Beyond Progress and Decline: Human History in Ovid’s Metamorphoses

Introduction

Ovid’s Metamorphoses presents human history as a succession of changing conditions without establishing that later societies are necessarily better than earlier ones. The Golden Age possesses justice in the absence of legislation (Met. 1.89–93), the Flood has given rise to a new humanity but has not restored the primeval innocence (1.313–415), and the Augustan legislation in Metamorphoses 15 (15.832–37) demands law and political authority to maintain peace. Over time, human beings acquire capacities that ensure harmony and concord, but such capacities cannot prevent moral wretchedness or save society from it. This tension makes both a linear narrative of progress and a cyclical model of recurrence difficult to fully apply to Ovidian cultural development. In this light, I argue that Ovid presents a helical conception of early humans’ cultural development. Instead of purely linear or cyclical, the recurrence of destruction and reconstruction shows the continuity of human civilization and its growth throughout history.

Research on the poem’s coherence provides several ways to understand its movement from primordiality to Ovid’s own times, but these approaches assign different significance to that movement. Ludwig divides the chronological framework of the Metamorphoses into three main periods: the primordial, the mythical, and the historical times.¹1Walther Ludwig, Struktur und Einheit der Metamorphosen Ovids (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965), 11–14, 75–86. To Ludwig, the diachronic sequence itself provides a principle of order: different episodes in the Metamorphoses move from cosmogony to mythical heroes and the historical past, gradually approaching Ovid’s contemporary Rome (Met. 1.4: ad mea ... tempora). Knox stresses the mixture of literary tradition, in particular the accommodation of elegiac and epyllionic elements in high hexameter poetry, with which Ovid negotiates continuity not so much due to historical evolution but because of the poem’s negotiation across different genres and literary forms.²2Peter E. Knox, Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Traditions of Augustan Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1986), 1–47. Further, as Myers argues, metamorphotic narratives have their own etiological or explanatory functions by providing accounts of the origins of the natural and cultural worlds.³3K. Sara Myers, Ovid’s Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994), 1–26. Cole takes the historical sequence in a more developmental sense, interpreting the poem as tracing humanity’s progression from divine parental rule to a state of maturity where human rulers can take responsibility for reason and law.⁴4Thomas Cole, Ovidius Mythistoricus: Legendary Time in the Metamorphoses (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2008), 153–81. Taking various strands of scholarship together—chronological, generic-formalistic, etiological, and that of historical contingency—the Augustan present is virtually separated from primitive conditions of humanity, but the epanaleptic construction brings together moral situations in the past and the present, further questioning the politics of temporality and change.

The explanations of cultural development vary fundamentally in their understanding of primordiality and accordingly how human civilization has developed from its origin. Cole reconstructs a naturalistic tradition of cultural development in which early humanity gradually overcomes its material constraints through invention and cooperation.⁵5Thomas Cole, Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology (Cleveland: Press of Western Reserve University, 1967), 25–46. Drawing on Ovidian parallels with other ancient authors such as Lucretius, Diodorus Siculus, and Vitruvius, Cole identifies a recurring sequence in which primitive humans, initially lacking shelter, fire, and reliable means of securing food, develop practical techniques before establishing more complex forms of social organization. In analyzing ancient theories of language, Gera presents another view of the origins of humanity, contrasting traditions that view the invention of speech as being human or the role of gods with traditions of the Golden Age (where communication between gods, humans, and animals is already in place).⁶6Deborah Levine Gera, Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 18–67, 112–81. In the Golden Age, language belongs to humanity’s original condition rather than constituting an achievement of subsequent cultural developments. These different conceptions of humanity’s beginnings provide a basis for comparing Lucretius’s cultural development in DRN 5 with Ovid’s narrative of the metallic ages. Whereas Lucretius describes humanity’s gradual acquisition of τέχναι and institutions necessary to overcome natural adversities in the primitive times, Ovid begins with a society that already possesses justice, security, and natural abundance without such institutions. The emergence of civilization consequently assumes a different significance in each account: what represents an improvement upon primitive existence in Lucretius becomes, in Ovid, a response to the disappearance of conditions that had previously rendered such developments unnecessary. Ovid thus challenges the assumption that the accumulation of cultural achievements constitutes historical improvement, since the very necessity of those achievements can testify to the deterioration of the world they are intended to sustain.

Scholarship on Deucalion and Pyrrha provides a basis for examining how the restoration of humanity forms a political palingenesis. Main views the Deucalion tradition in terms of regression into chaos and renewed generation, and interprets its maternal imagery as an expression of the possibility of another form of existence.⁷7Anne Main, “Le Déluge de Deucalion: Rêve d’Immortalité ou Nostalgie de la Mère,” in Les grandes figures religieuses: Fonctionnement pratique et symbolique dans l’Antiquité. Actes du Colloque international (Besançon, 25–26 avril 1984), ed. Pierre Lévêque and Marie-Madeleine Mactoux (Besançon: Université de Franche-Comté, 1986), 280–81. Feldherr approaches regeneration through the persistence of matter, examining how a preexisting substance is transformed and how interpretation and sexual differentiation contribute to the emergence of new forms.⁸8Andrew Feldherr, “Between a Rock and a Hard Race: Gender and Text in Ovid’s Deucalion and Pyrrha Episode (Met. 1.313–415),” in Metamorphic Readings: Transformation, Language, and Gender in the Interpretation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, ed. Alison Sharrock, Daniel Möller, and Mats Malm (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 54–83. In Ovid’s account, the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha preserves the religious practices, language, and knowledge through which people interpret the world. Their understanding transforms what survives the Flood into the seed of a new human generation. In this sense, regeneration is both a matter of material continuity and a process of conscious choice of inherited knowledge. However, as the piety and morality of the couple allow it to recreate humanity, it does not ensure the ethical behavior of the next generations. The preservation of the renewed society remains dependent on how its inhabitants exercise the capacities they inherit.

The possibility of a return to chaos suggests that the establishment of political stability cannot guarantee a permanent resolution to the underlying causes of disorder. Hardie identifies the tension in the Metamorphoses between the desire to give the story an ending and the reemergence of inherited conflicts, demonstrating that questions of political authority and succession are left unanswered even as a narrative approaches its conclusion.⁹9Philip R. Hardie, The Epic Successors of Virgil: A Study in the Dynamics of a Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 1–18. Giusti offers another perspective, examining how Augustan regeneration is prepared by constructive violence.¹⁰10Elena Giusti, “The End Is the Beginning Is the End: Apocalyptic Beginnings in Augustan Poetry,” in Eschatology in Antiquity: Forms and Functions, ed. Hilary Marlow, Karla Pollmann, and Helen Van Noorden (London: Routledge, 2021), 314–16. The paradox is that Augustan peace is established through a historical process involving the very violence and disorder it claims to overcome. Of course, it is questionable how closely the pattern of moral crises–catastrophe–regeneration in Met. 1–2 mirrors the Augustan resolution of Roman civil conflicts. Rather, by rejecting a politically teleological vision of universal order, Ovid does not envisage that such a destruction decisively eradicates the unsettling forces that lead to another decline. At the same time, the recurrence of violence does not necessarily invalidate human achievements in toto; on the contrary, each catastrophe exposes and tests the limitations of an established social or moral order, conditioning the continued evolution of human society.

In the Metamorphoses, cultural history is not presented as a steady movement toward improvement nor a cyclical return to an idealized primordiality but as a process of continual adaptation to establish order after various catastrophic instances and setbacks. This paper thus describes that movement as helical: human capacities accumulate, issues are re-experienced, and each reconstruction brings forth a society that is in touch with, but not identical to, its predecessor. The first section interprets the metallic ages together with the Lucretian history so as to draw the line between technical progress and moral enhancement. Skills that compensate for diminished natural abundance also become exploitative instruments, and it shows that the growing complexity of civilization is incapable of securing the ethical relations upon which it relies. The second part follows the disintegration of those relationships, which begins with Lycaon’s impiety and culminates in the Flood, and examines how Deucalion and Pyrrha rebuild humanity through the selective use of inherited knowledge, thereby preserving human life without restoring Golden Age innocence. The final section takes into account Augustan law and personal example as an institutional solution to this unabating necessity of moral guidance. Peace cultivated by Numa and Augustus’s provision for succession demonstrates that political order must be maintained consciously, while Pythagorean transformation places Rome’s development within a world of changing forms. Across these phases, the ways to sustain collective life evolve from practical skills to ethical reconstruction and political institutions, with each new order drawing upon the knowledge and capacities inherited from the past.

The Metallic Ages: Cultural Development and Moral Decline

Ovid’s account of the ages of man (Met. 1.89–150) begins with a paradoxical view of human history, one that establishes the first premise of the paper’s helical model: human history counterintuitively begins in moral order, not legal enforcement, and the most morally ordered age is also the least institutionally developed. After anthropogony, the Metamorphoses introduces the Golden Age not as a primitive stage waiting to be improved by law and technological development, but as an ideal order that rejects the necessity of such structures. Ovid opens the Golden Age—and by extension, the four metallic races—with moral self-righteousness: “aurea prima sata est aetas, quae vindice nullo, / sponte sua, sine lege fidem rectumque colebat” (Met. 1.89–90). The Golden Age cultivates trust (fides) and right conduct (rectum), and it does so of its own accord (sponte sua) without law (sine lege). Ovid immediately strengthens the point by removing the emotional and institutional signs of legal society: “poena metusque aberant”—a hendiadys that summarizes the absence of the fear of punishment (cf. DRN 5.1151: metus … poenarum)—while neither “verba minantia” are displayed on bronze nor a “supplex turba” fears “iudicis ora sui” (Met. 1.91–93). Through historical retrojection, Ovid defines the moral superiority of the Golden Age by recalling Roman legal practices to engender a society in which they are unnecessary. This correspondence between the absence of legal authority and the preservation of social order is reinforced when humanity remains “sine vindice tuti” (Met. 1.93). As the preceding anthropogony has already distinguished humans from other animals through the intellectual capacity and an upright posture (Met. 1.76–77, 84–86), the Golden Age now presents those humans as morally capable of living safely without external coercion.¹¹11For Sallust’s distinction between human intellectual capacity and animal appetite, see Cat. 1.1–4; for his account of early humanity living without greed, see Cat. 2.1. The absence of law therefore does not mark an undeveloped humanity, as from the opening of the Ages, the Metamorphoses refuses to synchronize cultural development with moral improvement accordingly. This asymmetry demonstrates that new technologies or institutions can answer practical needs without improving moral conduct. Whereas law is commonly celebrated as a cultural achievement in Roman intellectual culture, Ovid takes a countermove and sets the emergence of law as the consequence of moral decline.¹²12See Cicero, Inv. 1.2–3; Horace, Sat. 1.3.99–112; and Lucretius, DRN 5.1143–50. These accounts associate law with the emergence or preservation of cooperative life.

The same logic governs Ovid’s description of technology and agriculture—wars against nature—where the absence of cultural development signifies an ordered innocence rather than a state of uncivilized ignorance. Ovid follows the conventional association of the Golden Age with the absence of seafaring, placing its introduction specifically in the Iron Age.¹³13For the emergence of navigation after Saturn’s reign, compare Tibullus 1.3.35–50 and Vergil, Georgics 1.125–38. Ovid specifically places the introduction of seafaring in the Iron Age (Met. 1.132–34). The same association appears in Lucretius’s “improba navigii ratio tum caeca iacebat” (DRN 5.1006) and Horace’s exclusion of both the Argo and Sidonian sailors from his surviving Golden-Age landscape (Epodes 16.57–60).¹⁴14See Catullus 64.11 for the Argo as the vessel: prima imbuit Amphitriten. Similarly, Ovid states that during this period, the pine has “nondum” descended from its mountain “peregrinum ut viseret orbem” (Met. 1.94–96); “steep ditches do not yet surround cities” (nondum praecipites cingebant oppida fossae), and there are “neither helmets nor swords” (Met. 1.97–99: non galeae, non ensis); and because of the absence of soldiery (sine militis usu), peoples pass their lives in “gentle peace of a secure life” (Met. 1.98–100: mollia securae … otia). While ships, fortifications, and arms are established to belong to a later world of expansion and fear, agriculture is treated with the same moral pressure. The earth, still “inmunis” and untouched by rake or plow, gives everything voluntarily while human beings are content with foods created “nullo cogente” (Met. 1.101–3). The phrase “nec ullis / saucia vomeribus” views agriculture as a form of violence against the earth (Met. 1.101–2), though progressivism would celebrate the plow as a sign of mastery over nature.¹⁵15Compare Sallust, Cat. 2.7; Lucretius, DRN 5.1361–78; and Vergil, G. 1.121–46, which connect cultivation with human capacity, learning, or labor. While in Vergil’s theodicy, Jupiter deliberately makes cultivation difficult so that necessity will “varias usus meditando extunderet artis” and human labor will overcome deprivation (G. 1.121–46), Ovid reverses the evaluative emphasis: before such artes become necessary, the earth is still “inmunis rastroque intacta” and not yet “saucia vomeribus” (Met. 1.101–2). Agricultural and technological developments therefore answer a condition of scarcity and originate from the loss of the earthly spontaneity, which Ovid qualifies with “per se dabat omnia tellus” (Met. 1.102).

When the Silver and Bronze Ages arrive, Ovid increasingly presents cultural development as compensation for the depletion of natural abundance, structuring this decline through what Schiesaro terms opposizioni binarie.¹⁶16See Alessandro Schiesaro, Simulacrum et Imago: Gli Argomenti Analogici nel De Rerum Natura (Pisa: Giardini, 1990), 137–39, here 138. The contrast identified here is between the earth’s effortless provision in the Golden Age and the intensive labor and exploitation introduced under the Silver Age. The Silver Age begins after Saturn has been sent to Tartarus and the world has come under Jupiter. Ovid defines it at once as “auro deterior,” worse than gold, though still better than bronze (Met. 1.113–15). Eternal spring contracts into a year divided among winter, summer, unequal autumn, and brief spring, so human beings must now adapt to an environment that no longer effortlessly shelters those living in hunting and gathering lifestyles (Met. 1.116–20). Houses appear for the first time, “tum primum subiere domos,” but the phrase is less triumphal than defensive: shelter is necessary because exposure has become dangerous (Met. 1.121). This anti-progressivistic view stands in contrast to the anti-primitivist tradition traced by Lovejoy and Boas in Greek literature, in which the emergence of housing marks a decisive stage in human development by distinguishing civilized humanity from the condition of beasts.¹⁷17Arthur O. Lovejoy and George Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1935), 192–96. Lucretius likewise adopts this anti-primitivist association between housing and human development: primitive humans “nemora atque cavos montis silvasque colebant” and hid “frutices inter” from wind and rain (DRN 5.955–57), whereas the acquisition of casas, skins, and fire marks the point at which “genus humanum primum mollescere coepit” (DRN 5.1011–14). Agriculture follows the stabilized settlements, as grain is buried in furrows and yoked bullocks groan under pressure (Met. 1.123–24). The Bronze Age advances from labor to arms, but Ovid keeps its moral status transitional: it is “saevior ingeniis” and readier for dreadful weapons, yet “non scelerata tamen” (Met. 1.125–27).

The Iron Age completes that decline by turning the instruments of civilization into expressions of appetite, violence, and greedily violated boundaries. Ovid announces the change with unusual force: “omne nefas” breaks into the age, while modesty (pudor), truthfulness (verum), and loyalty (fides) flee (Met. 1.128–29). The withdrawal of these moral qualities culminates in the flight of Astraea, Ovid’s version of the Aratean Dike, whose departure from humanity marks the point at which social corruption has made coexistence with divine presence impossible, just as Justice gradually withdraws from the morally corrupt humanity.¹⁸18Compare Aratus, Phaen. 115–36: Dike’s withdrawal culminates in her departure during the Bronze Age. For the Aratean myth, see Alessandro Schiesaro, “Aratus’ Myth of Dike,” Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici 37 (1996): 9–26; Helen Van Noorden, Playing Hesiod: The ‘Myth of the Races’ in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 168–203. The disappearance of fides reverses the opening description of the Golden Age, where fides was cultivated without laws. What replaces it is technological complexity accompanied by moral corruption: fraud, deceit, ambush, force, and the “amor sceleratus habendi” (Met. 1.130–31). Ships enter unknown seas; the surveyor marks private boundaries across land once common like sunlight and air; the rich earth is forced to give both crops and hidden wealth from its own depths (Met. 1.132–40). Ovid’s phrase “irritamenta malorum” (Met. 1.140) makes mined wealth an incitement to wrongdoing, so that the introduction of metals is accompanied from the outset by moral indictment. But in a comparative light, gold is even more harmful because it motivates warfare and incites avaritia. And together they bring forth war, “prodit bellum, quod pugnat utroque” (Met. 1.140–42). The irony lies in gold’s transformation from an emblem of moral excellence to a cause of corruption. Ovid employs sarcasm in the Ars Amatoria: “aurea sunt vere nunc saecula,” the present is truly golden because honor and love are won by gold (Ars 2.277–78).

Lucretius offers the most apparent contrast, since De rerum natura 5 narrates civilization as a gradual process in which use and mental experience teach human beings the arts of life. Near the end of that account, “navigia atque agri culturas moenia leges / arma vias vestes,” and the refinements of pleasure are learned through “usus” and “experientia mentis” as time advances step by step (DRN 5.1448–53). Ovid uses many of the same cultural achievements—ships, agriculture, walls, laws, arms, wealth—but changes their moral valence. In Lucretius, these inventions demonstrate how human beings learn to survive and advance themselves; in Ovid, the same developments reveal that external complexity can grow while ethical life decays. Reischl’s study of Greek Kulturentstehungslehre likewise suggests that Augustan poets inherited and reworked these developmental models rather than merely repeating simple myths of decline.¹⁹19Bernhard Reischl, Reflexe griechischer Kulturentstehungslehren bei augusteischen Dichtern (München: Blasaditsch, 1976), 1–9. Ovid’s innovation, then, is to detach cultural development from moral teleology: civilization may advance materially while deteriorating ethically, turning progress itself into one of the conditions from which collapse and renewal emerge.

By the end of the Iron Age, cultural development and moral progress have fully diverged. The world now has ships, agriculture, property boundaries, mines, weapons, households, and kinship networks, but the social bonds that sustain the society are now collapsing: “vivitur ex rapto,” life is lived from plunder; guest is not safe from host, father-in-law not from son-in-law, even brothers rarely preserve affection (Met. 1.144–45). Marriage, step-parenthood, and filial relation all become scenes of threat, poison, and impatience for inheritance, until pietas lies defeated and Astraea leaves the blood-soaked earth (Met. 1.146–50). This catalog recalls the closing of Catullus 64, where fraternal bloodshed and the perversion of relations between parents and children culminate in the gods’ withdrawal from human society (Catull. 64.397–408); Ovid similarly makes kin-conflicts the ultimate symptom of the violated divine or moral order under the Iron Age. Ovid begins with a society that lacks institutions because it has moral order; he ends with a society that has institutions and technologies but lacks the trust that makes them just. A pattern of cultural progress is already established: order develops into complexity, complexity fails morally, and collapse becomes the condition for a different form of renewal.

The Flood: Catastrophe and Regeneration

Concluding the myth of the ages with the eventual destruction of the iron race, the Flood bridges rupture with the restitution of humanity. The accumulation of skills and social practices has not secured the ethical obligations on which collective life depends. As people, cultivated land, houses, and sanctuaries are swept away together (Met. 1.285–90), Jupiter’s punishment now destroys much of the material world, especially the human society built upon these technical skills. Yet Ovid follows this destruction with a creation, accomplished through Deucalion and Pyrrha’s interpretation of divine speech and their cooperation in transforming stones into people (Met. 1.381–415). Human history resumes, but under conditions shaped by the failure of the earlier world rather than through the recovery of the Golden Age.

Lycaon exemplifies the moral corruption that precedes this rupture, turning the Iron Age’s general failure of human obligations into an act of impiety. Ovid’s earlier statement that “no guest is safe from his host” (Met. 1.144: non hospes ab hospite tutus) takes concrete form when Lycaon plots to murder Jupiter beneath his own roof. The description of his dwelling place as “the inhospitable house of a tyrant” (Met. 1.218: inhospita tecta tyranni) connects the violation of hospitality with the abuse of political authority. By killing a hostage and serving his flesh to test his guest’s divinity (Met. 1.222–30), Lycaon compounds the betrayal of human obligations with contempt for the gods. His disdainful act, therefore, undermines the divinity of Jupiter and challenges his authority to judge human conduct. Jupiter’s punishment then turns the tables around, reversing this presumption: Lycaon, who dares to judge a god, becomes the object of divine judgment.²⁰20For the political implications of belief and fictional authority in the Metamorphoses, see Andrew Feldherr, Playing Gods: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Politics of Fiction (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 46–59. In this episode, Lycaon’s refusal to acknowledge Jupiter’s divinity transforms his test of the guest’s identity into a challenge to divine authority, as he assumes the right to judge the legitimacy of Jupiter’s claim (Met. 1.220–25). Lycaon’s transformation into a wolf consequently reveals his beastly brutality, exposing his appetite for slaughter beneath a transformed body (Met. 1.232–39). Then Jupiter goes ahead and proclaims the condemnation to be more than just the offender, as he says that one house has crumbled, yet it was not the only house that deserved to be crumbled (Met. 1.240–41: occidit una domus, sed non domus una perire digna fuit). This movement from a ruined household to the verdict of the entire humanity justifies the ensuing divine punishment, the Flood. In Jupiter’s account, Lycaon’s conduct culminates a wider corruption, so one single wrongdoer alone cannot be brought to justice without producing a lasting effect on the society he represents.

The Flood is conceived from the outset as a selective rupture: Jupiter has to annihilate a rotten human order, without annihilating the circumstances under which human history can proceed. Prior to the flood, the deities inquire about who will take incense to their altar and whether the earth will become the possession of wild animals (Met. 1.246–49). Their concern acknowledges that human existence sustains relationships essential to the present cosmic order; in the event of extermination, the gods themselves would be left without worshipers. Jupiter replies by vowing to give them “offspring unlike the former people, of a wondrous origin” (Met. 1.251–52: subolemque priori / dissimilem populo … origine mira). Difference is assured, and while Jupiter promises a race unlike its predecessor, the gods remain uncertain about what kind of world will follow the destruction of humanity. That uncertainty makes the form of destruction itself consequential, because the old order must be removed without foreclosing the possibility of a new one, exemplifying the paradox of the “apocalyptic beginnings” of Augustan literature as identified by Giusti.²¹21For Giusti’s discussion of “apocalyptic beginnings” in Augustan poetry, particularly the relationship between destruction and renewal in Ovid’s Flood, see Giusti, “The End Is the Beginning Is the End,” 314–15. Jupiter abandons his thunderbolts because fire might spread to heaven, recalling a destined conflagration that would threaten the structure of the universe (Met. 1.253–61). Regeneration then begins with the new human entering the same cosmos, under the same divine authority, with the failure of its predecessor already embedded in the history it inherits.

The Flood exposes civilization’s dependence on environmental order by collapsing boundaries between land and sea, cultivated spaces and waterways, and predator and prey. Ovid first registers the loss through agriculture: “sternuntur segetes … longique perit labor inritus anni,” as the flattened crops render “the long labor of the year” useless (Met. 1.272–73). The emphasis falls on accumulated effort, exposing the vulnerability of achievements that require time and effort in cooperation with environmental regularity. Rivers then sweep away cultivated land, livestock, people, houses, and sanctuaries with their sacred contents (Met. 1.285–90). The resulting condition is compressed as “everything was sea” (Met. 1.292: omnia pontus erant). While earlier creation had separated sea from land (Met. 1.21–23), the Flood temporarily reverses that differentiation. Ovid renders this reversal through a sequence of adynata, fanciful impossibilities in which familiar activities and natural relations are displaced into environments where they cannot ordinarily occur. Someone rows where he recently plowed, an anchor lodges in a meadow, and a ship’s keel scrapes a vineyard (Met. 1.293–98). A wolf swims among sheep without attacking them, because their shared predicament offers a bleak alternative to peace, since neither can swim out of the water (Met. 1.304–12). Catastrophe can suspend predation by placing predator and prey on equal footing, but such a suspension is not a durable form of justice, since shared vulnerability does not enable coexistence in the long run. The destruction of settled life thus reveals a problem left unresolved by the succession of ages: if centuries of growth cannot safeguard the terms upon which civilization stands, what can sustain the continuity of humanity?

Deucalion and Pyrrha provide the solution with an ethical relationship that also carries cultural knowledge across the disaster. Ovid characterizes Deucalion by his commitment to justice and Pyrrha by her reverence for the gods (Met. 1.322–23: non illo melior quisquam nec amantior aequi / vir fuit aut illa metuentior ulla deorum); Jupiter recognizes both of them as innocent worshipers and then sends the clouds away, restoring the disparity between heaven and earth (Met. 1.327–29). Moreover, shared ancestry and marriage have fortunately bound them together, and danger now strengthens that bond (Met. 1.351–53). Deucalion’s declaration “we two are the multitude” (Met. 1.355: nos duo turba sumus) makes their partnership bear the weight of a vanished society. Even as the world collapses around them, they retain and perform the ritual knowledge required to approach a sanctuary through purification and prayer (Met. 1.318–21, 367–80). The Flood has destroyed the webs of communal life, without erasing all structures, practices, and competences. This selective continuity enables human history to restart with the survivors who remember how to speak, worship, and cooperate, even though the social world that taught them those practices is irrevocably lost.

Themis ensures the surviving capacity and the positivity of human progress by requiring an interpretation that reconciles obedience with moral judgment. Her oracle instructs the couple to cast behind them the bones of their “great mother” (Met. 1.381–83, here 383: magnae … parentis). Pyrrha initially refuses because she understands the command as a violation of her mother’s remains (Met. 1.384–87). Pyrrha’s hesitation further makes moral judgment part of regeneration itself: the new humanity cannot be restored through the same disregard for human bodies that helped condemn the old. Ovid then describes the couple reconsidering the oracle both privately and together (Met. 1.388–89), before Deucalion proposes that “the great mother is Earth” (Met. 1.393: magna parens terra est). Stones can accordingly be understood as Earth’s bones. His argument starts with a belief that a divine oracle cannot suggest evil (Met. 1.391–94), making reverence a presupposition of understanding, not an impediment to seeking the unknown. Even after the explanation, both remain confused but still proceed because attempting seems harmless (Met. 1.395–99). Their action is eventually a collage of moral restraint, linguistic ingenuity, and practical trial.²²22For the interpretation of the oracle and its implications for continuity between the old and new humanity, see Feldherr, “Between a Rock and a Hard Race,” 64–80. The analysis focuses more specifically on how the couple’s commitment to familial piety guides their interpretation of the oracle, making ethical judgment central to the process of regeneration. The role of speech also constitutes a stark contrast with Lycaon’s beastly transformation, as his attempted words become a howl as he loses human form (Met. 1.233). Language becomes an active means of rebuilding the community whose disappearance Deucalion has lamented. The two experiments give opposing purposes to human ingenuity: where Lycaon seeks certainty through another person’s destruction, they explore the newly established world without abandoning their own righteousness.

Ovid presents the restoration of humanity as a second birth from the earth, in which regeneration depends on transforming what survives the Flood into a new form of human life. Main describes the Flood as “a regression to chaos and an anthropogony” (280: une régression au chaos et une anthropogonie) and connects the myth’s maternal imagery with the acquisition of a new mode of being.²³23Main, “Le Déluge,” 280–81. As the stones soften, their emerging shapes resemble unfinished statues; moist, earthy portions become flesh, inflexible portions become bones, and veins retain their name through the change (Met. 1.400–410). Even sexual differentiation emerges from the same material substrate: stones cast by Deucalion become men, while those cast by Pyrrha become women (Met. 1.411–13). The continuity of material is thus incorporated in the structure of the new race. With an underlying layer of materiality that continues to exist through the transformation, Ovid presents regeneration without completely erasing what preceded it. Deucalion and Pyrrha have differentiated descendants of the same underlying material; the future is created by reorganizing what already exists in the world.

Ovid uses the new race’s stony origin as an explanation for the toughness of humanity, while leaving uncertain whether that toughness extends to moral character. The narrator concludes that “hence we are a hard race, experienced in toil” (Met. 1.414: inde genus durum sumus experiensque laborum). The stones may soften into flesh, but their hardness persists figuratively as the resilience required for human life. Ovid’s formulation is reminiscent of the image of genus durum in Lucretius’s universal history (DRN 5.925–30) and Vergil’s theodicy (Georgics 1.61–63). Whereas Lucretius locates human toughness in humanity’s pre-civilizational beginnings, Ovid’s humanity returns to a condition resembling anthropological beginnings, only after passing through mythological catastrophe. Since Deucalion and Pyrrha carry the memory of the destroyed world into the new one, this second beginning is built upon the learned experience from earlier corruption, precluding the restoration of the innocence of the Golden Age. The race of stoneborn men therefore obtains the strength to face adversity, but Ovid offers no corresponding assurance that greed, violence, or impiety have been overcome. Regeneration therefore secures the continuation of humanity without securing its progress: humans are entrusted with bodily and moral endurance, while the question of how they will conduct themselves within it remains unresolved.

The proximity of another catastrophe confirms that this renewed beginning carries no guarantee of a final, stable order. Giusti observes that Jupiter’s Flood “does not turn back the clock of time” to a renewed Golden Age, and she reads the disasters in books 1 and 2 as an unsettling response to Augustan expectations of renewal.²⁴24Giusti, “The End Is the Beginning Is the End,” 314–15, here 314. Phaethon’s fire threatens the world’s ordered divisions again when Earth warns that sea, land, and heaven may collapse into primordial chaos (Met. 2.298–300). This second crisis has a different immediate cause from the Flood, showing that catastrophe in the poem cannot be reduced to a single pattern of collective moral punishment. What recurs on the macro scale is the vulnerability of established order and the need for intervention to sustain or reconstruct it; on the micro scale, however, each renewal unfolds under conditions shaped by earlier events, preventing history from returning to an identical beginning.

Augustan Law: The Limits of Restoration and the Maintenance of Order

While Deucalion and Pyrrha secure the continuity of human civilization without ensuring that their descendants will live justly, the Augustan settlement offers an institutional response to that unresolved problem, as political authority becomes an attempt to stabilize a vulnerable human community. At the poem’s beginning, trust and right conduct are cultivated “of its own accord, without law” (Met. 1.90: sponte sua, sine lege). At the end of the poem, Jupiter’s prophecy, by contrast, praises Augustus as the “most just lawgiver” (iustissimus auctor) who will govern conduct through his own exemplum, “exemploque suo mores reget” (Met. 15.832–34). As Augustus is actively being a role model for others to follow, what the Golden Age achieved without external enforcement is now sustained through political authority. In this case, Augustus’s achievements consist in providing intervention where spontaneous virtue can no longer be assumed.

The military victories preceding Augustus’s legislation further distinguish the Pax Romana, the golden age of the Roman Empire in a reciprocal light, from the Golden Age in the Metamorphoses by making conquest the means through which political order is established. Jupiter first presents Augustus as his father’s avenger, then recounts his future victories at Mutina and Philippi, in Sicily, and over Antony and Cleopatra (Met. 15.820–28). Philippi’s fields will again be drenched in slaughter (Met. 15.824), so the prophecy retains the violence through which supremacy is secured. Jupiter’s claim that “whatever habitable land the earth supports will be his; the sea too will serve him” (Met. 15.830–31: quodcunque habitabile tellus / sustinet, huius erit: pontus quoque serviet illi) again indicates the basis of this settlement: peace follows the victor’s acquisition of overwhelming power. Unlike the Golden Age, whose inhabitants need neither armies nor fortifications (Met. 1.97–100), the peace under Augustus depends on the prior defeat of competing powers: mirroring the movement from chaos to cosmos, Augustus’ military conquest symbolizes the suppression of unsettling violence that poses danger to the universal order.

Lucretius’s account of law explains how restraint can improve human life while remaining evidence that unregulated social relations have become destructive. After the overthrow of kings produces competition for supremacy, people establish magistracies and legal rules because violence has exhausted them (DRN 5.1136–46). Humanity then “of its own accord submitted to laws and binding legal constraints” (DRN 5.1147: sponte sua cecidit sub leges artaque iura). The phrase “sponte sua” echoes Ovid’s description of the Golden Age. Both populations act voluntarily, but one chooses to obey laws because private retaliation is intolerable, whereas the other behaves justly without being guided by the laws. The practical benefit that Lucretius gives is the fair law that will allow less harsh punishment than that which individuals have demanded in the moment of anger (DRN 5.1148–50). The “fear of punishments” (metus poenarum) stains the “rewards of life” (praemia vitae, DRN 5.1151), in contrast to Ovid’s Golden Age, where punishment and fear are absent (Met. 1.91). Legal restraint therefore can override civil violence even though its necessity differentiates the resulting peace from spontaneous moral harmony.

The accounts of Numa’s instruction and Augustus’s succession arrangements show that political order must be actively cultivated and transmitted, rather than secured once for all by a single ruler. After receiving Pythagoras’s teaching, Numa “accepted the reins of the Latin people” (Met. 15.481–84: accepisse Numam populi Latialis habenas) and “led a people accustomed to fierce warfare toward the arts of peace” (gentemque feroci / adsuetam bello pacis traduxit ad artes). Augustus’ legislation and personal exemplum undertake a comparable task, although the methods and circumstances differ. The parallel makes the establishment of peace a recurring responsibility of Roman government, rather than an accomplishment that removes the need for future intervention. Jupiter’s prophecy then extends the problem beyond Augustus’s own lifetime: looking ahead to future generations (inque futuri / temporis aetatem venturorumque nepotum / prospiciens), Augustus commands his successor to “bear both his name and his responsibilities” (Met. 15.834–37: ferre simul nomenque suum curasque iubebit). These passages identify a concrete form of institutional progress: rulers can develop ways to establish peace and pass responsibility for it to others. Such arrangements strengthen continuity while acknowledging that continued order still requires people to maintain it.

Pythagoras’s placement of Rome among changing centers of power makes its rise an instance of historical transformation. His declaration that “everything changes, nothing perishes” (Met. 15.165: omnia mutantur, nihil interit) initially concerns the transmigration of souls, but his subsequent account of nature’s continual transformation (Met. 15.253: reparat) calls to mind Deucalion and Pyrrha’s reconstruction of humanity from stones (Met. 1.363, 413). Pythagoras then observes that, as time changes, some peoples “gain strength” while others “fall” (adsumere robora gentes, / concidere has); after recalling Troy’s ruins and the decline of the great Greek cities, he turns to a Rome still “rising” (consurgere Romam) and “changing its form through growth” (Met. 15.420–35: formam crescendo mutat). The text does not directly foretell the demise of Rome, but it puts Roman expansion in the same stream of transformation that has taken place in the earlier societies. Giusti describes the poem’s treatment of linear and cyclical time as “an interaction of the two in the name of transformation and change.”²⁵25Giusti, “The End Is the Beginning Is the End,” 316. Her model offers a useful precedent to the helical model formulated here: the same issues of stability and succession continue to arise, even as historical developments produce new institutions and capacities to address them. The rise of Rome is therefore a new phase in history and not a revival of the past, but neither can its development nor its institutional success assure the continuity of its moral and political order.

The divine authorization of Augustus’s rule likewise establishes his political importance without resembling his settlement to the Golden Age. In praising a son’s superiority to his father, Ovid declares that “Saturn too is lesser than Jupiter” (Saturnus minor est Iove), then aligns divine and imperial government: “Jupiter governs the heavenly citadels … the earth is under Augustus; each is father and ruler” (Met. 15.858–60: Iuppiter arces / temperat aetherias … terra sub Augusto est; pater est et rector uterque). Apart from the praising, the comparison recalls a complication from book 1: Saturn’s removal and Jupiter’s accession inaugurated the inferior Silver Age (Met. 1.113–15). Jupiter’s superiority in the closing praise thus coexists with the moral inferiority of his age in the opening narrative, but with his capacity to rule it. Similarly, Augustus’s significance lies in exercising authority over a world whose order now requires active governance. Jupiter’s appeal to fate’s “secure and eternal” records (tuta atque aeterna) and to the destinies “engraved in everlasting adamant” (incisa adamante perenni / fata tui generis) reinforces that function by presenting Augustus’s accession and achievements as part of a divinely guaranteed historical sequence (Met. 15.809–15). Divine authorization thus elevates Augustus by making his rule the appointed mechanism for securing stability in the present. The comparison consequently strengthens the poem’s account of political development: as social order becomes less self-sustaining, legitimate authority assumes a progressively greater role in preserving it.

Conclusion

Ovid’s representation of human history distinguishes civilizational development from moral improvement, while showing why such a development remains necessary once spontaneous justice is lost. In the metallic ages, human ingenuity mitigates environmental hardship but also amplifies the means through which greed and violence can operate. The Flood reveals the frailty of these achievements without destroying the knowledge of human society and the moral duties on which the reconstruction of human society relies. Deucalion and Pyrrha’s ethical restraint and interpretation redirect inherited knowledge toward regeneration, demonstrating that the past contains possibilities for renewal as well as causes of destruction. Their example implies that in order to create a more lasting social order, humanity needs to critically and selectively conserve its cultural heritage instead of reproducing the circumstances of its past deterioration. Yet their success assures the survival of humanity without ensuring the enduring virtue of future generations or averting the recurrence of the disorder in history. This unsolved issue is solved by Augustan law and personal example, which in turn ensured the maintenance of order as a conscious duty of the government. These institutions are an organizational improvement of the uncontrollable violence of the Iron Age, and their necessity also aids in differentiating Roman peace from the spontaneous justice of the Golden Age. The example set by Numa of developing peaceful behavior and the succession provisions of Augustus demonstrates how political stability must be actively maintained, while Pythagoras’s account of perpetual transformation places these achievements within a world where no established order can remain unchanged. The helical pattern thus emerges through successive responses to recurring challenges, as each generation confronts familiar problems with knowledge and institutions inherited from its predecessors. The Augustan settlement must therefore never be a reversion to the naivete of the Golden Age or the culmination of cultural progress, as its own success will always be determined by the ability of mankind to learn its own mistakes and modify its cultural inheritance to changing conditions, while still retaining the moral responsibility of its actions.

Bibliography

Primary texts

• Aratus. Phaenomena.
• Catullus. Carmina.
• Cicero. De inventione.
• Horace. Epodes; Satires.
• Lucretius. De rerum natura.
• Ovid. Ars amatoria; Metamorphoses.
• Sallust. Bellum Catilinae.
• Tibullus. Elegies.
• Vergil. Georgics.

Secondary scholarship

• Cole, Thomas. Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology. Cleveland: Press of Western Reserve University, 1967.
• Cole, Thomas. Ovidius Mythistoricus: Legendary Time in the Metamorphoses. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2008.
• Feldherr, Andrew. “Between a Rock and a Hard Race: Gender and Text in Ovid’s Deucalion and Pyrrha Episode (Met. 1.313–415).” In Metamorphic Readings: Transformation, Language, and Gender in the Interpretation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, edited by Alison Sharrock, Daniel Möller, and Mats Malm, 54–83. Oxford University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198864066.003.0004.
• Feldherr, Andrew. Playing Gods: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Politics of Fiction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.
• Gera, Deborah Levine. Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199256167.001.0001.
• Giusti, Elena. “The End Is the Beginning Is the End: Apocalyptic Beginnings in Augustan Poetry.” In Eschatology in Antiquity: Forms and Functions, edited by Hilary Marlow, Karla Pollmann, and Helen Van Noorden, 307–19. London: Routledge, 2021.
• Hardie, Philip R. The Epic Successors of Virgil: A Study in the Dynamics of a Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163743.
• Knox, Peter E. Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Traditions of Augustan Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1986. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1r07fws.
• Lovejoy, Arthur O., and George Boas. Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1935.
• Ludwig, Walther. Struktur und Einheit der Metamorphosen Ovids. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110829600.
• Main, Anne. “Le Déluge de Deucalion: Rêve d’Immortalité ou Nostalgie de la Mère.” In Les grandes figures religieuses: Fonctionnement pratique et symbolique dans l’Antiquité. Actes du Colloque international (Besançon, 25–26 avril 1984), edited by Pierre Lévêque and Marie-Madeleine Mactoux, 277–82. Besançon: Université de Franche-Comté, 1986. https://www.persee.fr/doc/ista_0000-0000_1986_act_329_1_1677.
• Myers, K. Sara. Ovid’s Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.14320.
• Reischl, Bernhard. Reflexe griechischer Kulturentstehungslehren bei augusteischen Dichtern. München: Blasaditsch, 1976.
• Schiesaro, Alessandro. “Aratus’ Myth of Dike.” Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici 37 (1996): 9–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/40236162.
• Schiesaro, Alessandro. Simulacrum et Imago: Gli Argomenti Analogici nel De Rerum Natura. Pisa: Giardini, 1990.
• Van Noorden, Helen. Playing Hesiod: The ‘Myth of the Races’ in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139019347.