Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T16:17:13.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collapsing Authority and ‘Arachnean’ Gods in Ovid's Baucis and Philemon (Met. 8.611-724)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Steven J. Green
Steven J. Green*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access

Extract

Among the many delightful stories woven into Ovid's Metamorphoses, the tale of Baucis and Philemon in Book 8—not found before Ovid—has long proven a favourite with many readers. Narrated by the elderly Lelex, the story goes that Jupiter and Mercury are wandering on earth from door to door in need of shelter; they are received by a pious old couple, Baucis and Philemon, who entertain them with their utmost hospitality; the gods later reveal themselves, punish the inhospitable neighbourhood and reward the pious couple with everlasting life by turning them into sacred trees. This popular story has been the subject of at least two lighthearted operas, by Joseph Haydn (18th century) and Charles-François Gounod (19th century); both Rubens (c.1620) and Rembrandt (1658) have depicted scenes from the story on canvas; elegant poetic translations have been written by John Dryden (1693) and Jonathan Swift (1709). It is not difficult to understand why this story has provided particular enjoyment for the reader. In a poem which too often presents the gods as indifferent to justice and indulgent in their basest desires, here is a story which celebrates the proper relationship between divine and mortal, and pulls on moral, almost Christian heart-strings. Many might agree with G. Karl Galinsky's observation that the story has the effect of ‘radiating so obviously the sort of kindly warmth which some of Ovid's readers would like to find in more of [Ovid's] myths and, one suspects, in their daily lives.’

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , 2003 , pp. 39 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the Departmental Research Seminar at the University of Manchester (December 2002). I am particularly grateful to Alison Sharrock, John Briscoe and Regine May for their helpful suggestions. The argument for this paper was inspired some years ago by some typically perceptive questioning from my former supervisor, Andrew Drummond.

References

2. Because of its apparent affinities with Christian morality, there has traditionally been particular interest in the story’s geographical origin and/or its connection with the Bible; see most recently, Jones, C.P., ‘A Geographical Setting for the Baucis and Philemon Legend (Ovid Metamorphoses 8.611–724)’, HSCPh 96 (1994), 203–23Google Scholar; Griffin, A., ‘Philemon and Baucis in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, G&R 38 (1991), 62–74Google Scholar; also Hollis, A.S. (ed.), Ovid Metamorphoses Book VIII (Oxford 1970Google Scholar), introductory note to Met. 8.611–724.

3. Karl Galinsky, G., Ovid’s Metamorphoses: An Introduction to the Basic Aspects (Oxford 1975), 197Google Scholar.

4. The paradigmatic status of the story has been questioned before, by Gamel, M.-K., ‘Baucis and Philemon: Paradigm or Paradox?’, Helios 11 (1984), 117–31Google Scholar. Though I agree with some of Gamel’s points, 1 do not subscribe to her central argument (see p.44 below).

5. For detailed study of the different ‘addressees’ of texts, see especially Laird, A., Powers of Expression, Expressions of Power: Speech Presentation and Latin Literature (Oxford 1999), 21ffGoogle Scholar. In this paper, I will refer to these two audiences as ‘the mythical audience’ and ‘the Ovidian reader’.

6. See Feeney, D., The Gods in Epic (Oxford 1991), 229–32Google Scholar; Wheeler, S., A Discourse of Wonders: Audience and Performance in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Philadelphia 1999), 166–71Google Scholar.

7. The only humans that have this power are prophets/augurs, and even they are only privy to ambiguous divine information, which often leads to misinterpretation.

8. See especially Ov. Pont. 4.8.55.

9. I am not suggesting that the two ‘audiences’ here are mutually exclusive. As will become apparent, some of the sceptical interpretations of this episode available to the Ovidian reader are also potentially (though not actually) available to some in the mythical audience. There are, however, important differences which result in the Ovidian reader’s having many more opportunities to question.

10. The importance of observing a difference between author-narrator and internal narrator in the poem has been emphatically reinstated by Rosati, G., ‘Narrative Techniques and Structures in the Metamorphoses’, in B.W. Boyd (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ovid (Leiden 2002), 282–304Google Scholar.

11. As to his origins, he apparently came from Naryx in Locris (8.362) and lived for a time in Troezen (8.622). ‘Lelex’ appears to be a proper name rather than an indication of his origins (‘the Lelegeian’); for the Leleges, a Pelasgic tribe scattered over parts of Greece and Asia Minor, cf. 9.645, Verg. A. 8.725, Plin. Nat. 4.7.12, 27, 5.30, 33. (All references are to Ovid’s Metamorphoses unless otherwise stated).

12. The text used is that of W.S. Anderson’s Teubner (Stuttgart 1985).

13. Ovid plays with different levels of personification when speaking about Achelous: he is the water itself, then a god who lives in the water, then a detached spectator to the flood; see Hollis on Met. 8.549ff. In all respects, therefore, Achelous is a volatile character whom it would be unwise to anger further!

14. For the most extreme view against a distinction, see Solodow, J.B., The World of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Chapel Hill 1988) 38f.Google Scholar; for rare attempts to differentiate see Rosati (n.10 above), 282ff., 283 n.36.

15. For the traditional motif of deity visiting humble abode, and other motifs of the theoxeny, see notes 31-37 below.

16. Grammatically pia may go with the juxtaposed Baucis. However, Ehwald’s suggestion (Teubner Stuttgart 1915) of heavy punctuation after pia is very tempting, as it would allow for an emphatic moralistic point from the speaker (see below).

17. ille (A) is preferable to illa (M1N1) on stylistic grounds (see below).

18. This is the most striking in a series of linguistic features in Lelex’s speech which recall an archaic Latin style. Given the speaker’s nature, such archaism may have the subtle effect of aligning Lelex with the Elder Cato; for the simplicity of sentence-connections, cf. Cato fr. 18, 163.1–3 (Malcovati); Palmer, L.R., The Latin Language (London 1954), 120fGoogle Scholar.; for Lelex’s tendency for excessive alliteration—esp. 8.658f. uilisque uetusqueluestis—cf. e.g. Cato fr. 19 (Malcovati) asperrimo atque arduissimo aditu; Orig. fr. 79, 111 (Peter); Palmer op. cit. 122. By such Catonian associations, Lelex is further established as a respectful, moral gentleman; by the same token, however, he may be seen as a subjective speaker too prone to reminisce about rustic morality (for the subjectivity of the ‘elderly speaker’, see pp.45f. below).

19. Stirrup, B., ‘Ovid: Poet of Imagined Reality’, Latomus 40 (1981), 96Google Scholar, rightly draws attention to the emphatic placement of anili in 8.643: when we are reminded that this is an old woman running around, her activity becomes even more commendable.

20. Other, more subtle techniques hurry the narrative along. For example, the verb suscitat, on which ignes (8.641) depends, is postponed until the next line (as is hesternos), encouraging seamless transition from one verse to another; for similar techniques, cf. also cortice siccolnutrit (8.642–3), faces…ramaliaque…/detulit (8.644f.).

21. Cf. 8.644 multifidas: compounds of this type are a feature of high epic going back to Ennius; 8.647 truncat: a verb more commonly associated with large-scale mutilation/destruction; cf. e.g. Liv. 31.30.7 (images of gods), Luc. 6.566 (decapitation), OLD s.v.; the hyperbolic collocation domat feruentibus undis (8.650) suggests the taming of a monster in a huge expanse of boiling water, rather than the tendering of a thin cut of pork!

22. As Leigh, M. has effectively shown in ‘Ovid and the Lectisternium (Metamorphoses 8.651–60)’, CQ 52 (2002), 625–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, the morality of the couple is further emphasised by a punning and thematic link in 8.651–60 to the lectisternium, an ancient Roman ritual designed to gain divine favour by preparing a banquet for the gods and setting up statues of the deities to represent dinner-guests; Baucis and Philemon unknowingly become ‘pioneers’ for this pious Roman ritual by entertaining real deities.

23. In light of the emphasis placed upon it, it is tempting to read this event metapoetically. As Ovid elsewhere refers to the elegiac couplet as an entity with ‘one leg longer than the other’ (cf. Am. 1.1.4, 3.1.8 pes illi longior alter erat), can we not also read the effort to straighten the table legs as a metaphor for the effort required to raise to an epic level an episode whose humble detail makes it more suited to elegy?

24. See Bömer, F., P. Ovidius Naso Metamorphosen: Kommentar, 7 vols. (Heidelberg 1969–1986Google Scholar), ad loc.

25. Gamel (n.4 above), 119–22, esp. 121f: ‘[Lelex’s] critical attitude towards the old peasant’s life reveals him as an urbane, snobbish individual, a stranger in the countryside.’

26. For Lelex’s origins, see n.11 above. Contrary to Gamel (n.4 above), 122, it does not follow from Lelex’s comment at 622f.—that he was sent to Phrygia—that Lelex is a city-dweller or ‘stranger in the countryside’.

27. For Golden Age overtones, cf. e.g. fictilibus (8.668), evocative of simple, honest living (Tib. 1.1.37–40, Prop. 4.1.5). However, the couple are ‘Romanised’ in their serving of pork, nuts and figs; see Hollis on Met. 8.648, 674.

28. Rosati (n. 10 above), 291, who mentions Lelex as the first example of this; for similar views of Lelex’s truth-claims, see Gamel (n.4 above), 129, Solodow (n.14 above), 64f. For similar suspicion of truth-claims elsewhere in Roman poetry, cf. e.g. Stahl, H.-P., Propertius ‘Love’ and ‘War’: Individual and State under Augustus (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1985), 269ffGoogle Scholar. [Horos in Prop. 4.1b]; Barchiesi, A., The Poet and the Prince (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1997), 197–8Google Scholar [Carmentis in Ov. Fast. 1 and Vertumnus in Prop. 4.2].

29. See e.g. Myers, K., Ovid’s Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses (Ann Arbor 1994), 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. For the recognised stereotype, cf. Arist. Rhet. 2.13.12, Tib. 1.10.44, Lygd. 5.26, Hor. Ars 173; for famous nostalgic old men, cf. Homer’s Nestor, Cato in Cic. Sen. (passim), Janus in Ov. Fast. 1.191–226; for aged memory-loss, cf. e.g. Nestor in Ov. Met. 12.182f., Tiber in Ov. Fast. 5.635–62 (on which cf. Newlands, C., Playing with Time: Ovid and the Fasti [Ithaca 1995], 63Google Scholar).

31. Examples of this type of theoxeny are found most famously in Homer’s Odyssey; cf. Horn. Od. 1.80–95 (Athena), 5.55–148 (Hermes), Ov. Met. 1.1.211–41 (Jupiter); for comprehensive listings of all types of theoxeny, see Burnett, A., ‘Pentheus and Dionysus: Host and Guest’, CP 65 (1970), 24f. n.8Google Scholar.

32. For an overview of the standard motifs, see Reece, S., The Stranger’s Welcome (Michigan 1993), 6fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. Cf. e.g. Horn. Od. 14.5–10 (Eumaios’ hut), Reece (n.32 above), 13–15.

34. Cf. e.g. Horn. Od. 1.130–32, Reece (n.32 above), 21f.; for the specific motif here of the ‘humble couch’, indicative of the owner’s morality, cf. also Horn. Od. 14.48ff. (Eumaios), Call. Hecale fr. 240 Pf., Verg. A. 8.366–68 (Evander).

35. Cf. e.g. Horn. Od. 1.136–43, 3.418–63, Reece (n.32 above), 23.

36. Cf. e.g. Horn. Od. 1.180–93, Reece (n.32 above), 26–28.

37. Cf. e.g. Horn. Od. 7.148–50, Reece (n.32 above), 29f.

38. Burnett (n.31 above) cites no other instance of Jupiter and Mercury operating together on any earthly moral mission.

39. A South Italian vase depicts Hermes holding a lamp for the aged Zeus as he climbs up a ladder to meet a majestic female (possibly Alcmena)—see Bieber, M., History of the Greek and Roman Theater (Princeton 1961), 132Google Scholar. This may be based on a comic play, possibly from the period between Old and Middle Comedy, which saw several mythological comedies involving the birth of the gods; see Christenson, D., Plautus: Amphitruo (Cambridge 2000), 47–55Google Scholar.

40. Cf. P1. Cos. 230 heia, mea luno, non decet esse te tarn tristem tuo Ioui, ‘Hey, Juno mine, you shouldn’t be so grim towards your Jupiter’ (Lysidamus to his wife), 331ff., 406ff.

41. Cf. P1. Cas. 238. For further evocation of Jupiter as sexual philanderer in Roman comedy, cf. P1. Merc. 690, 956, Ter. Eun. 583–91 (Chaerea takes his cue to rape from a picture of Jupiter’s deceitful rape of Danae).

42. For individual cases involving Jupiter, cf. e.g. Met. 2.401–40, Fast. 2.153–92 (Callisto); involving Mercury, cf. Met. 2.708–51 (Herse); for the two working together, cf. Met. 1.568–746 (Io), 2.833–75 (Europa), Fast. 2.583–616 (Juturna, Lara).

43. For the plight of the elegiac lover, cf. Prop. 1.16, Tib. 1.2, Ov. Am. 1.6, 2.2. For the paraclausithyron of New Comedy, cf. Menander, Misoumenos fr. A (Thrasonides), P1. Cure. 147ff. (Phaedromenus), Ter. Eun. 771ff. (Thraso); see further McKeown, J.C., Ovid Amores: Text, Prolegomena, Commentary, 3 vols. (Liverpool and Wolfboro 1987–1998Google Scholar), introduction to Ov. Am. 1.6.

44. The statistics for sera in Augustan poetry are given by Bomer (n.24 above) on Met. 8.628: Verg. (0), Hor. (0), Tib. (2), Prop. (3), Ov. (16). Both Tibullan examples (1.2.6, 1.8.76) and one of the Propertian examples (4.5.48) occur in the context of the locked-out lover; in Ovid’s erotic poetry, most examples refer to the act of bolting the door against the lover (Am. 1.6.24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 2.1.28, Ars 2.244, 2.636); particularly noteworthy in Metamorphoses is the fact that sera occurs on only one other occasion, during the episode about the cold-hearted Anaxarete (14.710), which is clearly a paraclausithyron of ‘epic’ proportions and consequences. For the close proximity of sera and claudo in such contexts, cf. e.g. Tib. 1.2.6, Ov. Am. 1.6.29, 32.

45. Cf. Prop. 2.22b.38, Ov. Am. 1.4.54, 2.19.44, Ars 1.604, 2.367, 394, 3.663; see further Pichorr, R., Index verborum amatoriorum (Hildesheim 1991), 190fGoogle Scholar.

46. For requiescere used in the erotic sense of (post-copular) lying with a mistress, cf. Tib. 1.1.43, Ov. Am. 1.5.25f. lassi requieuimus ambo with McKeown (n.43 above) adloc, Lygd. 6.53 quam uellem tecum longas requiescere nodes with Navarro Antolín, F., Lygdami Elegiarum Liber, tr. J.J. Zoltowski (Leiden 1995Google Scholar) ad loc.

47. The gods’ self-indulgent tendencies are more clearly shown in the doublet episode in Ov. Fast. 5.493–544, especially 513–18, where the gods do not stop their poor host from roasting his only ox and bringing out his oldest wine for their benefit.

48. For the distinction, cf. e.g. Cic. Mur. 76, Sail. Cat. 12.3f., Hor. Carm. 2.15.15 with Nisbet/Hubbard ad loc.

49. 8.684–88: emphasis is placed on their aged weariness (tardos aetate fatigat [686]) and the length of time for which the gods allow this to continue (pointed juxtaposition of diu tandemque [687]).

50. 8.691–94: note the spondaic nature of 694.

51. See Solodow (n.14 above), 65f., who notes only fifteen direct references to instigators in a poem with about two hundred and fifty transformations.

52. See Hopkinson, N., Callimachus: Hymn to Demeter (Cambridge 1984), 18ff.Google Scholar, esp. 22–24.

53. It would, of course, have been possible for the mythical audience at Achelous’ palace to have noted the correlation between the two stories and question with hindsight the gods’ antics. Alas they seem not to, but then again, they have not been prompted as much as the more knowledgeable Ovidian reader.

54. For examples of individuals whose contempt for the gods leads them to punishment, cf. e.g. Lycaon (1.163–252), Pentheus (3.511–733), the Pierides (5.662–78), Arachne (6.1–145), Erysichthon (8.738–878).

55. See Anderson, W.S., ‘Lycaon: Ovid’s Deceptive Paradigm in Metamorphoses 1’, ICS 14 (1989), 91–101Google Scholar; also Wheeler (n.6 above), 177–81.

56. See Zissos, A., ‘The Rape of Proserpina in Ov. Met. 5.341–661: Internal Audience and Narrative Distortion’, Phoenix 53 (1999), 97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosati (n.10 above) 296f., 299–301.

57. For discussion and bibliography, see Feeney (n.6 above), 190–94.

58. See Leach, E., ‘Ekphrasis and the Theme of Artistic Failure in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, Ramus 3 (1974), 103fCrossRefGoogle Scholar., 117f.; Brown, R., ‘The Palace of the Sun in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, in Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol 1987), 211–20Google Scholar.

59. For the possible case of double recension of the text here, see Hollis (n.2 above) on 8.595ff.

60. Cf. e.g. Apollo, who can enjoy Daphne forever now that she is a tree (1.554ff.).