themselves uncomfortable with the tightening screws of Jewish orthodoxy that was the result of the destruction of the Second Temple. The apocalypic vision of the narrative was meant to appeal to the Jewish sense of destiny while being true to the Christian ideal. Here we have a prophetic vision in a Christian setting, completing the foundations of later fundamentalist Christian doctrine.
The result, along with the book of Acts, believed to have been written by the author of the gospel of Luke, writing this time for a Christian audience, gave us the complete set of myths that are so central to the beliefs of Christians. Unlike Mark, whose mission of Jesus as the Messiah is revealed only at the end of Mark's narrative, here is a Jesus whose very being seems to shout, "I am the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets.
The philosophical ferment of the time, caused by the cosmopolitan nature of Roman empire, meant that everywhere there was a philosopher or preacher and everywhere novel and unfamiliar ideas. This ferment, caused by the Greeks, spread by the Romans, which spawned the Jesus Movements, continued unabated as part of the Jesus Movements transformed themselves into the Christ cults. Right from Paul's time, the Christ cults themselves grew disputatious, with new ideas and heresies spreading through the cult like wildfire as each local bishop had his own ideas and sought to see them accepted.
The cult became cults as "heresies" spread. By the end of the first century, Romans hungry for a workable moral code began to look to the transforming Jesus movements and Christ cults for a spiritual home. Judaism still had appeal, but required circumcision, an obvious disadvantage. The Christ cults made no such demands. Indeed, membership in the Christ cult was a pleasurable affair, not requiring much in the way of embarrassing ritual and offering much interesting discussion and amiable camaraderie amidst the ritual of the table fellowship the probable source of the Last Supper myth.
Soon Christ cult congregations were spread throughout the Mediterranean basin. They offered, with careful calculation, a way out for the Jews of the Diaspora, who could not accept the Hellenized Judaism of Philo and his Hellenist predecessors, but were too distant from Jerusalem to engage in rabbinical study, or were misinclined to accept local rabbinical authority.
Here was a religion all could be a part of, without regard to ethnic origins or circumstances of social status or location. But which cult to join? Each local group, under the influence of local bishops had generated its own local traditions and doctrinal ideas.
Christianity had by now become a significant social force in spite of Roman efforts to stop it; in Asia Minor, disputations between the followers of various Christ cults was as common a pastime as discussion of football is today. By the end of the first century, the smug confidence of the local bishops in their own ideas was about to be shattered.
The doctrinal gulf between groups calling themselves Christian had grown too great to be ignored. So when intellectuals among these movements began to appear, it became obvious that something needed to be worked out. The church was never to be the same again. The firebrand intellectuals brushed aside the watered down ideas of the local bishops and looked at the foundations of the church, to discover that the stones of that foundation were not sound. So they set about revamping the entire doctrinal basis of the church.
One of the problems as Marcion saw it was that Christians were expected to be loyal to the Jewish god, even though they did not have to keep his law. Marcion's vision of God was as it was taught by Paul, his major influence. God was a god of mercy and compassion, a god for all mankind, not proprietary to a "chosen people. He was to be replaced by Christ, who had revealed the law that Christians should follow, as interpreted by Paul.
He was a god of justice and salvation, very unlike the Jewish concept of Jahweh. By now, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as many others had long since appeared, written by followers of the new Christ cults, and Marcion brought an abbreviated version of Luke together with ten letters of Paul to form the first canon of the New Testament.
It was the first Christian scripture. The other intellectuals rejected Marcion's ideas, primarily because he rejected the Apostolic myths outright and because he pointed out some unresolved problems left them by the bishops. But even more radical was his flat-out rejection of early "apostolic" writings where it was obvious that the writer did not share the current vision of the mission of Jesus as the savior of mankind. One of the intellectuals, Polycarp, called Marcion "the first-born of Satan" and others, especially Tertullian and Justin wrote extensively against his views.
But that opposition did not stop Marcion. He went on a preaching tour that was spectacularly successful. Even whole villages soon became converts. The Marcionite appeal lay in the fact that the doctrine was simple, understandable, but more than that, doable. Even though it had its own share of contradictions, it was clearly resonating with the masses, and the other bishops could see that.
About this time, a strangely introspective group of the Jesus movement in Alexandria became involved in Jewish mysticism and the result evolved into a Jesus cult known as Gnosticism to know.
It was a religion that held Jesus to have been a divine teacher, but rejected outright the resurrection and doctrine of atonement. Almost as bad was the total rejection of the Apostolic myth and the doctrines surrounding the mission of Jesus as taught by mainstream Christianity.
Even worse was the idea that the divine was actually the source of misery and shame. But the worst by far was the basis of the name: the idea that personal knowledge and experience was the key to understanding the message of Jesus. It rejected outright the authority of local bishops. Gnosticism took hold rapidly in Egypt, and began spreading to the other Roman provinces.
The bishops were horrified. By the dawn of the fourth century, the local bishops could no longer rely on their watered-down doctrines, and feeling the threat from Gnosticism, began to contend with each other regarding doctrine.
The bishops of the principal sects headquartered in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Caesaria, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Carthage continued to squabble with each other incessantly. The attempt by the Rome conference to deal with the problem a century and a half earlier, had been a complete failure.
Worse, it had spawned the development of the Marcionite church, a movement, widely regarded as heretical, with broad appeal.
And now there was even that rapidly spreading heretical cancer of Gnosticism to contend with. There was such fierce, intractable doctrinal turmoil within the church, it appeared the church was doomed.
And with continuing Roman persecution, how could the church survive? In , Emperor Constantine and his co-emperor Lucinius sent a series of rather flowery letters to their governors, in which they said it was "salutory and most proper" that "complete toleration" be given to anyone who has "given up his mind to the cult of the Christians" or any other cult which "he personally feels best for himself.
The question history has never adequately answered is why the Edict of Milan was issued in the first place, but it was probably due to the growing political power of the Christians of various stripes.
Emperor Constantine was a deeply superstitious man, but also a consumate politician. He was a practitioner of several religions, trying to keep his bases covered, even after his 'conversion. He sent prisoners of war to the lions, committed wholesale acts of genocide in his campaigns in North Africa, and was known for his overbearing, egotistical, ruthless and self-righteous behavior.
His nephew Julian said that his appearance was strange, with stiff garments of Eastern fashion, jewelry on his arms and it was all set off by a tiara perched on a dyed wig. Constantine apparently viewed Christianity as just one of the many cults of his realm, and he seemed to practice them all, apparently with roughly the same depth of commitment.
He wasn't actually baptized until he was on his death bed. Emperor Constantine, for all his strangeness, was nothing if not a good politician. He understood well the fact that the Christians were becoming so numerous as to represent a considerable political threat should they get their act together and become organized.
Seeing the handwriting on the political wall, he conveniently had a 'miracle' which led to his 'conversion' so he could become their ally. In , a year before the Edict of Milan, he fought the battle of Milvan Bridge, against a rival claimant to the emperor's throne. Among his soldiers were many Christians and they were already carrying on their swords and shields the Christian Chi-Rho sign.
Well, to hear the stories, the heavens opened up, and the Emperor had a vision. And he was granted victory in his battle. At least this is the story the Christian apologists tell. Unfortunately, we don't know what exactly happened at Milvan Bridge, because the dear Emperor kept changing his story and telling different versions of the events to different people. At least six different, contradictory versions have survived from different people who claimed to have heard it from the emperor himself.
As he kept telling these conflicting stories, he still apparently remained personally converted to the Mithraic sun-cult common in the Empire at the time.
As a monument to his victory at Milvan, some years later, he raised a triumphal arch, which survives to this day. It bears on it a testimony to the "Unconquered Sun" a reference to Mithra and referred to Jesus Christ "driving his [the sun's] chariot across the sky. Constantine became the sole Roman emperor in and convened the First Council of Nicea the following year. His commandment to the bishops: Get your act together and quit squabbling.
Come up with a consistent doctrine that would be universal, i. Of course, the bishops complied. Rather than risk Imperial disfavor, they all met at Nicea, squabbled, squabbled some more, hammered out a few common doctrines mostly with regard to the creation and the nature of the universe, and the first version of the Apostolic Creed , declared themselves in agreement on it, and departed totally unconverted to each other's views.
The emperor who himself was totally ignorant of the issues, hearing that his bishops had finally agreed on a common doctrine, was pleased. The bishops were certainly pleased to hear that the emperor was pleased. And then they went about preaching the same old contentious doctrines as before. Argument and dissension continued for the next six decades with various factions finding themselves in and then out of Imperial favor at various times. Athanasius, the actual author of the original version of the Apostolic Creed, found himself exiled and 'rehabilitated' on no fewer than six occasions.
It was eventually Imperial politics and the wealth of the Roman church, which it shared with the smaller congregations along with instructions for its use, more than theology, that finally governed the form that Christian doctrine would take, as various bishops found themselves in and out of imperial favor at various times.
By , the council of Nicea had become an ongoing affair, designed to stamp out "heresies" read: dissent from the Imperial view , and create a formal, universal, i. The Council of Nicea became, in essence, the enforcer of the Imperial view of how things ought to be. This is why the Catholic Church today resembles in its government the government of the Roman Empire of the period.
The headquarters of the church was eventually established at Rome, and the head of the church became known as the Pope. New basilicas dotted the landscape, all built with the blessing of the Emperor, and all aligned to the new, imperially blessed, church headquarters in Rome. Constantine sent expeditions off to Palestine to "find" and build basilicas over the sacred sites of the church's early history, and return with faith-promoting "relics" which of course they were happy to "acquire," or more accurately, produce.
The newly established headquarters in Rome set about persecuting the Gnostics crucifying many of them and sending many others to the lions , and suppressing the Marionite heresy. In order to popularize the church with the masses, the doctrinal emphasis was changed significantly. These changes were reflected in the art of the Christian church. When early, pre-Constantine Roman Christians met secretly in Rome, the art they produced reflected the pastoral nature of Jesus' teachings.
Scenes of Jesus feeding the multitudes, blessing the children, and healing the sick were the themes in the art of that period. After the conversion of Constantine, the character of the art suddenly and dramatically changed to reflect the change in doctrinal emphasis. Gone are the sweet, pastoral scenes of a meek Jesus patiently ministering to his followers. Instead, images of the crucifixion and the scourging of Jesus in the court of Pilate become common.
This was to help the suffering masses identify with Jesus who was said to have suffered on their behalf. The church had became a political instrument -- be patient with your suffering under Roman rule, the masses were told, and a better life for you is prepared for you if you believe in Jesus the Savior. The emporer may not provide good living in this life, but Jesus would in the next. It is at this time that the Chi Rho and the symbol of the fish, representing the miraculous nature of Jesus' message at least as formulated by the gospel writers , is replaced by the cross, at the time a symbol of death and suffering, as the principal emblem of Christianity.
The political message of the new symbol couldn't have been clearer at the time. Join up and Jesus will relieve your suffering in the next world even if the Emperor doesn't in this. Fail to join, and you're on your own, politically as well as spiritually.
In the midst of all this intellectual turmoil, Constantine gave to Eusebius, the bishop of Caesaria a Roman port on the coast of modern Israel , a little assignment. Put together some scriptures for the emperor to present to the new churches he was constructing at his new capital of Constantinople in time for his new festival of the resurrection, to be called "Easter. Eusebius, one of the most notorious historical revisionists of ancient times, thoughtfully complied.
We do not know which books of the hundreds available that he supplied the emperor, nor how much he revised them since many are not known from texts earlier than Eusebius , but we do know that Eusebius realized that it was only a matter of time before the "inspired oracles" as he called them, would have to be gathered together for Christians to study in common worldwide in the form of a scriptural library, a bible. We also know that Eusebius was deeply worried about the contradictions they all contained and the political dynamite that could ensue should those contradictions become a matter of dispute among the masses, or, far worse, in the mind of the Emperor.
We know that Eusebius did, in fact, do some modifications of the works he was concerned about, as we have a few earlier texts with which to compare his work. As correlation and standardization were the orders of the day under the less-than-gentle hand of the Council of Nicea , Eusebius could clearly see a very Imperial problem was brewing, and was determined to head it off if he could. Everyone had their list of favorites; the various factions, with headquarters in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Caesaria, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Carthage all had their own ideas as to what was or should be scripture.
And they certainly didn't agree, in spite of the heavy hand of the Council of Nicea. Eventually, after the split with Rome, the compilation of Eusebius became the standard bible of the Eastern church. We're not quite sure how the task of compiling and translating a bible for the Roman, or Western church fell to Bishop Jerome of Dalmatia C. Jerome was highly educated and had devoted his life to the study and translation of scripture. He was a deeply devout adherent to the Roman faction, and the fact that the Roman church was wealthy and influential probably had something to do with his being the choice, since he had spent years in the cause of translating scripture into Latin and standardizing what are now New Testament texts for the benefit of the Roman church at the request of Damasus, the bishop of Rome.
We can presume from the politics here that this certainly colored his choices. Melito of Sardis, one of the disputants at that infamous Council of Rome of C. Yet Augustine, himself a rather nasty piece of work the first known advocate of forced conversion and forced celibacy, among other things intervened and convinced Jerome to include works on a list compiled by himself Augustine , which was similar to one compiled by Athanasius, the author of the first Apostolic Creed.
We don't know all the intrigues which convinced Jerome to accede, but some were almost certain to have been political, with Eusebius' earlier imperial commission among them. Jerome's choice of New Testament works was governed by his choices in the works he'd already translated and standardized for Damasus at Rome. Jerome's compilation and translation into Latin became known as the Vulgate popular [language] Bible. It was to become the standard Bible of the Roman Catholic church till the sixteenth century.
It is still available, published by the Catholic Church in the original Latin, and as the Douai Version, one of the numerous English translations of the Vulgate Bible to appear in the 16th century as noted below. The curtains fall. Centuries pass as Christianity slowly spreads across Europe. The curtain rises on the eighth century. While the Latin bible was widely available, Latin as a spoken, understood language eventually had died out among the peoples of what had been the Roman Empire.
So, with that dying out, access to the bible by the common man died out as well, for bibles were available in Latin, but were not being translated into diverging local languages. This fact greatly enhanced the power of the local clergy and the church heirarchy. Not only did they have the political power of Constantine's legacy behind them, they also now held the keys to the church in their hands, both figuratively and literally.
They couldn't have been more happy with that situation. They could often engage in acts of cruelty or corruption and not be called to account by an ignorant and often superstitious congregation.
Nevertheless, there were occasional attempts made to get at least small portions of the scripture into the hands of the masses. The first attempts at an Old English translation appear with Aldhelm, who in published an Anglo-Saxon translation of Psalms, and the Venerable Bede, who is said to have finished a translation of the Gospel of John on his deathbed 26 years later. Unfortunately, the latter translation has not survived. Their popular translations would plant the seeds for the struggle to come to break the clout of the clergy and put the Bible in the hands of the people.
John Wycliffe was repulsed by papal corruption and its demands on the English for money. A true man of the people, he decided that the best way to cop a snook at the Pope would be to publish the Bible in English.
By the time of his death, the translation from the Vulgate was done, and John Purvey, a close associate, thoroughly revised and 'corrected' it, with a view to publishing it. It became the first and was the only English-language bible till the 16th century.
In , a monk-scholar by the name of Erasmus at Oxford published the first Greek translation of the New Testament. What his source documents were, we do not know, but it was probably the Vulgate. William Tyndale had the ambition of translating into English the entire bible, not from the Vulgate, but from the original Greek and Hebrew.
This became his life's work. Tyndale learned his Greek from Erasmus. His study of the Greek New Testament probably influenced his later work. Because the Roman Catholic church opposed his translation of the Bible into English, Tyndale was forced to leave England for Germany in For the next two years, staying one step ahead of Papal persecution, he managed to complete his first translation of the New Testament, which was then printed and smuggled into England and snapped up by an eager public.
Tyndale worked for years on his Hebrew translations of the Old Testament, finally completing them in and revising his New Testament in While not as violently opposed as were the earlier works, he was still betrayed by the Romanists, and was strangled and burned at the stake after months in prison in His last words were reputedly, "Lord, please open the King of England's eyes!
Coverdale was no scholar, but had based much of his work on that of Tyndale who was. A flood of translations and revisions followed, the most notable being the Rogers bible appeared in and the Taverner's Bible in The bible chosen was The Great Bible, a work edited by the less-than-scholarly Coverdale.
Another bible was to become the family Bible. Called the Geneva Bible, because it was cheaply mass produced in Geneva, Switzerland, it was a decidedly one-sided translation favoring the views of the notorious French religious tyrant of that city, John Calvin.
Its one virtue is that it was cheap, and could thus be afforded by the masses. It became popularly known as the "breeches bible" because of Genesis , where Adam and Eve "sewed figge leaves together and made themselves breeches.
In attendance were 47 scholars and clerics. The agenda was to produce a bible that would satisfy the needs of all -- the clergy, the king, the common man. An ambitious goal, considering the widely disparate points of view each with a political investment.
The King James Version first appeared in Though the frontispiece written by the conference declares it to be a new translation, that's not really what it was. In fact, it was a revision of the Bishop's Bible of , which itself was a revision of the Bishop's Bible of , which was a revision of Coverdale's less than scholarly Great Bible, which was a rewrite of the Tyndale and Wycliffe bibles which had been translated on the run.
The King James Version did not gain immediate acceptance. It took a half century to displace the bibles that came before it, especially the Great Bible from which it was descendant, and the notorious Geneva bible of the masses which influenced it.
Yet it retains much of the beautiful English prose of the Tyndale and Wycliffe bibles, and hence its enduring popularity. The spectacular quality of its prose, not the accuracy of its translation, is why it endures. Look how the wild flowers grow, they do not work or make clothes for themselves. But I tell you that not even King Solomon, with all his wealth had not clothes as beautiful as one of these flowers. Study the lilies of the field, how they grow.
They do not toil or spin, yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. The scholars will have to decide, but the beauty of the KJV's language and the power of its prose has seldom been equaled in English literature. The power of Tyndale's and Wycliffe's prose has been called some of the best in all of English literature. The introduction of simple instruments such as thermometers, hydrometers, and saccharometers made quality control more certain.
Development of refrigeration equipment permitted operations to continue even during hot weather. The microbiology work of French chemist Louis Pasteur during the s helped establish practices that greatly enhanced output. Danish botanist Emil Hansen brought brewing into the modern age by developing methods for growing yeast cultures that were free of other contaminating yeasts or bacteria.
In , Hansen supplied the first single-cell yeast culture to Carlsberg Breweries in Copenhagen. When the Pilgrims set forth for America in , they planned to settle somewhere near the Hudson River. But because of uncertain navigation and autumn storms, they made their first landfall at Cape Cod in November. When the Dutch settled along the Hudson in the s, they were also quick to establish beer-making facilities.
A map of New Amsterdam shows at least 6 brew houses in the town, which had only about inhabitants. At least a couple of the breweries also contained distilleries. In Pennsylvania, William Penn established a brewery at his manor house near Philadelphia in , shortly after the colony was established.
These areas, in fact, had a prosperous trade in malt beverages with the southern states. Many of the founding fathers had ties to brewing. Until well into the 19th century, most malt beverages consumed in the United States were ales, porters, or stouts brewed in the British top-fermented tradition. By midcentury, however, increased immigration from Germany brought bottom-fermenting yeasts that produced lager beer. Louis; and Adolph Coors in Colorado.
By the Civil War, lager output exceeded that of ale and porter. Several technological advances had an impact on beer making during the late 19th century.
The invention of mechanical refrigeration equipment allowed beer to be made during the hottest weather and stored without spoiling. Breweries were among the first plants to install industrial ice-making equipment in the s and s, and many brewers set up a lucrative side business selling ice to the public.
Pasteurization of bottled beers permitted them to be stored longer and shipped farther. Early in the 20th century, brewing was still primarily a small-scale, local business with a highly restricted marketing area. More than breweries operated across the country, selling about 60 million barrels of beer annually. By , with production at a little under 80 million barrels, the number of breweries in the U. David M. Send your comments or questions regarding this article to tcaw acs.
The bouncing baby got slipped to Zeus who, full of remorse and guilt, popped it into his thigh. Gods are way ahead of any modern surgery. When it was born he called it Dionysus.
Hera called it something else and sent some babysitting Titans to tear the baby to bits and eat it. Rhea , bless her, managed to save the bits. Dionysus , disguised as a girl, was whisked off to be brought up in secrecy by Auntie Ino and Uncle Athamas. Not the best of step-parents. Hera discovered the plot, turned Dionysus into a ram and gave him as a plaything to a band of nymphs.
If you think you have troubles, consider being born twice with a dadly birth, not knowing what sex you are, and then suddenly finding you have four legs, horns and an undetachable woolly coat. Dionysus had many wild and woolly adventures until his Godly status became apparent. He put in for a God grant and was given a more befitting body — and a tutor.
The tutor turned out to be a fat boozy, bald old buffer called Silenus. They got on very well together, and under tuition Dionysus made two exciting discoveries. These new ideas brought him an enormous cult following of wild young females the Maenads , not to mention his ever-attendant nymphomaniac Nymphs.
0コメント