Orality, I-,Iteracy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Orality, I-,iteracy,Memory in the Ancient Greekand Roman World (Oraliq. and Literacy in Ancient Greece,vol. 7) Editd b,l E. Anne N,'Iackav ?.t G ln j -a -$ :#2f/$/{ -) ftAA\ { /6g-j BRILL LE,II)[,N. BOSTON 2008 Mnemosyne Supplements Nfonographson Greek and Roman Language and Literature Editortal ]Joard GJ. Boter A. Chaniotis K. Coleman IJ.F. deJong P.H. Schrijr.ers \ T)LU\IE 298 CHAPTERELEVEN MEMORY VISUALCOPIES AND ' JOCELYNPENNY SMALL We live in a rvorld of copies not just of books and art, but of virtually el'erything we use from computers to cars to the furnishings of our home and the games we play. We are so surrounded by facsimiles and reproductionsthat it is dilficult for us to imagine a world with limited meansof making copies.It is jolting to rememberthat the assemblyline rvas an invention of the Industrial Age and did not become a major eco- nomic force until Henry Ford producedhis Model Ts in the early 1900s. It is not that copies did not exist in classicalantiquity, but rather that their nafure differs in some cases dramatically fiom modern ones. We expectour copiesto look so like their originals that not even an expert can distinguisha digital reproductionfiom its original. In antiquity,ex- cept lbr certain restrictedcategories of die- and mould-made objects, like coins, seals,and lamps,each copy could generallybe distinguished from every other. While classicistshave long been accustomedto the idea of variationsbetrveen stories and manuscripts,classical art histori- ans approach the problems of copies with an ingrained bias toward Greek art that makes them treat Roman copies, if they judge them aes- thetically fine, as exact replicas of lost Greek originals. Although that bias has begunto shift in recentyears in the study of sculpfure,painting I It rvas a grcat honour to have been invited to give the keynote addressat the SeventhIntemational Orality,lliteracy Conference.In particular I would like to ex- pressmy deepgratitude to Anne Mackay for her exemplaryorganization of the con- ferenceand lor her gracioushospitality. The reactionand commentsfrom the atten- deesn'ere most helpful and are reflectedin the notes.I would especiallylike to sin- gle out Ed Cararvanlbr our refreshingdiscussion. It is a pleasure,as always,to ac- knorvledgethe help of A. A. Donohueand SusanWoodford, both of who made the supremescholarly sacrifice of readinga draft of this paperwithout the notes.I also thank Brunilde S. Ridgrvayand Miranda Man'in for their observations.Please note that referencesare kept to a minimum both for objectsmentioned and the extensive literatureon copies. All translationsare from the Loeb ClassicalLibrary editions unlessothenvise noted. All rvebsites were accessed in March2008. tt8 JOC'EL\'NPF,NNY S1\lALL hasreceived little attention.rNor haveclassical art historiansconsidered the implicationsof theresults fiom studiesof oralityand literacy.In this paperI shalltry to redressthat lack ofbalance. I begin rvith a considerationof r.vhatGreeks and Romansthought about copies. The English r.vord"copy" comes from the Lattn copia, rvhich,however. does not mean"copy" but "abundance"or "plenty"- meaningswhich explainits laterextension to our senseof "copy.": ps1- litt's extremelyuseful compendium of technicalGreek and Latin words for art history, TheAncient View of GreekArt, containsno entry in the indicesfor "copy." With a knowledgeof Greekand Latin,however, one can find nopoberypo and exentpluir together with exemplar. Pollitt notesfor the Greekterm that its "basicmeaning ... is 'model' or'pat- tern'."'1 Similarly, he saysthat "the |erms exemplumand exentplarcan meanboth 'model' and 'copy.' When the u'ord means'copy,' however, it alwayshas the senseof a 'representativecopy' and henceis still very close in meaningto 'model'."s ln other words, the Greek and Latin rvords focus on the sourcefbr copies rather than on the copies them- selves,ironically like scholarstoday.0 2 Lippold(1951) remains the basic study fbr theidea that Greek paintings stand behindalmost elery Romanpainting. Bergmann (1995) is oneof the fervto consider painting.Hallptt (2005: .133-35) has a brief sectionon paintingin his reviervof Gazda(2002)and Perry'(2005). Even the recent lascicle of lrt Hrstor_r-(Trimble and Elsner[2006]), devoted to theproblem ofclassical copies, has no articleon painting. J Accordingto theOED Online(s.v. copy A 11.3),the meaningof "copy" as "a pictureor otheru'ork of art,reproducing the featuresof another"dates to I 584.The earliermeaning, more literally after the Latin, as "abundant"or "copious" is dag- geredas obsolete(A I.l). The earliestcitation is 1596for "copy" as "something madeor formed,or regardedas madeor formed,in imitationof somethingelse; a reproduction,image, or imitation"(A II.4a).It is probablynot coincidentalthat the modem meaningof "copy" as artistic reproductionfolloll's the inventionof the printingpress with its multiplecopies that are portableand hencecan be compared to eachother. Compare Muller (1989),who similarlydates the beginningof the desirefor "authenticity"to the sixteenthcentury. 1 Pollin (1974 2ll). tvno5 is anotherproblematic word, when usedin sculp- tural contexts.It probablydoes not mean"model" but rather"mould" or "reliel" both of which termsremove it lrom my currentconcem about "copies." See Pollitr (1974:272-93) for a summaryof the scholarshipand especially291 for the''best" usage.I thankA. A. Donohuefbr bringingthis term to my attentionin this context. 5 Pollirt,l914:367\. 6 This usageparallels the classicalinterest in firsts.Pliny the Elderrecords who inr.entedrvhat artistic technique. That sometimesthe stories,such as for the inven- tion of portraitsin clay (HN 35.151)and paint(HN 35.15)are the samedid not botherhim. if he notrcedat all. It n'ould appear,then, that the classicalinterest in firstsparallels the moderninterest in originalsexcept that Greek and Latin seemjust VISU,\L COPTF-S,ANDNII1NIORY 229 It is thereforeno surprise.as isagernotes, that "the extensiveprivate marketin modificationsor adaptationsof Greekart constitutesan area rvhichPliny [the Elder] fails and probablydid not wish to include."In fact, Pliny refersonly once to a copy of a painting.rThe referenceis instructive: In hisIouth Pausias [the painter] loved ... Glykera,thc inventor of flou'er n'reaths.imitating her in rivalrv lcertandoqueimitotionel he extendedhis methodof encausticpainting to representa very numerousvariety of 1'lorvers.... A copyof [his] panellhuius tabulae eremplarf [of Glykera], an onoypoqov as they say,by Dionysiosin Athensr.vas bought by LuciusLucr,rllus tbr tu'o talents.8 I find it interestingthat Pliny falls backon a Greekword, becauseLatin lacks the appropriatervord.e Norv the absenceof a particularword does not mean that a particularphenomenon does not exist, but ratherthat no need $'as f-eltfor such a word. For example,Latin u'as quite contentto use the same rvord, pollex, for both big toe and thumb.10 Sometimes contextis all. In this case.horvever, I do not think that contextfully accountsfor the absenceofour senseof"copy." In the first partoithe passage,Pliny refersto "imitating . in rivalry"-two tenns we are accustomedto see- ing in classicaltexts on copying."Rivalry" obviouslymeans competi- tion and a numberof anecdotesdescribe both formal and intbrmal artis- tic competitions.llFor the most part,I am not concernedwith that as- pect here."lmitation," however,is a more complexterm that may in- cludecopying but doesnot haveto.tz I could,for example,be inspired by Seuratto paint a picfureusing only dots of paint.My paintingneed as parsrmonious rvith rvords for "original" as they are for "copy," since Pollitt ( 197'l) similarly doesnot have a listing fbr "original." 7 Isager ( l99l: I 74) for both the quotation and the information. Lucian (Zeuxis 3-5) refersto an ''extremelyaccurate copy" (3.10) ola painting by Zeuxis in terms remarkably' similar to the rvay scholars today refer to copies. Yet, as will be seen, there is no x'ay for Lucian to have knorvn horv accurate the copy is. since the origi- nal. according to him. rvas lost at sea. Lucian, like Pliny the Elder, uses a similar uord to ref'erto copy. ouriypoqo5. 8 Plin. l1N 3-5.125(my translation). e A similar situation exists rvith "svmmetrv." Comnare Plin. l1N 34.65: non ha- hct Lulinum numen .\)mmelrio. t0 OLD I i9". s.r . 1',,//,:r ll The most f'amous"contest" for artists that rve knorv of may be the one among live sculptors to make the best Amazon, on rvhich see Plin. HN 34.53. For another example in painting, consider that betrveenZeuxis and Parrhasios(Plin. HN 35.65). I2 In general.on artisticimitatio seePerry' (2005: I I I -22). 230 JOCEL\N PENNYS]\{ALL not sharethe samecolours rnuch less the same subject as any of Seurat's paintings.It rvouldonly looselybe an imitationof his sfyle.In a sense this is the kind of imitationPseudo-Longinus (Or the Sublime,13.2_4) describesrvhen he sa1'sthat Platoimitated Homer. when art historians, horvever,ref-cr to "copies," they generallyare not talking about inspira- tion as imitation.They mean somethingthat has the samesubject and elementsas the original and is portrayedin the samemanner. The three requirementsof subject,elements, and style must all be met. rnthe Acodemica(2.85-86) cicero talksabout such exact replication: Tellme. could not Lysrppus, by meansof thesame bronze, the same blend of metals.the same graver and all theother requisites, make a hundredAl- exandersof thesame shape fmodil? then horv fqua ... notione]would you tellthem apan? Well, rf I imprinta hundredseals with thisring