The Myth Of Perseus And Andromeda English Literature Essay
Part 1
Unlike the written word, paintings are temporally constrained, thus Titian has chosen the most exciting image from Ovid, framed in line 716 – the moment that Perseus first attacks the sea monster. In terms of metamorphosis, this is one of three trials that Perseus undergoes in his transition from callow youth to hero status. Unusually, Ovid’s portrayal of the myth is as a theme of “love”, reinforced by the subsequent marriage of Perseus and Andromeda. Titian’s adaptation hints not at love, but the lust for, and power of, Perseus over Andromeda in a refiguration of Ovid’s myth, influenced, no doubt, by the prevailing Renaissance ideas on the relationship between men and women [2] . Furthermore, this picture was painted for King Philip II, and perhaps sought to stimulate more than the King’s intellect [3] . Finally, Titian’s complete omission of Andromeda’s parents also adds to the sexual frisson; Ovid’s inclusion of them adds legitimacy to the love theme.
Ovid makes no mention of Perseus’ clothing, but an earlier fresco from Pompeii shows Perseus naked and Andromeda clothed [4] , as does a decorated krater [5] circa 400BC. This accords with both Greek and early Roman art, where the archetype of the heroic nude was the standard for delineating deities and heroes from mere mortals and, as such, was intended to stimulate the mind, not the senses. This refiguration between Ovid and Titian is the most striking difference and is due to the reception of the myth in the Renaissance.
Despite being temporally constrained, Titian alludes to other events not actually captured in the picture; for example, he includes coral at the feet of Andromeda, a reference to Perseus’ killing of the Gorgon [6] ; something that Ovid also describes as part of the overall myth of Perseus (4.740 – 750). Finally, there is no sign of the kibisis containing Medusa’s head in the painting; instead Titian embellishes Ovid’s interpretation by introducing Athena’s shield on Perseus’ left arm.
506 words
Part 2
Ovid’s Metamorphosis is a poem of paradox, in which every foible of the human condition is exposed. In manipulating myth, Ovid makes use of point and counterpoint, drawing out threads, which, at first, seem to parallel previous stories, but in the end may convey a different message. Is he moralising, or merely changing the ending of the story to keep the reader’s interest? From a narrative structural viewpoint, Metamorphosis is non-linear, despite Ovid’s efforts to bridge between the fifteen books; this seems to be at odds with his self-expressed desire to “spin me a thread…in one continuous poem” (Prologue lines 2-3). However, he counters this with the individual myths that are, for the most part, structured in a linear manner. This essay will examine the myth of Perseus, which occurs at the end of Book 4 and the beginning of Book 5 and is therefore, perhaps the only linear element between books so far. Those myths that have preceded it largely tell of the lust of the gods and the effect that this has on the human objects of their desire. Therefore, the myth of Perseus is something of a watershed, with its focus on the constructive power of love, rather than the destructive power of lust. The myth, as told by Ovid, follows the formalist narrative structure suggested by Propp [7] , in that Perseus is born of a union of a mortal and a deity, has an absent parent and is forced away from home, through trial he defeats mystical opponents (the Graeae and Gorgons), kills a monster, marries a princess and becomes a king. Thus, in many ways, this myth parallels those of Heracles, Theseus and Jason [8] . In particular, it tells of Perseus’ metamorphosis from callow youth who incapable of protecting his mother, to a hero who ultimately does rid his mother of an unwanted, but persistent, suitor.
The earliest reference to the myth of Perseus dates from approximately 700 BC [9] . Certainly there is evidence on painted pottery of Perseus both beheading Medusa (520-510 BC) [10] and freeing Andromeda (350-340BC) [11] . Aristophanes (446-386BC) also makes mention of parts of the Perseus myth in his Thesmophoriazusae [12] . Pseudo Apollodorus also describes the myth of Perseus, albeit in outline in Book 2, Section 4:1-5 [13] . The description here lacks detail, it does not, for instance, mention the fighting at the wedding feast; simply stating that Perseus turned his adversaries to stone using Medusa’s head. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence to show that the complete myth of Perseus, from his conception in a “shower of gold” to him accidentally killing his grandfather was well established by Ovid’s time.
Most versions of the myth start with the impregnation of Danea by Zeus, via the medium of a shower of gold, and go on to describe the subsequent casting out and sea journey [14] by the young Perseus and his mother. Ovid chooses to make scant reference to this; indeed, he ignores altogether most references to Perseus’ early life. There is no obvious reason for this, but perhaps Ovid intended this myth to be retold in a manner which emphasis the human, rather than the godly element and therefore he chooses to detach Perseus the influence of the gods. This theory is borne out by the fact that Ovid also makes no mention, at this stage, of the “magical” elements that Perseus collects to enable him to strike at Medusa with relative impunity. Clearly, had this part of the myth not occurred then there would have been no myth, for without the winged sandals lent to him by Mercury, Perseus would never have been in a position to see Andromeda from on high, let alone fight and slay the sea monster and ultimately, turn the tide of battle after the Wedding Feast.
This theme of chronological refiguration continues when, other than a brief mention of the use of Medusa’s head to turn Atlas to stone, thus forming the Atlas Mountains, Ovid also chooses to relegate this part of the myth to a “bit” part. When Perseus is with Atlas in the land of the Hesperides, having already obtained Medusa’s head, he is beyond the human realm and therefore, to put too much influence on this part of the myth would be to detract from the human element that Ovid puts at the centre of his myth. Finally, Ovid makes no mention of Pegasus and Chrysaor springing from Medusa’s neck; whilst this may seem a minor omission, it does mean that he cannot use the one practical link – Pegasus, to draw together Books 4 and 5 and serves to illustrate how Ovid has chosen to eschew linear threads between the myths, (Pegasus is mentioned in the myth of Minerva and the Muses 5. 256). Thus far, Ovid has chosen to use a very “broad brush” technique and “gloss over” important, but “magical” details.
Ovid really starts his tale with the rescue of Andromeda by Perseus, and he makes it very clear on several occasions, starting with Line 676, that this is to be a story about the very human emotion of love, as a counterpoint to the gods’ lust and everything else is ancillary to that. He re-emphasis this with his detailed narration of the dialogue between Perseus and Andromeda’s parents, who act almost as chaperones, protecting Andromeda’s virtue that is aptly described in Line 681; here again, he illustrates the difference between men and gods. Before he enters into combat with the monster, Perseus recites not only his recent achievements, but also his direct lineage to Zeus (697-705), almost as if reassuring them that there can be only one outcome. Given that Ovid has been at pains to remove Perseus from godly influence, this twist is puzzling; however, given the title of the poem it may be explained by stepping back taking a rather wider view of the entire poem.
Following a successful outcome, the myth moves to the scene of the wedding feast where finally, and at the request of another guest, we learn how Medusa’s head was obtained. Here, Ovid once again moves away from the influence of the gods; he cleverly “humanises” the story by having Perseus tell it (4.770-802). In doing so, Perseus keeps the mythical element to a minimum; he talks of Mount Atlas (4.771), not of his contest with Atlas; he talks not of Athena’s shield, but merely a bronze shield (4.782), thus the mythological elements of the story are twice removed – once by the teller (Perseus) and again in the tale. These are but two examples of manipulation technique that Ovid regularly employs – that of employing known historical or geographical facts to anchor the myth in reality.
The antithesis of this is when he goes into great detail in order to lend reality to the myth, for example the gruesome details he portrays about the many different ways characters at the wedding feast die. Clearly, there are parallels here with the vivid description of Odysseus’ killing Penelope’s suitors in the Odyssey, (Book 22). Ovid’s use of Homer does not stop there; there are also direct parallels to be drawn between his (Ovid’s) use of Aeolus to imprison the winds to let Perseus fly unhindered on his way home with Homer’s use of Aelous to imprison the winds to enable Odysseus to travel safely home in the Odyssey (Book X). Here again, Ovid manipulates knowledge that his contemporaries would have known to lend veracity to his poem by showing continuity from the past.
The juxtaposition between love and lust, god and mortal, is a recurring motif throughout the poem and an example of two of the many ongoing metamorphoses; contrast the fate of Daphne, who tried to evade Apollo, with that of Andromeda, who had no option other than to face her potential pursuer, in the form of Perseus. Therefore, the myth of Perseus is simply one of the many threads that are interwoven throughout the poem. In terms of metamorphosis, there are many examples, some more obvious than others, in the myth of Perseus. One occurs three times, and this is the use of the Medusa’s head to turn first Atlas, then the Wedding Guest combatants and, finally, Polydectes into stone. Clearly this metamorphosis is “supernatural” and belongs to the realms of the gods. However, the main focus of the story is the metamorphosis of Perseus from “zero” to “hero”, whilst the juxtaposition of god and human in the myth is yet another example.
Ovid’s manipulation of the myth is designed to remove, as far as possible, the gods from the story. He does this to make this myth a very human story, of emotions untouched by the machinations of the gods, to show that if left to their own devices, humans are entirely capable of following their destiny. However, his “humanising” of the myth of Perseus is somewhat disturbing, as it runs contrary to what has gone before in the poem. Thus, at first sight and from a purely academic standpoint, it raises more questions than it answers. However, perhaps to reconcile what at first view seems contrary, it is necessary to consider the myth not simply as a stand-alone story, put as part of a greater – epic poem; as simply one of many continuous strands that, together make up the entire poem. This requires the entire process of metamorphosis to be viewed not only as one of change, but also one of opposites. In doing this, the unusual nature of the myth of Perseus as told by Ovid can be seen simply as a metamorphosis of what he has previously given us.
At a straightforward literal level, Ovid’s manipulation adds to the appeal of Metamorphosis. It need not be read “academically”, but simply as an epic poem, crafted with an exquisite and extensive vocabulary – perhaps a deliberate aim of Ovid to show his academic prowess. What his manipulation does do is to make it possible to read the poem piecemeal.
In summary, the myth of Perseus is representative of the poem Metamorphosis. Its story is not simply a linear motif, but a series of linear motifs that weave in and out of one another, very much like the strands of a rope weave together. Any attempt to cut out a particular strand to examine it in isolation merely makes it less representative of the sum of the parts, and also weakens the sum of the parts. The myth can be read without much thought simply as a literary work in which good ultimately triumphs over evil – just as for example, the Harry Potter books today; structurally, the two bear great similarity. Perhaps on a different intellectual level, it can also be read as an allegorical work, espousing such qualities as self-improvement by facing danger and conquering fear.
Barthes goes on to define a semiotic system for the understanding of myth. Fusing together the Hegelian dialectic with Saussurean semiotics, he arrives at a tri-level model for the semiotic of the myth. At the first level, signifiers (words) and signifieds (meanings) join together to create signs. At the second level, the collective bunch of signs acts as a signifier and joins with the signified (meaning of the myth) to fuse into the mythical sign, the third level. Graphically, Barthes represents this system in the following way:[xxxii]
Barthes uses this model of myth-as-language to explain the function and effectiveness of mythical “truths.”
Barthes’ system, when applied to the Icarus lineage, expands; the mythical sign, again, becomes a signifier for a new myth — itself constructed of language (another level of signifiers and signifieds) — and extends the pyramid structure indefinitely out. The semiotic pyramid, in this lineage of Ovid, Brueghel and Auden, has at least nine levels: three levels per myth, joined together. The entire structure, however, would maintain a pyramidal shape analogous to that of each individual myth; the entire lineage, then, has the structure of a myth. It is a myth-of-myths: a meta-myth, which spurs from the act of deconstruction.
In many ways, this story does not seem to fit into the themes of the poems. Yet, at its heart, this story is about Perseus’s ability to harness the power of transformation. Killing Medusa is not an accomplishment in itself. Perseus only kills Medusa to get her head. With her head, he gains the power to transform others into stone. Thus Perseus becomes a hero