Arachne: Weaving a Narrative

A few weeks ago, Oliver Stone's JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass became available for streaming and after signing up for a cheeky Showtime free trial, I sat down to soak it in. While the documentary was a good watch and provided some exciting newfound evidence supporting the existence of a conspiracy which had succeeded in its deceptive assassination of JFK, what I gleaned most from the documentary was that I really wanted to watch the original 1991 JFK movie again. After badgering my girlfriend for quite some time, she agreed to join me in my rewatch.

I feel that the main draw of the original JFK movie is how the narrative of the conspiracy behind the assassination is framed within Jim Garrison's own personal story and his crusade to share his findings with the public. While Stone includes facts in the movie which do support the belief in the CIA/US government carrying out the coup and engaging in a cover up, the larger story of Jim Garrison seems much more persuading than the facts themselves. The truth is that it is easy for people to disregard facts, but they are much more susceptible to an engaging story. This is also evident in the court scene towards the end of the movie, in which Garrison pleads with the jury to further consider the importance of trial before reaching their verdict. The trial represents much more than the magic bullet theory or some suspicious relationships; it concerns the legitimacy of a government ruled by and for the people which is actively fighting against its citizens and keeping the American public in the dark. Such a powerful condemnation of the US government could only be couched in the vehicle of an Oscar winning movie.

 

 

While the Through the Looking Glass documentary contains helpful evidence for JFK researchers to discuss amongst themselves, more likely than not it will be completely ineffective in convincing the majority of regular viewers. A month ago I finished reading William Gaddis' Recognitions, and afterwards I began looking for all Gaddis content I could get my hands on, especially any sort of talks/panels he had participated in. In one panel, Gaddis discusses how as a young writer he possessed a sort of naivete through which he believed that by simply pointing out a problem, his readers would think to themselves, "Wow, you know I hadn't really considered this, Mr. Gaddis. We need to solve this at once!" I believe that the conspiracy researcher community at large has this same exact problem. Hundreds of tweet threads about Epstein facts and tidbits for example only serve the community itself, they are essentially fruitless in terms of convincing the most average layperson that this is Something They Should Care About.

However, some of the most effective and convincing arguments I've read concerning conspiracy have been put out by authors with a larger narrative in mind. Peter Dale Scott, for example, while having many traditional liberal notions about governance, is able to convincingly present ideas because of these beliefs. In Road to 9/11, PDS' forensic examination of Cheney's whereabouts the morning of 9/11 reads like an old detective narrative, constructing a timeline using the official facts put out by the government and comparing them to what the major power players had said themselves about that morning. In context of his larger liberal ideals about transparent government by the people and for the people, I believe it carries more weight. What good are facts and evidence without an overlaid ideal about why they are important? Cassandra is ignored not because of a curse, but because she has nothing interesting to say.

In my last semester of college back in 2016, I wrote a paper on the myth of Arachne as told in Ovid's Metamorphoses, for a class titled Women in Classical Mythology. Largely thanks to my professor, this class revealed how you could analyze these stories and myths from ancient civilizations from a modern perspective, in this class' case using a feminist lens, without watering down the actual context of the story or moving too far away from its original intentions. This paper I wrote on Arachne was an attempt to frame the story as a legal case, a trial in court in which Arachne condemns the Olympians for their crimes against mortals, more specifically the sexual violence Jupiter, Poseidon, and the other male Olympians had enacted upon humankind. However, I ultimately failed in this endeavor, as I did not have a greater understanding of how impossible it is to seek justice against not only superiors, but beings of the highest magnitude, the Olympians who belong to the highest echelon of being. 

 

 

As Book Five of the Metamorphoses ends with the Muses telling the story of their contest with the Pierides, Ovid transitions into Book Sic with Minerva recalling her own weaving contest with a mortal girl named Arachne, from the small town of "little Hypaepa" towards the Aegean Coast of present day Turkey. Outraged that some insignificant rural country girl claims to be a better weaver than her, Minerva disguises herself as an old woman and gives Arachne a chance to back down and admit her mistake. Arachne remains obdurate and refuses to yield, causing Minerva to change into her true Olympian form and challenge the mortal girl to a contest: whoever weaves the best tapestry will claim the title of best weaver. Arachne shockingly accepts the challenge and the two women begin to weave.

The first tapestry described by Ovid in the contest is Minerva's, which contains various stories of mortals claiming to be equal to the Olympians and their respective punishments. Minerva even includes her defeating Neptune to become the patron goddess of Athens. She even includes a border of "a peace olive wreath," seemingly offering Arachne one final chance to back down and submit to her better. Instead, Arachne reveals her own tapestry depicting the countless crimes the Olympians have committed against mankind. Arachne weaves Europa being abducted by Jupiter as bull, the chief Olympian seducing Leda, Antiope, Alcmena, Danae, among others. Neptune is shown taking Ceres as a stallion. The final story she portrays is Saturn raping a nymph and siring Chiron the centaur. Through her weaving Arachne condemns the Olympians' treatment of mortals, even their cruelty towards one another. How can Minerva properly judge the actions of mortals when her fellow beings are among the evilest of all? Ovid finishes his description of Arachne's tapestry with its border, consisting of flowers and ivy which symbolize immortality.

When Minerva first looks at her opponent's tapestry, its excellence is confirmed by how neither she "nor even Envy could find a flaw in the work." Did Arachne win the contest after all? Despite the tapestry's craftsmanship and true beauty, the goddess immediately tears it up in a rage and begins beating her mortal opponent with a shuttle. Arachne in her shame decides to hang herself, but before she perishes Minerva transforms her into a spider. 

 

Minerva and Arachne, René-Antoine Houasse, 1706

"Live wicked girl; live on, but hang forever, and just to keep you thoughtful for the future, this punishment shall be enforced for always on your generations."

Years after reading this myth for the first time, the meta-narrative has finally become apparent to me. When reading the Metamorphoses, Ovid presents numerous atrocities the Olympians have committed against mortals, more than Arachne could fit on several tapestries. However, it's not until the audience is presented with the myth of Arachne and its narrative that you realize the true injustice of these acts and the sheer hypocrisy of the Olympians. Arachne, like Ovid, compiles all of these stories and weaves them into a greater case against the gods. But just like countless "independent researchers," in recent times, Arachne is found in her bathtub with several self-inflicted gunshots. Arachne, according to the Olympians, did this to herself.

 

It's difficult to ignore the similarities between Arachne and Ovid, a writer weaving controversial stories during the reign of Augustus. Around the time Ovid finished writing the Metamorphoses, the emperor exiled him to the Black Sea for what the poet describes as "carmen et error," a song/poem and an error. As the promoter of public virtue and moderation, Augustus could not condone Ovid's licentious art. Scholars also believe Ovid was being punished for seducing his granddaughter. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

However, it was possible for writers in Ancient Rome, specifically during the time of Augustus, to include potentially subversive elements in their work without being caught. While Virgil's Aeneid is correctly seen as state-funded propaganda for the Augustus regime, current scholarship contains alternate perspectives in which Virgil critiques war and violence, and by extension the Pax Romana. Even Aeneas the ever dutiful and virtuous hero commits numerous transgressions. While scholars will debate for years how Virgil truly felt about Roman Empire and Augustus, I feel it is best to follow his way and be subtle in our critiques of power. Arachne will harmlessly weave webs for eternity, what use is that?