Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The last book. Usually a time we look to wrap up a discussion, to pull things together, to bring closure to the discussion of the various themes of the work.

But here -- is there any unifying theme or themes we can discuss, other than the obvious one of changes?

One thing I think it's safe to say: Ovid was not exaggerating when he said

"immortal is the name I leave behind;
wherever Roman governance extends
over the subject nations of the world,
my words will be upon the people's lips,
and if there is truth in poets' prophesies,
then in my fame forever I will live."
[Martin translation]

His words have certainly endured, not only in his own work but in hundreds -- it's probably safe to say thousands -- of derivative works, drama, philosophy, literature, psychology, art, music, sculpture...

Is that enough of a theme?

Everyman wrote: "Is that enough of a theme?..."

[g] I suspect so for Ovid.

So is this what eternity is about for humans that hold the gods in question?

Versus (Catacombs of Paris):
http://monicadonovan.com/blog/wp-cont...

Or all that survives with or without metamorphosis through individual anonymous lives, whether a gargoyle high on a cathedral or a process for accounting or a DNA thread?

PS -- See also the last minutes of this, brought to our attention elsewhere by Roger on this board:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmayC...

Lily wrote: "[g] I suspect so for Ovid.

So is this what eternity is about for humans that hold the gods in question?"

Given what he wrote about metamorphoses, you really have to wonder in what "form" did Ovid envision himself to live forever.

Was he paraphrasing Cicero, "The life of the dead is set in the memory of the living"?

Nemo wrote: "...Was he paraphrasing Cicero, "The life of the dead is set in the memory of the living"? ..."

Good insight/possibility. Thx for that, Nemo.

In the words of the bumper sticker, where sometimes more wisdom can be found than in a yard of library shelves, the only constant in life is change. Is there a single main character in Ovid who is left at the end of his or her little walk across the page unchanged, able to return to the life he or she was living before Ovid grabbed them by the collar and wrote them into immortality?

If not, then how can any of us not also be changed, metamorphosed, from reading Ovid?

Everyman wrote: "In the words of the bumper sticker, where sometimes more wisdom can be found than in a yard of library shelves, the only constant in life is change. Is there a single main character in Ovid who is..."

As you noted somewhere else, Ovid's characters maintain their identity during and after the metamorphoses. So something there doesn't change.

We observe change only because we use something that doesn't change as a reference, the constant apart from change. (At least that's what I learned from Physics 101 :) )

"I'm not driving fast, but flying low" --a bumper sticker I saw more than ten years ago, when the driver "flew" past me on the highway.

For those interested in playing further with the significance of Ovid and the stories of the gods told by him and others, let me suggest Roberto Calasso's Literature and the Gods. In a sense, this entire book of ~190 pages of text could be considered a statement of the meaning and significance of Ovid's Metamorphoses.

Often almost too erudite, Calasso opens with "The gods are fugitive guests of literature. They cross it with the trail of their names and are soon gone. Every time the writer sets down a word, he must fight to win them back. The mercurial quality that heralds their appearance is token also of their evanescence..."

Then he rather turns the argument he seemed to be developing on its head...."It wasn't always thus. At least not so long as we had a liturgy. The weave of word and gesture, that aura of controlled destruction, that use of certain materials rather than others: this gratified the gods, so long as men chose to turn to them....Uprooted from their soil and exposed, in the vibration of the word, to the harsh light of day, they [the gods] frequently seemed idle and impudent...."

Then, from p. 192, "Literature is never the product of a single subject. There are always at least three actors: the hand that writes, the voice that speaks, the god who watches over and compels...."

His The Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony may be easier to find in your library system.

Lily wrote: "For those interested in playing further with the significance of Ovid and the stories of the gods told by him and others, let me suggest Roberto Calasso's Literature and the Gods. In a sense, this..."

Thanks for the recommendations, Lily. Added them to my TBR.

I have to admit, though, my immediate reaction to the paragraphs you quoted above was like the first GR reviewer, "What on earth is it saying?" :) The two Amazon reviews of "Literature and the Gods" are more helpful.

Nemo wrote: "...The two Amazon reviews of "Literature and the Gods" are more helpful...."

(See @10 for link.) [g] Thanks, Nemo!

Nemo wrote: "As you noted somewhere else, Ovid's characters maintain their identity during and after the metamorphoses. So something there doesn't change. "

Perhaps, then, the form changes but the soul remains intact?

Of all the advice Pythagoras may have given king Numa Ovid choses to select a long warning against the consumption of meat and the idea that everything changes. The first seems to come (at last) directly from the (Ovid's) heart. The second is an attractive poetical truth: nothing is for ever, it all falls apart, still nothing will get lost. But even this is made fun of when Pythagoras remembers his part in the Trojan war.

Next, after a long digression on nature's freak phenomena and the story of Asclepius migration to Rome, we reach the ascension of Caesar's soul: Above the moon it mounted into heaven, leaving behind a long and fiery trail, and as a star it glittered in the sky. Sure, but what is Caesar compared to Augustus? In fact being the latter's (adoptive) father must be his strongest claim to fame.

Was it more glorious for him to subdue the Britons guarded by their sheltering sea or lead his fleet victorious up the stream seven mouthed of the papyrus hearing Nile; to bring beneath the Roman people s rule rebel Numidia, Libyan Juba, and strong Pontus, proud of Mithridates' fame; to have some triumphs and deserve far more; than to be father of so great a man, with whom as ruler of the human race, O gods, you bless us past all reckoning?

This is far over the top and may have embarrassed the new dictator. Especially when the logic of Book 15, and probably all of the Metamorphoses, indicates that Augustus, and eventually Rome itself, will be just as impermanent as all that went before it. The only thing that will survive is literature - and the reputation of the greatest poets. Ovid will outshine Augustus. Well, maybe he did.

Wendel wrote: "Was it more glorious for him ...to have some triumphs and deserve far more; than to be father of so great a man, with whom as ruler of the human race?"

Considering that the human race and their rulers arose from stones, there is nothing more glorious about being a father than being a stone.

What a jest did Ovid make of this whole thing!

OK, time to wind things up. Some readers admire Ovid as a storyteller, while deploring a certain lack of substance. Such at least are the feelings of Kevin McCabe in his 1996 dissertation on "Religion and Morality in Ovid" *:
It is, however, not its intellectual or moral qualities, but its artistic qualities which raise the work of Ovid above the level of the mere best-seller. ... His devotion to the poetic art allowed him to subordinate sensuality to art without impairing either. The result is a rich 'verbal opera', a pageant of gorgeous imagery but limited involvement." (441).

But is it really a drawback for a work of art to be 'just' a thing of beauty? Something shallow like, say, Michelangelo's David? If McCabe regrets that Ovid is not a philosopher, than maybe he should be reading Plato instead. And what, I wonder, is exactly the profundity of say, Virgil, that is lacking here? Moreover, McCabe reminds me of someone complaining that Picasso's models are unrecognisable. Since Duchamp's Fountain it should be clear that art is a bit more difficult to pinpoint than philosophy. And is it possible - in 1996 - to write on Ovid neglecting the tough questions raised by modern art?

This brings us to Ovid's 'modernity'. He is clearly an ironic writer, questioning things without providing much of an answer. What is the nature of the gods, of violence, of sex, of Rome? In his 'superficial' Metamorphoses Ovid does not teach us a conventional lesson, instead he makes things often less clear than they seemed before. If that is 'modern', than he is just that. However, to understand Ovid as a - very - early modernist obviously won't do. He was indeed first of all a teller of unforgettable stories - and yet, there is more to his enduring popularity than adroit technique alone.

Perhaps Katharina Volk** touches on something essential when she writes
In Ovid’s universe, art goes a long way. Visual and verbal artists create their own worlds that improve on nature, while ordinary men and women through conscious deception and self-deception are able to shape reality in ways that make it more livable. Perhaps there are no gods; perhaps there is no letter in the mail; perhaps our lover is neither overwhelmingly beautiful nor particularly faithful; perhaps, to tell the truth, we are not all that much in love ourselves. However – and this is Ovid’s provocative challenge – why don’t we just pretend that all these things are true? Wouldn’t the world be a better place? And who knows? Perhaps like Pygmalion, we will find in the end that our creations have in fact come to life. (80).

* http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/do/... -this seems about the most positive thing McCabe has to say, but I read only his conclusion
** K. Volk, Ovid

Wendel wrote: "This brings us to Ovid's 'modernity'. He is clearly an ironic writer, questioning things without providing much of an answer. "

That is, for me, an unusual use of ironic. I see him rather as the 5th Century BC equivalent of the Grimm Brothers or Hans Anderson, collecting and retelling traditional tales without any sense that there is a need to interpret or evaluate. He leaves it, I think, up to the reader to draw lessons from the myths (which to him perhaps weren't myths but history).

Everyman wrote: "Wendel wrote: "This brings us to Ovid's 'modernity'. He is clearly an ironic writer, questioning things without providing much of an answer. "

That is, for me, an unusual use of ironic. I see him..."

Ovid reminds me more of a modern day Dawkins or Hitchens. [g] Written partly with tongue in cheek.

Everyman wrote: "Wendel wrote: "This brings us to Ovid's 'modernity'. He is clearly an ironic writer, questioning things without providing much of an answer. "

That is, for me, an unusual use of ironic. I see him..."

I think Ovid is ironic in that he says one thing but means another, though sometimes this appears to me more cynicism than irony. He satirizes the great epics of his time and he ends by satirizing the Emperor. I even wonder if he doesn't finally satirize himself as well. After going on for so long about universal mutability, he concludes by saying that his work will live on untouched by time. A straight forward interpretation just doesn't work here. Something is askew.

"...After going on for so long about universal mutability, he concludes by saying that his work will live on untouched by time..."

Good catch, Thomas! Thx for the insight.

I think I have to revise my thoughts a little after reading Italo Calvino's observations in "Ovid and Universal Contiguity" (included in the Norton Critical edition.)

It could be that Ovid really does believe that his work will live on, but not necessarily in the same form, like the creatures that are reincarnated in Pythagorus' speech, or any of the metamorphoses that he recounts. (Ovid burned the manuscript of Metamorphoses when he learned of his banishment, which might say something about his thoughts on permanence and impermanence.)

What I was missing is that there is still continuity --which is a kind of permanence, though the form changes. Calvino puts it this way:

With the cosmogonical account in Book 1 and Pythagoras's profession of faith in the last book, Ovid attempted to endow this philosophy of nature with a theoretical system, perhaps in competition with his remote predecessor Lucretius. A lot has been argued about what weight to give these pronouncements, but maybe the only thing that counts for us is the poetic coherence of Ovid's way of expressing his world: this swarm and tangle of events that are often similar yet always different, in which he celebrates the continutity and mobility of all that is.

Ovid's 'irony' remains intriguing. I don't mean the sarcasm towards the emperor or the satisfaction with his own schievements, but his relaxed attitude towards the gods and their morals. For a Roman man of letters it may have been rather common to expect more enlightenment from dabbling in Greek philosophy than from the myths. Still I mistrust any explanation that sounds too modern - including my own suggestion to see Ovid's irony as a way to 'question' traditional values.

Nor do I expect philosophy will really clear things up. Some knowledge of Ovid's philosophical interests certainly will help, just as a better insight in the role of religion in the first century bC. But to understand Ovid we must first of all understand the literary context. That was what really mattered to him. If Virgil could gain fame with historical fiction on Rome's early history, than Ovid would outdo him with a literary history of the world. Could the lightness of his tone be an implicit mocking of Virgil's more laborious effort?

A few things to think about, but reading Ovid's other work might be the best way to get a better understanding of the Metamorphoses. Not an unpleasant prospect at all - I think I will start with the Heroides (a must-read for any Roman or modern woman-of-letters - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroides).

What to say in summary about this read is still a struggle. Since I certainly championed this read, I feel a more than usual obligation.

Let me try a few possibilities:

1. Metamorphoses turned out to be less an encyclopedia of myths than expected.
2. The whole concept of shape-shifting, first probably brought vividly to my consciousness in The Skriker by Caryl Churchill, was totally implanted by Ovid's litany of changes throughout.
3. The lightness, the irony, the satire was greater than expected. Will continue to ponder their significance/meaning.
4. Although many of the myths were familiar, as expected, others were learned and some barely recognized, like Pyramus, Thisbe, and the mulberry bush, suddenly seemed to be everywhere.
5. The allusions to myths not developed are still largely lost to me, but beckon the possibility of an eventual reread.
6. A surprising amount was linked to the epics of Homer.
7. Hesiod is another recorder of ancient myths.
8. Am very glad to have made this read and hope others are or will be, too. Its value well may grow for us over time.

Lily wrote: "What to say in summary about this read is still a struggle. Since I certainly championed this read, I feel a more than usual obligation.

Let me try a few possibilities:

1. Metamorphoses turned o..."

I'm also glad to have made the read, which I first made at least 20 years ago. Nice to revisit Ovid after having more background in his life and times.

What struck me was his ability to seamlessly weave the myths together, using a character or characters from one myth to introduce the next in a way that felt to me quite natural, almost never forced.

This final chapter gives me the sense that Ovid pulled the theme of the poem together, though I'm not sure that I can articulate it very well here. It's the piece about Pythagoras that I'm guessing is the key to Ovid's overall theme - Metamorphoses, change. My thinking has something to do with his introduction of Pythagoras, who according to Wikipedia was a philosopher (among other things) who lived around 500 BC, and who believed in reincarnation which is why he doesn't think animals should be killed or eaten.

Isn't Pythagoras the first person mentioned who is actually a real person? Why did Ovid select Pythagoras rather than Socrates or Plato? I suspect it may be because Pythagoras' religious belief in reincarnation fits well with all of the transformations that take place within the poem. What I interpret Ovid as saying is that changes are everywhere: in the stages in life, in birth, death, and reincarnation, and that we are all immortal through the survival of our soul and the doctrine of reincarnation. This makes us very much like the "gods".

I've tremendously enjoyed reading this poem in spite of mythology being a completely foreign subject to me. I definitely want to re-read this book after studying more about the subject. Reading everyone's notes and thoughts has been an enriching experience for me. Thank you, all.

Elizabeth wrote: "This final chapter gives me the sense that Ovid pulled the theme of the poem together, though I'm not sure that I can articulate it very well here. It's the piece about Pythagoras that I'm guessin..."

Pythagoras was a fascinating person and philosopher. But I don't associate him with change any more than any other Greek -- Heraclites is the Greek I associate most with change -- his basic philosophy was that the universe is always in a state of change and flux -- his famous quip being that you can never step in the same river twice (the water is always changing, and so it's always a different river even if we think of it as a constant or the same river).

We actually have very little direct evidence of Pythagoras or his teachings, it all comes basically from his followers as the school of Pythagoras. It was Xenophanes who said he believed in the transmigration of souls, which may well be true but we have no direct evidence either way. Still, if the Romans believed that, it would support your theory that that was part of his appeal to Ovid as a closing character.

I'm glad you enjoyed the read, and hope you'll be with us also for War and Peace.