CRISES OF IDENTITY IN OVID’S METAMORPHOSES

Paula James

The aim of this article is to draw attention to certain interconnecting motifs within Ovid’s
Mefamorphoscs which have not, to my knowledge, been given emphasis before. However, the
episodes that I intend to cover have inspired a great deal of scholarly interpretation, and I shall
attempt to avoid repetition of familiar and well-worked ideas in this discussion.’
Narcissus is the logical starting point for any examination of the identity crisis theme; the
progress to self awareness, tortuously entwined with self-delusion, is narrated by Ovid as a
tragi-comic predicament. Narcissus is doomed to ‘know himself’ in a new and disastrous
fashion (Mer. 3.346-8):
... de quo consultus, an esset
tempora maturae visurus longa senectae,
fatidicus vates ‘si se non noverit’ inquit.
According to Ovid, this prophecy of Tiresias baffles his audience, but subsequent events are
supposed to clarify his pronouncements (Met. 3.349-50):
vana diu visa est vox auguris exitus illam
resque probat letique genus novitasque furoris.
Ovid’s promise of a revelation is part of his teasing technique throughout the Meramorphoses.
The warning that Narcissus should not ‘know himself’ has been interpreted as an ironic reversal
of the Delphic guide to rational living. Clearly, it would not be the first time in myth and
legend that yvQBi o ~ c r u ~ oasv a general rule was tragically unacceptable in a particular case.
We are reminded of Oedipus, who was confident and hopeful as long as he did not possess a
piece of vital information, his own identity. For Narcissus, too, ignorance, while it lasts, is
(relative) bliss.
However, unlike Oedipus, Narcissus’ ‘punishment’ is well deserved in that he displays
arrogance towards human and numinous lovers alike, offending both gods (Cupid in particular)
and his immediate society. Had Narcissus ‘known himself’ better in relation to others, he
might not have been compelled to deny his own identity to the point of absurdity (paradoxically
even after recognition). The fact that Retribution herself supervises his terrible punishment
must indicate that Narcissus has transgressed a fundamental law (Met. 3.402-6):’
sic hanc, sic alias undis aut montibus ortas
luserat hic nymphas, sic coetus ante viriles.

I The select bibliography at the end of this article indicates works of particular significance for this line of enquiry
For the dread of a disturbed individual ‘lest in any relationship he will lose his autonomy and identity’ and for
further applications of Laing’s DiiYded Sr/fto Ovid’s work. see Curran, 44 ff.
‘Both when Narcissus repels Echo (as he had repelled his earlier admirers) and when he persists in his courtship of
his own reflection. he does so knowingly; rejection of actual and acceptance of illusory love are conscious and
willed’: Kenney. 186.
This is a characteristic that Narcissus shares with Pygmalion. although for the latter illusion becomes reality; for
Narcissus ‘reality’ proves to be an illusion. See Rosati. 65-67,
With regard to Retribution and her ‘guest appearance’ as avenging deity in the Narcissus episode. Ovid is
occasionally innovative and enigmatic in his choice of punitive and rewarding deities. Post-Ovidian vcrhions of
the Narcissus myth replace Rhainnusia (Nemesis) with Amor hiinself (the offended deity proper). Vinpe explores
this in the earlier chapters.
The choice of Rhamnusia is surely connected with the description of the prayers as,jii.\/:cf. 11.5.

17
 inde manus aliquis despectus ad aethera tollens
sic amet ipse licet, sic. non potiutiir uniuto
dixerat, assensit precibus Rhamnusia iustis.
The scene is set for Narcissus' tragic error. The reader has been promised a degree of t1ovitu.s
in the fulfilment of the spiteful prayer, but the s i c /?ot?potiutirr- umufo is to be reworked with
further ironies in subsequent narrations.

Narcissus' 'amusing error'

Bizarre as his mistake is, it is possible to excuse Narcissus for his confusion initially. Ovid's
incorporation of the Echo myth within the narrative encourages Narcissus to believe that a
reflection of himself (in this case, auditory) can be a distinct entity.' We cannot, however,
ignore the fact that Narcissus does recognise himself eventually but wilfully continues to treat
his reflection as another being. lsfc ('<yo siini; s c w s i , 3.463. This presents yet another interesting
reversal. for Narcissus, who has been indirectly responsible for divesting Echo of her material
body, now attempts to invest his reflected image with corporeality (a body it can never have -
or has already!).
Narcissus' objectification of self, and the resulting eternal frustration, presents a
treasurehouse of paradoxes. Only Ovid, after extracting every ounce of irony possible from the
situation hcfi)t.c recognition, could prolong the agony by allowing Narcissus himself the wry
commentary on his unusual dilemma. The elegiac courtship, with a difference. continues to
play itself out ( M e t . 3.4674):
o utinam a nostro secedere corpore possem!
votum in amante novum, vellem quod amamus abesset.
Narcissus moves back from love of another (or so he believes) to love of himself (his original
state). Realisation of the reality of his situation simply leads him into an even more illusory
world. Even death does not dispel the delusion ( M e f .3.504-5):'
tum quoque se, postquam est inferna sede receptus
in Stygia spectabat aqua.
The Narcissus episode is an eccentric example of a 'so near and yet so far' erotic frustration
and a concentrated expression of the identity crisis motif, so central to a work o f
metamorphoses. Therefore, it is worth emphasising those echoes of Narcissus and the t i o ~ i
potititrir uniuto theme encountered in subsequent stories.
In Book Four the Minyades, rejecting the rites of Bacchus, tell a number of stories. amongst
which is the brief aetiological myth of a dangerously enervating pool, belonging to the nymph,
Salmacis. Salmacis. enamoured of the son of Hermes and Aphrodite, utters a salacious prayer
implying ;I kind of eternal copulation with this unresponsive object of love. However. the wish

Thi\ point i \ raised hy Galinsh) i n Oikl'.\ ~ ( , r ~ / ~ ~ / / ~ / . / ~ / i / J51. \ . reinforces the ingenuity displayctl hy O v i d i i i this
. \ [ , . It
creative and suhtle piece o f ( , / J / / / ~ / / ~ / / ~ I ~ /Ovid
/ / / ~ . hrietly outlines Echo's punishment for assisting Jove t o deceive
J u n o \o that the reader is remintled o f her connivonce ;it sexual promiscuity.
Ro\ati'\ fint chapter deals with the Echo/Narcissus association.
' 'Narci\\us is incapahlc o f putting himself in the place of anyhody else: he cannot imagine the effect o f his henuty
and indifference o n others. Brought face t o face with it. he has n o resource but to destroy himself': Kenney. 187.
Ro\aii'\ point ( 5 0 )concerning Narcissus and the artistic paradigm further extends the area o f discussion on the role
~ / / n.20).
o l artist\ in the ~ [ , / ~ ~ / ~ I ~ J ~ ~ (cf. / ~ . \ ~ , Prewnahly.
. \ Narcissus could also he accused o f not knowing when to
I c ~ i v ehell alone: 'Ovidio e i I poetn Narciso. i I poeta chino ncll';iinmir;izioiie del proprio virtuosismo. chc si esiiltii
\pecciando\i nello \tupore del suo publico. i I poeta "nimium umator ingenii sui" secundo I;i felice defini/ionc dcllo
\tc\\o Q u i n t i I iano.'
 P. JAMES I9

is horribly distorted and the union of lover and beloved is effected in such a way as to deny
forever the fulfilment of passion ( M c f .4.37 1 - S ) : 5
'non tamen effugies ita di iubeatis, et istum
nulla dies a me, nec me diducat ab isto'
vota suos habuere deos, narn mixta duorum
corpora iunguntur, faciesque inducitur illis
una .. .
Salmacis could now well echo Narcissus' lament that separation is the only method of
satisfaction because two formerly independent beings are merged into one."
More than one character in the Mcfumoi~hosc.sis made in the image of Narcissus, but
perhaps one of the closest parallels is to be found in Book 10. Myrrha's perverse passion is
fully expressed in a tortured soliloquy which has sufficient verbal echoes of the Narcissistic
impasse to provide yet another example of reality and identity confounded (Mcf.10.336-40):
spes interdictae discedite. dignus amari
ille, sed ut pater, est ... ergo si filia magni
iioi7 c s s m Ciiiji-ac.CitiyiuL>c.onc.unihcr.cposseni
nunc quia tam meus est, non est meus, ipsaque damno
est mihi proximitas aliena potentior essem.
The dilemma is becoming a familiar one, since Myrrha loves a being identified with herself and
of whom she is, in a sense, already a part. Like Narcissus, Myrrha is united to her beloved but
in ;I way which denies true and full union. She, too, wishes she could set up temporary barriers
to replace the real, inseparable and insuperable ties. She cannot alter the relationship in which
she stands to the object of her desire. any more than Narcissus can become other than himself.
The ownership. even abundance, which causes need is pivotal to the frustration.'
Since the Myrrha episode can never be discussed without reference to the Pygmalion story
which precedes it (the link is not purely in terms of lineage) it is worth reminding ourselves that
?ygmalion's prayer has its own Narcissistic tendencies. Leach has pointed out that Pygmalion
craves union not only with his own creation but with a mere artistic reflection of reality. Like
Myrrha, he dare not voice his real request but asks for something 'like it' - and herein lies
further irony a s Pygmalion does not pray for the reflection of reality but a reflection of the
rctlection.s Unlike Narcissus both Pygmalion and Myrrha, after rejection of available partners.

' See Leach. 109. on this symbol o f eternal tru\tration (also Barkan. 1986. 57). The presiding deities are referred to
(4.373).
obliquely by Ovid: w / t r . s r ~ o sI i t r h i r c , / . c , d t ~ ~ \ Melville translates this as 'her prayers found gods to hear'.
Kenney comments. ihitl.. 398. 'What gods. and why did they grant the prayer'!' Biiiner notes the repetition of this
line in the Myrrhii episode ;it 10.1X9 (see Mc/rrr/ior.l,lrosc,~(Heidelberg. 1979) Vols IV-V and X-XI). Myrrha
crave\ loss of iJentity. and the perverw prayer is answered by equally enigmatic forces. Sulmaci\ a l s o wishe\ to
submerge herself. hut presumably complete loss of self was n o t quite the intention of her request. These t w o
instances o f Irerhrrc,rc, t / ( ~ might
~ s suggest ;I gnomic perfect (although Bijiner's note supports ;I more struightforwarcl
interpretation) hut 'prayers (like these?) have their own gods' is no less oblique. Worthy, of note i n this context is
the comparably unple;isaiit lashion in which Retribution (deity specified) replies to the revenge u ish of Narcissu\'
rc.jected lover (unspecified).
" I t is possible to see u recurrence o f the two in one theme within the Pyramus und Thisbe narrative of H o o k Four.
This story is also recounted by the Minyades and tells how the hero und heroine find tinion only in death. their
a.;hes mingled in ii single urn. after prolonged separation and with passion uiicOnsuiiiiiiated.
' Cf. Midas who also echoes Narcissus: t.opit/ / i r r / / t r f i r r i i c i i i / ~ , / c , i ~ (r 1/ I . 120). Midas clearly suffers from the r / t o p c ' / / i
c ~ o p i t r f i c i /syndrome. Other parallcls \pring to mind. Midas' desire lor something which is . \ p t imir.\ rest:ite\
/ti('
the theme of perilous and illusive beauty, deceptive appearances or 'cheating forms'. On the relationship between
imagines/fiducia fornine and trnnsforiiintion see Anderson. 23-26.
Pure Pygmalion verws mnculate Myrrha i s thankfully ii conti-ast of the past (see Leach. 123-13 5 ) . Mqrrha ('the
daughter w h o loves her father and thus never gains ;in identity separate from that of her creator': Leach. lot, I , / / . )
obtain the unobtainable, in Myrrha's case at tremendous cost, not least to her own identity (a
crisis she suspected as already emerging)." Thus she embraces her metamorphosis, submerging
her guilt and her human identity, body and soul, within the tree."'

Actaeon: Gods and Victims

In addressing the Actaeon episode (with a brief look at Semele, Callisto and Pentheus) under
the general title of identity crisis, I hope to illustrate that not only mortals but immortals in the
Mctuniorphoscs are subject to self-doubt, and that this self-doubt is frequently engineered
deliberately or otherwise by the mortals themselves. I am, thereforc, examining in this section
some different aspects of identity, dealing with the psychological dilemma imposed upon
violently metamorphosed humans and the mentality of the gods behind these transformations.
The Delphic dictum, however, will remain the interconnecting motif.
Actaeon, prince of Thebes, is transformed into a stag by the goddess Diana and illustrates a
recurrent punishment suffered by unfortunate mortals - permanent loss of human identity. It
is the terrible ambiguity caused by the human mind battling with the animal form, the distortion
of self-image, which characterises the Actaeon episode.
In Ovid's version, Actaeon falls foul of Diana by sheer accident, blundering in upon the
virgin goddess at her bath and being punished accordingly ( M e t . 3.141-2):
at bene si quaeras, Fortunae crimen in illo,
non scelus, invenies, quod enim scelus error habebat'!
Ovid's treatment of Actaeon is at once sympathetic (he prefers to use an innocent Actaeon story
when other versions were available)" and terribly specific in its description of mental and
physical torment. His emphasis upon Actaeon's loss of identity culminates in the frustration
and disappointment of the prince's companions because he is not present at his own mutilation
and death (Met. 3.242-6):
at comites rapidum solitus hortatibus agmen
gives a clear reassessment of the propriety of Pygmalion's desire. Pygmalion's request for something like the
ivory maiden is a discreet way of asking for a realisation of the reflection (which may well be in the image of
Venus herself: see Keen's discussion. I 12- 122). In any case. it sets up the verbal irony noted (a reflection o f the
retlection) and links Pygmalion's prayer with Myrrha's plea for a partner like her father (Leach. 140).
' I Myrrha expresses concern at the confusion created by incestuous love in terms of family relationships and

designations thereof ( M c t . 10.346-8): et yicot c~onfitric1ri.sct iitru ('I w n i i m i , writis:' / t i o i e errs ('I niutris /w/c~.v.c't
d i i / / i ~ r/xi/ri.s
~i ? / t i i i i c soi'or ,qiruti. gp~ietri.\-yiic,i.oc.uher.cJ fi.utri.s :)
Ovid's Phaedra ( H P M J ~4~) Cattempts S to solve the moral dilemma by reducing relationships to uoniirici i'cimi. The
'tragical' motif has inherently farcical aspects. See Seneca's employment of family ties confounded in both the
A,qtinicniiio,i (where Clytemnestra and Electra taunt Aegisthus at 293 and 983.985) and in the Oedi/>its(Jocasta's
hesitation in defining her identity in regard to husband/son at 100')-1012 and 1035-1036). For Seneca. this
situation retlects and is reflected in the 'Apocalypse Now' theme: the natural progression of things is reversed. law
and the ordered universe lose their identity. See n.20 for ecpyrosis in Ovid.
I" Thi\ is a metamorphosis proper. whereas Narcissus does not actually change into a flower: only a representation
of him remains behind (to mark the spot). Narcissus is condemned to the very limbo Myrrha called down upon
herself: between two world\. unable to make the transition to death, he is paralysed beside the Stygian pool.
obessed with a \hadow of his former self.
See A. A. R. Hendenon. Oi.it/ Mctcinioip/ro,st~.s111 (Bristol Classical Press, 1979). S9. and Barkan ( 1980). 323-24.
Apuleiu\ M c t . 2.3 (Diana Actaeon ecphrasis) implies a sacrilegious 'curiositas'. Ovid's Actaeon does not set
him\elf up against Diana the huntress nor does he seek her as a sexual partner. Error must equal &papria here,
indicating the unconscious crime and underscoring the tragic milieu of Book Three. Connected with this is the
que\tion of Fortuna. who is directly blamed for Actaeon's demise (3.141-2): ut hcnc s i c/itue/'~i.s. For.tioiuc, c.riniot
i / i ;/lo / ii01i .\c.e/rr.\ ; i i i ~ , i i i ~ . \q; i t o d o i i n i .cc.c/it,s c r i w /iohchti/:' Ovid's rhetorical question is two-edged. Actaeon
\peak\ prophetically when he states at I . 149. ' f i w r r o i m i q r t c ~d i e s liuhtrit sutis.' Indeed. his luck ha\ run out.
although he ha\ no inkling of the tragedy to come. He is proud of the spoils and slaughter around him. and this
inten\ifie\ the irony of his observation.
 P. JAMES 21

ignari instigant oculisque Actaeona quaerunt

et velut absentem certatim Actaeona clamant
(ad nomen caput illa refert) et abesse queruntur
nec capere oblatae segnem spectacula praedae.
Actaeon's anguish begins at the moment of realisation, when he recognises his own, but not
truly his own or, for Actaeon, not recognisably his own, reflection in the pool (a foreshadowing
of Narcissus here).'? Not unexpectedly, he undergoes a trauma, a crisis of identity which is full
of anguish since Actaeon, like many victims of transformations of this kind, retains his human
intellect ( M P I .3.200-3):
ut vero vultus et cornua vidit in unda,
'me miserum' dicturus erat, vox nulla secuta est.
ingemuit, vox illa fuit, lacrimaeque per ora
non sua fluxerunt. mens tantum pristina mansit.
Actaeon has lost his human identity, but apparently only in terms of his physical appearance
(cf. Callisto, 10 and others throughout the Metumorphoses). With Actaeon, however, there is a
suggestion of additional cruelty which crystallises around his inner debate (Mef. 3.204-5):
quid faciat? repetatne domum et regalia tecta
an lateat silvis? pudor hoc, timor impedit illud.
In the view of most commentators, retaining the regular latinity of the phrase 'hic - i l k ' ,
'latter - former'. does violence to the sense of the passage." A reversal of the normal order
(and the 'rule' is flexible) restores the logic of the thought. Actaeon was afraid of the woods
but ashamed to go home. There can, then, be no objection to this interpretation on the grounds
of language or meaning. Actaeon knew the woods were full of his own hunters (of the human
and animal variety). He is in the vulnerable shape of the deer. On the other hand, he is
ashamed to go home in this humiliating new form.
However, a transposition of Actaeon's shame or fear makes equally good sense, for a deer
would be wary of civilisation and the dwellings of men whereas a prince would feel humiliated
at hiding in the woods. Here we have the conflict between human intellect and animal instinct
expressed in rational thought, a conflict between past and present forms, essence and
appearance, subjective perception and changing objective reality; in short, a host of dialectical
categories which are inevitably brought into focus with any metamorphosis of this type. The
additional piquancy arises when Diana's parting gift to Actaeon is recalled (Met. 3.198-9):
additus et pavor est. fugit Autonoeius heros
et se tam celerem cursu miratur in ipso.

I? Barkan's comments (19x6). 45. on the reflection motif are particularly perceptive: 'Diana and the stag are both
mirror images of the young hunter; but inore than these Ovid emphasizes the fact that what Actaeon sees in the
mirror after his transformation is for the first time a sense of his own identity.' Barkan reminds the reader of
Cadmus' serpent who serves as a mirror image of his future self ( M u . 3.97-X): 'quid. Agenore nate. percmptuin /
serpenteni spectas? et tu spectabere cerpens.'
'Metamorphoses becomes a means of creating self-consciousness because i t cstahli\hes a tension between identity
and form and through this tension the individual is compelled to look in the mirrnr': Barkan (19x6). 46.
Caution should. however. be exercised in analyses along the lines o f the 'secrets of self-consciousness'. since the
realins o f modern psychology have often proved a precarious locw m i o ( w 1 . s for critics of ancient literary texts.
Barkan's observations o n the identity between Diana and Actaeon have some relcvance tn the Arachne \tory. \ince
girl arid goddess possess inter-penetrating attributes. Arachne denies her rival Minervia any credit for the &ills she
(Arachne) enjoys. but her weaving expertise is an aspect o f the goddess hcrsclt (scc 11.20).
I ' See Hentlerson. 65.
--
77 RlCS 33 ( 1986)

Ptriw. would not be an unexpected or unnatural reaction on Actaeon's part. It is the standard
response to a Divine Encounter; but this fear, deliberately instilled by Diana, sets her victim
running at a speed which amazes the runner himself. P u \ w suggests the immediate and
instinctive nervous tlight of the animal he has become. In fact, this specifically animal fear acts
upon him before he realises that he has suffered a transformation. After the revelation, his
human mind attempts to assess the situation and he debates what to do, but the complexity of
his emotions should not be underestimated. The pui-or or tinlor in Actaeon the deer leads him
to ;i natural preference for the relative safety of the woods, his animal environment: the pittior is
an exclusively human sensibility which finds skulking in the woods a humiliating exercise for a
noble prince. a fearless hunter. Actaeon, the hero, belongs in the palace. The human reaction
o f p r t l o r contlicts with the animal instinct of fear. At the same time, it must be recognised that
the fear borrows a rational human motive or dimension. Actaeon knows that he is now a deer
and the t.error he feels is logical. The transformation does not simply bring about humanity's
submersion in an animal skin but also makes animal fear transcend instinct and take on human
self-awareness.
Actaeon's shame at remaining in the woods, his embarrassment at his new animal
characteristics, internal as well as external, are, of course, a fitting punishment for the /iiidor he
has caused Diana. The 'revealing blush of embarrassment'I4 which suffuses the goddess's face
and neck and her teniporary paralysis are equivalent to a defilement or even disfigurement in
her own eyes. He has certainly challenged her virginal status, an essential part of her identity.
To this point we shall return.
Another example of identity crisis which provides a useful comparison and contrast with
Actaeon is the case of Callisto in Book Two. Apart from the obvious connections between
Callisto and Actaeon (Diana. hunting, and revelations at bathtime) there is also the question of
the psychology of the two characters after metamorphosis." There is no suggestion that Juno
has given Callisto any beastlike instincts at all. On the contrary, Callisto clings pathetically to
her former state, denying her new nature (Met. 2.489-95):
a. quotiens, sola non ausa quiescere silva,
ante domum quondamque suis erravit in agris!
a, quotiens per saxa canum latratibus acta est,
venatrix metu venantum territa fugit!
saepe feris latuit visis, ohlitu quid esset,
ursaque conspectos in montibus horruit ursos;
pertimuitque lupos, quamvis pater esset in illis.
The huntress flees the hunt. Thus far, she admits her new identity, realises the danger she is in.
;is a bear. Otherwise, she cannot accept the transformation and continually lurks near her
father's home."' I t becomes difficult to unravel which facet of Callisto fears to take rest in the

I' See R. F. Newbold. 'Sensitivity t o Shame in Greek and Roman Epic with particular reference to Clnudian and
Nonnus'. Ktrnrrr.s 14.1 (1986). 30-45. In his study on the psychology of shame and the range of emotions
expressed hy prulot', Newbold explores the various counterphobia functions. particularly water which purifies the
victim o f humiliation. Water corporcalised in the nymphs is an inadequate barrier for Diana. but does become the
iiic;ins of p u n i 4 i n m t intlicted upon Actaeon.
''I lo i \ mother example o f the metamorphosed human retaining his/her intellectual powers. She. too is bemused and
bewildered by her new shape and unable to come to terms with the limitations placed upon her by her changed
identity.
If> Ovitl has told the story of Lycaon. King of Arcadia, in the context of the Flood. Since the paradox of Callisto's
state ha\ been fully realised in relation to her own kind, the reminder that her own father is now a wolf seems
gratuitouz and anti-climactic ( M c / .2.495): /wt'rinriritqrcc lrcpos. qrrumiis pti/er. e s s c ~ /it7 illis. Once again. Ovid's
chronology coiiies i n t o question since Lycaon and his lands. and. for that matter. Callisto herself, x e m e d t o have
 P. JAMES 23

woods (an unnatural environment for a maiden; only unsafe for bears when the hunt is on), but
very clearly homesickness and a quest for security impel her to wander in her once proper
surroundings. As Ovid points out (2.485), mens untiyuu tumen ,fuctu yuoyue mcrnsit in urs~i.
Callisto's incongruously girlish anxieties render the line ohlitu yuid esset most poignant since
Callisto really is a bear, but, faced with other wild animals and bears themselves, Callisto the
bear is incapable of 'knowing herself'. The conflict of identities, animal and human jockeying
for position, brings us back full circle to Narcissus and the Delphic oracle.

Actaeon's cousins
The final item of significance in Book Three is the birth of Bacchus and establishment of his
cult. The story of Semele can be seen as a further contribution to the identity theme. Semele is
easily persuaded to make a disastrous request to Jupiter, that he appear to her, and embrace her,
as he really is. This is partly an attempt to rival Juno (Semele has delusions of grandeur
cynically exploited by Juno) and partly an attempt to give public proof of her lover's divinity (a
claim rejected by a significant number of her family after her death). Semele does not elevate
her status but destroys herself, and the threat to Juno is removed. The prolonged association
with Jupiter has probably set her high amongst his mortal partners, and this special place may
explain the fact that Semele produces a god rather than a mere hero." Juno has already bitterly
complained that her punishments are rapidly transformed into rewards (witness Callisto who
becomes a constellation), and although she has put an end to Semele we cannot discount the
birth of Bacchus as a body blow to her revenge ( M e t . 2.5 1 X-22):Ix
est vero. cur quis Iunonem laedere nolit
offensamque tremat? quae prosum sola nocendo?
0, ego quantum egi! quam vasta potentia nostra est
esse hominem vetui, facta est dea. sic ego poenas
sontibus impono, sic est mea magna potestas.
Semele, like Callisto, shows Juno at her most insecure; her marital status challenged, she is
temporarily unnerved. Actaeon, in contrast, tarnished the virginal status of Diana, bringing her
privacy if not her power into question.
Clearly it is Bacchus who suffers most among the Olympians, since his very divinity is
denied by the King of Thebes. The story is well known and powerfully dramatised by
Euripides. Ovid's adaptation of the Pentheus story has some interesting features, not least of
which is the inclusion of another metamorphosis narrative (the Tyrrhenian sailors), a possible
indication that Acoetes, the narrator, is Bacchus himself. The actual death of Pentheus is
24 BlCS 33 ( 1986)

presented briefly and relentlessly but with no lack of dramatic irony. The reference to Actaeon
returns the reader to the first tragic loss in the house of Cadmus.
Ovid’s Pentheus calls upon the spirit of his cousin Actaeon as his mother and aunts tear him
to pieces (Met. 3.720-3):
‘Autonoe; moveant animos Actaeonis umbrae’,
illa quis Actaeon nescit dextramque precantis
abstulit; Inoo lacerata est altera raptu.
The prayer is to no avail as Actaeon is doomed not to be recognised even @er- his death - a
nice irony in regard to perpetual loss of identity. Pentheus may as well be as mute as Actaeon
was himself. Pentheus’ physical metamorphosis takes place only in the eyes of the beholders.
Perception not reality is transformed, but the result is equally terrible and the line between
subjective and objective transformation must be deliberately tenuous.’y
Pentheus’ punishment, so reminiscent of Actaeon’s, is also carried out by his nearest and
dearest. The two cousins are completely denied their identity, a fact which should remind the
reader that Bacchus himself (the third of the cousins) spends no little time in establishing his
own identity as a god, and is not initially afforded divine status by his own relations: he is not
recognised for what he truly is by his ‘nearest and dearest’.
It would seem, then, that the gods devise appropriate return for their own ‘crises of
confidence’ and effect corresponding losses of identity for the humans they hold responsible. It
cannot be suggested that the gods are insecure in their exercise of power, but in the Ovidian
mythology they do appear to suffer self-doubts in certain central attributes. We have already
witnessed Apollo boosting his confidence with a hymn to self in face of Daphne’s rejection
( M c f . 1.512-20), and it could be argued that Athena positively avoids the weaving contest with
Arachne until all reasoning fails and protocol demands the final test.?“

I’ ‘For instance in Book 3 Pcritherts has no transformation at all: he is simply torn to pieces. without the
compensating dignity of becoming. say, a flower like Narcissus or Hyacinthus’: Henderson, 7. This seems a
strangely restricted interpretation of the metamorphosis motif. Ovid omits the transvestite scene from the Bac,c,/icicJ
with its superficial outward transformation of Pentheus (reflecting a profound inner change and loss of control).
The Theban king is given more dignity. retains his rashness ( r c t f i w i i t w e r cqtrrcs, 3.740) and goes as a warrior to
the mountain. It is possible that in this respect Ovid rescues the legend from a Euripidean innovation (see Jennifer
March. ‘Euripides the Misogynist’?’, in the forthcoming volume of ‘Papers of the London Classical Society:
Euripides and his Society’. Euripides. Won~cviund Se.\-rrm/ity (Croom Helm, 1988)). Ovid’s Pentheus recalls his
relationship to Mars and also cites his noble and courageous ancestor, the snake, thus transforming perceptions of
Cadmus’ monstrous opponent. Barkan (1980). 319, comments: ‘The whole miserable destiny of Thebes goes
back to this combination of problems: seeing what is forbidden, offending the gods and developing a transforming
and mirror-like identity.’
2o ‘Arachne’ raises a number of problems in the search for artistic paradigms throughout the Mefu~ro,pho.sc.u. In
outlining briefly, in this final note. some of the interesting ambivalences. I hope to provide an envoy for the
identity crisis themc.
Barkan gathers up the threads (pun intended) of scholarship on the Arachne episode in his opening chapter
’Tapestry Figures’. On p.4 he outlines the critical consensus: ‘It requires no great leap of the imagination to see
in Arachne’s tapestry all the elements of Ovid’s own poetic form in the Metamorpho.ses which is. after all. a poem
which eschews a clear narrative structure and rather creates a finely-woven fabric of stories related via
transformation.’ Parallels between Ovid and Arachne are unavoidable. Both challenge Envy to try and damage
their work. Both seem to champion fluidity of form and the less orthodox methods of composition (Anderson,
103. and Lateiqer o n ’Flawed Triumphs of Art’. IS). However, Hofmann, 231, offers valuable caveats on
restricting Ovid to the principles of free association in his artistic programme: ‘It is also possible to see Minerva’s
i its classical symmetry, grandiose content and stress on order
tapestry as representing the c w m w p e r p c ~ t ~ r nwith
- artistic. literary. moral. juridical and perhaps theological - and Arachne’s tapestry as symbolising the c~urnwi
c/ct/rrc.tirni with its asymmetrical, erotically-flawed subject matter.’
Here we are faced with an interesting conundrum simply because. if Arachne and Minerva are to be seen as two
complementary parts of an Ovidian artistic whole, why are their roles inconsistent? Hofmann talks about a
Minerva ’touched with Hellenism’. Arachne has some unexpected affinities with law and order in the context of
creation. To elaborate. in the process not of artistic creation proper but in the mundane preparation of the work,
 P. JAMES 2s

To conclude, in Ovid's Metuniorph(~scJ.s

the gods may be challenged, and challenged in terms
of identity. Therefore Ovid's phi%oeauzov, so mischievously implied in the introduction to
Narcissus, is a concept which undergoes its own metamorphosis, not least in the unhappy
mortals who are rapidly forced into a change of self image by the powerful spite of
psychologically insecure deities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson W. S. 'Multiple Change in the Metamorphoses', TAPA 94 (l963), 1-27.
Barkan L. 'Diana and Actaeon: The Myth as Synthesis', E i i g I . Lit. Ren. 10
( 1980), 3 17-359.
The Gods Mude Flesh: Metuniorphosis und tlie Pirrsirit of Puguriisni
(Yale, 1986).
Curran L. C. 'Transformation and Anti-Augustanism in Ovid's Metamorphoses',
Arrthitsu 5 ( I972), 7 1-9 1 .
Galinsky C. O~v'd'sMetunioiphoses (Oxford, 1975).
Frinkel H. O ~ i d :A Poet Bem'een TNIOWorlds (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1945).
Hofniann H. 'Ovid's Metamorphoses: Carmen Perpetuum Carmen Deductum',
Puperx of'tlic~Lilvipool Latin Seminur. V01.5 ( 1985), 223-24 1.
Keen J. Tlie Per-.seir.s und Py<qniulioriLegend ir1 Later Niiieteerith Centur.?
Literatiire und Art (M'itli special refererice to the irtflirence of' O\9id'.s
Metumor.i,ho.se.s),PhD Thesis, Southampton, 1983.
Kenney E. J. Review of Rosati, CR 34.2 ( 1984), 186-188.
Lateiner D. 'Mythic and Non Mythic Artists in Ovid's Metamorphoses', Raniirs
13.1 (1984), 1-30.
Leach E. W. 'Ecphrasis and the Theme of Artistic Failure in Ovid's
Metamorphoses', Ramirs 3 (1974), 102- 142.
Rosati G. Nurciso e Pigmulione. lllusione e Spettucolo nellc Metunioifi).si di
Ovidio (Florence, 1983).
Vinge L. The Nur.cissir.s Thenie in Westeix Eur~)peuii Litcrutirre ilp to the
Nirietreritli Ceritiri-.v(Lund, 1967).
this lowly weaver attracts even the nymphs to watch and wonder at her skill: r i e c foc~/tr.\solrtnr i ~ ~ c. s.p c\ ~ c . t t r i ~ ~
i t r i ~ t r l ~ t r /t : t r i m qrioqiie. c ' i m i fiercri/. ~ i r r r t i t . st l c r ~ ) uffitit
r urti I .si\.c, rxdenr prinios Irrriirni glomerabat in orbe\ I . w i t
c/i,qiiis siihigchur o p r i s . rq~rtitucliiclorr,qo / i . c ~ l l ~ rriollic~hot ~ru rrchii1a.s aeqiiurititr t r ~ i i c t i i (6.11-2
. I ).
The verbal echoes of Book One. especially o f nictcyrii . s p c ~ i c nglonrer~cri~it i i r i orhis. 1.3.5. surely associate\ Arachne
with the (1cii.s ('1 nrelior. rimtrir who serves ;IS ordering principle in a chaotic (fluid) world. We should also note
that Arachne oniriihits his f k i e w c l i i c . S I I U ~ I I jirc.icnrc/rrc /oc~or~rrniI,-eddidit (6.12 1-22). a further reminiscence of the
creator who had parted the discordant elemcnts and ascribed to each its proper sphere. endowing each with distinct
identities. With this in mind. does Athena. destroyer of Arachne's divine artefact. motivate ;I symbolic return to
chaos (the jumbled component parts of the cosmos)'? She would, then. fully merit the description 'Discordia'
implied by Ovid's use of,floi~tr iir.cr,yo at 6.130 (see Hofmann, 233. on this Ennian evocation).
The heedless destruction of the 'first web' does not mean that any or every kind of creation is irrevocably
shattered. The spider is proverbially tenacious and a champion of cyclical renewal. The Universe in the
Mc~rcinior.~~host.s is similarly vulnerable to wdden relapses when the work of the god or r r t c 4 i o r r r c r f i i i ~ ois undone
(the elements return to their primeval disorder. for instance Phaethon and the sun chariot in Book Two. the \tomi
in Ceyx and Alcyone, Book Eleven: these are temporary reversals).
In conclusion I am indebted to Professor E. J. Kenncy for his observations that the history of Ovid's tiniverw i \
p o s i b l y one of perpetual identity crisis. As for Arachne and her own fragile creation. it may be that verbnl echoes
o f the ,glonr(lrurx~iri or.hcJsvariety can be stretched too far. but I would be surprised i t they were entirely accidental:
Ovid's changing universe may be spontaneous. but his artistic cognition of i t is creative ; i d coiisciou\.