From peekps@bgnet.bgsu.edu Mon Nov 20 11:56:49 2000 Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id LAA411250 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:56:47 -0800 Received: from smtp02.bgsu.edu (smtp02.bgsu.edu [129.1.5.18]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id LAA32111 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:56:47 -0800 Received: from newfaculty.bgsu.edu (m87-133.bgsu.edu [129.1.87.133]) by smtp02.bgsu.edu (Switch-2.0.7/Switch-2.0.7) with ESMTP id eAKJui022289 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:56:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20001120105127.00abfcb0@mailstore.bgsu.edu> X-Sender: peekps@mailstore.bgsu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:56:04 -0500 To: classics@u.washington.edu From: "Philip S. Peek" Subject: Re: Philemon and Baucis (LONG) In-Reply-To: <3A1739C6.13F48E0C@umail.umd.edu> References: <3A155B0F.E3FAEAF3@umail.umd.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20001117132729.00ad2a80@mailstore.bgsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_20374746==_.ALT" --=====================_20374746==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Bloodied, Peek attempts parry and thrust: Some general points: Whereas Homer's general tone is tragic, I see the general tone of the Met as comic with variations on this comic register. The general comic tone does not preclude serious intention or insight. Ovid's narrator does mock characters, sometimes violently so, but I think Ovid enjoys if not all then most of his characters. More specifically: In addition to tone, I think we are talking about narration. I hope the below makes sense. It is my first attempt to put into words, what I hitherto have only felt is going on in the narratives of Homer and Ovid. In Homer, Homer's narrator, N1, believes in the stories he tells and in the characters, both divine and mortal. When there is a secondary narrator, N1 either believes the tale, doesn't believe, or remains ambivalent; but the main belief system of N1--belief in the overall story of the Iliad or Odyssey--is shared by the secondary characters. And so when we read Homer, we interpret according to the belief system N1 establishes and maintains: the levels this belief system and narrative work on are two: N1 and N2. In Ovid, N1 does not believe in the stories he tells or in the characters, divine or mortal. Rather N1 creates 'believable' stories by having his divine and mortal characters act and think in ways all too human, even though their actions and thoughts can be extreme, exaggerated, or even fantastical. When there is a secondary narrator (any narrator other than N1), N1 keeps his same belief system relative to N2--he doesn't believe the story but he may believe in the way it is told or in other parts of it. N2 narrators can, but do not necessarily, share the same belief system as N1, i.e., they may, or may not, believe in the story and its characters; they may, or may not, possess different story-telling aesthetics. And so when we read the Met., we interpret according to shifting belief systems: the levels are three: N1, N2 (which includes any narrative level beyond N1 and can get quite complicated), and the fabricated belief system of the fictional work itself. At the level of N2, I think Lelex's story fails: (1) Lelex at least purports to believe a story, which N1 tells us not to believe and (2) Lelex fails to create a 'believable' story, as N1 tells us he should, by the way in which he tells it. Rather he seek to create divine belief in Pirithous by telling the heart wrenching tale of the faithful old couple, the only good ones in a community of 1002, by replacing good story telling with sentimentality. At the level of N1, the story succeeds: (1) we read the very 'believable' story of someone trying to convince another of divinity; (2) like an author creating dramatic irony, N1 has N2 narrate his tale in such a way that details N2 doesn't intend as humorous or undermining are so. Finally if we read Lelex's story from the fabricated belief system of the fictional world of the Met., we see that the gods are by no means deserving of worship and that piety ain't rewarded. From this standpoint the 1000 other mortals are smart--gods are here, run for your lives; Philemon and Baucis, merely lucky. In sum N1 does not believe the story of Philemon or Baucis and he doesn't expect us to. N1 expects us to see that the story of Philemon and Baucis violates the story-telling aesthetics of the Met: it seeks to convince through the worst of strategies--pulling our heart-strings. N1 makes the story succeed by intruding on N2's tale. Lelex reminds me of the driving school cop a friend of mine had to listen to for eight hours. He was retiring as a police office and entering a vocation in the church. He told hour upon hour of 'stories' from his career, all with this 'touching' quality about them and all designed to teach a lesson. The two combined to nauseate my friend, who, though highly entertained, had to restrain himself from yelling out. It is not that my friend is against 'touching' qualities or against the general lesson--be careful when you drive, you just may kill someone. But the touching qualities were contrived and undermined the greater lesson. Finally, I have to disagree with ECK on the following: >The idea of >a "companionate marriage" is modern and was still shocking even a century >ago, as Chesterton's references to it indicate. As Apollodorus put it >([Dem.] 59.122), "We have...wives in order to beget legitimate children." >Ovid's picture of a childless couple who, although deprived of that >natural fruition, still love and are loyal to one another is both touching >and pathetic. Odysseus' desire to get home; Achilles' speech in Book IX of the Iliad; CIL 6.18817; CIL 13.1983; CIL 1.2.1221; CIL 6.1527, 31670; Pliny the Younger, Letters 7.5, 8.5.1 and 2 are a few examples I cite against the above view. --=====================_20374746==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Bloodied, Peek attempts parry and thrust:

Some general points:

Whereas Homer's general tone is tragic, I see the general tone of the Met as comic with variations on this comic register. The general comic tone does not preclude serious intention or insight.

Ovid's narrator does mock characters, sometimes violently so, but I think Ovid enjoys if not all then most of his characters.

More specifically:

In addition to tone, I think we are talking about narration. I hope the below makes sense. It is my first attempt to put into words, what I hitherto have only felt is going on in the narratives of Homer and Ovid.

In Homer, Homer's narrator, N1, believes in the stories he tells and in the characters, both divine and mortal. When there is a secondary narrator, N1 either believes the tale, doesn't believe, or remains ambivalent; but the main belief system of N1--belief in the overall story of the Iliad or Odyssey--is shared by the secondary characters. And so when we read Homer, we interpret according to the belief system N1 establishes and maintains: the levels this belief system and narrative work on are two: N1 and N2.

In Ovid, N1 does not believe in the stories he tells or in the characters, divine or mortal. Rather N1 creates 'believable' stories by having his divine and mortal characters act and think in ways all too human, even though their actions and thoughts can be extreme, exaggerated, or even fantastical. When there is a secondary narrator (any narrator other than N1), N1 keeps his same belief system relative to N2--he doesn't believe the story but he may believe in the way it is told or in other parts of it. N2 narrators can,  but do not necessarily, share the same belief system as N1, i.e., they may, or may not, believe in the story and its characters; they may, or may not, possess different story-telling aesthetics. And so when we read the Met., we interpret according to shifting belief systems: the levels are three: N1, N2 (which includes any narrative level beyond N1 and can get quite complicated), and the fabricated belief system of the fictional work itself.

At the level of N2, I think Lelex's story fails: (1) Lelex at least purports to believe a story, which N1 tells us not to believe and (2) Lelex fails to create a 'believable' story, as N1 tells us he should, by the way in which he tells it. Rather he seek to create divine belief in Pirithous by telling the heart wrenching tale of the faithful old couple, the only good ones in a community of 1002, by replacing good story telling with sentimentality.

At the level of N1, the story succeeds: (1) we read the very 'believable' story of someone trying to convince another of divinity; (2) like an author creating dramatic irony, N1 has N2 narrate his tale in such a way that details N2 doesn't intend as humorous or undermining are so. Finally if we read Lelex's story from the fabricated belief system of the fictional world of the Met.,  we see that the gods are by no means deserving of worship and that piety ain't rewarded. From this standpoint the 1000 other mortals are smart--gods are here, run for your lives; Philemon and Baucis, merely lucky.

In sum N1 does not believe the story of Philemon or Baucis and he doesn't expect us to. N1 expects us to see that the story of Philemon and Baucis violates the story-telling aesthetics of the Met: it seeks to convince through the worst of strategies--pulling our heart-strings. N1 makes the story succeed by intruding on N2's tale.

Lelex reminds me of the driving school cop a friend of mine had to listen to for eight hours. He was retiring as a police office and entering  a vocation in the church. He told hour upon hour of 'stories' from his career, all with this 'touching' quality about them and all designed to teach a lesson. The two combined to nauseate my friend, who, though highly entertained, had to restrain himself from yelling out. It is not that my friend is against 'touching' qualities or against the general lesson--be careful when you drive, you just may kill someone. But the touching qualities were contrived and undermined the greater lesson.

Finally, I have to disagree with ECK on the following:

>The idea of
>a "companionate marriage" is modern and was still shocking even a century
>ago, as Chesterton's references to it indicate. As Apollodorus put it
>([Dem.] 59.122), "We have...wives in order to beget legitimate children."
>Ovid's picture of a childless couple who, although deprived of that
>natural fruition, still love and are loyal to one another is both touching
>and pathetic.

Odysseus' desire to get home; Achilles' speech in Book IX of the Iliad;  CIL 6.18817; CIL 13.1983; CIL 1.2.1221; CIL 6.1527, 31670; Pliny the Younger, Letters 7.5, 8.5.1 and 2 are a few examples I cite against the above view.


--=====================_20374746==_.ALT-- .