Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Did somebody mention, a while back, Shakespeare and Ovid? Anybody recognize one of the most famous of Shakespeare's uses from Ovid in this Book?

Lots of good stories here. And also, much good advice for young (and even old) Greeks and Romans?

Shall we all gather at Ninny's tomb?

The story of Vulcan using the net to catch Venus and Mars in bed together has haunted me since I first read the passage a week ago. I'd read a scene EXACTLY THE SAME some time ago and it was killing me trying to remember where I'd read it. I knew it had something to do with King Arthur but I went through an Arthurian adaption phase a while ago so that was little help. Today, I decided to tear apart my room to find that passage and 2 hours later am victorious!

In Edison Marshall's The Pagan King (1959), King Artay (Arthur) of Britain is told that his new wife, Wander (who is supposed to be Guinevere) is having an affair so he lays the net as a trap to catch and humiliate them. It turns out that Wander was sleeping with Prince Modred.

The whole book is pretty much Arthur being exasperated by the Romans left behind in Britain, so when one of the generals brings up that Vulcan had done the same to Venus and Mars, Arthur thinks to himself that if he'd known the story he wouldn't have done it that way.

Sorry it was a little off topic but this has been bothering me for a week now. I always like to see more modern authors using references to classics in their work.

tysephine wrote: "The story of Vulcan using the net to catch Venus and Mars in bed together has haunted me since I first read the passage a week ago. I'd read a scene EXACTLY THE SAME some time ago and it was killin..."

This story also occurs in the Odyssey. (Is Homer's the earliest version? I would suspect so, but I'm not sure...) Books 4 and 5 borrow a lot from the Odyssey, especially the parts about Persus.

Patrice, post 6, asks where in the east Thisbe is from. Ninus's tomb would be in Assyria, roughly Syria today.

I'm really struggling with Book IV. I've probably read it about three times now and keep looking for the lesson. Sadly, just about the time I think I'm onto something, Ovid brings in new names, which sometimes are new persons, but other times are the same person with a different name. My head is spinning! I think I said this in a previous post!. I'm not sure that I should have take this on without some prior knowledge of mythology.

I definitely couldn't get along without the subtitles, and I like that threads go from one subtitle to the next, it seems to make the reading easier.

It seems that not matter the subtitle, we always see gods behaving badly (my opinion, of course). The gods each have their own powers, and there doesn't seem to be any instances of them using power in kind and compassionate ways; they always seem to be abusers of power, using them to gain revenge, or an advantage.

I would think that the Romans of Ovid's time would have thought of these myths as "proof" that gods, and maybe Rome's leaders, as abusive, and to be feared. On the other hand, since the myths were created before Ovid's time maybe the gods represent the power(s) in nature: sun, fire, water, the need to reproduce in order to sustain the species; and the character traits in humans: envy, jealousy, lust, revenge, etc.

Maybe the lesson(s) of the poem and the lesson(s) of Ovid, in a very broad sense, point to the bad behavior and victimization of the less powerful. What lessons and/or purpose of the poem am I missing that you see?

When you have multiple flawed gods each out for himself, there is no unifying theme, no lesson. It's all chance, depending on the caprice of the gods.

Ovid appears to be re-telling Greek myth, and in a way that I take to be more entertainment than scripture. His was a culture in which living men were sometimes declared gods -- or in Augustus' case, for his father be declared a god so that Augustus could be the "son of god." Religion was, shall we say, flexible.

I'm not sure that ancient religion is moralistic at all, and looking for moral guidance as moderns do in the Bible or the Koran might be a lost cause. My feeling so far is that Metamorphoses is meant more for entertainment than for spiritual enlightenment.

Medusa, is she a tragic figure? From the story as told by Perseus to the Ethiopians it would seem so.

A girl is raped by Neptune in the temple of Minerva, and the victim is punished. However, Ovid makes the reserve, "they say that". The qualification is lacking in Humphries' translation, but in Kline's we read: She was once most beautiful, and the jealous aspiration of many suitors. Of all her beauties none was more admired than her hair: I came across a man who recalled having seen her. They say that Neptune, lord of the seas, violated her in the temple of Minerva.

Does the qualification mean that she was not violated? Or not in the temple, or by someone else? We don't know. The second remarkable thing is that Ovid calls Minerva's revenge "deserved". Now this has dropped out of Kline's text, therefore I continue with Humphries' version: One day Neptune Found her and raped her, in Minerva's temple, And the goddess turned away, and hid her eyes Behind her shield, and, punishing the outrage As it deserved, she changed her hair to serpents.

So the outrage must be punished, but it is not mighty Neptune who is going to take the blame. And this is not the end of her suffering. What can we say about Perseus going after her and chopping off her head? Is this deed justified by her horrendous looks - or the effect she has on others? Or can we find solace in the version told by Berens*, in which Medusa suffers so much from her transformation that death comes as a liberation? Anyway, this is a great but not a very uplifting story.

PS: I do agree with Thomas that Ovid is telling these stories to entertain us. But somehow we can't help thinking about what it could mean - that's how the best literature works.

* http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22381 or http://librivox.org/myths-legends-of-...

Wendel wrote: "...The qualification is lacking in Humphries' translation, but in Kline's we read..."

Sometimes reading different translators is like having a discussion with various readers of a text -- the translation suggests the meaning the translator found and decided worthy of transmitting from the original.

Laurele wrote: "When you have multiple flawed gods each out for himself, there is no unifying theme, no lesson. It's all chance, depending on the caprice of the gods."

Laurele, My thought is that Ovid wrote his poem for a reason. I'm also beginning to suspect that Ovid's version of the gods behavior may have been changed from the 'original' myths. I agree that it's entirely possible that the gods within the myths, and the myths themselves don't have any unifying theme, but surely Ovid took all of this material and organized it in some way to send a message or achieve a purpose. That message, purpose, lesson or whatever it is, is what I'm searching for.

Thomas wrote: "Ovid appears to be re-telling Greek myth, and in a way that I take to be more entertainment than scripture. His was a culture in which living men were sometimes declared gods -- or in Augustus' cas..."

Thomas, I'm beginning to suspect that you are right about Ovid re-telling myths. I may have picked up clues in the introduction and all of the threads within this discussion group. I did a little digging for a book on mythology that I read as a child: "Heroes, or Greek Fairy Tales for My Children" by Charles Kingsley, written about 1890 and found differences in at least one myth.


here's a link to the free kindle version on the Guttenberg Project site: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/677.

I didn't expect to find scripture within either the myths in their 'original' form, nor in Ovid's poem, but I did and do expect to find 'truths'. The truths that I'm finding are something like: don't do what these guys did!

For a book that has lasted over 2000 years and is a classic and/or part of the Western Canon, I will be extremely disappointed if I'm not informed or enlightened in some way.

Wendel wrote: "PS: I do agree with Thomas that Ovid is telling these stories to entertain us. But somehow we can't help thinking about what it could mean - that's how the best literature works.

* http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22381 or http://librivox.org/myths-legends-of-...
..."

Wendel, I just downloaded the free Kindle version from Gutenberg.org and looked at the table of contents. The names of the gods are categorized into groups which I am sure that I will find very helpful. Thank you. I did notice that Bacchus wasn't on the list and yet Ovid has the three sisters telling stories while avoiding Bacchus' celebration. Is he in the book, but just not important enough to list?

Elizabeth wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Ovid appears to be re-telling Greek myth, and in a way that I take to be more entertainment than scripture. His was a culture in which living men were sometimes declared gods -- or i..."

The Latin roots of the word "entertain" (inter- inter, tenēre to hold) means literally, to hold mutually. What entertains us also holds us in its grasp, and vice versa. There is "truth" in those entertaining myths, partly because, like Narcissus, we are held fast by our own reflection. I think that's why Ovid attained "immortality" as he himself predicted at the end of his book. As long as human nature doesn't change, in spite of all the metamorphoses, he shall live on in those stories.

Elizabeth wrote: "...I did notice that Bacchus wasn't on the list and yet Ovid has the three sisters telling stories while avoiding Bacchus' celebration. Is he in the book, but just not important enough to list? ..."

The overlaps in names can drive one nuts when reading mythology. Don't know if it applies in this case, but Dionysus and Bacchus may be used interchangeably.

Finished Campbell's Thou Art That this morning. Among his messages are that myths are very much metaphorical (that is, one kind of object or action is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them ) and that myths perform a mystical function, i.e., a "discovery and recognition of the dimension of the mystery of being."

In a longer passage, he writes "Whether one thinks of the mythology in terms of the affirmation of the world as it is, the negation of the world as it is, or the restoration of the world to what it ought to be, the first function of mythology is to arouse in the mind a sense of awe before this situation through one of three ways of participating in it: by moving out, moving in, or effecting a correction." p3

(He goes on to talk about three other functions of myths, but that discussion doesn't belong here. In fact, I am stretching our conventions of discussion to include the above in this post. Thanks for your indulgence, even if I didn't grant a choice. ;-( )

Nemo wrote: "...There is 'truth' in those entertaining myths, partly because, like Narcissus, we are held fast by our own reflection...."

Like that! (The Narcissus myth has always been one of the more memorable ones to me, perhaps partly because the flower is one deer will leave alone, although the mythic flower may not be the same as the one of our modern gardens. Yes, non sequitur.) It is rather as if these myths provide one of the fantastical ways of looking at the shape-shifting realities of the awesomeness of being human in this vast universe. Mythic gods may no longer explain, but they allow us to pretend, to hide behind outrageous masks, to indulge our imaginations, even to comprehend.

Elizabeth wrote: "I did notice that Bacchus wasn't on the list ....."

But he is, you'll find him among the Sea Divinities. Don't know why he is not placed with the Olympians (nor are Ares/Mars and Hermes/Mercurius btw).

It's an old book, but I find it still useful, especially for the lesser deities, the festivals etc. Funny how Jupiter is 'marrying' new girls all the time ...

Wendel wrote: "... http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22381 ..."

Wendel -- thx for this link! Actually the first Gutenberg text I've been successful in accessing via a Kindle application. Maybe now I could even transfer it to the device itself, rather than needing to read here on the screen.

Myths and Legends of Ancient Greece and Rome by E.M. Berens

Patrice wrote: "Since Ovid was a follower of Lucretius, his philosophy was "eat drink and be merry".."

Hm, there is no proof that Ovid was an Epicurean - as far as I know. I wonder whether Ovid really had much philosophical interest. Moreover, as I understand it, the Epicurean way means serious business, having more to do with finding a sustainable balance than with "eat drink and be merry".

I imagine Epicurus would have frowned on his literary ambitions, while Ovid's preoccupation with carnality certainly does not seem in line with Lucretius' low opinion of the same. They would have agreed though, that it is not a good idea to put the soul in opposition to the body.

Nemo wrote: "There is "truth" in those entertaining myths, partly because, like Narcissus, we are held fast by our own reflection. I think that's why Ovid attained "immortality" as he himself predicted at the end of his book. "

Nicely put. The gods in many ways seem to be be humans writ large, magnified and distorted, but still very human. It is often to those qualities, for better or worse, that our eyes and ears are drawn. As I read Ovid I think of summer movies -- superhero stories and over-the-top thrillers. Except in Ovid, Superman sometimes gets turned into a toad, making him somewhat conspicuous in the Daily Planet newsroom.

Wendel wrote: "A girl is raped by Neptune in the temple of Minerva, and the victim is punished. However, Ovid makes the reserve, "they say that". ..."

Is that reservation there because Perseus is himself telling the story of his heroism?

And then he told more stories, just as true,
of lands and seas he'd seen from high above,
and of the stars his wings had whisked him past...

I just wonder if Ovid isn't showing Perseus' cards a little there, especially when it is followed by a description of his prowess in battle that in places is lifted straight out of the Odyssey.

Nemo wrote: The Latin roots of the word "entertain" (inter- inter, tenēre to hold) means literally, to hold mutually. What entertains us also holds us in its grasp, and vice versa. There is "truth" in those entertaining myths, partly because, like Narcissus, we are held fast by our own reflection...."

Wow, I sure like the definition. I'll have to think about why I considered entertainment as frivolous, or just passing time. Thank you.

Elizabeth wrote: "I'll have to think about why I considered entertainment as frivolous, or just passing time. ..."

Our discussion about "entertainment" reminds me of Leo Tolstoy's essay "Why do Men Stupefy Themselves". There is no such thing as "recreational drug" or "smoking for fun", Tolstoy argues. People smoke tobacco and take drugs to their own detriment because those things have a hold on them. In view of this definition, he has a valid point.

Thomas wrote: "Except in Ovid, Superman sometimes gets turned into a toad, making him somewhat conspicuous in the Daily Planet newsroom."

and ladies are lined up to kiss the toad. I wonder why nobody cares about Kafka's insect?

Lily wrote: "Mythic gods may no longer explain, but they allow us to pretend, to hide behind outrageous masks, to indulge our imaginations, even to comprehend."

You must have a poetic streak. :)

The Narcissus myth makes me wonder whether it is possible to "know thyself", to comprehend. The image of him vainly grasping for his reflection stuck.

Nemo wrote: "The Narcissus myth makes me wonder whether it is possible to "know thyself", to comprehend. The image of him vainly grasping for his reflection stuck...."

Nemo -- I'll be flippant -- of course, we never comprehend. Perhaps occasionally, we weep our tears into the pool and are reborn as flowers that reflect the sun -- and aren't eaten by the deer. But flowers that do not scan the galaxies either.

This my be a silly question, but when Pyramus discovers Thisbe's shawl he cries out (quite loudly in some translations) why does she not hear him then?

Ovid doesn't tell us how far away the cave is that Thisbe is hiding in, but it must be far enough that she can't hear Pyramus. If she had heard him, it would have been a far different story. Would it have been a story at all? (Maybe if the lioness were still lurking around the corner?)

I remember wondering the same thing about Romeo and Juliet. Why didn't Romeo check Juliet's pulse, heart beat, breath, body warmth, anything but assuming that she was dead? But then if we were all clear thinkers, there would be no tragedies.

Questions like these very quickly kill stories.

Nemo wrote: "...But then if we were all clear thinkers, there would be no tragedies...."

Nemo -- are you ever the optimist tonight!

Don't know about others, but right now I'm struggling with Ovid about the way I did with The Magic Mountain when in the midst of Naphta/Settembrini discussions -- how much do I care to dig to what level of understanding?

I did do a bit of side-bar reading in my B&N copy regarding the comments of people like Dryden and about the use of Ovid through the centuries, which did encourage keeping on sloughing through the texts -- I do find I need at least two readings from two different translators, though.

Martin is perhaps clearest on this passage:

"Bacchus summoned by his many names and titles:
'Great Thunderer! Sweet Bringer of Release!'
'Child whose father was his second mother!'
'Child torn from woman, and reborn of Jove!' 20
'Unshorn Son of Semele Translated!'
'Lenaeus, Planter of the Genial Grape!'
'Nocturnal Orgiast!' 'Father of Cries!'
'Eleleus!' 'Iacchus!' 'Euhan!'
And by whatever other names unmentioned
Here in our litany belong to you....'"

Martin, Charles (2009-01-31). Metamorphoses: A New Translation (p. 123). Norton. Kindle Edition.

"They burn incense, calling on Bacchus, naming him also Bromius, Lyaeus, son of the thunderbolt, twice born, child of two mothers; they hail him as Nyseus also, Thyoneus of the unshorn locks, Lenaeus, planter of the joy giving vine, Nyctelius, father Eleleus, Iacchus, and Euhan and all the many names besides by which you are known, O Liber, throughout the towns of Greece."

Ovid. Metamorphoses (p. 64). Barnes and Noble Classics. Paperback Edition. Frank Justus Miller, translator. 1916.

"...burning incense, they invoke
Bacchus and also call him Bromius,
Lyaeus, and the twice-born, and the one
who has two mothers, blazing lightning's son--
and Nyseus, and Thyoneus the unshorn,
Lenaeus, and the planter of the vine
that brings such joy, Nyctelius, as well
as father Eleleus, and Euhan, Iacchus,
and all the endless other names you bear,
through town on town in all of Greece, o Liber."

The Metamorphoses of Ovid (p. 109). Harcourt. Mandelbaum translation. 1993.

Lily wrote: "'Bacchus summoned by his many names and titles: ..."

Let's see now. Bacchus is the son of Jupiter and Semele, at least in this telling. "Two mothers" seems to refer to Semele and Jupiter, since when Semele perished after she insisted upon viewing the full glory of Jupiter, Jupiter rescued the unborn Bacchus, sewing him into his thigh. (One could posit "two mothers" referred to alternative stories that ascribe Demeter/Ceres or Persephone as the mother of Bacchus, but as far as I can tell, that is not the intent in Ovid, at least here.)

The Wiki article on Bacchus plays out under his Greek name Dionysus, although this link takes one there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacchus

I found the article quite good, with lots of detail and things like links to thyrsus (fennel stalk often topped with a pine cone and carried by Bacchus and his revelers) and pictures of statues and art works featuring Bacchus. (I like the one of Hermes holding the baby Bacchus -- both for the contrast of Hermes with other adult depictions of Bacchus [e.g., Michelangelo's] and for the baby on Hermes's arm.) The article indicates that Bacchus is the only god born of a mortal mother who became part of the Olympic Pantheon. It also includes literary and psychological references, as well as twice-born and epiphany analogies with Christianity.

But this one god alone seems a deep pit of allusions and linkages. In a sense, he is a fun god to examine because of his associations with essential vitality and primal life forces, as well merry-making, with his darker side slipping into licentiousness.