[TALK] [DAY] [FACT] [STORY] [PLAN] [IDEA] [NAF]
Prove it With a Story
Ovid, Euripides, and their commentary
Nicholas Allen Freeman
November, 1992
And all were moved by the marvel of the story/Except Pirithous. "These are fairy tales;/The gods have no such powers, Achelous,/To give and take away the shapes of things."/ No one approved his words, and the old man, Lelex,/Mature in mind as well as years, rebuked him:/"The power of Heaven has no bound or limit./Whatever the gods will is done, believe it./I can prove it with a story."(Ovid, p. 200)
Why have individuals, since literally the beginning of recorded history, created works of fiction, transcriptions of worlds somewhat removed from their day-to-day reality? In all but a highly personalized sense any answers would be presumptuous, for in most cases all that remains of an author's thought is the work itself. By examining those works, and comparing their content to larger bodies of knowledge, many have come up with detailed analyses of not just what the author was saying in a work, but why supposedly it was said, and how that motive reflected upon the world and culture that spawned it. Such analyses usually boil down to two categories of motivation: descriptive - how things are, and prescriptive - how things should be. And, in the case of Ovid's [Metamorphoses], and the play [Hecabe] by Euripides, such categorization, and the degrees to which it applies in each work, can offer much insight not only into both the Roman and Greek societies, but the role that commentary played in each, and how, more often than not, unorthodox opinions could only be expressed within the veiled realm of fiction.
Commentary can take many forms, and for the sake of this analysis comment on speech, persuasion and political control will be considered, for such categories easily lead to larger issues. Greek society was traditionally highly permissive of commentary in these three areas, due in large part to its political organization. City-states such as Athens not only had democratic assemblies where individuals could voice their opinions and provoke results - provided their rhetorical faculties of logic and persuasion were strong enough to sway the polis - but cherished the tradition of epic poets and playwrights, offering extensive, politically supported forums for the presentation and reward of fine fictions, as events such as the Great Dionysia attest to.
Rome, on the other hand, was far less supportive of the role of the author, particularly after its transition from a republic benefiting the moneyed minority, to a tyranny under rulers such as Augustus, heir to Caesar's glory and infamy. Even though Rome borrowed much from the Greek tradition, Rhetoric, particularly the free expression of ideas that flourished under Athens, had to alter its form under tyrants, lest it be distinguished all together, save for praise of the powers that were. Thus, speech was curtailed, made to conform to legislation such as the Julien Laws - which prohibited libelous and slanderous speech, that is, speech critical of the emperor and the culture he embraced - and persuasion of the masses moved from the senate floor to the lines of poems and plays. These initial facts should be kept in mind during the following analysis, for they without doubt effected the commentary of Euripides and Ovid respectively.
Many similarities exist between the commentary of Euripides and Ovid, and the most glaring is their use of mythological characters, predominately gods and prominent "historical" figures - the exploits of which are exaggerated with little abandon. Both furthermore concentrated on Greek mythology, which was to be expect for Euripides, but is highly interesting in Ovid's case, since Greek thought and culture, although highly appropriated by the Romans, was in no way accepted officially as beneficial. The Romans desperately wanted to see themselves as superior, not really needing Greek slaves to teach them, but just humoring their "impractical" philosophies. This is reflected in Cato's comment, that "the better a man speaks Greek, the more of a rascal he becomes." Regardless, the Romans "borrowed" the Greek mythology, renamed the prominent deities, all the while sneering at that Greek. Ovid's use of Greek myth therefore is understandable, but may suggest a deeper motive - namely of confronting this Roman hypocrisy, a theory which will be discussed later.
Each author's use of myth is also very similar. Euripides and Ovid "humanized" their characters, gods included, as a form of commentary, which in both cases was contrary to "proper" tradition. In Euripides' time the problem of tradition was reflected in the Sophist-spawned creation of the categories of Nomos and Physis, in order to explain the way things are. Nomos - the traditional, be it religion, law, or culture in general - was seen as created by man, while Physis was the never-changing essence of that natural, the postulates that no one questioned due to their "obviousness". Such distinctions were highly contested - going so far as to provoke neo-traditionalists such as Plato to shun Sophistic thought and "rhetoric" altogether - but nethertheless had a profound effect upon Greek speech, and therefore politics, due to the rhetorical nature of governmental functions. Euripides, particularly in the [Hecabe], written during the Nomos/Physis debate, comments specifically on such questions. Take this excerpt for example, coming from Hecabe, who at this point in the work represented the point of view of the traditionalists:
Yet now you scheme these cowardly plots against me... repaying good with the worst evil in your power!/You are a low and loathsome breed, all you who grasp/At popular honours! who without a thought betray/Your friends, for one phrase that will gratify a mob!(p. 70)
In this passage Hecabe's disrespect for Sophistic persuasion is clear, ("gratify a mob", "grasp at popular honors," both common arguments against Sophists) because it goes against Nomos, ("betray your friends"), by not "repaying good" with good, that is, justice. She makes similar statements throughout the play, as the death of Polyxena occurs even with her pleading, as she confronts the betrayal of her "guest-friend" Polymestor, and finds that nomos-backed persuasion no longer sways those in power, in this case, Agamemnon. Eventually, as per myth, Hecabe reverts to an animalistic nature, giving up nomos for more expedient means of persuasion, namely through force. She goes around conventional justice (Agamemnon), seeks her own revenge, and is successful, but in the end receives punishment, foretold by an oracle, that is, the gods/nomos/what have you. Such punishment suggests that Euripides, although admitting the Nomos/Physis distinction by having his characters reflect it though their actions, still believes that traditional beliefs will win out in the end, that all must bow before the Gods.
Through adapting the myth in order to reflect the "current" issues Greeks faced, Euripides found a powerful way to comment upon his society, particularly in the realms of persuasion and how it related to Nomos, in both the realms of cultural tradition and political functioning. And because of the aforementioned makeup of Greek society, his commentary was allowed to be presented openly, allowing for debate on either side of the issue. He had the option to present his view - that speech and persuasion changes negatively during periods of power stratification such as war - in any format he saw fit, and a play structure allowed for the use of myth to accentuate his point.
Ovid, on the other hand, did not have such a choice. Since Rome under Augustus was tyrannical, particularly when it came to free expression, commentary was regulated to the realm of allusion and innuendo. That which could not be said aloud, due to fear of severe punishment, be it banishment or death, was therefore hidden in literature, in plays, so that the message could be transferred to the public without the knowledge of the emperor. Many poems, the [Metamorphoses] not withstanding, would openly praise the reining leader, hoping either to distract attention from any objectionable matter within the work, or perhaps to exonerate the author for his opinions. In Ovid's case, this praise of Augustus, when taken along with the content of the work, appears to be a severe condemnation of the ruler and the precepts he championed, be they governmental or cultural. This criticism is understandably vague, but nethertheless inherent in Ovid's presentation, and takes little effort to bring to light.
Augustus' main ideological tenant was the return to "tradition", to the greatness of the former republic, along with its moral values. His strengthening of the military, creation of legislation such as the Julien Laws, and overall conception of "Pax Augusta", was expected to be reflected in the literature of the time, and since persuasionary rhetoric - with its suasorias and controversias filled with polished words but dull logic - was strictly curtailed, commentary against the party line was regulated to fiction. Ovid's work attacks the Augustian view in three significant ways: 1) by subverting traditional morality through a "humanization" of the gods, and through the overall presentation of the myths, 2) by pronouncing the inevitability of change, often with no visible plan, and 3) by highlighting the merit of Greek thought and culture, culminating with Pythagoras.
The most obvious attack was that on traditional morality. Jove is an unabashed adulterer, as is most of the pantheon, including the females. The gods exhibit not only the expected virtues of honor, justice and love, but jealousy, hate and lust, often more so than the mortals, who become mere pawns in their power plays. Traditional conceptions of what roles individuals should take are overturned - for example, in the story of Caunus and Byblis, sister lusts after brother, and instead of decrying the feelings, pursues him all throughout the world, justifying her actions by citing the gods ("the gods have had their sisters") and animalistic tendencies. Similar reversals of "proper" behavior abound - Myrrha conspires to bed her father, Cinyras, and is punished, but nethertheless gives birth to a beautiful child, Adonis; Prochne feeds Tereus his son surreptitiously, in retribution of his rape of her sister Philomena; the list goes on ad nauseam. In each case, along with the less morally corrupt retellings, such actions are accompanied by a metamorphosis, either into a god or god-like form, or into a plant or animal. This can be seen as a comment on the superiority of power as a form of persuasion - something bad is done, and those with influence (the gods/Augustus) force the transgressors to comply by literally shaping them. It also can be seen either as simply punishment or acquittal, punishment in the sense that the change often is final, as it the lost of humanity, acquittal in the sense that life still goes on, be it in Hades or in nature, no matter how heinous the crime. Taken along with the fact that during such metamorphoses speech is usually the last human element to go, and usually the most regretted, Ovid seems to be commenting not only on the impermanent nature of any aspect of life, be it moral or otherwise - this shows up most prominently in the penultimate Pythagorean section - but about how speech is one of the few gifts man can truly call his own, and its loss, by the hand of deities or tyrants such as Augustus, is often a fate worse than death. The overall nature of the work, one recited story after another, supports this view of the importance of speech - through it all wisdom comes.
It also should be noted that since Greek thought was frowned upon by Roman power, Ovid's emphasis upon it - through structure and content, and his forsaking of Roman life, save for the last book - indicates a rather heretical view. He could have commented on his day by using Roman figures, such as Lucan did in [The Civil War], and still have made the majority of his points, save one - that Roman thought, Roman life, Roman politics, are not necessarily the pinnacle of human achievement, no matter what Augustus or anyone else wanted to think. His concentration on that Greek reflects this, as does his prominent showcasing of Pythagoras, and his belief in constant flux - and therefore in the inevitable fall of empires, implicating Rome's demise; in the necessity to respect all life, because of the permanence of spirit, and the many forms it may take; and most importantly, in the futility in false worship ("Why do you tremble/at Stygian rivers, shadows, empty names,/the lying stock of poets, and the terrors/Of a false world?"), thereby questioning the veracity of all myth, including Ovid's own work. The subsequent deification of Caesar and Augustus, and the praise latent in that act, in light of this turns instead to the highest insult - Augustus becoming the finest representative of "a false world".
Ovid's message did get across, at least to Augustus, for he was exiled. But that is the risk that the commentator takes, be his realm that of political advisor, playwright or poet. Both Euripides and Ovid successfully commented upon the role of speech and persuasion that comes from it, both adjusted their presentation of their ideas to the society that they inhabited, be it permissive or restraining, and both will be remembered not only for the integrity of their works, but for the way they truly used story to inform and persuade, to "prove", as Lelex in the epigraph so boldly claimed the ability to do. Such words, as Ovid so rightly proclaimed, "will endure/, I trust, beyond Jove's anger, fire and sword,/Beyond Time's hunger." Their prominence today only supports this assertion.
Note: See [antizine] for my take on one of Ovid's myths (and my attempt to replicate his project for the modern world).
[INSIDE] [SEE STUFF] [SEE THINGS] [SEE JUNK] [OUTSIDE]