Well I suppose James is right. As he stated Ovid is no more original than you or I. For some odd reason I thought Ovid had been one of the first recorded publisher's but he did not finish The Metamorphoses of Ovid until 8 AD setting him on the late end of the spectrum. In the beginning of Shakespeare and Ovid by Jonathan Blight he writes, "he (Ovid) was equally both an innovator and a rewriter of material from a vast range of earlier writers, most notably Euripides and Callimachus. He did not invent his stories, he just happened to have codified them and told them in an artful and memorable way at an unusually stable moment in early Western culture" (Blight, 18). Hmm, sounds an awful lot like James' statement but I would like to emphasize his point that it is the style the author adopts to tell his story that gives credit to his originality. It does not matter when their style comes about as long as they are willing to explore unknown territory. The amazing thing about artistry is that it can come in many forms, complex as Shakespeare; to simple, the Beatles; or abstract like Salvador Dali's paintings.
It is when a artist is born and is given the opportunity to express themselves, that mankind proves its' superiority to other animals; at least through mental intuition. Blight brings up an excellent point when he says, "We do not have to believe in gods; we do not even have to believe that Shakespeare and Ovid believed in them. But we do have to believe in the reality of the human conditions and aspirations that are storied in myth-negatively, that desire is often blind (Cupid) or self-consuming (Narcissus, Actaeon); positively, that a marriage might be blessed (Hymen)" (Blight, 19). I suppose this is how I would have to define my religious beliefs. I am an athiest but I believe the simple power a religion holds in a person's beliefs can give them the ability survive a bout with cancer. The Bible is a similar collection of stories to me because it is simply meant to be a guide to how to live; while exempting some of the rather obscure lessons (i.e. homosexuality/sexism yada yada ya). When used as the basis for beliefs it can lead a person to live a simple, enjoyable life where they simply turn their cheek instead of fighting back violently realizing this may pay off in the long-run. It is often when a person becomes too encapsulated with an idea that they allow the positive effects an idea may have be overshadowed and ruin the entire idea. When an idea is the basis of a persons' beliefs and as the short film says, "I was raised to embrace, Ma always encouraged us to open our eyes and hearts to the world. Make up our own minds from experience and be inspired." I believe if we developed our own belief systems upon the numerous books created to influence our moral/beliefs we would have a more peaceful world. It would not be the Bible vs. the Koran etc. but it would be a blend of all ideas spawning into even more ideas. This could result in a violent world since man is naturally violent as we have seen in recent weeks in the Middle East but out of chaos peace will prevail. This has proved time and time again whether it was during Ovid's time in Greece or in 1778 (1780 could be argued as well) when America succeeded from the British Empire. This may be a bit of a stretch but I feel the pagan religions have always influenced mono/polytheism because in order for either to exist their must be the belief of the opposer.
No comments:
Post a Comment