Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Great discussions still going on in many of the books. The schedule calls for me to post the next books, but don't let that stop the ongoing great discussions!

So we start out with a story amazingly parallel to the story of Lot (Genesis 19). Once again we have to ask the question, did these accounts arise independently, was one an offshoot of the other, or are they both based on yet another account?

But the lesson both here and in Genesis seems clear: if you don't obey the dictates of the gods, disaster will ensue. Is this the lesson the myth was intended to pass on to Greek and Roman society, or is it just a myth without any intended lesson to be learned?

In another interesting event, we see Orpheus calling on the muse. We have seen this before in the Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid, the poets calling on the muse, but here it's not the poet Ovid but a character within poem calling on the Muse for inspiration. It's an interesting twist, isn't it?

And we get Pygmalion, subject of both a play by Shaw and an opera by Rameau (are any of our opera buffs familiar with this opera?), but what I find most interesting is that while most of the transformations in the Metamorphoses have been negative, humans turned into animals, or plants, or otherwise losing their humanity, here the statute is turned into a human, opposite to the other metamorphoses we have seen. Why does this happen, and why here?

I think regarding on following the gods is quite interesting, for the gods of ancient Greece and Rome were like the demigods of Hinduism, almost identical except for the Hindu's righteousness, but yes passionate. I believe the lesson is of humility, of finding a God(s) to believe in, for it to be real, not just ritual and routine, and in the case of Classical philosophers they do make the distinction between gods and God, as in Plato and Plotinus.
On Orpheus, the Classical idea I have perceive in my investigations as a poet have found out that in ancient times poets and artists were channels of divine forms messages ideas and inspiration, almost servant lovers to the muse...I also find the Pygmalion one of the most beautiful myths on the power of creation Creation, not as God rivalry but as the fact that the art you make is a real living thing out there...it also might be seen as an objetivation of egoistic desire...always many many angles...

Ps curious that in Patrick Suskind's book Perfume, the much darker genius was talented with otherworldly talents that expressed so amazing beauty and ecstasy that women ripped him apart and ate him, a true parallel myth, and a huge question on how much can we go ahead of humanity in idea or creation that we will not end up ripped apart someway or other..curious...

The story of Pygmalion is a relief. Most stories end so horribly and I am glad to read Pygmalion that has a happy ending. Or did I speak too soon ? Could there be a continuation later with another sad ending ?
I don't know why Pygmalion is here, but I noted that Venus was mentioned at the end in the story before Pygmalion, Apollo and Hyacinthus.
"Venus prepared to leave her island cities;
....
She changed them into stupid roaring bulls.
Nor were the women more attractive cattle:
...
It was no wonder that they turned to stone."

I think it's implied that Venus turned the women to stone. In Pygmalion, the next story, Venus turned stone to woman.

PS as a matter of fact freezing living beauty is quite sad in a sense, for me...but turning an idea into a fixed manifest beauty is another story..

Art, or ídolos and idolatry? Love or fantasy? All thinking is making images? It is quite self centered and narcissistic, but for certain people fabrications are best than imperfect therein somewhat harmful real things, beings,objects. I'm all for the real thing, good and ill weaves togethere, but objects of art and fixed beauty are like that, like you wouldnt find an ongoing charm of the Mona Lisa smile in some other living woman, so it's how and why beauty exists, as living beings give due testimony and live out their charms and own self-ness...I think all artists are narcissistic and Freud probably had said that I believe, and most definitely artists as creators have a God given task matter and identity sort, myself being very religious, that's why certain ancients were all for art in due measure (I believe Pitagoras and Aristotle) others without measure (Dionysiacs) and others against it (Plato himself). We have beautiful marble works both classic and Christian and not in idolatry, so finally for me beauty can be freezed and admired but not worshipped and loved as a Divine Object, not chasing the shadow or chimera to the pit and the furnace.

Time time time what has become of we! It does eats us to the core, ironic and cruelly, into oblivion, makes us feel all our near and dear stories are but a fleeting illusion like a tree's dead leaf floating in the breeze...and yet tables do turn in amazing way, there's the hand of God, giving beautiful hope and change, metamorphosis...indeed Ovid puts it romantically, yet also time and the end do redeem this beautiful yet dangerous and hurting place called Earth and the human condition...mysteries to ponder...I end with a reminder of a quote from Baudelaire: " Everybody must get drunk, be it virtue, poetry or wine, in order not to feeling the tortuous passing of time". I personally don't like the alcoholic take, but the idea. Just a reminder...I would've add music and tea!

Patrice wrote: "...
Time, in its stealthy gliding, cheats us all
Without our notice; nothing goes more swiftly
Than do the years. That little boy, whose sister
Became his mother, his grandfather's son,
Is now a youth, and now a man, more handsome
Than he had ever been, ..."

It is beautifully written, but also self-contradictory. If not for Time, the little boy would not have grown into a most handsome youth, so Time gives us wondrous gifts, and does not, as Ovid put it, "cheat us all".

I think this is partly why Plato was against the poets. Not that he was against art per se -- his Dialogues being works of art themselves, but the abuse of art, i.e. using art to sugar-coat lies, ideas that would not have passed muster if examined in a rational manner.

Patrice wrote: "... Picasso "art is a lie that tells the truth". I don't believe that! ...A lie is a lie is a lie..."

A question of belief or a question of semiotics?

Yes, true, semiotics, epistemology, existential paradoxes, such as some zen koans I read the other day, questions to ponder upon without fixed, possible, real conclusions...many of these posts and replies could be argued in favor or against...I personally choose to believe art is a skeleton key but with tricks and flaws that can turn on against me, it's a wild thing/self these creations...I believe the platonic and Vedic view of the world as an ilusssion (Vedic view it as an illusion that has a reality factor) and art as a double illusion goes on in a never ending dialectic, so I choose art as a means of freedom and recreation, with or without the facts it entails or not...so what rings true for me in my subjectivity is so, even if the lie means more than the truth, it can be contemplated in the light of the truth..if not we would still be in a though beautiful in some ways the middle ages, where all art was dark, yet at the same time it was the same in India most until now where religion/spirituality was the theme for every form of artistic expression or life and was vital..anyhow food for thought, sorry for all the yuxtaposed dialectic and words!

The Pygmalion story is part of a series on 'unnatural love' - and I found it disturbing, even if the goddess of love seems to approve.

A human becoming a tree may not be a daily occurrence, but it can at least be understood as an extension of our experience ("something between death and exile"). Stone changing into a woman of flesh and blood, that is weird. And what about her mind?

Being not content with nature as it is, that's ok, that's what art is about. But Pygmalion oversteps the boundaries here. We may dream about something more than shadows on the wall, but if we think we can turn those dreams into reality we are like Pygmalion.

Federico wrote: "art as a double illusion goes on in a never ending dialectic,"

This may be asking for too much, but could you explain what you mean by that?

Wendel wrote: "Stone changing into a woman of flesh and blood, that is weird. And what about her mind?..."

You could have made that objection against the creation myth in Book I.

Nemo wrote: "Federico wrote: "art as a double illusion goes on in a never ending dialectic,"

This may be asking for too much, but could you explain what you mean by that?"
Hi Wendel, yes, I meant that life in the material world is an illusion by itself, which causes confusion, and then we get some impressions from the perception of this world-s in reality and imagination have existence in their own spheres, but mainly art itself is a reflection of a perception from mind and intelligence and imagination, very much like Plato portrays. So, we got an illusory world with illusory creations, that play or work along to manifest approximations and glass or watery reflections of our many worlds, as imperfect or imprecise as we can be, or in positive. Hope I'm not being obscure, I just think with too many words!

Nemo wrote: "Wendel wrote: "Stone changing into a woman of flesh and blood, that is weird. And what about her mind?..."

You could have made that objection against the creation myth in Book I."
Yes! I missed that! I mean not the fact, but the idea! Mind as an enigmatic field...reminds me of the beginning of the Ring by Wagner, or 2001 Space Odyssey by Kubrick, and thus spoke Zarathustra by Strauss...

Federico wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Federico wrote: "art as a double illusion goes on in a never ending dialectic,"

This may be asking for too much, but could you explain what you mean by that?"
Hi Wendel, yes, I meant ..."

Hi Federico, thanks for the explanation. There are at least two things I don't quite understand. First, when you say the material world is an "illusion". Do you mean that it is false? If so, what is true? Second, what exactly is dialectic? How does it interact with the material world and imagination?

I ponder over why weirdness is not my immediate reaction when reading of a statue turning into a woman. I see Patrice's and Wendel's point. I recall the story Pinocchio in which a puppet turn into a real person. I didn't find it weird too, but I sense that the latter is more acceptable because
(1) Pinocchio went through a process of character development and before the end of the story, most readers want this puppet to become human. Pygmalion's statue did not undergo any life experience, except for a wedding of which the reader don't know how she felt !
(2) Pinocchio's maker wanted a child and he couldn't find one. Pinocchio's maker also did not yearn for a perfect child. Pygmalion possibly could find real woman but wanted a perfect woman.
Of course, the point about Pinocchio is not metamorphosis. I'm drifting into something else, and I'll go back to Ovid.

Nemo wrote: "Federico wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Federico wrote: "art as a double illusion goes on in a never ending dialectic,"

This may be asking for too much, but could you explain what you mean by that?"
Hi Wend..."
Well yes, its paradoxical though, I mean that the facade of reality, of appearances like those fashioned by the Architect or Demiurge, a Creation or Reality with illusions, errors, evil, so it's inconceivably real but not eternal nor perfect, like the transcendental realm, like if we have a map or atlas of the world and only know that then that is my reality, not knowing greater things..this idea in Vedanta is called acintya bheda-abheda tattwa, so we can achieve the truth through approximations or speculation or Divine Revelation (Scriptures), empiric or transcendentally. Then the Great Work is getting there, to those realizations that will position us on the otherworldly shores, we live, question, suffer, enjoy, ponder, and the likes, to get to truth. Then the imagination and the arts I believe is where more play factor, freedom, human limited condition just dances on, with right and wrong webbed together, basically getting to the point trial and error, thesis antithesis synthesis. Yes we just have this world through the senses available to manifest create art, but there are other sources, mystical, magical, and the likes. Sorry for talking so much, I'm a metaphysician sort of person! Ps its great to get deep into stuff, right?

Federico wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Federico wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Federico wrote: "art as a double illusion goes on in a never ending dialectic,"
"

What causes the difference between the material world and the transcendental realm, according to Hinduism?

I'm still not clear where dialectic comes in.

Nemo wrote: "Wendel wrote: "Stone changing into a woman of flesh and blood, that is weird. And what about her mind?..."

You could have made that objection against the creation myth in Book I."

Book 1 offers several views on how the first humans came to be, but in none of them, I believe, we originate as somebody's plaything.

Wendel wrote: "Book 1 offers several views on how the first humans came to be, but in none of them, I believe, we originate as somebody's plaything. "

Worse than a plaything: to be raped, driven mad and killed by the gods at will. At least Pygmalion was tender and loving towards his "plaything".

Selina wrote: "I recall the story Pinocchio in which a puppet turn into ..."

Thanks Selina for mentioning Pinocchio - In addition to the differences you mentioned:
- P. was cut as a plaything (a marionette), but never was an object of lust
- P. was cut from a talking log of wood - Geppetto did not create his spirit
- The story is about his quest (a hero's journey!) to be reborn as a real boy.

A nice interim read for this group (if accepted as a classic).

Nemo wrote: Worse than a plaything: to be raped, driven m..."

It's interesting that these capricious gods are never mentioned as our creators - they also seem to be a part of creation. The exception is Prometheus, an outcast, and he - never cruel, as far as I know - is a sufferer for humanity.

Patrice wrote: "interesting! I had a different reaction to Pygmallion.
I did not see it as a happy story."

I see your point, but just for the sake of discussion and exercise, I'll take up the defense of Pygmalion although Federico has already done an admirable job. :)

"l. He rejects the real for the fantasy."

In the Platonic sense,the real is the Form. So if the artist creates something according to his vision of the Form, he realizes the Form and does not reject the real.

"2. He's in love with himself and the image he created."

There is nothing wrong with loving oneself, if that is at all possible.

"3. He chooses the image over the real."
Same as 1).

"5. Talk about hubris and playing God!"
Aren't we created in His image? So shall we do what He does. :)

"7. It's so pagan! No graven images makes sense to me."
But you like Bernini's Apollo and Daphne.

"8. This is why plastic surgery is so popular now. Real is not good."

Plastic surgery is not an artistic vision, but a fixated, in other words, Procrustean idea of beauty. The end result of which is death, not life.

Wendel wrote: "Nemo wrote: Worse than a plaything: to be raped, driven m..."

It's interesting that these capricious gods are never mentioned as our creators - they also seem to be a part of creation. The excepti..."

I see this as an indictment against the gods rather than Pygmalion. Because the gods abused those whom they didn't create, whereas Pymalion has a right to do what he wishes with his own thing.

I wouldn't say Pygmalion created Paphos for lust. The difference between lust and love, as I understand it, is that the former takes and the latter gives. Pygmalion gave Paphos life, albeit indirectly through Venus. That is not an act of lust.

Prometheus, an outcast, and he - never cruel, as far as I know - is a sufferer for humanity.

Funny you mention it. Up till now I've never thought of Prometheus as a pathetic figure. Why did he create humanity to suffer the gods, knowing their caprice, cruelty and lust?

Nemo wrote: "Federico wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Federico wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Federico wrote: "art as a double illusion goes on in a never ending dialectic,"
"

What causes the difference between the material world ..."

Yes, it's egoism, separateness, desire in a perverted sort of form. There are three truths or tattwas: Bhagavan tattwa (Divine, Transcendental), Maya tattwa or the illusory potency and Jiva tattwa or the living entity. All three are timeless. Jivas revolve in endless cycles of birth and death until they can achieve enlightenment or self realization and adopt a true attitude towards Reality or God, and are eternalized into the Transcendental realm. The dialectic I mentioned is partly this ongoing play of opposite forces, and that of art as a way to play or juggle these truths and perceptions in what I call theories or approximations of different aspects of truth in our prism like minds. Hope I'm being clear, sorry if not.

Thanks for your effort, Federico. I could go on and on asking question. But this is not the right forum.

Nemo wrote: "Thanks for your effort, Federico. I could go on and on asking question. But this is not the right forum."

Hey Nemo, it's my pleasure! This is my life long speciality! So you can keep on asking questions, if not in this forum, at my email Federico.trejos@gmail.com
All these subject matters are very important in life. Thanks for your friendship as well! Bless!
Federico

Patrice wrote: "Pygmalion had the capacity to fall in love with a real woman, with a real soul, he would be much closer to achieving the Form of beauty, "

Paphos was no less real than other women, having both a soul and a body, and she came into being just like the others, i.e., inanimate bodies receiving souls. Pygmalion "saw" her form/soul first before she came into being, and fashioned a body for her soul, like Prometheus did in the creation myth.

4. We CAN'T do what He does and better not forget that! Anyway, isn't that Judeo-Christian? Did the Greeks believe that?

As the saying goes, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". As long as you acknowledge from whom you got the inspiration (as the Greeks acknowledge the Muses), and who is the Master (Arachne failed to acknowledge hers, but Pygmalion did his), you are free to flatter the gods. :)

The Christians are exhorted to imitate Christ (Imitation of Christ). I think of the commandments in the OT as essentially the command to imitate God, "Be righteous, because I am righteous".

8. But people who have plastic surgery are just seeking the "Form" according to your argument.

No, the Form is alive and life-giving, but the fixated standard is dead and death-inducing.

Nemo -- thoroughly enjoyed your post @39!

Oops. I mistook the daughter's name for the mother's. Thanks for pointing it out.:) I found this passage while re-reading the myth:

Pygmalion had seen these women spending their lives in shame, and, disgusted with the faults which in such full measure nature had given the female mind, he lived unmarried

Those women prostituted "their bodies and their fame", and were changed into stones by Venus. So it was the corrupted mind, not their body that Pygmalion rejected, who, aided by Venus, restored/re-created the beautiful soul/form of woman.

This section of Book X echoes Book I, where after the flood, Deucalion and Pyrrha repopulated the earth with stones.

Ovid's theme of improper and impossible love affairs lead me from Pygmalion to My Fair Lady. Which in turn reminded me of that touching comedy Educating Rita (with Michael Caine and Julie Walters, 1983). Very much recommended if you missed it earlier - it's on YouTube (in 10 parts):
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=smKTxgQp...

The "prostitute" reference is from Book X 240:

corpora cum fama primae vulgasse feruntur

which is translated by Miller as

[they] are said to have been the first to prostitute their bodies

My Fair Lady seems to be about superficially confirming to a social or class standard, which is not unlike plastic surgery, glossing the appearance but not the heart. Perhaps that is an issue with reform and education in general. It's hard to say where genuine creativity ends and plastic surgery begins.

The Pygmalion story is interesting, prompting different interpretations and appraisals over time. It would be interesting to know more about the history of this reception. I read somewhere that the Pygmalion persona was not highly estimated in the Middle Ages, but popularised in the 18th/19th by Rousseau and the romantics, while in decline again in recent decennia (as in:
http://www.camws.org/meeting/2009/pro...).

Another question concerns Ovid's own views on the matter. From all he wrote (and maybe from his three marriages) we may be confident that he did not share Pygmalion's misogynist attitudes. Though as an artist Ovid too must have had a special interest in his output. Quintilian's opinion that Ovid was too much in love with his own talent may give us some food for thought.

Larger size: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...



I like this painting by Jean Raoux in 1717 for its inclusion of the three major figures (Venus, Pygmalion, and the statue -- is Cupid the fourth?), but not so much for the lack of eye/emotional contact between the sculptor and his creation.

Jean Raoux, including his painting of "Orpheus and Eurydice": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Raoux

Patrice wrote: "The statue does look like Venus, doesn't she? Some of the background material mentioned the connection, saying that the statue was really of Venus."

Looks like an epiphany appearance, more glorious than a god! Yet very beautiful and luminous!

Patrice wrote: "Pygmalion was a real king!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_of_Tyre"

Cato's Pygmalion was from Cyprus. Dido's evil brother was from Tyre.

Larger size: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...



Here is another of Pygmalion and Galatea, this one by François Boucher, 1767, in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. Again, Galatea looks towards Venus rather than Pygmalion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%...

Cyprus plays a central role in Book 10 as it was the island of Venus and also an important melting pot of Greek and eastern influences. It was by way of Cyprus that the Semitic fertility goddess Ishtar/Astarte migrated to Greece to become Aphrodite. The temple-prostitution practiced at her shrine in Paphos was an echo of her eastern origin.

Memories of Cypriot matriarchy also found their way to the Metamorphoses. At a time when matriarchal succession was still in force but the queens had lost real power, kings would marry their mother or daughter to legitimise their claims. According to Graves Pygmalion was pretending to sleep with a statue of Venus in order to strengthen his hold on the throne.

http://www.windowoncyprus.com/myths_a...
http://www.class.uh.edu/mcl/classics/...