Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Medea, Medea, Medea. We see why the Greek playwrights were so enamored of her.

Is there a consistent lesson to learn from her experiences? Or are there conflicting lessons to be sorted through?

I'm not sure if there are any lessons to be learned from Medea here, but I was a little surprised at how little attention Ovid pays to what shocks us most -- how she murders her own children. It rates one two quick lines, and then it's on to the next thing.

Cephalus's story of his marriage with Procris, and its fateful ending, is especially interesting because it is implied that Cephalus in disguise did eventually succeed in seducing Procis. Or to be more precise, in buying her favours.

Their marriage was only saved when he understood - and admitted- that what she did was only human. That we all have a price. But understanding rarely changes our feelings, and in marriage we need (blind) trust more than insight in our corruptible nature.

Thomas wrote: "I'm not sure if there are any lessons to be learned from Medea here, but I was a little surprised at how little attention Ovid pays to what shocks us most -- how she murders her own children. It ra..."

Alice McDermott, in her After This, has the teacher (Sister Lucy) use the story of Medea in talking to the classroom of girls about abortion. As the class ends, one of girls has the temerity to respond, "Thousands of grown-up babies died in Vietnam? Why didn't they pass a law against that?" pp. 213-220

(I am just finishing Murakami's The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle with its ruminations on Japanese-Chinese-Soviet atrocities. For an upcoming discussion of the book, but too much. The violence is closer in time than The Iliad. Need to change reading gears soon.)

I think her (Medea) soliloquy is something that is very beautiful. It shows her logic, but it also shows her desire. In some ways it makes me think of Ophelia in Hamlet. One could read Ophelia as wanting to be loyal to her father, but yet still acting on her desires for Hamlet.
This soliloquy also shows how smart she is. She is able to intelligently critique her actions. However, because she thinks before she acts very carefully, she is a terrifying character.

Tonight Metamorphoses feels too full of stories of mothers who murder their own children. I just finished rereading Chapter VI, with its story of the dissolute Tereus, the sisters Procne and Philomela, and Itys. The story reads like a screaming, tortuous tabloid article -- or a sad, surreal headline of another case of madness gone amok.

Wendel wrote: "Cephalus's story of his marriage with Procris, and its fateful ending, is especially interesting because it is implied that Cephalus in disguise did eventually succeed in seducing Procis. Or to be more precise, in buying her favours.

Their marriage was only saved when he understood - and admitted- that what she did was only human. That we all have a price. But understanding rarely changes our feelings, and in marriage we need (blind) trust more than insight in our corruptible nature...."

True, but their marriage would not have been in jeopardy had he not allowed the seed of doubt that was planted by Aurora to take root and lead him to test his wife.

Elizabeth wrote: "Wendel wrote: "Cephalus's story ..."

Indeed. This must have been of some importance to Ovid. I read that in his self-help book Ars Amatoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Amat...) he advises his male (!) readers to ignore signs of infidelity. We don't want to know everything (which is the next best thing if the trust isn't perfect). But he also seems to teach that some degree of jealousy is necessary to keep a relation alive.

Lily wrote: "Tonight
Metamorphoses
feels too full of stories of mothers who murder their own children. I just finished rereading Chapter VI, with its story of the dissolute Tereus, the sisters Procne and P..."

Now we are at the part that made me not want to read Metamorphosis again.

Wendel wrote: "...We don't want to know everything (which is the next best thing if the trust isn't perfect)...."

Wendel -- doesn't "perfect trust" sometimes involve not knowing everything? And I don't mean the absconding responsibility type of trust sometimes practiced in hierarchies, but trust that at some level is a always a gift, a leap of faith. Even if trust also must be earned.

Lily wrote: doesn't "perfect trust" sometimes involve not knowing everything? ... trust that at some level is a always a gift, a leap of faith .."

That must be what I tried to say. For 'perfect trust' knowing is even irrelevant - it is indeed a leap of faith. But when that is not possible, Ovid's not wanting to know may be a second best. I found his advocacy of the latter remarkable.

Wendel wrote: "For 'perfect trust' knowing is even irrelevant - it is indeed a leap of faith. But when that is not possible, Ovid's not wanting to know may be a second best. I found his advocacy of the latter remarkable."

Ah, yes! Thanks for the conversation.

P.S. I do believe, however, trust is often based on a significant level of "knowing."