TEREUS VIOLATES PHILOMELA
Context Essay
I translated Tereus, Procne, and Philomela from lines 511-545 in book 6 of the Metamorphoses. In around lines 200-400, Ovid tells the story of Niobe, in which Niobe, a mother of fourteen, challenges the goddess Latona, saying that she is no real goddess and that her two children hold nothing to Niobe's own 14 kids. Challenging the gods never goes in the way of the challenger, and that rang true when Latona retaliated by killing every single one of Niobe's children. When everyone came to mourn the lives lost, many blamed Niobe for bringing on the goddess's wrath and disregarding her children's lives. Thus, although she did not directly shoot the arrows into their hearts, she did effectively kill her children. The Story of Niobe starts a three story trend of mothers killing their sons, and the middle of this thread is in Tereus, Procne, and Philomela. After Tereus violates Philomela, his wife and her sister, Procne, finds out. Procne is overcome by rage, and tells Philomela she would commit any crime to get back at Tereus. Looking at her son, she decides he is too much like his father, and this crime she is looking for is decided. She drags her own son to a corner and kills him in revenge, and then serves him to her husband for dinner. Shortly after this is when the metamorphoses of this story occur, all three characters turn into birds with a red mark of blood on their chests. The last of the three connected stories is Jason and Medea. This story is very similar to the one preceding it in that it also ends in a mother killing her children in revenge for their father cheating on her. Long after Jason and Medea got married, Medea had left home to aid Bacchus by using her magic. When she returned, Jason was found with a new bride. Medea was furious, so in only one line, she killed the new wife with poison and then "dyed the sword red in her children's blood." All three of these women put themselves and their own needs far above their children, which is not an example to be followed. In Procne's case, Philomela plays a part we don't usually get to see, the one of the mistress, the cause for revenge. For Medea, this woman was described minimally, only mentioned to say she was killed, but Philomela has a large portion of a poem dedicated to her, and gets her own metamorphosis. By telling us her story, Ovid poses the question of whether or not Procne was justified in killing her son, or just makes you sympathize more in this case than in either of the two surrounding stories because you get a more personal and up close connection to the entire situation, not just one side.
​
Artistic Analysis
"The Rape of Philomela by Tereus", book 6, plate 59. Engraved by Johann Wilhelm Baur for a 1703 edition of Ovid's Metamorphoses
​
Johann Wilhelm Baur was an artist in the 17th century, most known for his illustrations of Ovid's Metamorphoses. The image on the right is from a 1703 rendition of his collection of 151 illustrations, this being one of two plates he did within the story of Tereus, Procne, and Philomela. It shows the moment after Philomela has been brought into the forest and Tereus is ready to rape her. At the top of the etching, the words "violavit et reclusit" are inscribed, meaning violated (raped) and opened. Tereus is shown grabbing Philomela's leg and arm, literally opening her towards him. In Ovid's story, we know he "overcomes her by force," but he goes into no more detail than that. This artwork gives a more detailed representation of what happened in that peak moment of the story, rather than passing by it in half a sentence as Ovid does. From my interpretation of Ovid's story, he drags Philomela to a building or some type of structure camouflaged in the woods, but Baur shows the assault happening on the forest floor. This in some ways could be seen as more degrading to Philomela, but it also shows the act for the true filth that it is, not bothering to mask the dirt by a "civilized" dwelling where one might ordinarily have sex with their spouse. At Tereus' feet, his sword is visible, foreshadowing the next section of Ovid's poem after Philomela has asked for death and Tereus denies her. Also on the ground, by Philomela's hand is what seems to be a crown, similar to the one Tereus is seen wearing on his head. Because Tereus, the king of his land, still has his crown on, this one must be from Philomela, daughter of Pandion, who is king of Athens. Although royalty should hypothetically have the most power and be more protected from kidnapping and rape, Philomela's societal status has been disregarded and thrown away at the same time as her pleas are being treated the same. In the Christian Bible, many people see your "crown" as your perseverance, power, and the secureness of your position in Christ. To make sure you don't lose your crown, Jonathon Howe (a Christian artist) says, "You must be Totally Secure in the understanding of your Position in Christ to be able to stand against the trickery of men and the devil." He also speaks about not setting aside your crown because of suffering, to persevere through any trials, yet Philomela's crown is no longer on her head. This might indicate her suffering is too great for even her belief in divinity to help her get through it. Her crown of power is clearly taken in this situation where she is powerless, and we also see the implication that again, her belief in any godly intervention, in any hope, has been almost fully removed, meaning she also can't "stand against the trickery of men." Although Baur acknowledges she is violated, she is still seen as at fault because of this.
Rhetorical Analysis
In this portion of Ovid’s Tereus and Philomela, the similes of predator and prey are continuously used. The first one that is used is between the “hunter of Jupiter,” which is an eagle, and its prey, a hare. This eagle, with its claws, beak, and size, has captured a defenseless, unsuspecting hare, much like Tereus has come with his title as king and his marriage to Procne, and has captured an unsuspecting, innocent Philomela, Procne’s sister. In line 518, the word praedator is used, meaning “hunter,” but in English, predator is also used as a word describing an older person going after or “hunting” a younger person for sexual pleasure. The comparison to a raptor also parallels to later in the story, during the actual Metamorphoses, when each character changes into a bird. Ovid cleverly foreshadows, using a multi-faceted simile at this mini climax, and revisiting it at the true peak of the story later. After Tereus assaults Philomela, Ovid uses two more prey-predator relationships as comparison, these being a lamb and a wolf and a dove hunted by some other bird. In both of these similes, most of the verbs are passive, as we are talking about Philomela, therefore also talking about the prey, so the lamb is having been discarded and the dove is having been soaked by blood. Ovid’s choice of words in this sequence of events gives us insight into how he viewed and participated in rape culture during his time. By using passive verbs and talking about Philomela after the rape, he is in a sense making it her problem; she has to deal with it, and by bringing our attention to her after what happened, it’s almost like asking: “what were you wearing?” in modern day, implying that the event was somehow provoked by the victim. While looking at active vs. passive verbs, when Tereus does actually admit to and commit his “sin,” the verbs are active, showing that Tereus is in control. He “overcomes” or “conquers” Philomela by force, and while we hopefully don’t see that as a good thing today, and no one can speak for sure about what Ovid thought, we do know that ancient Rome valued winning and conquering, and so by using this word in reference to rape, and implying that Tereus took initiative by using active verbs, Ovid is following a typical hero storyline in myths, where the hero “conquers” someone else, saying that rape is just another example of that. To Ovid’s credit, I do think he recognized that what Tereus did wasn’t ok, and that Philomela was legitimately the victim because later in the story, many bad things happen to Tereus. Some could argue that these bad things happen because Tereus needed to be punished, and the goal is for us as readers to feel almost good about him eating his son and later burning in pain. But Ovid might also be trying to make readers sympathize with Tereus and make him the new victim, which consequently normalizes rape by showing that everyone is a victim at some point, including the victimizers.