Some days ago I had run into a rather … bemusing take on twitter (where else), which had sought to insist that “in Western myths, Gods are self-centered and egotistical, willing to punish you or even put a curse on you and get away with anything.”

Now, there are … several things one might say in response to this.

Part of the issue is that when it comes to “Western mythos” [singular…? Hellenic & Roman I can see but why have it combined with Nordic/Germanic etc. like that?] .. people rarely engage with the actual texts let alone myths themselves.

Instead it’s a ‘Hollywood’ version. One which often – by this point, almost unintentionally – ends up near-totally subverting the actual essence thereto.

As an example of this tendency ‘in motion’ – take a look at this (see tweet in image above).

Now, for those of you in the audience who aren’t immediately familiar with the relevant (Roman) myth … suffice to say that this isn’t how it goes.

But it’s pretty much how it’s (mis)remembered today.

And yeah, it looks hella ‘petty’, ‘self-centered and egotistical”, straight-up “willing to punish you or even put a curse on you” etc.

Except here’s the thing …

The myth’s major attestation is in Ovid (who, to be sure, did engage in a bit of ‘subversion’ himself if you take a look at how he’d handled Artemis/Diana contra Actaeon) –

And it’s not a story of a Goddess getting envious of the great skill of a human and then stating she needs to spend more time on the Web … permanently …

Instead, the actual cause for the conflict is quite different.

How did Arachne become so incredibly good with weaving, I wonder?

Well – per Ovid [VI 23] : “scires a Pallade doctam.”

That is to say – when one saw how Arachne did things , it became apparent that she’d had a truly Divine Teacher … Minerva !

The first issue, then, isn’t Minerva being envious of the great skill of this human whom She’d Taught in the first place …

… it’s that Arachne would not honour her Guru properly; instead angrily denying any such aid:

“Quod tamen ipsa negat, tantaque offensa magistra”

Instead of offering thanks, Arachne arrogantly declares that she could totally take on the Goddess Herself and win.

Which …well, there’s a whole trope in Greek legendaria for an arrogant boast like that being followed up with “And Nemesis Took Note Of What The Guy Had Said…”

At this point, Minerva appears – in disguise as an old woman – and politely suggests to Arachne that while she may be a very gifted weaver (and further adds that there’s nothing wrong with striving for the acclaim of men through excelling in her chosen field) …

Wisdom is also important – and implicitly comes either from “learning the hard way” [through bitter life experience as one ages], or from listening when people with the relevant life experience are giving you decent guidance.

hint

And so she might want to reconsider her antagonistic attitude toward the Goddess – but everybody makes mistakes, particularly when young, so She’s sure the (forgiving, merciful) Goddess will be all-g if Arachne just politely apologizes.

Arachne … doubles down, and starts abusing what she thinks is ‘just’ an old woman. Not just verbally – “vixque manum retinens” makes it sound like she was angry enough to have raised hand as if to strike the old woman (but barely restrained herself ).

Arachne insults the ‘old woman’ by claiming She’s evidently a senile fool and that ‘living too long’ has obviously ‘rotted’ her. Arachne snidely suggests she restricts her ‘wisdom’ to her own daughter and/or daughter-in-law … if She actually has such [and you can plainly imagine the insulting implications].

And, to top it off, says she’s already got all the wisdom that she needs – if the old woman thinks that people don’t listen to Her … well, ‘that makes two of us’ [i.e. Arachne places herself in the ‘ignored good counselor’ position and again tries to be ‘superior’ to the Dea].

And, furthermore .. .. rhetorically asking why Minerva doesn’t show up Herself if it’s such a big deal …

… basically accuses Minerva of cowardice and trying to flee/avoid a fight.

… I mean … this is the Goddess Who, per Theogony 929, is described as having a potency that exceeds that of all the Immortal Gods Who Dwell Upon Olympus …

It is not that She doesn’t know the meaning of fear – She knows it quite well. It’s what everybody else experiences when She’s arriving in anger and arrayed for War

… Including the Cosmos Itself [again, Theogony, Homeric Hymn 28, Pindar’s 7th Olympian etc.] shaking in terror.

The idea that Minerva could somehow be … running from a fight (as opposed to, I suppose, getting a run-up to a fight -as we uh .. seem to be seeing herein..) because implicitly intimidated by a stroppy immature mortal armed with a knitting needle , is a most calculated insult.

In response to Arachne basically asking where Minerva is, then, if this is all so serious … [“Cur non ipsa venit?”]

Minerva tersely replies: “Venit” – “She Is Here” [same word, you see, that Arachne had utilized] ; at which point the disguise of the old human woman goes too.

Having made a suitably dramatic entrance, Minerva (pointedly – Her Divinity, “venerantur numina”) is then as She stands there, immediately worshipped by pretty much *everybody else in the vicinity – those being an array of “nymphae” [i.e. nymphs] .. .and “nurus” of the polity.

“Nurus” had in fact shown up a few lines earlier – as part of Arachne’s scornful demand that Minerva restrict Her wisdom-offering to only Her daughter(s) [‘filia’] & daughter(s)-in-law [‘nurus’], if She even had such.

As we can see … Arachne’s words are coming back with laser-guided homing to ‘echo at her’. As in – yeah, She’s got ‘nurus’ alright. An entire city of them. Who are doing the thing that’s been recommended, no less, straightaway and no further ‘hinting’ required.

Now, at around this point in time, Arachne (or, at least, some vague and evidently vestigial part of her psyche which deals in little things like “the survival instinct” ) suddenly starts to apprehend on at least some level just … what she is now immediately proximate to.

And in evidence of this we are treated to Ovid’s description for the rather rapid changes of colouration which Arachne’s complexion goes through – a bit of a blush (whilst all others attendant are worshipping – the proper reaction), described as akin to the sky’s changing at Aurora (i.e. Dawn) …

Although rather than having it ‘dawn upon her’ properly just what peril she’s now in – the fact Ovid then has Arachne’s face grow purple … well, it should seem that it was an apoplectic vibe of anger rather than an apologetic embarrassment which truly takes root therein.

At this point, the famed weaving contest begins in earnest. Minerva’s initial entry proving rather pointed: She begins with Athens at its Foundation – and most pointedly, the ‘Hill of Mars’ [” scopulum Mavortis”] , the ‘Areios Pagos’ … which was a judicial setting where serious crimes of murder and impiety were tried (hint). With Jupiter and the rest of a Dodekatheon in assemblage , also (this would seem to be referencing the similar accounting given in Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca [III 14], wherein the Twelve Gods are the Judges of the contest between Athena & Poseidon – with Cercrops as witness called upon by Her for Her beneficent bestowing of the Olive-boon which won Her the city in gratitude).

At the site, Minerva depicts the famous myth of Her contest with Poseidon for the patronage of the city – a contest, as it should so happen, of Boon-bestowing to the polis and to man. One which, as one might infer via the toponymy, Athena handily won – to the marveling even of the Gods [“mirarique deos”] as to Her ingenuity.

In essence – we have Divine Beneficence. And, as a direct corollary, Minerva then goes on to add four scenes of the other side to the equation … Divine Wrath, with a rather pointed theme of ‘metamorphosis’ of the mortal miscreants thusly involved as the punishment; and concluding with an image of a father weeping over a daughter turned into a Temple (i.e. made to serve the cause of piety even following lived violation as to same) … but also including, as a final flourish, a further pointed symbol: “oleis pacalibus oras” – a border of the Olive Wreaths of Peace.

As Ovid explicates it – Minerva’s purpose with this warning is just exactly that:

“Ut tamen exemplis intellegat aemula laudis,
quod pretium speret pro tam furialibus ausis,”

To provide direct illustration to Arachne of where she’s going to wind up if she persists with this petulance. Although also, as we can see – there’s still a subtle hint of charitable mercy … if Arachne’s able to grasp it. The proverbial (indeed, rather literal) “olive-branch” aforementioned via which an ‘edge’ and a limit to the punishment is visibly provided per Athena’s Own Weavings. An apt escutcheon for Divine Beneficence and Grace all up – from its foundational utility for the Athenians on into this more recent (and illustrative) context.

Arachne, however, is having none of it – and proceeds to spin her own suite of what we might succinctly phrase as “The Tabloid Side Of Myth”. The interesting thing, for our purposes, now that I think upon it – is the manner in which various of these are, themselves, basically the ‘pop-cultural’ and entirely surface-level presentations to some of these narratives … with none of the depth, nuance, and most importantly actual theological meaning which can quite significantly alter what one actually sees there.

(It’s also interesting to note that virtually all of the mythic occurrences singled out by Arachne … are Sky Father deific expression instances – Jupiter, Neptune, Apollo [Phoebus], Bacchus … and, with my Comparative Indo-European Theologian Hat on (not that it ever left one’s brow), various of what’s recounted are, in fact, actually the same myth – but more upon that, perhaps, some other time)

It also occurs that despite Arachne’s outright animosity at this point, she musters no direct demeaning nor defamatory stitchwork against Minerva, Herself. The closest that we get is Medusa being mentioned – but that’s very specifically with relation to Neptune, there is no mention to Athena’s sanctioning of the figure in question (although with Pegasus cited therein as well – another favourable contribution of Athena/Minerva is also alluded to therewith).

There are a few ways one might explain this – I’d like to think it was Ovid quite deliberately suggesting that the moral character of Minerva could not be so churlishly impugned.

Of course, speaking of elements with a few differing interpretations … what happens next is Minerva enragedly destroying the – admittedly technically perfect – handiwork of Her once-star student.

Which is probably what the large measure as to the basis for takes like the tweet pic’d above are running upon.

Some would read it entirely surface-level (and roughly decontextualized, at that!) as being the Goddess destroying the work of Arachne here in a fit of pique at having been ‘bested’ by the mortal.

Except I don’t think that’s what was going on. Instead, it seems to me more like i) an act of destruction meted out against what’s effectively the world’s most technically accomplished effort at Lèse-Majesté (i.e. destroying the actual criminal output itself) , ii) a perhaps rather logical reaction to Arachne having comprehensively refused to get the point, repeatedly, as Arachne instead charged on ahead with the most active misuse of the gifts which Minerva had given to her that she could think of.

It’s true that Ovid declares that not even “Livor” – that is to say, “Envy” – could find flaw with Arachne’s technical proficiency in output. Yet I don’t take that as Minerva actually being ‘envious’ of the tapestry thusly produced – it simply doesn’t say that; even as it has both Minerva and Livor as unable to find fault with the weaving (again, upon a technical basis – content is altogether another matter … “Envy” is assumedly to be found there in spades – albeit I rather suspect it’s flowing ‘upwards’ from Arachne towards Minerva arrayed in reprehensible spite toward her benefactor).

Instead, that line simply observes that even a decidedly malefically motivated would-be critic with an actively intentional agenda to ‘tear down’ the craft and its craftswoman would find it impossible to identify a problem with the weaving.

Because, of course, the problem was never with the weaving itself : as Minerva had put it –

” Tibi fama petatur
inter mortales faciendae maxima lanae:
cede deae veniamque tuis, temeraria, dictis
supplice voce roga: veniam dabit illa roganti.”

That is to say – she can pursue great fame/renown amidst mortals through producing her excellent weaving … but the impiety is a problem. (One which, I would hazard … wasn’t just about Arachne’s attitude toward attempting to erase Minerva’s contribution to her skill; but, as we see from what then ensues, appears to have been a fundamental defect of character just waiting for a chance to turn itself into an Instructional Lesson For All Of Us).

Fundamentally, the myth around Arachne contra Minerva (and the rest of the Pantheon at large …) – it isn’t a story about envy of a human’s accomplishment by a Goddess.

Instead, it’s almost the opposite – a mortal literally declared to be unable to stand the idea that they’re not the total author of their own success, and therefore getting so worked up as to it they nearly assault an old woman in the street. And we are all, as humans, fundamentally indebted to at least one ‘old woman’ for the fundamental privilege of our existence – so you begin to see how the metaphor really seems to come together here.

The attitude of Arachne was one of, effectively, a willful desire to not only disrespect the Gods (and her elders) in the most overt sense … but also to seek to erase from the picture the Gods all up. (Except, of course, as cartoonish caricatures threadbarely referenced as literally two-dimensional pop-cultural pastiches with which to adorn her misotheistic agenda)

Why does this matter?

Well, because a fundamental underpinning to the Indo-European world-view is ‘Reciprocity’ – ‘Gratitude’ is most definitely integral to it, yet I think “Trust” is probably the more overt element with which to phrase these things within modern English. Śraddhā ( श्रद्धा ) , that is “Trust”, but also “Faith”, “Belief”, “Familiarity”, “Respect” … in Sanskrit, of course, would be even better (and not least because it also shows up at the basis for ‘Śrāddha’ ( श्राद्ध ), the rites of looking after our (deceased) forebears, to whom we owe our existence ) .

This is why – to my mind, at least – Minerva rather pointedly goes all the way back to Cecrops [“Cecropia […]”] and the foundation for Athens both as a polis and as a people (indeed, as ‘civilization’ all up) : because She’s tacitly illustrating that She’s (and the other Gods, too, are in attendance) been there for humanity right from the (autochthonic, serpent-tailed) foundation; guiding, protecting, and nurturing – as well as, with deference towards the general typology of Arachne’s empowerment if not the specific twisted and petulant exemplar she provides … inspiring and educating man in various key aspects along the way. For which She is, of course, duly honoured – and duly offered to in thanks and praise.

“Do Ut Des” / “Dehi Me, Dadami Te” – “I Give So That You Might Give” / “Give [to] Me, I Give [to] You”, respectively, in both Latin and in Sanskrit as a ritualized formula as to this principle (indeed, the latter is actually a Yajurvedic liturgical component itself – to be found at TS I 8 4 1 / VS III 50, contingent upon which of the prominent recensions we are feeling keen upon to delve into accordingly).

Arachne’s attitude sought to knock the essential foundations out from under this civilizational-tier paradigmatic relationship with the Divine; replacing it instead with a pseudo-solipsistic insistence that man, and man alone was the sole author as to his (or her) every success. Erasing the past (and imperiling the future) in the misbegotten-process.

And so – something had to be done. With repeated opportunities for the willful miscreant to reverse course, realize where she’s headed, and come to her senses, accordingly.

Even at the end, when Arachne reacts to being beaten (rather literally) by Minerva [because fundamentally … the contest was never about the technical proficiency of one’s weaving – but rather, one of wisdom and of power] by attempting to hang herself, Minerva is specifically observed to have in pity moved to intervene [“Pendentem Pallas miserata levavit”] and save Arachne’s life. And rendering her, as it happens, the most famous spinner, perhaps, of all – the spider.

It’s a stern justice which has been meted out, per Ovid here – but these are the rather stern myths of a stern people. They are there to communicate an essential message – and one that I think is in reality a far more ‘trustable’ (and, of course, ‘beneficent‘) one than the sort of thing it’s been incessantly twisted into by people whose default attitudinal setting toward Divinity is that of derision in lieu of deference.

That said – these are also times in which we are, increasingly, distrustful and disappointed toward our (human) leaders with all their all-too-often vanities, venalities, and venom.

Another explanation, I suppose, for the insistent mis-reading as to Ovid, here, may very well be because we are increasingly prone to presuming (or, for that matter, just straight-out perceiving) power-holders as petty as a perfunctory matter of course.

And thus it is that we endeavour to ‘drag down to [the worst of] our (human) level’ the Gods Up On High, Themselves, for we cannot bear to strain our necks even an inch to look up to be inspired by Them.