Part 1
Unlike the written word, pictures are temporally constrained, therefore Titian has chosen the most exciting image from Ovid, framed in line 716 – the minute that Perseus foremost attacks the sea monster. In footings of metabolism, this is one of three tests that Perseus undergoes in his passage from fledgling young person to hero position. Unusually, Ovid ‘s portraiture of the myth is as a subject of “ love ” , reinforced by the subsequent matrimony of Perseus and Andromeda. Titian ‘s version hints non at love, but the lecherousness for, and power of, Perseus over Andromeda in a refiguration of Ovid ‘s myth, influenced, no uncertainty, by the prevalent Renaissance thoughts on the relationship between work forces and adult females[ 2 ]. Furthermore, this image was painted for King Philip II, and possibly sought to excite more than the King ‘s mind[ 3 ]. Finally, Titian ‘s complete skip of Andromeda ‘s parents besides adds to the sexual shiver ; Ovid ‘s inclusion of them adds legitimacy to the love subject.
Ovid makes no reference of Perseus ‘ vesture, but an earlier fresco from Pompeii shows Perseus naked and Andromeda clothed[ 4 ], as does a decorated krater[ 5 ]circa 400BC. This agreements with both Greek and early Roman art, where the original of the heroic nude was the criterion for defining divinities and heroes from mere persons and, as such, was intended to excite the head, non the senses. This refiguration between Ovid and Titian is the most dramatic difference and is due to the response of the myth in the Renaissance.
Despite being temporally constrained, Titian alludes to other events non really captured in the image ; for illustration, he includes coral at the pess of Andromeda, a mention to Perseus ‘ violent death of the Gorgon[ 6 ]; something that Ovid besides describes as portion of the overall myth of Perseus ( 4.740 – 750 ) . Finally, there is no mark of the kibisis incorporating Medusa ‘s caput in the picture ; alternatively Titian embellishes Ovid ‘s reading by presenting Athena ‘s shield on Perseus ‘ left arm.
506 words
Part 2
Ovid ‘s Metamorphosis is a verse form of paradox, in which every idiosyncrasy of the human status is exposed. In pull stringsing myth, Ovid makes usage of point and counterpoint, pulling out togss, which, at first, seem to parallel old narratives, but in the terminal may convey a different message. Is he moralizing, or simply altering the stoping of the narrative to maintain the reader ‘s involvement? From a narrative structural point of view, Metamorphosis is non-linear, despite Ovid ‘s attempts to bridge between the 15 books ; this seems to be at odds with his self-expressed desire to “ whirl me a threadaˆ¦in one uninterrupted verse form ” ( Prologue lines 2-3 ) . However, he counters this with the single myths that are, for the most portion, structured in a additive mode. This essay will analyze the myth of Perseus, which occurs at the terminal of Book 4 and the beginning of Book 5 and is hence, possibly the lone additive component between books so far. Those myths that have preceded it mostly Tell of the lecherousness of the Gods and the consequence that this has on the human objects of their desire. Therefore, the myth of Perseus is something of a watershed, with its focal point on the constructive power of love, instead than the destructive power of lecherousness. The myth, as told by Ovid, follows the formalist narrative construction suggested by Propp[ 7 ], in that Perseus is born of a brotherhood of a person and a divinity, has an absent parent and is forced off from place, through test he defeats mystical oppositions ( the Graeae and Gorgons ) , kills a monster, marries a princess and becomes a male monarch. Therefore, in many ways, this myth parallels those of Heracles, Theseus and Jason[ 8 ]. In peculiar, it tells of Perseus ‘ metabolism from fledgling young person who incapable of protecting his female parent, to a hero who finally does free his female parent of an unwanted, but relentless, suer.
The earliest mention to the myth of Perseus day of the months from about 700 BC[ 9 ]. Surely there is grounds on painted clayware of Perseus both decapitating Medusa ( 520-510 BC )[ 10 ]and liberating Andromeda ( 350-340BC )[ 11 ]. Aristophanes ( 446-386BC ) besides makes reference of parts of the Perseus myth in his Thesmophoriazusae[ 12 ]. Pseudo Apollodorus besides describes the myth of Perseus, albeit in lineation in Book 2, Section 4:1-5[ 13 ]. The description here lacks item, it does non, for case, reference the combat at the nuptials banquet ; merely saying that Perseus turned his antagonists to lapidate utilizing Medusa ‘s caput. However, there is plentifulness of grounds to demo that the complete myth of Perseus, from his construct in a “ shower of gold ” to him by chance killing his gramps was good established by Ovid ‘s clip.
Most versions of the myth start with the impregnation of Danea by Zeus, via the medium of a shower of gold, and travel on to depict the subsequent casting out and sea journey[ 14 ]by the immature Perseus and his female parent. Ovid chooses to do light mention to this ; so, he ignores wholly most mentions to Perseus ‘ early life. There is no obvious ground for this, but possibly Ovid intended this myth to be retold in a mode which emphasis the human, instead than the reverent component and hence he chooses to detach Perseus the influence of the Gods. This theory is borne out by the fact that Ovid besides makes no reference, at this phase, of the “ charming ” elements that Perseus collects to enable him to strike at Medusa with comparative impunity. Clearly, had this portion of the myth non occurred so at that place would hold been no myth, for without the winged sandals lent to him by Mercury, Perseus would ne’er hold been in a place to see Andromeda from on high, allow entirely battle and murder the sea monster and finally, turn the tide of conflict after the Wedding Feast.
This subject of chronological refiguration continues when, other than a brief reference of the usage of Medusa ‘s caput to turn Atlas to lapidate, therefore organizing the Atlas Mountains, Ovid besides chooses to pass on this portion of the myth to a “ spot ” portion. When Perseus is with Atlas in the land of the Hesperides, holding already obtained Medusa ‘s caput, he is beyond the human kingdom and hence, to set excessively much influence on this portion of the myth would be to take away from the human component that Ovid puts at the Centre of his myth. Finally, Ovid makes no reference of Pegasus and Chrysaor jumping from Medusa ‘s cervix ; whilst this may look a minor skip, it does intend that he can non utilize the one practical nexus – Pegasus, to pull together Books 4 and 5 and serves to exemplify how Ovid has chosen to shun additive togss between the myths, ( Pegasus is mentioned in the myth of Minerva and the Muses 5. 256 ) . Therefore far, Ovid has chosen to utilize a really “ wide coppice ” technique and “ rubric over ” of import, but “ charming ” inside informations.
Ovid truly starts his narrative with the deliverance of Andromeda by Perseus, and he makes it really clear on several occasions, get downing with Line 676, that this is to be a narrative about the really human emotion of love, as a counterpoint to the Gods ‘ lecherousness and everything else is accessory to that. He re-emphasis this with his elaborate narrative of the duologue between Perseus and Andromeda ‘s parents, who act about as chaperones, protecting Andromeda ‘s virtuousness that is competently described in Line 681 ; here once more, he illustrates the difference between work forces and Gods. Before he enters into combat with the monster, Perseus recites non merely his recent accomplishments, but besides his direct line of descent to Zeus ( 697-705 ) , about as if reassuring them that there can be merely one result. Given that Ovid has been at strivings to take Perseus from godly influence, this turn is perplexing ; nevertheless, given the rubric of the verse form it may be explained by stepping back taking a instead wider position of the full verse form.
Following a successful result, the myth moves to the scene of the nuptials banquet where eventually, and at the petition of another invitee, we learn how Medusa ‘s caput was obtained. Here, Ovid one time once more moves off from the influence of the Gods ; he smartly “ humanises ” the narrative by holding Perseus state it ( 4.770-802 ) . In making so, Perseus keeps the fabulous component to a lower limit ; he talks of Mount Atlas ( 4.771 ) , non of his competition with Atlas ; he talks non of Athena ‘s shield, but simply a bronze shield ( 4.782 ) , therefore the fabulous elements of the narrative are twice removed – one time by the Teller ( Perseus ) and once more in the narrative. These are but two illustrations of use technique that Ovid on a regular basis employs – that of using known historical or geographical facts to ground the myth in world.
The antithesis of this is when he goes into great item in order to impart world to the myth, for illustration the gruesome inside informations he portrays about the many different ways characters at the nuptials banquet dice. Clearly, there are analogues here with the graphic description of Odysseus ‘ killing Penelope ‘s suers in the Odyssey, ( Book 22 ) . Ovid ‘s usage of Homer does non halt at that place ; there are besides direct analogues to be drawn between his ( Ovid ‘s ) usage of Aeolus to incarcerate the air currents to allow Perseus wing unhampered on his manner place with Homer ‘s usage of Aelous to incarcerate the air currents to enable Odysseus to go safely place in the Odyssey ( Book X ) . Here once more, Ovid manipulates cognition that his coevalss would hold known to impart veracity to his verse form by demoing continuity from the yesteryear.
The apposition between love and lecherousness, God and person, is a repeating motive throughout the verse form and an illustration of two of the many on-going metabolisms ; contrast the destiny of Daphne, who tried to hedge Apollo, with that of Andromeda, who had no option other than to confront her possible chaser, in the signifier of Perseus. Therefore, the myth of Perseus is merely one of the many togss that are interwoven throughout the verse form. In footings of metabolism, there are many illustrations, some more obvious than others, in the myth of Perseus. One occurs three times, and this is the usage of the Medusa ‘s caput to turn first Atlas, so the Wedding Guest battlers and, eventually, Polydectes into rock. Clearly this metabolism is “ supernatural ” and belongs to the kingdom of the Gods. However, the chief focal point of the narrative is the metabolism of Perseus from “ nothing ” to “ hero ” , whilst the apposition of God and homo in the myth is yet another illustration.
Ovid ‘s use of the myth is designed to take, every bit far as possible, the Gods from the narrative. He does this to do this myth a really human narrative, of emotions untouched by the intrigues of the Gods, to demo that if left to their ain devices, worlds are wholly capable of following their fate. However, his “ humanizing ” of the myth of Perseus is slightly distressing, as it runs contrary to what has gone earlier in the verse form. Therefore, at first sight and from a strictly academic point of view, it raises more inquiries than it answers. However, possibly to accommodate what at first position seems contrary, it is necessary to see the myth non merely as a stand-alone narrative, put as portion of a greater – heroic poem verse form ; as merely one of many uninterrupted strands that, together do up the full verse form. This requires the full procedure of metabolism to be viewed non merely as one of alteration, but besides one of antonyms. In making this, the unusual nature of the myth of Perseus as told by Ovid can be seen merely as a metabolism of what he has antecedently given us.
At a straightforward actual degree, Ovid ‘s use adds to the entreaty of Metamorphosis. It need non be read “ academically ” , but merely as an heroic poem verse form, crafted with an exquisite and extended vocabulary – possibly a calculated purpose of Ovid to demo his academic art. What his use does make is to do it possible to read the poem piecemeal.
In drumhead, the myth of Perseus is representative of the poem Metamorphosis. Its narrative is non merely a additive motive, but a series of additive motives that weave in and out of one another, really much like the strands of a rope weave together. Any effort to cut out a peculiar strand to analyze it in isolation simply makes it less representative of the amount of the parts, and besides weakens the amount of the parts. The myth can be read without much idea merely as a literary work in which good finally triumphs over evil – merely as for illustration, the Harry Potter books today ; structurally, the two bear great similarity. Possibly on a different rational degree, it can besides be read as an allegorical work, adopting such qualities as self-reformation by confronting danger and suppressing fright.
Barthes goes on to specify a semiotic system for the apprehension of myth. Blending together the Hegelian dialectic with Saussurean semiologies, he arrives at a tri-level theoretical account for the semiotic of the myth. At the first degree, forms ( words ) and senses ( significances ) join together to make marks. At the 2nd degree, the corporate clump of marks Acts of the Apostless as a form and joins with the signified ( significance of the myth ) to blend into the fabulous mark, the 3rd degree. Graphically, Barthes represents this system in the undermentioned manner: [ xxxii ]
Barthes uses this theoretical account of myth-as-language to explicate the map and effectivity of fabulous “ truths. ”
Barthes ‘ system, when applied to the Icarus line of descent, expands ; the fabulous mark, once more, becomes a form for a new myth — itself constructed of linguistic communication ( another degree of forms and senses ) — and extends the pyramid construction indefinitely out. The semiotic pyramid, in this line of descent of Ovid, Brueghel and Auden, has at least nine degrees: three degrees per myth, joined together. The full construction, nevertheless, would keep a pyramidic form correspondent to that of each single myth ; the full line of descent, so, has the construction of a myth. It is a myth-of-myths: a meta-myth, which spurs from the act of deconstruction.
In many ways, this narrative does non look to suit into the subjects of the verse form. Yet, at its bosom, this narrative is about Perseus ‘s ability to tackle the power of transmutation. Killing Medusa is non an achievement in itself. Perseus merely kills Medusa to acquire her caput. With her caput, he additions the power to transform others into rock. Thus Perseus becomes a hero
