Classics and the Western Canon discussion

A fairly short book, which Martin titles "The Wrath of Juno." With one of the most classic myths going, that of Narcissus, which, yes, the psychologists mined for the condition they term narcissism; the OED cites as their first notation for this term "1905 H. Ellis Stud. Psychol. Sex IV. iii. 187, I have referred to the developed forms of this kind of self-contemplation..and in this connection have alluded to the fable of Narcissus, whence Näcke has since devised the term Narcissism for this group of phenomena."

How amazingly well, although they didn't have the term, the Greeks understood psychology.

Everyman wrote: "How amazingly well, although they didn't have the term, the Greeks understood psychology...."

Except of women?

Sorry, didn't resist posting that, after the discussion of Daphne, even if I should have. Given that they were the child bearers, incapacitated for periods of time, and probably the early agriculturists, why did the growth of language and literature go to the men? Because women prepared the food and changed the diapers? (Time for me to quit for the night. ;-0 )

Patrice wrote: "Looked it up and it was Solon who said it. This makes me wonder if Ovid's isn't cataloging every known myth. Maybe he did want to make one book that had them all."

Patrice wrote: "And was it Solon who said "count no man happy before he is dead." Someone said it! ;-)"

Yes. He allegedly said it, if memory serves, to Croesus. Which was prescient because Croesus eventually was conquered and executed by Cyrus.

However, we don't have much basis for this story, as far as I know, so it may be apocryphal. Or it may have been said by others before him but he got the credit for saying it because it was so relevant to Croesus.

Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "How amazingly well, although they didn't have the term, the Greeks understood psychology...."

Except of women? "

I don't want to rehash that discussion here, but I think it could be argued that he did indeed understand womens' psychology in that some women would do anything to remain virgin and avoid rape. Even today, in some societies, a women who is threatened with rape is expected to commit suicide first. Being turned into a tree is better than committing suicide, isn't it? At least you're still alive.

I do get your point about the extreme male-centeredness of their society. But I'm not sure that that proves that they didn't understand female psychology.

One thing I find quite interesting in many of these stories. A human who is changed into an animal almost always still retains awareness of being human. Io, for example, is able to scratch out letters with her hooves. (Which must mean that if the myth is true in that respect in its original form, it must have developed before the Greek dark ages, when literacy was lost, because the myth was almost certainly in place before literacy was restored around 700 BC.) Actaeon is aware that he is changing into a stag, and knows the names of his hounds as they attack him and tries to call out their names. (That seems to me an extraordinarily severe punishment for the accident of stumbling on women bathing, who shouldn't have been bathing naked where they could easily be overseen in the first place. It's really Diana's fault, but Actaeon pays a horrible price for it, being ripped apart by dogs.)

But isn't it interesting that the humans retain their consciousness, awareness of their humanity, and all their memory even as they are transformed into beasts?

It wouldn't be much of a punishment if they were unaware they were being punished, though, would it? If they retain their human awareness, they also retain their human sense of guilt and wrongdoing (even if they technically did nothing wrong- please gods don't turn me into a cockroach).

Hamilton goes on at length about the presumption of human characteristics being projected upon virtually all other living beings, from earth and heaven to beasts to rivers and trees. (I've quoted part of that elsewhere in these threads.) She postulates the extrapolation of the verve of living to all live beings. The development of a sense of wrong-doing and guilt thereof is another interesting thread through the various mythological streams. Certainly seems to be rather different among the nature myths than the tribal ones, with the former focusing on zest for living and the latter bringing to bear right behavior and social norms and boundaries. But retribution and punishment are not necessarily missing from the nature myths.

tysephine wrote: "It wouldn't be much of a punishment if they were unaware they were being punished, though, would it? If they retain their human awareness, they also retain their human sense of guilt and wrongdoing..."

In some cases, yes, it's punishment, but not in all. Or, as in the case of Io, if it is punishment, it's unjust because it should be Jove who is punished for raping Io, not Io who is punished for being raped. And why should Cycnus be punished for mourning the death of Phaeton?

Everyman wrote: "One thing I find quite interesting in many of these stories. A human who is changed into an animal almost always still retains awareness of being human. Io, for example, is able to scratch out l..."

I found Actaeon's punishment to be severe as well, but it got me thinking about the gods as personifications of nature. Yes, the gods may seem capricious, but the world is capricious. The tornado might take your neighbor's house but leave yours unscathed, one brown bear might not bother you at all but the next might attack you. If gods are, as I believe, human's attempt at representing and attempting to understand the world beyond their fingertips, it only makes sense to portray them as being overtly nasty sometimes.

On a less philosophical note, I loved Jove and Juno's argument about who enjoys sex more. Seems like that is a timeless argument, though in this case it was obviously written/decided by a man ;)

Holly wrote: "Yes, the gods may seem capricious, but the world is capricious. The tornado might take your neighbor's house but leave yours unscathed, one brown bear might not bother you at all but the next might attack you."

That's a very nice point. And perhaps the world seemed even more capricious to people who had less knowledge of the science behind natural disasters. If you have no idea of plate tectonics or of the build-up of internal forces in the earth, earthquakes, for example, must seem totally random. At least we can understand how tornadoes form and usually have some idea approximately where and when they will strike, but if you have no such knowledge they would indeed seem totally random and capricious.

Everyman wrote: "Holly wrote: "Yes, the gods may seem capricious, but the world is capricious. The tornado might take your neighbor's house but leave yours unscathed, one brown bear might not bother you at all but ..."

The fickleness of the gods must indeed reflect human fear of nature. Nature often seemed like a local warlord, ready to steal your daughters and burn your house at any time. That is why the development of physics was so important for the Epicureans: only knowledge can put our fears at rest - and thereby end the need for gods.

If it did not precisely work out that way, that was probably because the gods did not only represent fear. And maybe the development of philosophy became a precondition for a different kind of religion?

I see a similarity between Phaeton and Semele in that they both asked for something from a god as a proof of a relationship, and they both die because of their requests.

Elizabeth wrote: "I see a similarity between Phaeton and Semele in that they both asked for something from a god as a proof of a relationship, and they both die because of their requests."

Interesting comment, because that can certainly happen to human relationships, too. Demanding "proof" can sometimes be perceived as lack of faith or trust, each so integral to healthy relationships. Trust may need to be earned, but still it always has elements of being a gift, of being a leap of faith.

Lily wrote: "Interesting comment, because that can certainly happen to human relationships, too. Demanding "proof" can sometimes be perceived as lack of faith or trust..."

A lot of these myths seem to comment on the hierarchical roles of mortals and gods, and of lesser gods to greater gods. No one has mentioned Pentheus and Bacchus yet, but I think it's one of the most blatant examples of this. Pentheus doesn't test Bacchus -- he openly defies him, and suffers the consequences.

I've been thinking about a political interpretation of this. I'm not sure that there is one, or a coherent one anyway, but this passage has me wondering:

In a seething mass
they rush out after him from every side,
driving him on; and he, now terrified,
the autocratic no longer, speaking mildly,
admits to them the error of his ways.

As Pentheus is about to be ripped to shreds by the masses driven insane with wine and Bacchic ecstasy, Ovid points out that his royal status is useless to save him. King Pentheus failed to recognize his role in the hierarchy. The god is king, not Pentheus.

Elizabeth wrote: "I see a similarity between Phaeton and Semele in that they both asked for something from a god as a proof of a relationship, and they both die because of their requests."

It's only natural and reasonable that a son should desire to do in like manner whatever his father does, and the beloved to see/know the true self of her lover. But their relationships failed the test of fire, literally and figuratively speaking, due to a lack of equality between the two partners, one being mortal, the other a god. So in that regard, Juno was right about Semele: she was not a true mate of Jove, because she didn't really know him. Phaeton wasn't a true son of Phoebus either, having being raised by his mother alone. His father contributed nothing to his upbringing, which led in no small part to his fall.

Thomas wrote: "...nd he, now terrified,
the autocratic no longer,..."

There is no mention of kingship in the Latin text,

cunctae coeunt trepidumque sequuntur, iam trepidum,

of which Miller gives a literal translation

the frightened wretch, yes frightened now

Perhaps "autocrat" refers to sanity, which Pentheus lost when he descended into madness.

Nemo wrote: "...Phaeton wasn't a true son of Phoebus either, having being raised by his mother alone. His father contributed nothing to his upbringing, which led in no small part to his fall...."

Nemo -- you raise an interesting question of what makes a "true" relationship. Certainly many human parallels can be made, from the parent whose work takes him/her far from his/her family (e.g., military families,....) to the many varieties of adoption, divorce, single parenthood, widower/widow, orphan,... that exist. Certainly there can be many ways of learning and experiencing that can occur where two parents actively participate in child rearing, but the more my life touches broader swathes of the population and history, the more I realize how unique and privileged the nuclear family can be, for all its status as a cornerstone of the nurture of the generations to follow.

Nemo wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "I see a similarity between Phaeton and Semele in that they both asked for something from a god as a proof of a relationship, and they both die because of their requests."..."

Nemo wrote: "But their relationships failed the test of fire, literally and figuratively speaking, due to a lack of equality between the two partners, one being mortal, the other a god."

Yes, it makes sense.

Lily's comment about trust issues was also a good point, but neither Phaeton nor Semele had any particular reason to trust their father or 'lover'. On the other hand there is an obvious inequality between gods and mortals. This point causes me to realize that there is also a big difference in the way each god reacts to the death of their mortal: The sun god blames others and throws a tantrum, threatening to quit, while Jove, in complete indifference has a drink with his wife/sister god and they discuss sex.

Elizabeth wrote: "...The sun god blames others and throws a tantrum, threatening to quit..."

LOL! But Phoebus also mourns the loss of Phaëthon and apparently doesn't hesitate to challenge the justice of Jove.

Relevant quotations: (view spoiler)[

Phoebus foresaw danger:

Foreseeing grief, his breast heaved as he spoke:
“You have so far ignored your father’s warnings,
but listen now, and— if you can— heed these:

Martin, Charles (2009-01-31). Metamorphoses: A New Translation (p. 56). Norton. Kindle Edition.

To the very last moment Phoebus pleads:

...if that heart of yours can be persuaded,
take my advice— and not my chariot!
“Change your mind now, while change is still permitted,
while both your feet are firmly on the ground—
before you mount and set out on this course 200
which, in your ignorance, you foolishly desire—
look on in safety while I light the world!”

Ibid. (pp. 56-57)

Phaëthon realizes he is in trouble and regrets his vain curiosity:

..unlucky Phaëthon at once turned pale,
and suddenly his knees began to shake
with terror,and his eyes were darkened by
excessive light; and now the god’s true son
regrets he ever touched his father’s horses,
is sorry to have found his origins,
and sorry that his prayer was ever answered;

Ibid. (p. 58)

Jove reportedly got Phoebus to agree to the severity of the situation even before he took action:

Before he would commit himself, however,
the father almighty made the other gods
(especially the god who gave his son
the chariot) swear that the gravest fate
hung over all, unless he should take action.
And then he sought the pinnacle of heaven,...

Ibid. (p. 63).

Phobeus's grief, even to the extent of no sun traveling on its daily path, a legend that is extended only to extreme circumstances:

His miserable father, sick with grief,
drew his cloak up around his head in mourning; 440
for one whole day then, if the tale is true,
the sun was quite put out. The conflagration
(for the world was still ablaze) provided light;
that was a time some good came out of evil.

Ibid. (p. 64)

Phoebus even dares challenge Jove that his son did not deserve to die, despite his acquiescence earlier to the severity of the situation:

Phoebus, meanwhile, mourning his lost son,
ignores appearances, as is his wont
whenever he goes into an eclipse: 520
hating the light of day and his own being,
he gives himself entirely to grief,
and in his anger threatens to resign:
“Enough!” he cries. “Why, ever since creation
my lot has been incessant restlessness,
work unrewarded, going on forever!
Let someone else— whoever wishes to,
be driver of the chariot of light!
“If no one else of all the gods will do it,
if none admits that he is able to, 530
why not just let the Governor take charge:
at least while he is struggling with the reins
he’ll have to put aside the thunderbolt
fated to rob fathers of their children!
“Then he will know— once he has gauged the mettle
of those fire-footed horses— that my son,
who was unable to control the team,
did not deserve to die!”

Ibid. (pp. 66-67)

And I laughed at the implication of the possibility of authority responding not only with justification, but with threats:

...Jove goes so far
as to defend himself for hurling fire,
but adds (as royals will) threats to entreaties.

Ibid.(p. 67)

(hide spoiler)]

Lily wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "...The sun god blames others and throws a tantrum, threatening to quit..."

LOL! But Phoebus also mourns the loss of Phaëthon and apparently doesn't hesitate to challenge the just..."

Lily, does LOL mean Lots of Luck? If not what does it mean - it's been a mystery to me for a while now.

Yes, Phoebus does mourn the loss of Phaethon, and I went back to look under the "Suns complaint" and found the text to which you are referring! I missed that the Governor is Jove and that "while he's struggling with the reins he'll have to put aside the thunderbolt fated to rob fathers of their children!"

So, there is a hierarchy of gods, right!? I may have suspected this on some level, but I'm not certain. (I haven't read the spoiler because I like the thrill of discovery).

Elizabeth wrote: "(I haven't read the spoiler because I like the thrill of discovery)...."

Elizabeth -- The "spoiler" @24 is entirely within this Book II. I use that html sometimes to make posts shorter. I will indicate if it includes material beyond the section under consideration. Thx for reminding me to keep that clear.

Certainly Jove/Jupiter/Zeus is the reigning God of Olympus. How well any hierarchy is defined below that level has always seemed shifting to me, although Neptune and Hades are Jupiter's brothers, I believe, w/o double checking just now, and many other gods and goddesses seem to be subservient to them, especially Neptune.

This is not really a spoiler, either, just info from Wikipedia:

(view spoiler)[
"In ancient Roman religion and myth, Jupiter (Latin: Iuppiter) or Jove is the king of the gods and the god of sky and thunder. Jupiter was the chief deity of Roman state religion throughout the Republican and Imperial eras, until Christianity became the dominant religion of the Empire. In Roman mythology, he negotiates with Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, to establish principles of Roman religion such as sacrifice.

"Jupiter is usually thought to have originated as a sky god. His identifying implement is the thunderbolt, and his primary sacred animal is the eagle, which held precedence over other birds in the taking of auspices\ and became one of the most common symbols of the Roman army.... The two emblems were often combined to represent the god in the form of an eagle holding in its claws a thunderbolt, frequently seen on Greek and Roman coins. As the sky-god, he was a divine witness to oaths, the sacred trust on which justice and good government depend...." Bold added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_...
(hide spoiler)]

LOL! is generally Net speak for Laughing Out Loud! (You can usually decode those expressions by using Google, although, if in doubt, it may be safer to ask if someone is using them the way Google responds.)

For fun: RFLOL
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...

Patrice wrote: "Wasn't this the same problem with Telemachus? His father was absent his whole life, how can he feel secure in being his father's son?..."

That's why he visited his father's friends, Nestor, Menelaus, etc., to learn as much as possible about Odysseus. But, it was not until he fought side by side with his father that a true relationship between father and son was formed, imo.

Nemo wrote: "Thomas wrote: "...nd he, now terrified,
the autocratic no longer,..."

There is no mention of kingship in the Latin text,

cunctae coeunt trepidumque sequuntur, iam trepidum,

of which Miller give..."

You are right -- Martin takes some liberties there, but I think the spirit of the translation is correct. Pentheus is of course the King of Thebes, that is understood, and with the lines "iam se damnantem, iam se peccasse fatentem" the author acknowledges his fall. His act of contrition does him no good before the "turba furens" though.

Lily wrote: "Nemo -- you raise an interesting question of what makes a "true" relationship. ..."

Yes, that was the intention. :)

I realize how unique and privileged the nuclear family can be, for all its status as a cornerstone of the nurture of the generations to follow.

and how privileged it is to have grown up in such a family.

Coming back to Paethon and Phoebus. I don't think they would have passed a DNA test, because there was nothing (of the immortal part) of Phoebus left in Phaeton, as there was of Jove in Dionysus.

There was neither nature nor nurture in the relationship between the two. Yes, Phoebus did grieve, and Ovid makes his grief sound amazingly human and real, but Phoebus lost nothing really.

Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "Nemo -- you raise an interesting question of what makes a "true" relationship. ..."

Coming back to Paethon and Phoebus. I don't think they would have passed a DNA test, because there was nothing (of the immortal part) of Phoebus left in Phaeton, as there was of Jove in Dionysus...."

Is it possible that Paethon demonstrated that he had an immortal part when, I assume, he caused his half-sisters, The Heliades, to turn into trees while they were, apparently insincerely, grieving his death?

Nemo wrote: "I don't think they would have passed a DNA test,..."

LOL! I don't believe immortality was a inevitable privilege of having been conceived by a god.

Thomas wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Thomas wrote: "... now terrified, the autocratic no longer,..."

I think we're looking at the same thing, through from different angles. I understood "autocrat", in this context, as meaning a person with self-control, not necessarily a king. But you're right, Pentheus lost his power both as a king and as an autonomous person.

But the myth of Pentheus seems to be the opposite of hierarchical structure. Since the power of the autocrat is overridden, there is no middle layer. Everything is directly subject to the influence of the god of madness, resembling the state of chaos in the beginning.

Elizabeth wrote: "Is it possible that Paethon demonstrated that he had an immortal part when, I assume, he caused his half-sisters, The Heliades, to turn into trees while they were, apparently insincerely, grieving his death? ..."

As far as I can gather from the text, the grief of the Heliades was sincere, and it was not Phaeton who changed their form.

Lily wrote: "I don't believe immortality was a inevitable privilege of having been conceived by a god."

Was there any privilege at all?

Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "I don't believe immortality was a inevitable privilege of having been conceived by a god."

Was there any privilege at all?"

Life -- always the privilege of conception. Well, at least usually.

(That comment comes from a line of thought that holds all your parents owe you is "life" and that is enough to justify holding them in honor and respect. There is a school of judo that speaks of it being easy to respect kind and generous parents; the challenge that brings honor to self is honoring difficult parents.)

Nemo wrote: "But the myth of Pentheus seems to be the opposite of hierarchical structure. Since the power of the autocrat is overridden, there is no middle layer."

I was thinking of the crowd as the middle layer -- earlier Pentheus declares that the city itself has been taken by Bacchus -- and it is by the crowd of possessed Bacchantes that the king is destroyed. So I thought there might be a political interpretation to be made, given that the King loses control of his city to the people, who have been driven mad by the god. There's not enough there to conclude anything about Ovid's politics, I admit, but there may be more to follow.

Lily wrote: ...all your parents owe you is "life" and that is enough to justify holding them in honor and respect..."

Plato writes that parents give life to their children, so whatever wrong the parents might have done is far outweighted by the first gift. (IOW, if you want to keep score with your parents, fine, give your life back first)

Biologically speaking, our parents do indeed give us something unique of themselves, i.e., their DNA which uniquely identify them. The joining of two lives become one, like two rivers merging together into one that carry along both. Part of our parents live on through us, and we live because of their gift of life. But I digress...

There is noting of Paethon that reflects his divine parentage. He was not immortal, the inherent character of a god (their DNA so to speak), nor did he have superhuman power, the observable character of a god.

Thomas wrote: "I was thinking of the crowd as the middle layer "

oh, you think Ovid was a democrat? He sounded more like an anarchist to me (in book XV). In either case, Augustus didn't exile him without good reason.

The story of Pentheus is, I understand, a vague remembrance of the rise of a new cult and the conservative resistance against it. The struggle between wine consumers and the old-fashioned beer drinkers - each with its own deities. According to Graves: "Hera's hatred of Dionysus and his wine-cup ... reflects conservative opinion to the ritual use of wine and to the extravagant Maenad fashion ..." (I, 109).

But the somewhat feminine wine cult seemed to have had a wide popular basis, repression failed and the conservatives had to give in. It is difficult not to associate this episode with later surges of popular religious renewal. Nor can I get mynheer Peeperkorn out of my head - Pentheus was clearly not amused by his arrival on the Magic Mountain.

Does Ovid show special sympathy for one of the parties involved? I can't see it, but I think that as an elitist partisan (I imagine) of wine and order he must have found it hard to make up his mind. However, we have no reason to think that he was much interested in politics. A sensible position in his time, though in the end it did not save him from Augustus' version of 1984.

Nemo wrote: "...There is nothing of Paethon that reflects his divine parentage. He was not immortal, the inherent character of a god (their DNA so to speak), nor did he have superhuman power, the observable character of a god...."

Nemo -- But as Ovid writes the story, Phoebus clearly claims his fatherhood of Phaëthon. I don't understand why more is particularly relevant in terms of the story.

Nemo wrote: "Plato writes that parents give life to their children, so whatever wrong the parents might have done is far outweighted by the first gift. (IOW, if you want to keep score with your parents, fine, give your life back first)..."

Thanks, Nemo. I didn't know that ancient source for an idea I first encountered in a rather "new age" setting. So many with whom I discuss it, reject the concept entirely, firmly holding that parents owe so much more. But, I think the idea can be of value to those who have been hurt by poor parenting rather than any particular absolution of a parent.

Someone has said elsewhere that they found the subtitles in their edition distracting and editorializing. Well, I had the opposite reaction this morning in re-reading Books II and III in the Mandelbaum translation this time. It lists each story at the beginning. Particularly for Book II, in my previous reading, I was running the stories together and not sorting them out clearly. Between the title listing at the beginning and the simple line designations between stories, I had a much easier time. I actually found myself noting the respective page numbers on the title page.

Lily wrote: "But as Ovid writes the story, Phoebus clearly claims his fatherhood of Phaëthon. I don't understand why more is particularly relevant in terms of the story"

There is always the possibility of an "unreliable narrator". The myth existed long before Ovid. But only his version survived intact. It would be interesting to see how his version differs from the original.

Patrice wrote: "About Narcissus, Did it strike anyone else that it is said that Narcissus will only live to old age if he does NOT know himself?"

I find both the myth and Dali's interpretation fascinating. Did anyone read Freud's treatise "On Narcissism"?

Patrice wrote: "I think you may be referring to what I said. I don't mind the titles...."

I'd have to go back through the posts, but I thought it was a couple of people back and forth roughly agreeing and discussing the topic. Whatever,..., just my adding my reactions and my difficulties with following the flow, especially in Book II, so needing all the help available.

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I don't think they would have passed a DNA test,..."

LOL! I don't believe immortality was a inevitable privilege of having been conceived by a god."

No, it was not. In most (almost all?) cases, children of a god and a mortal are mortal.