In light of yesterday’s Grand National, I thought I’d turn
to a Latin poet whom I have recently come to appreciate. I first encountered Ovid at around the age of
fourteen, when I was handed his guide to picking up women at the racecourse,
taken from his work Amores, as a
translation exercise. I was slightly
alarmed to be presented with a text which advocated spying on women as they
watched the horses go round the track, and sneakily groping people amongst the
crowded stands, and so pigeonholed Ovid as a rather immature, trivial and
tedious poet. It’s safe to say, we got
off on the wrong foot.
Photo by Greg Roberts. Grand National day 2014. I wonder how many race goers took Ovid's advice to heart... |
I ran into Ovid again at AS level, with
Book VIII of his epic poem, The Metamorphoses
being assigned as a set text. Once
again, I was far from overwhelmed. Reading
his portrayal of the various exploits of Scylla and Daedalus, I felt that this
was an extremely formulaic, derivative and, ultimately unimaginative work. Surely
anyone could take a bunch of familiar myths involving some kind of
transformation and cobble together a lengthy poem? Though at times I found
Ovid’s vibrant use of Latin somewhat enjoyable, I wondered whether such care
was being given to the execution of Ovid’s work in a bid to distract from its
lack of originality. Take for example
the line fistula disparibus paulatim
surgis avenis (Ovid. Met. VIII. 192).
Ovid’s Latin mirrors its subject matter, with words seeming to lengthen
as the line goes on, only for it to finish with the shorter surgis avenis, just like the panpipe it
describes. Undeniably a beautifully
crafted line of hexameter, yet I still couldn’t rid my mind of the niggling
thought that Ovid was just a poet who, lacking imagination, had taken and
regurgitated a collection of myths, tales and other people’s work.
Ovid appears again! |
All of this changed in my second year
of university. When I received the list
of texts to be studied at the beginning of the year and saw Ovid Metamorphoses
Book XIII, I groaned inwardly. But with the beginning of term, came the start
of a new chapter in my relationship with Ovid.
As I read this text, digested secondary scholarship and wrote critical
commentaries on a few passages of it, I began to see that I had been wrong to
take the opinion that Ovid was an unimaginative and talentless poet. While reading a section describing the
judgement of arms between Ajax and Odysseus (Ovid. Met. XIII.1-398), I noticed
that the text had a very formal nature, the structuring of the speeches of each
hero perfectly mirroring their well known characteristics; in the case of Ajax,
strength and brawn, in the case of Odysseus, wit and scheming. My mind drifted back to my thoughts on Ovid’s
description of Daedalus and his wings reflecting his subject matter.
Ajax's speech, on the left, is rigidly and decisively organised. By contrast, Odysseus' speech, on the right, is more free flowing, and has a more varied structure. |
It
was as I read Ovid’s treatment of the sacrifice of Polyxena and the lament of
Hecuba, a topic covered by Euripides in his own Hecuba,
that I realised Ovid’s poem was doing more than just relaying the favourite
myths of the Roman people. Not only was
Ovid drawing from a vast melting pot of literary genres, writers, poets and
moral lessons in the construction of his epic poem, and then combining the
material selected on a large scale, he was in fact creating a text which
reflected his subject matter on multiple, complex levels. As shown in the above description of
Daedalus’ panpipe-inspired wings, and the contrasting speeches of Odysseus and
Ajax, Ovid was a master at literally illustrating his ideas with words. But what of the text as a whole?
Ovid flirts with such a variety of
genres and styles, and drawing from such a vast range of sources, ranging from
myth to Homeric epic to tragedy to rhetoric, would mean that the final work
could not be a consistent whole. The
text takes on a different appearance when dealing with the pastoral Polyphemus
as opposed to when conveying the heart wrenching lament of Hecuba. One might argue that the inclusion of such a
variety of inspirations and ideas does not necessarily make Ovid’s poem rich
and diverse, but instead is a fundamental weakness of the text, which lacks
uniformity and constancy.
I disagree. Ovid’s Metamorphoses,
though not an epic in the traditional Homeric or Virgilian form, is
majestic in its own right, as his epic represents exactly what he claims to
wish to write about. His opening lines, ‘In nova fert animus mutatas dicere
formas’ corpora, announce a journey
through time and transformations, a journey mirrored by the very material of
the poem itself. Like the characters
within the text who undergo a variety of changes, Ovid’s poem is in a constant
state of flux and metamorphosis, continually shifting between genres, times and
ideas. For me, this quality of ‘unquantifiableness’
is what makes Ovid’s Metamorphoses so special and interesting. I’m glad I’ve finally come to appreciate Ovid
and at least one of his works in the way he deserves. I’m now so intrigued by his use of Latin and
his habit of ‘playing’ with epic, that he’s even found his way into my
dissertation…
Happy with Ovid! |
If your idea of great literature is that which is original, you are sure to be continuously disappointed. As Pete Seeger once said: "Plagiarism is basic to all culture." But certainly, there are those who merely copy and those who augment and synthesize, creating something new. Ovid is a great resource for mythology, but he is also a genre-bending originator!
ReplyDelete