Part 1
Unlike the written word, paintings are temporally constrained, thus Titian has chosen the most fascinating image from Ovid, framed in line 716 - as soon as that Perseus first disorders the sea monster. In conditions of metamorphosis, this is one of three trials that Perseus undergoes in his transition from callow children to hero status. Unusually, Ovid's portrayal of the myth is as a theme of "love", reinforced by the next relationship of Perseus and Andromeda. Titian's adaptation suggestions not at love, however the lust for, and electricity of, Perseus over Andromeda in a refiguration of Ovid's misconception, influenced, no doubt, by the prevailing Renaissance ideas on the partnership between women and men. Furthermore, this picture was coated for King Philip II, and perhaps sought to stimulate more than the King's intellect. Finally, Titian's complete omission of Andromeda's parents also increases the sexual frisson; Ovid's addition of them brings legitimacy to the love theme.
Ovid makes no reference to Perseus' clothing, but a youthful fresco from Pompeii shows Perseus naked and Andromeda clothed, as does indeed a furnished krater 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, therefore, 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 misconception in the Renaissance.
Despite being temporally constrained, Titian alludes to other situations not actually captured in the picture; for example, he includes coral at the feet of Andromeda, a mention of Perseus' getting rid of of the Gorgon ; something that Ovid also represents as part of the overall misconception of Perseus (4. 740 - 750). Finally, there is no signal of the kibisis made up of Medusa's mind in the painting; instead Titian embellishes Ovid's interpretation by adding Athena's shield on Perseus' still left arm.
506 words
Part 2
Ovid's Metamorphosis is a poem of paradox, in which every foible of the human being condition is shown. In manipulating myth, Ovid makes use of point and counterpoint, attracting out threads, which, at first, appear to parallel past stories, but in the finish may convey a different message. Is he moralising, or just changing the ending of the story to keep the reader's interest? From a narrative structural viewpoint, Metamorphosis is non-linear, despite Ovid's initiatives to bridge between your fifteen literature; this seems to be at odds along with his self-expressed want to "spin me a threadin one constant poem" (Prologue lines 2-3). However, he counters this with the individual myths that are, generally, organised in a linear manner. This article will take a look at the misconception of Perseus, which occurs by the end of Publication 4 and the start of Book 5 and is therefore, perhaps the only linear factor between books so far. Those myths that have preceded it typically describe the lust of the gods and the result that this is wearing the human items of the desire. Therefore, the myth of Perseus is something of an watershed, using its focus on the constructive electricity of love, rather than the destructive vitality of lust. The myth, as told by Ovid, uses the formalist narrative structure recommended by Propp, for the reason that Perseus exists of a union of any mortal and a deity, comes with an absent parent and is also forced away from home, through trial he defeats mystical opponents (the Graeae and Gorgons), kills a monster, marries a princess and becomes a ruler. Thus, in many ways, this misconception parallels those of Heracles, Theseus and Jason. Specifically, it says of Perseus' metamorphosis from callow children who incapable of protecting his mother, to a hero who in the end does clear his mother associated with an unwanted, but prolonged, suitor.
The earliest reference to the myth of Perseus dates from about 700 BC. Certainly there is certainly evidence on coated pottery of Perseus both beheading Medusa (520-510 BC) and freeing Andromeda (350-340BC). Aristophanes (446-386BC) also makes reference to elements of the Perseus myth in his Thesmophoriazusae. Pseudo Apollodorus also represents the myth of Perseus, albeit in format in Publication 2, Section 4:1-5. The description here lacks depth, it generally does not, for instance, refer to the fighting with each other at the wedding feast; simply saying that Perseus changed his adversaries to rock using Medusa's brain. Nevertheless, there is enough of evidence showing that the entire myth of Perseus, from his conception in a "shower of gold" to him inadvertently killing his grandfather was well established by Ovid's time.
Most versions of the myth focus on the impregnation of Danea by Zeus, via the medium of your shower of gold, and continue to describe the subsequent casting out and sea trip by the young Perseus and his mom. Ovid chooses to make scant reference to this; indeed, he ignores totally most recommendations to Perseus' early life. There is absolutely no obvious reason for this, but perhaps Ovid supposed this misconception to be retold in a manner which emphasis the human, as opposed to the godly element and for that reason he selects to detach Perseus the impact of the gods. This theory is borne out by the fact that Ovid also makes no talk about, at this stage, of the "magical" elements that Perseus collects to allow him to attack at Medusa with comparative impunity. Clearly, got this area of the myth not occurred then there would have been no myth, for without the winged shoes lent to him by Mercury, Perseus could not have been in a posture to see Andromeda from on high, aside from struggle and slay the ocean monster and inevitably, convert the tide of challenge after the Wedding Feast.
This theme of chronological refiguration remains when, other than a brief reference to the use of Medusa's check out flip Atlas to rock, thus forming the Atlas Mountains, Ovid also decides to relegate this area of the misconception to a "bit" part. When Perseus has been 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 is always to detract from the human being factor that Ovid sets at the centre of his misconception. Finally, Ovid makes no mention of Pegasus and Chrysaor springing from Medusa's neck; whilst this may seem a minor omission, it can imply that he cannot use the one practical link - Pegasus, to sketch together Literature 4 and 5 and assists to demonstrate how Ovid has chosen to eschew linear threads between the misconceptions, (Pegasus is talked about in the misconception of Minerva and the Muses 5. 256). Thus far, Ovid has chosen to employ a very "broad brush" strategy and "gloss over" important, but "magical" details.
Ovid really starts off his story with the save of Andromeda by Perseus, and he makes it very clear on several events, starting with Lines 676, that this is usually to be a story about the human feelings 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 react almost as chaperones, safeguarding Andromeda's virtue that is aptly defined in Line 681; here again, he illustrates the difference between men and gods. Before he gets into into combat with the monster, Perseus recites not only his recent successes, but also his direct lineage to Zeus (697-705), almost as though reassuring them that there may be only one results. Considering that Ovid has been at aches and pains to remove Perseus from godly impact, this twist is puzzling; however, given the subject of the poem it might be explained by stepping back going for a alternatively wider view of the entire poem.
Following a successful outcome, the myth goes to the arena of the marriage feast where finally, with the get of another visitor, we understand how Medusa's mind was obtained. Here, Ovid once again moves from the impact of the gods; he cleverly "humanises" the story insurance agencies Perseus notify it (4. 770-802). In doing so, Perseus keeps the mythical aspect to the very least; he talks of Support 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 components of the story are double removed - once by the teller (Perseus) and again in the story. These are but two examples of manipulation technique that Ovid regularly uses - that of using known historical or physical facts to anchor the misconception in reality.
The antithesis of the is when he goes into great detail to be able to lend certainty to the misconception, including the gruesome details he portrays about the countless different ways personas at the marriage feast die. Evidently, there are parallels here with the stunning information of Odysseus' eradicating Penelope's suitors in the Odyssey, (Booklet 22). Ovid's use of Homer will not stop there; there are also direct parallels to be attracted between his (Ovid's) use of Aeolus to imprison the winds to let Perseus travel unhindered on his way house with Homer's use of Aelous to imprison the winds to permit Odysseus to travel safely home in the Odyssey (Reserve X). Here again, Ovid manipulates knowledge that his contemporaries could have known to give veracity to his poem by showing continuity from days gone by.
The juxtaposition between love and lust, god and mortal, is a continuing motif throughout the poem and a good example of two of the numerous ongoing metamorphoses; compare the destiny of Daphne, who tried out to evade Apollo, recover of Andromeda, who got 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 a wide range of examples, some more clear than others, in the misconception of Perseus. One occurs three times, and this is the utilization of the Medusa's check out transform first Atlas, then the Wedding Guest combatants and, finally, Polydectes into natural stone. Plainly 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 people in the misconception is another example.
Ovid's manipulation of the misconception was created to remove, so far as possible, the gods from the storyline. He will this to make this myth an extremely human account, of emotions untouched by the machinations of the gods, showing that if remaining with their own devices, humans are completely capable of following their destiny. However, his "humanising" of the misconception of Perseus is somewhat troubling, as it runs contrary to what has gone before in the poem. Thus, initially look and from a strictly academic standpoint, it increases more questions than it answers. However, perhaps to reconcile what at first view seems in contrast, it is necessary to consider the myth not only as a stand-alone story, put as part of a greater - epic poem; as simply among the many constant strands that, along make up the entire poem. This requires the entire process of metamorphosis to be viewed not only as you of change, but also one of opposites. In doing this, the unusual aspect of the misconception 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 selling point of Metamorphosis. It need not be read "academically", but merely as an epic poem, built with a perfect and intensive vocabulary - perhaps a deliberate aim of Ovid showing his educational prowess. What his manipulation does do is to make it possible to learn the poem piecemeal.
In summation, the myth of Perseus is representative of the poem Metamorphosis. Its history is not simply a linear motif, but some linear motifs that weave in and out of one another, like the strands of any rope weave alongside one another. Any attempt to cut out a specific strand to examine it in isolation just helps it be less representative of the sum of the parts, and also weakens the sum of the parts. The misconception can be read without much thought simply as a literary work where good in the end triumphs over evil - just for example, the Harry Potter catalogs today; structurally, both bear great similarity. Perhaps over a different intellectual level, it can be read as an allegorical work, espousing such characteristics as self-improvement by facing threat and conquering fear.
Barthes goes on to specify a semiotic system for the understanding of myth. Fusing alongside one another the Hegelian dialectic with Saussurean semiotics, he finds a tri-level model for the semiotic of the misconception. With the first level, signifiers (words) and signifieds (meanings) sign up for together to build signs. At the second level, the collective bunch of signs works as a signifier and joins with the signified (meaning of the myth) to fuse in to the mythical sign, the third level. Graphically, Barthes symbolizes this technique in the next way:[xxxii]
Barthes uses this style of myth-as-language to clarify the function and efficiency of mythical "truths. "
Barthes' system, when put on the Icarus lineage, expands; the mythical indication, again, becomes a signifier for a new misconception -- itself made of language (another degree of signifiers and signifieds) -- and stretches the pyramid structure indefinitely away. The semiotic pyramid, in this lineage of Ovid, Brueghel and Auden, has at least nine levels: three levels per myth, joined together. The complete framework, however, would maintain a pyramidal shape analogous to that of each specific myth; the complete lineage, then, gets the structure of any myth. It is a myth-of-myths: a meta-myth, which spurs from the function of deconstruction.
In many ways, this tale does not seem to fit in to the themes of the poems. Yet, at its center, this story is approximately Perseus's capability to harness the energy of transformation. Killing Medusa is not an accomplishment alone. Perseus only eliminates Medusa to get her mind. With her mind, he gains the power to transform others into rock. Thus Perseus becomes a hero
