Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Ovid - Metamorphoses
>
Metamorphoses Book 2
For me Book II was much more of an enjoyable read than Book I, which I personally found rather boring.I'm sure this has something to do with why I read fiction vs. non-fiction, and the peculiar place that Metamorphoses occupies on that spectrum.
Anyway, I found particularly fine the stories which Martin names Phaethon (fantastic), The Raven and the Crow, The Prophecies of Ocyrhoe, The House of Envy, Mercury and Aglauros (2), and Jove and Europa.
The following is a mistake on someone's part (I think Martin, in his loose translation) that appears in the first story (Phaethon), page 36, line 160. Martin has Ovid say When the father noticed that the morning star was setting ...
I suspect this is a mistranslation of a word used by Ovid that rather does or can mean "fading from view", which Martin, perhaps not being totally familiar or thinking clearly of the astronomical realities, loosely translates as "setting" to fit his couplet.
No one has ever seen the morning star "set". Heavenly objects "set" in the west. The morning star has never been seen, and never will be seen, in the west.
There is a more complicated issue in the story "Jove, Callisto, and Arcas", page 49, in a footnote to line 700 of Martin's translation. His translation saysJove stayed his hand and then expunged together
their abominations and identities,
bearing them upward through the empty air
and imposing them on heaven in the form
of two adjacent constellations.
The beings thrown into the sky are Callisto, who Jove impregnated, and Arcas, another illegitimate child of Jove (as I read this). In Martin's footnote to the above verse, he identifies the two constellations as Ursa Major (the Great Bear) and Bootes (the Bear Watcher).
Edith Hamilton identifies the constellations as Ursa Major and Ursa Minor. As Hamilton tells the story, the constellations are selected because they never dip into the Ocean, hence this an extra punishment. Martin also hints at this in line 733 by translating "deny this constellation your cerulean depths ... and keep this slut from dipping in your waters".
The point being that the constellation Bootes does dip into the Ocean at certain times of the year (at night), where neither the Greater Bear nor the Lesser Bear ever do (at least from Roman/Greek latitudes).
I don’t know the source for Hamilton’s telling, since I don’t have her book with me. But assuming that her (presumably Greek) source makes it clear that both beings are to be denied dipping into Oceanus, or perhaps simply names directly Ursa Major and Minor as the constellations, then …
1)Either Martin incorrectly guesses for some reason Bootes, or
2) Ovid actually names Bootes for some reason, and is not following the Greek myth exactly, or
3) Ovid says the same thing as Hamilton’s source says, but Martin for some reason goes off on a different tack
4) Ovid hints or says that it is only Callisto (and not Arcas) that is to be additionally punished in this way, which would again indicate that Ovid doesn’t know or care about the Greek myth that Hamilton is referencing.
Sorry about the uncertainty here. I will look up when I can Hamilton’s source, or perhaps someone else can supply that information.
My Martin translation doesn't seem to have a note associated with it (a Kindle copy):"Jove stayed his hand and then expunged together
their abominations and identities,
bearing them upward through the empty air
and imposing them on heaven in the form 700
of two adjacent constellations."
Martin, Charles (2009-01-31). Metamorphoses: A New Translation (pp. 71-72). Norton. Kindle Edition.
“But if the disdain he shows your foster child
arouses you to anger, then deny
this constellation your cerulean depths, 730
drive off these interlopers who have been
turned into stars — the wages paid to sin!
— and keep this slut from dipping in your waters.”
Ibid.(pp. 72-73).
Mandelbaum translates:
"...Arcas poised to pierce
her chest with his death-dealing shaft, but Jove,
all-powerful, stayed Arcas' hand: he checked
that horrid crime; he snatched the two of them
and, with a swift wind, swept them up to heaven
and set them in the sky, a close-set pair
of constellations: Great and Little Bear."
Book II, p. 57.
"...do not allow the Bear--that constellation
which gained the heavens through adultery--
ever to set into your blue-green sea;
prevent that slut from tainting your pure stream."
p. 58
Sounds like a problem with the footnote?
In Hamilton's Mythology I find the story of Callisto and Arcas among the "Brief Myths," pp290-1. I don't find an attribution of a source. She does use the terms "Great Bear" and "Lesser Bear."
Lily wrote: "My Martin translation doesn't seem to have a note associated with it (a Kindle copy):"Jove stayed his hand and then expunged together
their abominations and identities,
bearing them upward throu..."
Yes indeed, the footnote. But where does Martin get this idea that Bootes is one of the constellations? Unless he simply used it to make his poetic translation read nice.
Sounds like option 1 or 3. I'm a little surprised at discovering this looseness of translation, but probably only because I never never been in contact with others who are able to help me discover the fact.
I suppose anyone who is at all familiar with poetic translation would realize off-hand that a lot of loose translation MUST occur if the job is to be done at all. The problem with doing it in this particular spot is that the poetic translation here is something that can be checked against (1) reality, and (2) a prose version of the legend which does not need to "mess around" with meter etc. (Hamilton's)
(It is nice to become aware of the fact that what you would think would be the case - about translating poetry - actually is the case.)
Ted wrote: "...Unless he simply used it to make his poetic translation read nice...."Ted -- But where does Martin actually use "Bootes" in the translation. Or is your version different than mine? (@8)
Lily wrote: "Ted wrote: "...Unless he simply used it to make his poetic translation read nice...."Ted -- But where does Martin actually use "Bootes" in the translation. Or is your version different than mine..."
You're right Lily, my mistake. I was getting the two things I had originally pointed out confused. It obviously has nothing to do with his "poetic translation", he doesn't use Bootes anywhere in the verse. It can only be for some unimaginable reason (unless Ovid wrote "Bootes") that Martin makes this identification, mentioning Bootes instead of Ursa Minor.
According to the Wiki entry for Callisto, "the constellation Boötes, was explicitly identified in the Hesiodic Astronomia (Αστρονομία) as Arcas, the 'Bear-warden'" so Martin may have conflated the two in his footnotes, but not his translation.While looking into the info on Callisto, I found an alternative version of the myth of Lycaon: he murdered Arcas, Jove's son, not a son (or guest) of his own, which makes a little more sense.
Nemo wrote: "While looking into the info on Callisto, I found an alternative version of the myth of Lycaon: he murdered Arcas, Jove's son,..."But still his grandson, since Callisto is his daughter? I'm confused. Somehow the two myths don't seem to fit together without some modification, unless I'm overlooking something, since Arcas as Callisto's son as a teenager started to throw a javelin at his mother. He couldn't very well have been served to Jupiter/Jove as a babe, unless another of the godly transformations is at play.
Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "While looking into the info on Callisto, I found an alternative version of the myth of Lycaon: he murdered Arcas, Jove's son,..."But still his grandson, since Callisto is his daughte..."
Jove restored Arcas (or whoever was served up) to life, so yes, there was another transformation.
Nemo wrote: "Jove restored Arcas (or whoever was served up) to life, so yes, there was another transformation...."Thx, Nemo. I missed that when I re-looked at the story. I'll try again, but not tonight. My oops.
Of all the myths in the Metamorphoses, Lycaon is the only one I thought was complete bonkers. What sane person would cut up his own son (or guest) just to show defiance or contempt for a god who is almost a complete stranger to him (neither related to him in any way nor done any harm to him and his)? The alternative version makes a little more sense to me. If Jove raped his daughter, then he had a probable motive, and was not the only one driven to atrocity by rage and hatred.
Nemo wrote: "Of all the myths in the Metamorphoses, Lycaon is the only one I thought was complete bonkers. What sane person would cut up his own son (or guest) just to show defiance or contempt for a god who is..."Nemo -- what frightens me is how many human stories that appear in our media weekly approximate Lycaon's insanity. I haven't assumed myths were only about the "sane" side of humanity. Some terrorist acts seem to have a similar aspect about them as such a myth, as well as the weird stories of tortuous kidnappings and deaths. Where is intervention/metamorphosis possible, or is it?
Nemo wrote: "Of all the myths in the Metamorphoses, Lycaon is the only one I thought was complete bonkers. What sane person would cut up his own son (or guest) just to show defiance or contempt for a god who is..."It seems Ovid mixed up several versions of the Lycaon myth, the result makes indeed no sense. Some widely different stories about the Arcadian king can be found in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycaon_(...
Patrice wrote: "...So losing control of the chariot, is that proof that he is not his father's son?..."I certainly don't read it that way. More along the contemporary Freudian lines of a son challenging his father, in this case with the rashness of a teenager.
I haven't had the time to sit down and contribute to the conversations yet, but I have been reading along. One of the themes that I've enjoyed so far is the metamorphosis of the earth itself (herself) through creation and destruction. First we have creation and all the changes that matter goes through to form the layers of the universe (stunningly scientific, as you guys talked about), then later in book 1 you've got the flood, then in book 2 the fire from the sun's chariot. Two different types of destruction, through two often-paired elements, causing different metamorphoses. The fluidity with which humans change, to animals and plants and back, is complimented by the changes that the earth goes through, herself a goddess, which only blurs the line more between human, god and matter. Ovid's worldview, or at least the one he portrays, is all shades of gray.
The falling chariot and fires also reminded me of the damage that a meteorite would cause, though I don't know of any historical basis for that (unlike the flood).
I've been reading Horace Gregory's translation, and so far I'm enjoying it. It's lyrical without being overdone, though I sometimes wonder at his word choices. For instance, Phaethon's epitaph reads:
Here Phaethon lies who drove his father's car
Though he failed greatly, yet he ventured more.
It seems strange to me to use the word "car", which seems such a modern word.
Patrice wrote: "...Everything is always changing? Apparently not 'everything', ..."Ecclesiastes is where I turn when in the mood for such ruminations: http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Eccl...
3 What do people gain from all the toil
at which they toil under the sun?
4 A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains for ever.
5 The sun rises and the sun goes down,
and hurries to the place where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south,
and goes round to the north;
round and round goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.
7 All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they continue to flow.
8 All things are wearisome;
more than one can express;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
or the ear filled with hearing.
9 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there a thing of which it is said,
‘See, this is new’?
It has already been,
in the ages before us.
11 The people of long ago are not remembered,
nor will there be any remembrance
of people yet to come
by those who come after them....
True? False? Both at the same time?
Patrice wrote: "Both at the same time is my immediate reaction. Is it sad or comforting or both?"Both.
I think it depends on what your definition of "new" is. Must a thing be utterly unrelated to anything else, in order to be "new"? Must an idea have no component parts that have ever been thought before, in order to be a "new" idea?Or can one say, "well that's a new idea" when something is expressed in terms which have never been heard, in that order, with that context, and with those specific meanings and referents?
In a way, whether "nothing new under the sun" is True could be argued about forever I think. It all depends.
In many cases what is "new" occurs in such small increments over time that it seems that nowhere along the way can one point to the thing that was genuinely new.
But when one compares something such as a television set, or a PC, or music of the Romantic era (Beethoven) with things that existed say 2000 years ago, there cannot be any doubt that the modern things embody ideas, concepts, theories, materials that simply were not available centuries ago; and are thus (compared to those past times) NEW.
And over geologic time periods, it would be silly to say that the life forms of today are "no different" than those that existed 500 million years ago. (But this is the natural world, not the world of man. But then the text from Ecclesiastes refers to both these worlds, so does not make a distinction between them anyway.)
I agree that "both" could be a good answer to the question posed by Lily.
But here's one thing that definitely is new, and no parallel can be found in all of earth's history. The effect that mankind (having grown to a NEW collective size never before seen) is now having on the planet, is both new and frightening.
Patrice wrote: "You could look at the population with fear but I prefer to look at it's possibilities. If there were only 5 million people alive centuries ago and 1% of them were brilliant, then you had relativel..."1% of 7 billion is more than enough brain power. To think that 1% of 9 or 10 billion will be better is to completely mistake advantage vs. disadvantage calculus. They say 9 billion may be hit by 2050, though recent estimates are backing off this. My own view is that even 8 billion may never to hit because of the ecological catastrophes we are speeding towards.
These are things for which a faith in "technology" or man's "inventiveness" is completely misplaced.
I will get down off my soap box, sorry to bring these things up in the discussion. They are however the proverbial "elephant in the room". Discussion of ancient books, in a room occupied by an elephant which is about to sit on you, is of course still intellectually stimulating and well worth doing, particularly if one keeps an eye on that elephant. :) :(
http://animals.timduru.org/dirlist/el...This one isn't as cute as the one among my emails this morning, but I can't seem to find a link for it. I'm amazed at how proportionally small the little one seems to be.
Everyman wrote: "Most editions don't have titles for the books, just Book 1, Book 2, etc. Martin for some reason decided to give titles to the books (I suspect that he was trying to find the major thread binding t..."I really like this opening message, but I have a small difference of opinion that has to do with Phaethon's insistence that he cannot retract his promise. Consider this: Joe, as NASCAR race car driver, in a moment of wanting to provide his son with a reward for an accomplishment offers him anything he chooses. Surely, first of all, there are implied boundaries that his son will not be unreasonable in his request. The son, however, asks that he substitute himself for his father in the father's next NASCAR race. Let's put aside any prequalification requirements for entering the race. What would you think of the father if he granted the request. Knowing the consequences, I would think authorities would be charging father with something: negligent homicide? child endangerment? endangering a crowd of onlookers? destruction of property. I can't believe, nor do I think he should avoid the consequences of his gift. Phoebus, the sun god, does expect to avoid consequences as told in "The Sun's complaint"
Message 24, Holly "The falling chariot and fires also reminded me of the damage that a meteorite would cause, though I don't know of any historical basis for that (unlike the flood).." I wondered if the fire resulting from the disaster was somehow related to the extinction of the dinosaurs, although surely Ovid couldn't have heard of that event!
Lily wrote: "Ted wrote: "...Unless he simply used it to make his poetic translation read nice...."Ted -- But where does Martin actually use "Bootes" in the translation. Or is your version different than mine..."
Kindle version: location 1661 on the progress bar, just above 240 (don't know what these markers are!) in the poem: "Folks say that even you, Bootes, fled, slow as you are, and hampered by your oxcart."
I remembered seeing the word, and as with much of this poem I've had to look up the names of people to try to figure out who they are -- and coping with multiple names for the same person is challenging, to say the least.
Elizabeth wrote: "I can't believe, nor do I think he should avoid the consequences of his gift...."I'm reminded of Sir Peter Ustinov again, "Unfortunately, the balance of nature decrees that a super-abundance of dreams is paid for by a growing potential for nightmares." There are consequences (rewards/risks) that come with every gift. The giver of the gift shouldn't be responsible for them all. If Phaeton had succeeded, it would have been a dream come true and he would have been able to celebrate it together with his father and proven that he was the son of a god. The father did all he could to prepare his son, he taught him all the things he needed to know, and warned him repeatedly about the dangers. But still, it's up to the son to make choices wrt the gifts he is given.
I think of Phaeton more as a representative of all the children born out of wedlock. They are bullied and taunted at school, and their mothers are insulted before their face. Naturally he had a desperate desire to prove himself and his divine parentage.Some parents (legitimate or not) have a tendency to prove their love by spoiling their children with gifts. But gifts are not a sure pledge of love or parentage, since it could be a bribe or a lazy counterfeit of the sustained labor of love. The father of Phaeton make the same mistake initially but soon realized it, albeit a little too late:
"Dost thou in sooth seek sure pledges that thou art son of mine? Behold, I give sure pledges by my very fear.; I show myself thy father by my fatherly anxiety. See! look upon my face. And oh, that thou couldst look into my heart as well, and understand a father's cares therein!" (Miller)
"The surest proof that I'm your father is my fear for you. Look at my face! And would you could inspect my heart and learn what cares a father bears!" (Mandelbaum)
Mandelbaum's translation lacks the emotional punch of Miller's, imo.
Nemo wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "I can't believe, nor do I think he should avoid the consequences of his gift...."If Phaeton had succeeded, it would have been a dream come true and he would have been able to celebrate it together with his father and proven that he was the son of a god. The father did all he could to prepare his son, he taught him all the things he needed to know, and warned him repeatedly about the dangers. But still, it's up to the son to make choices wrt the gifts he is given. ..."
Nemo, I might have agreed with you, except that there were extremely high consequences paid by innocent people, not to mention setting the entire earth on fire. In addition, Proteus, the father, was after all a god, and he wasn't hoping that everything would work out okay - he *knew* what was going to happen. His son is only half god and half mortal, and actually when he realizes that he's in trouble he even wishes that he were to son of ???, the mother's husband.
If he didn't know, then he wouldn't be much of a god, would he?
Elizabeth wrote: "Nemo, I might have agreed with you, ..."and I you. :)
Unless I missed something, the text didn't say that Phaeton was doomed by Fate to fail or that his father knew his fate. He was anxious and fearful precisely because he didn't know for certain what would happen. On the other hand, if Phaeton was doomed by Fate, there was nothing his father could have done to prevent it.
Patrice wrote: "Speaking of risk vs benefit. This myth made me think of the development of the H bomb..."Oppenheimer was hailed as "American Prometheus". Perhaps he was really "American Phaeton".
Nemo wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Nemo, I might have agreed with you, ..."and I you. :)
Unless I missed something, the text didn't say that Phaeton was doomed by Fate to fail or that his father knew his fate. H..."
Hi all, and Nemo especially. It's wonderful to be able to examine different sides of an issue like this.
I didn't use the word "fate" because I don't believe in fate. That said, I went back to the poem, (Martin translation on Kindle) where the text starts off by Proteus saying that he wishes to dissuade his son (marker 70): "You seek a gift that is too great for you, beyond your strength, beyond your boyish years" (enough not to dissuade the son right here); "your fate is mortal: what you ask for isn't. Out of your ignorance, you seek much more than even gods are able to control for though each god may do just as he pleases, non but myself may set his heel upon the fire-bearing axle. No - not even he who governs vast Olympus and who flings the thunderbolt may drive this chariot: and what force is more powerful than Jove?"
So far, I can't remember reading about one of these "gods" who has even one redeeming quality, so maybe I'm predisposed to blaming Proteus, which I still do.
What could be so terrible about Proteus reversing his decision given that he knows far more about the dangers of the situation than does his son, and the consequences that all the other gods, mortals, and people will have to pay?
In general, do women look upon the significance and importance of keeping one's word in the same way as men have throughout much of Western history? If there are differences, are there reasons for the differences?Thinking back to some of the longitudinal studies, I'll posit that there might be differences. Women may have needed a flexibility, dealing with children and masculine strength, whereas men needed to be able to depend upon one another once they had given their word. Only a hypothesis, however, because I don't recall specific studies on the topic.
All of which is not to say but what either gender has options and choices in any given situation.
Holly wrote: "The falling chariot and fires also reminded me of the damage that a meteorite would cause, though I don't know of any historical basis for that (unlike the flood). "I'm glad you brought that up. I had thought the same thing, especially after the videos of the meteorite that struck Russia a year or two ago, I think. I also don't know of any historical basis for it, and it's possible that if it was referencing a historical event it might have been a rare very high heat event (such as we're seeing right now in Southwest US) following a very dry spell which might have caused massive forest fires. I do suspect that there was some natural phenomenon which triggered the origin of the myth, but of course can't prove it. But I'm glad you raised the point.
Elizabeth wrote: "I have a small difference of opinion that has to do with Phaethon's insistence that he cannot retract his promise."It's an interesting point. Of course, Phoebus was foolish to make such an open-ended promise. But he did. Would the Greek culture have allowed a god to make an explicit promise and then retract it? And, of course, to the extent that myths are intended to have embedded lessons or morals, if he had withdrawn the promise and not let Phaeton drive the chariot, there would have been no point to the myth, no lesson for parents to learn about the dangers of open-ended promises or for youth to learn about ignoring the warnings of their parents.
Lily wrote: "Thinking back to some of the longitudinal studies, I'll posit that there might be differences. Women may have needed a flexibility, dealing with children and masculine strength, whereas men needed to be able to depend upon one another once they had given their word."Fascinating question. And we have to keep in mind that war was a central part of Greek life and culture. And in warfare, it is absolutely essential that every man be able to rely on every other man to do their assigned task. Plus, there were basically no written contracts, so when men traded or undertook business, you word had to be your bond, and if your word couldn't be relied on, you couldn't have been trusted to be any part of a business transaction. Women, not being either warriors or traders, perhaps (only perhaps, but it may make sense) strict adherence to their promises didn't have the same consequences.
Speculation on my part, growing out of your own speculation, but it might help explain that in Greek eyes Phaeton may have been more honored than reviled for keeping a promise that led to the death of his son. Keeping in mind that this is the culture that approved of Agamemnon sacrificing his daughter for the sake of being able to go to war.
Elizabeth wrote: "So far, I can't remember reading about one of these "gods" who has even one redeeming quality,"LOL!!
Elizabeth wrote: "Hi all, and Nemo especially. It's wonderful to be able to examine different sides of an issue like this.It is wonderful indeed. :) I've enjoyed and learned a lot from conversations like this.
"...What could be so terrible about Proteus reversing his decision..."
I think it's not that he wouldn't reverse it but that he couldn't. The Stygian oath represents one of those things that are irreversible, among all that is constantly in flux. Ovid's gods are not omnipotent. Among other things, they can't reverse a Stygian oath, nor change the dictate of the Fates, by which they themselves are controlled.
Nemo wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Hi all, and Nemo especially. It's wonderful to be able to examine different sides of an issue like this.It is wonderful indeed. :) I've enjoyed and learned a lot from conversati..."
Wow! I think my head is spinning! I've never heard of a Stygian oath, anything about Fates. Seems I've got a lot to learn. Thank you.
Elizabeth wrote: "Wow! I think my head is spinning! I've never heard of a Stygian oath, anything about Fates. Seems I've got a lot to learn. Thank you. "Just keep asking questions. I love group members who ask questions; I'm sure many others have the same questions but for some reason don't ask them. So those who are willing to ask them are especially valuable.
There's a world of knowledge in this group which those who have it love to share. Just give them the chance!
I am a little be hind in the reading, but I find it interesting that even in the first two books we see Ovid not portraying the gods as all powerful, we see this in the transformations. Even when certain individuals are transformed into animals, they still retain many human like qualities.
Melissa wrote: "I am a little be hind in the reading, but I find it interesting that even in the first two books we see Ovid not portraying the gods as all powerful, we see this in the transformations. Even when c..."Both good points. Yes, the Greek and Roman concept of gods is very different from the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
Everyman wrote: "Melissa wrote: "I am a little be hind in the reading, but I find it interesting that even in the first two books we see Ovid not portraying the gods as all powerful, we see this in the transformati..."Both good points. Yes, the Greek and Roman concept of gods is very different from the Judeo-Christian concept of God...."
Everyman: I'd love to read about the Greek and Roman concept of gods. What's your opinion, or do you have a good source?
Elizabeth wrote: "Everyman: I'd love to read about the Greek and Roman concept of gods. What's your opinion, or do you have a good source?"
If you can borrow it through your library, or find it on sale, the Teaching Company course on Classical Mythology by Elizabeth Vandiver is excellent. Other than that, it's mostly just reading the classical works, like the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Greek tragedies, Hesoid, and of course Ovid with some attention to how the gods operate. You quickly find that they are not omniscient (for just one example, Odysseus is able to escape from Circe because Poseidon is down in Africa so can't see what's going on in the Mediterranean); they're not omniscient; they're not very nice; they eat and drink and have sex and bear many children; they didn't create the world but are creations in it; all things quite different from the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
In book 1 (line 255) Jupiter is afraid to destroy the world by fire lest the 'sacred summit of the sky might be ignited accidentally'. Is this a foreshadowing of Phaeton's nearly destroying the earth by fire? Incidentally, a disaster which could only be halted by Jupiter, who 'stopped the raging fire with fire' (2.313)
David wrote: "In book 1 (line 255) Jupiter is afraid to destroy the world by lest the 'sacred summit of the sky might be ignited accidentally'. Is this a foreshadowing of Phaeton's nearly destroying the earth by..."David -- Could be, but I am not convinced of logical linking of many of the mythological stories. Nor have I ever seen a "chronology" for the Greek and Roman myths, although it would not surprise me if someone here might tell us that such exists.
Lily wrote: "David -- Could be, but I am not convinced of logical linking of many of the mythological stories. Nor have I ever seen a "chronology" for the Greek and Roman myths, although it would not surprise me if someone here might tell us that such exists."I'm not sure about any chronology either - but I was more thinking along the lines of a connection in Ovid's mind. I think the way he structures his poem is such as to bring out logical connections that probably weren't there to begin with.
David wrote: "...I was more thinking along the lines of a connection in Ovid's mind. I think the way he structures his poem is such as to bring out logical connections that probably weren't there to begin with...."Good point, David. For some more clues on Ovid's structure and themes, take a look at the link Wendel supplies to the work of Larry Brown, which I'll repeat here: http://larryavisbrown.homestead.com/f...
See the bottom of the page for the section of particular interest.
(P.S. One does pick up some chronology tidbits along the way. E.g., the Wiki article on Bacchus suggests this is one of the more ancient of the myths, providing some of the language and archeological evidence for that view. Somebody probably has strung such knowledge together.)
David wrote: "I'm not sure about any chronology either - but I was more thinking along the lines of a connection in Ovid's mind. I think the way he structures his poem is such as to bring out logical connections that probably weren't there to begin with."
I agree. It's really interesting to watch the way he segues from one episode into another with a character from the end of one episode included at the beginning of the next. It turns what would otherwise be just a series of unconnected events into a cohesive narrative.
David wrote: "Lily wrote: "David -- Could be, but I am not convinced of logical linking of many of the mythological stories. Nor have I ever seen a "chronology" for the Greek and Roman myths, although it would n..."Hey! Hi! Been on since a while until now catch up and get in the train of reads book club wise..so I have a reflection and maybe question, how is the Metamorphoses similar or related to other epic Creation stories as the Bible in a way, the Epic of Gilgamesh (which I haven't read), and other sagas? I find the Hindu Bhagavat Purana to be the most comprehensive and poetry as well as a Purana is a History, but these are difficult to get by, I've just read bits, I have read the Rig Veda and its quite mysterious, poetic and philosophic, non linear. I'm at book 5 of The Meta, which linear wise it's jumpy but beautiful..gives the feeling of a true narration of events!
A nice variety of myths here. I'll offer just a brief comment on the opening myth (which is really a continuation from the end of Book 1) since I find it such a powerful myth. So much going on here. The son who believes he is ready to step into his father's big shoes. (There was a lovely ad campaign a number of years ago showing a young boy trying on his father's wingtip shoes, which obviously didn't fit, but he was so proud of pretending to be able to fill his father's shoes. But there it was innocent. not here.)
The agony of a father who has made a promise he cannot withdraw but knows that it will lead to disaster.
The impetuosity of youth which believed then and still believes today that it is indestructible. (What else can explain half pipes and mini-bike racing?)
The horror of suddenly realizing that you have bitten off more than you can chew, but there is no way out -- like jumping out of an airplane and finding out that your parachute won't open.
But it's such a universal story, isn't it? The son wanting to do, believing he can do, and the father being pretty sure he can't but how do you stop him without destroying his belief in himself? What son doesn't believe he's ready to take on his father's Porsche or Harley? Isn't this really what Apollo's chariot represents? "I can do it." "I don't think you can, son." "Yes, I can. I know I can." "Be reasonable. You're not ready." "You don't trust me." "It's not a matter of trust, it's that I love you too much to let you do this to yourself." "No, it's that you don't trust me. And you're afraid I'll succeed and show that I can do anything you can do, and you don't want that....." Has there ever been a generation of fathers and sons where this conversation, or some variant of it, hasn't taken place over and over?