Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Well, the book pretty well foreshadowed that Lucien would eventually find some roses to eat and return to his human form, but how it actually happened -- Wow!

I'm totally confused as to the actual identity of the goddess who saves him. She starts out, 11.1, as the Moon, who according to Hesoid appears to be Phoebe, or to later authors Artemis/Diana. But in 1.2 he calls on Ceres (Demeter?), who is the goddess of growth and crops. But still in 1.2 she is also invoked as Venus. Or shall he call he Proserpina? who I understand in Greek is Persephone, daughter of Demeter. But in the end, 1.5, her true name is Queen Isis, of Egypt. Egad. What is going on here?

(What's going on with me is that I'm being called to dinner. Took too long looking into all this mythology. Back eventually, but feel free to start discussing!)

I hadn't thought of that. Hmmmm.

Everyman wrote: "What is going on here?"

I have no idea. I was thoroughly confused by Chapter 11 and all the goddesses, which sealed my lack of enthusiasm for this book by the end. I got that he was turned back into a man, but I wasn't quite sure what else happened here, where he finally ended up and who turned him back. It didn't help that I was reading a bit more quickly at the end just to be done with it already.

This book started out great for me - I was amused, shocked, and entertained. However about midway through I tired of Lucien's continued beatings while he was sold and traded hands from person to person. I also found the sexual encounters a bit much for my taste - the final encounter between him as a donkey and a human woman was...uh...no.

I think that not having a classical background contributed greatly to my lessened enjoyment of this book, since without that knowledge all I had was a tale of a donkey getting beaten and hearing tales. I did appreciate reading everyone else's comments and interpretations of the book because without this group I would have gotten much less out of it.

Patrice wrote: "I absolutely loved this chapter!"

And see, even though I can't thoroughly appreciate this book, I'm glad to see that others do. Perhaps if I had more knowledge of Greek gods and classical history overall, I would have enjoyed picking apart this book more than I did.

The last chapter seems like it belongs to a different book. Obviously it doesn't, but the tone is so different from the rest of the novel. I get that his religious conversion is a final transformation, but it doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the book. I found it to be a little contrived. And humorless.

Thomas wrote: " I found it to be a little contrived. And humorless. "

I agree with you on both these points. I'm wondering whether, having written so much scatological material up to that point, he felt a need to be more serious and bring a solemn note into the end of the work.

Or, perhaps it's something deeper than that. Perhaps he's saying that belief and reverence come to one as a natural result of great suffering. Lucien lost his humanity (or at least the physical manifestation of it, and also the recognition of others that he was human), was enslaved, cruelly treated, faced with death multiple times, went through the fires, and only because of that, perhaps we're being told, emerges purified in body and spirit, elevated to a spiritual ecstasy that he could not have achieved without his suffering.

Almost, perhaps, a precursor to the Divine Comedy, having to travel through hell and observe (or in his case experience) torment and anguish in order eventually to emerge into paradise.

Or do I make too much of this?

My translation (Graves) says that it is Isis. The chapter is entitled "The Goddess Isis intervenes".

I found the ending up bit silly, and he never really convinced me of his enthuisiasm for joining the brotherhood. He still seemed very selfish.

Patrice wrote: "BTW, I thought it was interesting that the Isiac cult had profane foods and ritual baths, just like Judaism. Makes sense since Moses was Egyptian."

I think most ancient religions did though, not just Egyptian ones.

Patrice wrote: "PS, I was at a dinner party on Sunday and we discussed the influence of Isis on Rome. It wasn't until Monday that my friend said she was very confused, she thought I was talking about the terrorist group! "

When I first heard about the terrorist organisation, I though it was very odd that they should choose to name themselves after an Egyptian god.

Patrice wrote: "Just curious, which other religions? I know the Greeks and Romans were always at their baths but was there religious ritual tied to it? What other religions had profane foods?"

I don't know any examples from the classical world, but Hinduism does (not that Hinduism is really a religion).

I assume you mean proscribed foods, since profane means merely non-sacred, and while the existence of sacred foods implies the existence of profane foods, it does not mean these are forbidden.

If I understood the text right, these foods were only forbidden at certain times, such as when he was undergoing initiation.

What do people make about the number of books being 11? apparently unique in classical literature. Walsh says that 11 is a significant number for the Pythagoreans, which would tie in with the seven washings and three initiations.

Patrice wrote: "Since Walsh used the term 'profane" I just repeated it."

I guess it is appropriate to describe foods that are only forbidden at certain times.

Patrice wrote: "I swear that I had no regrets whatever about the hardship and expense; there was no reason for such regrets, since the bountiful provision of the gods had now made me comfortably off through the legal fees I was receiving.

Hard not to chuckle at that."

In every society, it's the priests and the lawyers who do best.

David wrote: "What do people make about the number of books being 11? apparently unique in classical literature. Walsh says that 11 is a significant number for the Pythagoreans, which would tie in with the seven..."

Great question. I wish I knew more about Pythagorean mathematical/philosophy so I could understand this.

Everyman wrote:"I'm totally confused as to the actual identity of the goddess who saves him.."

Some great feminine mother goddess of wisdom and justice but Pallas Athena wasn't mentioned. Perhaps she is the blind goddess of justice? the one that is blindfolded and holds the scales?

I always appreciated how the Romans of that era were so tolerant of diversity of religion. Their main issue with the early Christians was that the early Christians refused to acknowledge any of the other Gods (on the grounds of not worshiping idols).

I love the way the author reinserted himself in the story so smoothly, not unlike the way the donkey entered the procession.

Patrice wrote: "I absolutely loved this chapter!"

Me too!

There's an aggravating inconsistency in the "moral" of the story, where just after Lucius transforms back into a human, the High Priest gives him a soliloquy that includes an explanation for his misadventure: (Graves) "Neither your noble blood and rank nor your education sufficed to keep you from falling a slave to pleasure; youthful follies ran away with you. Your luckless curiosity earned you a sinister punishment." But then on the very next page, the people pointed at him and said, "There goes Lucius...Lucky, lucky man to have earned [Isis'] compassion on account of his former innocence and good behavior..."

So, which is it? Did he earn misfortune or did he earn compassion?

It reminds me of people who say, after someone has endured a debilitating injury but wasn't killed, "Boy, you're lucky!"

Patrice wrote: "Walsh's translation goes on

"Yet somehow Fortune in her blind course, while torturing you with the most severe dangers, has in her random persecution guided you to this state of religious blessedn..."

Patrice, I think my sentence is the one before that. Is there nothing about his previous youthful follies?

No line numbers in the Graves (and believe me, I've missed them in this discussion!). The second citation is in the first paragraph after the High Priest's "inspired" speech.

Zippy wrote: "There's an aggravating inconsistency in the "moral" of the story, ...
So, which is it? Did he earn misfortune or did he earn compassion?"

Perhaps it is that the priest, being informed of all the facts, recognizes a reality that the common folk, who only knew the pre-ass Lucien, don't know.

Patrice wrote: " I'm wondering, could it be that he is saying something about how the crowd views things vs how the priest views them?
The priest know the truth, that he erred. The crowd knows gossip."

I had the same thought, posted it before I read yours.

Great minds, they say, run in the same gutter. [g]!

I love reading everyone's comments! As I found the book a little on the dull side on my own, it's nice to be able hear a deeper conversation.

Did anyone else feel the ending was rather short? Perhaps it was only compared to Lucius' stretched out adventures. The ending did feel very out of place in terms of tone and content, and I wasn't actually expecting a conversion, to be honest. Rather, I thought he would go back to where he started. Nothing up to directly encountering the goddess suggested he would change. Even when he leaves his last situation in book 10, it is for fear of his own life and nothing more. I rather expected that he would return to his old habits in human form and that Fotis would make a reappearance.

Hope wrote: "...I rather expected that he would return to his old habits in human form and that Fotis would make a reappearance."

I was expecting some kind of scene with Fotis too, one way or another.

Hope wrote: "I love reading everyone's comments! As I found the book a little on the dull side on my own, it's nice to be able hear a deeper conversation.

Did anyone else feel the ending was rather short? Perh..."

I agree, Hope, that reading everyone's comments on a book like this definitely makes it more interesting. Personally, I thought that the ending was necessarily short. It is a mystical conversion with aid from the goddess so there is no great soul searching on his part. In contrast to the bawdy which can be recanted again and again through many different voices because his world is a rotten treacherous place, once he is enlightened there is no further journeying, or diversions, he has arrived. If that makes any sense!

I think Apuleius is also making the point that a religious metamorphasis or transformation is more a process than an arrival at new way of seeing. He has to be initiated more than once and he has to practice his new beliefs. It is not a simple matter of being blessed with the favour of the Goddess, although that is required too, it is a matter of collaboration.

Much as I was annoyed by all of the violence and hostility toward women, I kind admire his irreverent approach to telling the story of a religious transformation. Nobody could accuse him of being sanctimonious.


[I accidentally posted the above comment to the ch7-8 thread but deleted when I realized my mistake. It was there for about 10 minutes. Hope it didn't reveal spoilers to anyone. Apologies if so]

Hope wrote: "I love reading everyone's comments! As I found the book a little on the dull side on my own, it's nice to be able hear a deeper conversation.

Did anyone else feel the ending was rather short? Perh..."

I thought the same thing, but I wasn't bothered by it because I was ready to get Lucien back to his human shape. And the way it happened was so intense that I didn't need it to go on longer.

But, I do wonder whether Apuleius intended a 12th book. All the other classical epics that we have are in either 12 (Virgil) or 24 (Homer) books. It may be, as was pointed out earlier, that 11 is right because of its importance in Pythagorean philosophy/mathematics, but the lack of a 12th book seems unusual to me.

Zippy wrote: "Hope wrote: "...I rather expected that he would return to his old habits in human form and that Fotis would make a reappearance."

I was expecting some kind of scene with Fotis too, one way or anot..."

Agreed. I was sorry that he didn't get back with her, either in love or in anger, or perhaps in both. It was a loose end that just hangs out there. In 11.20 his servants do suddenly show up, but as far as we can tell not Photis.

I do wonder whether his entry into the cult requires that he be celibate now, which may be why Photis doesn't reappear to tempt him.

Everyman wrote: "But, I do wonder whether Apuleius intended a 12th book. All the other classical epics that we have are in either 12 (Virgil) or 24 (Homer) books. It may be, as was pointed out earlier, that 11 is right because of its importance in Pythagorean philosophy/mathematics, but the lack of a 12th book seems unusual to me."

It is unusual. More than unusual, I believe it is unique in classical literature. But what would he have put in a twelfth book? It is nicely complete after book 11, and if Apuleius had written a twelfth, I'm sure we would just as easily accuse him of merely adding an extra book to conform to tradition.

The fact that he named his book after Ovid's Metamorphoses suggests another reason, as Ovid was not one to be bound by tradition either, and composed his work in the unusual number of 15 books. Like Apuleius, Ovid's Metamorphoses can also be divided into 3 distinct parts.

Everyman wrote: "Zippy wrote: "Hope wrote: "...I rather expected that he would return to his old habits in human form and that Fotis would make a reappearance."

I was expecting some kind of scene with Fotis too, o..."

At 11.19 he says, "Though I was eager and willing, a kind of religious fear held me back, for I had carefully enquired about the difficulties of such religious service-the quite demanding abstinence prescribed by rules of chastitity..."

Genni wrote: "At 11.19 he says, ..."

Ah, great. I hadn't focused on that. Maybe a good thing, then, that Photis didn't reappear.

Everyman wrote: "Genni wrote: "At 11.19 he says, ..."

Ah, great. I hadn't focused on that. Maybe a good thing, then, that Photis didn't reappear."

I suppose this phrase stuck out to me because I was noticing all of the similarities between his conversion and those of people I've talked to. There was the epiphany, the demand for purity, the miracle, etc. I guess it struck me how reasonable it was for him to "count the cost", so to speak.

Patrice wrote: "Weren't sex and magic the sources of his downfall? It made sense to me that he had to leave all that behind."

I thought it was just dumb luck - or "cruel fortune".

but it was also an accident that he took the wrong potion.

Accident? Or fate?

Or (I wondered this at the time, but don't think I or anyone else mentioned it in the discussion), did Photis deliberately give him the wrong potion? She seems an interesting character, and if she did feel Lucius's advances were unwanted, it would be a convenient way of getting rid of him.

At the beginning I thought there was some morality lesson involved in his turning into an ass but by book 11 I started to believe it was the work of random cruel fortune and that it could have gone either way. He was delivered from his bad fortune by the blessing of the goddess but I still think he may have to continue to engage with her and practice her religion in order to keep his blessing.

Pure luck - good or bad - and random events happen in human experience but we make sense of them through religion, art, and scientific inquiry.

Theresa wrote: "but it was also an accident that he took the wrong potion."

Well, so Photis said. But whether it really was an accident, are we sure?

Theresa wrote: "At the beginning I thought there was some morality lesson involved in his turning into an ass but by book 11 I started to believe it was the work of random cruel fortune and that it could have gone either way..."

My reading is that there is indeed a morality lesson. Or maybe two related lessons. One, and I know I'm using a sort of Christian theology here but I don't know the Roman theological equivalent, that you only achieve the highest grace after suffering. (Was being turned into an ass in some weird sort of way the Roman equivalent of original sin?????) The other is tied to Boethius's philosophy, that whatever happens, Fortune is in charge, and you just have to make the best of it, but never give up.

Everyman wrote: "Well, so Photis said. But whether it really was an accident, are we sure?"

But did Lucius ever suggest she did it on purpose? That it wasn't an accident? He seems to blame 'fortune' for the whole thing. When he is saved in the end he doesn't seem to have any regrets about his curiosity in magic. He just decides to devout himself to the Goddess in return for being saved. Out of gratitude I suppose, but not out of guilt (so far as I can see).

Theresa wrote: "But did Lucius ever suggest she did it on purpose? "

No.

But does a man always know what's in a woman's heart? [g]

On the other hand, Lucius's curiosity and suffering result in his achieving an exalted state, so it was good that he "sinned." Psyche undergoes the same sort of transformation because she "sinned." The offense in both cases is that of curiosity, which is probably not coincidental.

I don't see any moralizing in the story. It doesn't seem to teach the reader what he or she should do, but just what happens in the course of life. Human curiosity starts the Rube Goldberg contraption in motion, a lot of wild things happen that are not under human control, and the final product is a kind of enlightenment.

Patrice wrote: "But, if we take the conversion seriously (and I'm still not sure about that) then curiosity about religion and enlightenment is very different from curiosity about sex and magic. One leads to peace and happiness while the other leads to trouble."

But in this case one curiosity leads to the other, as odd as that sounds. Lucius is not the same person when he regains human form as he was before -- he has been transformed through his suffering in a way that lets him exercise his curiosity in a more divine direction.

Maybe it would have made sense for Lucius to make wiser and more mature decisions from the start and avoid all that suffering, but then there would have been no transformation, and no story to speak of. Just like Dante has to go through Inferno to get to Paradise, Lucius also has to suffer. This seems to be part of the learning process.

Ultimately the difference between his life before and after is whether it is fate or the goddess who directs his life. Certainly now he is "safe," but what freedoms does he have? What kind of life is he living?

Hope wrote: "Ultimately the difference between his life before and after is whether it is fate or the goddess who directs his life. Certainly now he is "safe," but what freedoms does he have? What kind of life ..."

He is fully committed to his new life, he is fully aligned with it. He must practice the religion to remain aligned to it but he is still free. This is the sort of freedom I was referring to in the tea shop discussion in which you let go of all temptation or choices (or liberty) and you just live the life you are deeply invested in. I am referring more to an experience of freedom than a definition of it.


Anyway, I don't see anywhere in the book where Lucius repents for the curiosity that led to his condition, even up to the point of his transformation. However, because it is a classic (which is to say, a great book that has many different messages for many different people) I can see you some people would take the ordeal as being a punishment for his curiosity. People relate to the book in accordance with their own life experiences and world view.

Patrice said somewhere (maybe in the tea shop, I can't remember) that she wondered if anyone actually learns anything new from reading the classics or if they just re-affirm what they already believe. I have been thinking about this. I didn't agree at first, because I certainly have changed my world view over the last few decades and very often because of something I have read. For example, when I was first able to vote, I was a devoted card carrying conservative and individualist. Then I picked up The Fountainhead and tried to read it. I was so offended I couldn't finish it (though I did later sit through the whole horrid movie adaptation). My views became more and more progressive ever since, partly because of books whose message I did relate to.

Patrice wrote: "Maybe that's why The Fountainhead isn't a classic?"

Well, it was only published in 1943. It and Atlas Shrugged (1957) have fascinating publication, readership, and critical reception histories. Introduced to these works the summer I was 21, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism and stories of her personal life finally soured me (by mid-twenties) on Rand's arguments. But take a look at some, particularly in public life, who still seem to have been profoundly influenced by her thinking.

I could not resist the temptation to reread The Confessions of St. Augustine after reading A. And he observes something that we touched on in this discussion about The Golden Ass although I cannot remember who said what and where. So I would like to ask the question again.

"Why is it that a person should wish to experience suffering by watching grievous and tragic events which he himself would not wish to endure. Nevertheless, he wants to suffer the pain given by being a spectator of these sufferings, and the pain itself is his pleasure."

In a simple example, I was listening to a familiar sad song today that I have always loved. Why? The song was written in pain and I love listening to it every time. The "pain" I feel when listening to it is obviously some type of pleasure else I would not listen to it at all. As Augustine says, "What is this but amazing folly?"

I guess I am curious if anyone has any thoughts as to WHY we find the stories in The Golden Ass entertaining? Or any stories of violence, or heartbreak, etc. The more an actor/actress moves us to tears the more they are lauded. Is this something that we should try to "fix" in ourselves? Augustine says that if anyone is moved by these scenes, he is less free from similar passions....

Patrice wrote: "...The sight of blood has no appeal when you're trying to raise a small child. ..."

Interesting comment to make about women.

Patrice wrote: "Genni I am sooo impressed! Even with children and Thanksgiving you reread the Confessions! You have spurred me on, I will have to take another look!

Aristotle wrote about why we watch tragedy. ..."

Lol. Don't be too impressed. I can promise that I have not done it justice. :-)

You and I have a lot in common. I also cannot stand to watch violence. And I do think a lot of it has to do with your comment about raising children. I cannot stand the thought of someone, who was/is someone's child doing harm to someone else who was/is someone's child. And for now anyway, I can't seem to break out of that perspective.

Thanks for the summary of Aristotle's view! I have a copy of the Poetics and can't wait to read it. I guess the only question I have after reading your statement is, why do we feel the need to master these emotions or experiences? For example, if you have not experienced the death of someone close to you, why feel the need to experience the emotions?

I think men and women are different but not so different. Patrice's son's point of view is maybe a bit too essentialist for me but facts do show that women will act out by ostracizing others while men act out aggressively and often violently. One reason I am somewhat ambivalent about the 'violence against women' thing is that, in fact, men suffer more homicides than women, but the perpetrators are almost always male and not female. The problem of violence in society is mostly, but not exclusively, a male problem as men are the main perpetrators and in many areas the main victims.

Women are perfectly capable of becoming violent - especially if you threaten her small children. Also, the only situation that I know of or can think of in which women are more culpable is in the situation of infanticide, where a new mother kills her newborn baby (usually a girl baby, but that is a whole other kettle of fish), presumably, this happens before the mother bonds with the infant, but it is and has been a very serious crime throughout history.

I didn't find the violence in The Golden Ass at all entertaining. However, as I get older I have started to feel more empathy toward people who accept violence as something natural. When I was in my early 20's I saw Full Metal Jacket with a boyfriend and couldn't believe how different our points of view were. He thought it was the best movie ever, I on the other hand, didn't really give it a chance. Years later on re-watching it I have learned to appreciate the brilliance of the movie and agree it is (probably, for all I know) the best war movie ever. I also forced myself to watch Fight Club right through to the end, and I am so glad I did, it was brilliant. Of course I couldn't watch it in all one sitting, the violence was too much, but I came back to it until I got to the end.

Genni wrote: " For example, if you have not experienced the death of someone close to you, why feel the need to experience the emotions?
..."

Good question.

Hamlet Act 2 Scene 2

O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!
Is it not monstrous that this player here,
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit
That from her working all his visage wann'd,
Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect,
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? and all for nothing!
For Hecuba!

What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba
That he should weep for her? What would he do
Had he the motive and the cue for passion
That I have? He would drown the stage with tears
And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,
Make mad the guilty and appall the free,

Ha, and farther down:

Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave,
That I, the son of a dear father murder'd,
Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,
Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words,
And fall a-cursing, like a very drab,
A scullion! Fie upon ’t, foh!


I don't know if that answers Genni's question or not, but maybe the desire to feel other people's pain from a distance has something to do with conceit?