sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ekphrasis, Shield of Achilles, The Shield of Achilles

Metal Maidens, ' Shield, and Pandora: The Beginnings of "" Author(s): James A. Francis Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 130, No. 1 (Spring, 2009), pp. 1-23 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20616165 Accessed: 21-09-2015 19:28 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of Philology. http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY

METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA: THE BEGINNINGS OF "EKPHRASIS"

James A. Francis

a Abstract. Ekphrasis has been popular topic in recent years among scholars of both classical and later literature.The latterhave been particularly interested in themodern definition of ekphrasis as a description of artwork and the develop ment of global definitions and theories. Ancient ekphrasis, however, was much broader in scope. By examiningHephaestus' automaton handmaids and the shield ofAchilles in the , along with the Pandora stories in theworks of Hesiod, can we illustrate the nature and character of ancient ekphrasis in ways that call into question modern theories and demonstrate the vibrancy and complexity of even its earliest examples in Greek literature.

Ekphrasis has received a great deal of attention in recent years as both classical scholars and those of later literature and literary theory have probed the relationship between image and text. These latter scholars have focused, not surprisingly, on what can be called the modern definition of ekphrasis, i.e., the literary description of a work of visual .1 General theorizing about literature is, however, always a trickybusiness, especially if the evidence considered is, from a Classicist's

1 These include an important series in Yale French Studies 61: Beaujour 1980, Hamon 1980, and Sternberg 1980; Davidson 1983; Fowler 1991, offering a discussion in the context of literary criticism and narratology; Heffernan 1991, including a succinct review of the on scholarship up to that point 1-2; Krieger 1992; and Heffernan 1993, a highly literary and theoretical treatment. An impressive bibliography can be found in Fowler 1991, 25, n. 2, and Becker 2003,13-14.

American Journalof Philology130 (2009) 1-23? 2009 byThe JohnsHopkins UniversityPress

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 JAMESA. FRANCIS perspective, rather narrow in chronological scope. This is particularly true in discussing ekphrasis. In antiquity, ekphrasis was a rather uncommon and late-developing term defined, not as a description of art, but as evocative description pure and simple, "laying out the subject before the eyes" (sub oculos subiectio) as Quintilian says, citing Cicero.2 Examples given are often fromHomer and relate to accounts of battle, while no definition found in surviving rhetorical handbooks, with one exception, gives describing a work of art as an example. It is almost certain that the description of art objects was not considered a distinct in antiquity, and that ekphrasis itselfwas not so much a genre as a technique or quality of both literary and oral composition.3 It is, therefore, appropriate to return once again to the earliest examples in texts to gain perspective on modern theories. In this article, I will first examine the ancient definition of ekphra sis. I will then discuss examples of descriptions of artistic production from the two earliest epic poets: ' automaton handmaids and the

2 Cic. De or. 3.202, cited inQuint. Inst. 9.2.40. A fine bibliography on ancient ekphrasis is found in Fowler 1991, 25, n. 1. Of particular note regarding ancient ekphrasis: Maguire 1982, Zanker 1987, Bartsch 1989, Graf 1995, Webb 1999b, and the special issue of Ramus 31.1-2,2002, entitled "The Verbal and theVisual: Cultures of Ekphrasis inAntiquity," guest edited by Jas Eisner. Any bibliographical note on ancient ekphrasis needs to include two fundamental, older works: Lessing 1766 and Friedl?nder 1912. These works conceived of ekphrasis as a genre and were concerned, befitting the culture of their time, with a more aesthetic brand of literary criticism. Leach 1988,3-24, gives a good background into earlier scholarly issues, before the advent of the visuality studies of the past twenty years. 3 Zanker 1987, 39; Becker 1990, 139, n. 2; Eisner 1995, 24-26; Webb 1999b, 11-12; Frank 2000,18-20, with an excellent synopsis and references to the ancient sources. Zanker 2004, 6-7, holds that the fifth-century C.E. rhetor Nikolaus of Myra, Progymnasmata 11 (Kennedy 2003, 166-68; Spengel 1854, 3.491.15-493.19) is the first author to establish descriptions of statues and pictures (ekphraseis agalmat?n) as a separate category of ek phrasis, but Nikolaus' language is fairly ambiguous on this point. He can just as easily be giving an illustrative example and not setting up a category. Neither Webb 1999b, 11, nor Eisner 2002,2, see a separate category formulated in the Progymnasmata, although Eisner holds that description of works of art did evolve eventually to become a separate genre own in antiquity, though not defined in these elementary textbooks. In the preface to his Imagines, Philostratus the Younger refers to the Imagines written by his elder namesake as an "ekphrasis of works of painting" {graphik?s erg?n ekphrasis), but it seems clear that ekphrasis here too means simply "vivid description" and requires the genitives in order to refer specifically to painting. Becker 1992,5-6, and n. 6, is of the same opinion and further notes that there are few occurrences of the word ekphrasis in Greek before the third or fourth centuries C.E. The verb ekphrazein occurs once inDemetrius, Eloc. 165, dating from either the first century B.C.E. or C.E., meaning to decorate or adorn. See also Fowler 1991, James 1991, and Webb 1999b.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 3

inHomer's Iliad, and the descriptions of Pandora in Hesiod's Theogony and Works and Days. Although ancient definitions did not concern themselves with descriptions of art, these examples have been chosen because they correspond to the modern definition and can therefore more easily serve the purposes of comparison and criticism between ancient and modern concepts of ekphrasis. Most important, I will argue that the relationship between word and image in ancient ekphrasis is, from its beginning, complex and interdependent, presenting sophisticated reflection on the conception and process of both verbal and visual representation. In antiquity, ekphrasis, which is vivid description, is intimately connected with enargeia, which is the quality of vividness.4 Enargeia is discussed at length inDemetrius, De Elocutione 209-20, from either the late Hellenistic or early Roman period, where it also includes complete ness of detail. It is often paired with the quality of saph?neia (clarity).5 Quintilian renders enargeia with the Latin evidentia or repraesentatio. He distinguishes it frommere clarity (perspicuitas), stating that enargeia thrusts itself upon our notice whereas clarity merely lets itself be seen (Inst. 8.3.61). He also describes his own vivid visual experience in reading the orations of Cicero:

a rerum An quisquam tarn procul concipiendis imaginibus abest, ut non, cum ilia inVerrem legit: "Stetit soleatus praetor populi Romani cum pal non lio purpureo tunicaque talari muliercula nixus in litore," solum ipsos intueri videatur et locum et habitum, sed quaedam etiam ex iis, quae dicta non sunt sibi ipse adstruat? (8.3.64-65 quoting Cic, Verr. 5.86)6

4Eisner 2002,1, translates enargeia as "visibility"; the relationship between visual ity and vivid description, visibility and vividness, shows how intimately these terms are connected. 5 Demetrius treats clarity separately inEloc. 191-202, which for him is largely a matter of presentation and syntax. On the occurrence of ekphrasis and enargeia, with citations of the sources, see Zanker 1981. See Manieri 1998,123-49, on the rhetorical classification of enargeia; 155-64, on enargeia in historiography; and 179-92, on the Homeric scholia. See also Dubel 1997 and the valuable notes inWalker 1993,253-54. 6"Is anyone so incapable of forming mental pictures (a concipiendis imaginibus abest) that he does not seem, when he reads these words in the Verrines: 'There stood on the shore a praetor of the Roman people, daintily slippered, wearing a cloak of purple, his tunic trailing down to his ankles, draping himself over his strumpet,' to actually look upon those people, the place, their dress and even to picture other things in addition which were not described? I myself certainly seem to see his face, his eyes, those filthy caresses, and the silent loathing and frightened shame of those who were present." All translations from the Latin or Greek in this essay are my own unless otherwise specified.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 JAMESA. FRANCIS

Note the power and dynamism of the visuality described here, as well as Quintilian's observation that brilliant enargeia allows the audience to picture not only what is described but even what is not described. The formal definitions of ekphrasis that have survived from antiquity are nearly identical to one another. They are four in number, contained in collections of rhetorical exercises for beginners called Progymnasmata spanning a period from the first to fifth centuries CE., authored by or attributed toAelius Theon, Hermogenes of Tarsus, Aphthonius of Anti och, and Nikolaus ofMyra.7 The oldest definition fromTheon in the first century C.E. can serve for all four: "Ekphrasis is descriptive language, bringing what is portrayed clearly before the sight.There is an ekphrasis of persons and events and places and periods of time."8 It is clearly a tech nique, but themention of specific types of ekphrasis might be construed as a delineation of genre. Certainly modern literary historians and critics have taken it to refer to genre. For her part, Ruth Webb has argued that ekphrasis was turned from a rhetorical technique into an ancient literary genre by eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century scholarship, adding another layer of complication onto that which transformed vivid descrip tion into description of art.9At the same time, however, we should not overplay the evidence in the Progymnasmata. These are textbook defini tions, after all, useful in their own way but hardly the last word. Certainly, Simon Goldhill (1996,17-18; so also Bann 1989, 31-32) is emphatic on the varieties of visual discourse in antiquity and their change over time concomitant with changes in broader visual culture. It is important to distinguish ancient ekphrasis frommodern notions to identify aspects ofmodern theories of ekphrasis which are inapplicable to, and even contradicted by, the ancient uses of the term. For instance, Stephen Bann (1989,28), while enunciating his belief in the flexibility of ancient ekphrasis, states: "Ekphrasis as a genre of writing is dependent first of all on the risky assumption that the visual work of art can be

7The standard edition of all the Progymnasmata remains Spengel 1854 (rpt. 1966); English translation inKennedy 2003. There is a recent Bud? edition of Theon only, Patillon and Bolognesi 1997. See Webb 1999b, 11, for history of publication. The Progymnasmata are also discussed in Kennedy 1983,54-73, and Becker 1995,24-40. 8"EK9paai(; ?cm X?yoc 7t?pirryr|uaTiK?(; ?vapyctx; im' ?\|/iv ayarv t? ?nAoufievov. yivetai te Kai ?? ?Kcppaaic; Ttpoac?m?rv Tipay^i?Tcov Kai t?hiuv Kai \p?vu>v, Theon, Progym. 1 (Patillon and Bolognesi, 66-69; Kennedy, 45-47), 11 (Spengel, 118-20); trans. Kennedy 2003, 45. See also Theon, Progym. 2. The other definitions are Hermogenes 10,Aphthonius 12, and Nikolaus 11.

9Webb 1999b, esp. 15-17, who also issues a salutary caveat on classical scholars slip ping from the ancient to modern definitions unconsciously (8-9).

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 5

translated into the terms of verbal discourse without remainder. In other words, the text about painting or sculpture is assumed to have absolute adequacy to the objects which it describes." Bann's purpose here is not a to discuss ekphrasis per se but to use it to exemplify scholarly view that mimetic realism is the hallmark of western . In doing so, however, he presents a simplistic, mimetic concept of ekphrasis. First of all, his statement confuses ancient and modern ekphrasis, especially in speaking of a genre of art description. Second, he speaks of texts when ancient writing about ekphrasis occurs specifically in the context of rheto ric. Granted, the art of rhetoric was the foundation of literary criticism in antiquity, and the two shared a vast number of techniques, but tomake texts the focus of the discussion only further confuses the issue with modern practice. Failure to recognize the fundamentally rhetorical character of ancient ekphrasis, its oral delivery and aural reception, only furthersmisunderstanding.10 Finally, no such claim to "complete adequacy" is ever made in any of the ancient sources, and one can readily see that any such contention would be impossible.11 Indeed, Quintilian speaks of the inadequacy of words in comparison with images (Inst. 11.3.67). Conversely, vivid verbal description can also lead to seeing things not some can even described (Inst. 8.3.64-65, quoted above), so that words actually be "superadequate" to what they describe. As this article will demonstrate, the relation of words to images was conceived as farmore complex than one of simple replication. Other misconceptions arise from discussing ekphrasis from a too narrowly focused literary perspective. Some modern critics speak of ekphrasis as a point of stillness in themotion of a story being told.12This

10To a lesser degree, the same can also be said of ancient literature in general. In the words of Harry Gamble 1995,204: "No ancient text is now read as itwas intended to be unless it is also heard, that is, read aloud." 11A point made very well by Becker 2003,4-5. Baxandall 1985,1-5, points out that even a realistic and detailed physical description of a painting might not allow the reader to reconstruct it.Color sequences, spatial relations etc., all picked up instantly by the eye and part of the very essence of the image, simply do not translate into words. I heartily concur with Baxandall's point that "ekphrasis is not a description of pictures but of thought about having seen pictures." Webb 1999a, 64, expresses the same view: "The aim of ekphrasis in rhetoric has always been less to give a complete and accurate account of a particular object than to convey the effect that the perception of that object worked upon the viewer"; so also Webb 1999b, 11-12. Manieri 1998, 58-59, argues that it is not so much the detailed description itself which captures the attention of the audience in , but the intensity of emotion such description evokes. nuance 12Krieger 1967 and 1987. With greater and refinement, Heffernan 1991 and Putnam 1995.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6 JAMESA. FRANCIS may have a certain validity from the point of view of narratology, but it cannot help but convey the impression that ekphrasis is flat, static, a contemplative (and marginal?) pause in the "real" task of narrative. Far from a calm, contemplative pause, ancient ekphrasis, as we shall see, is filled with movement on several levels, sometimes reinforcing, sometimes subverting the narrative, often calling into question the very processes of sight, language, and thought. Modern scholars also distinguish between descriptions of objects which exist in physical reality and those which are purely imaginary. The description of these latter is termed "notional" ekphrasis. The distinction may well be helpful inmodern literature, but ancient rhetorical theory, which subsumed literary theory, did not make a distinction between real and fictional subject matter in this regard.13 Indeed, what is regarded as the firstexample of the ekphrasis of an artistic object inWestern literature, inHomer's Iliad, is a description of an object that did not and could not physically exist.14 Quintilian even saw particular value in fictional description: "We will obtain vivid clarity ifwe remain very close to reality, so that we may invent fictitious elements, which did not occur, if they usually occur in the situation we are describing."15 Notional ekphrasis therefore offers a distinction of little use in discuss ing ancient ekphrasis. A glance at a few other apposite scholarly observations on ekphra sis will conclude this preliminary discussion. As Murray Krieger has noted, ekphrasis is, in one sense, an epigram on a work of art without the accompanying object?indeed in antiquity usually without any object except the one itverbally creates.16 Ekphrasis therefore possesses a char

13 Leach 1988, 10. The term "notional ekphrasis" was coined by John Hollander 1988, 209. no ever or can ever 14Taplin 1980, 4, categorically states that such shield has exist, though some more romantically inspired scholars have, in the past, endeavored to draw the shield from 's description; see Edwards 1991, 204-6, for illustrations of these. It is interesting to note that earlier scholars also found fault with Homer's description because itwas "unrealistic"; see Becker 1990,140, nn. 5 and 6. 15 Inst. 8.3.70: "Consequemur autem, ut manifesta sint, si fuerint verisimilia; et licebit etiam falso adfingere quidquid fieri solet." So also 9.2.41: "Nee solum quae facta sint aut fiant sed etiam quae futura sint aut futura fuerint imaginamur. Mire tractat hoc Cicero pro Milone, quae facturus fuerit Clodius si praeturam invasisset"; "Nor may we describe only or those things which have happened are happening, but also in addition those things which could happen or would happen. Cicero did this wonderfully in the Pro Milone, when he described what Clodius would have done had he obtained the praetorship." 16 Krieger 1967,16. Some ekphrastic epigrams were, however, probably placed with the statues or other objects they described. On the relationship between ekphrasis and

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 7

acteristic which is also fundamental to the nature of an image. Both are about absence, at least in part, and function as symbola, in the original definition of that word.17 The image refers back to the absent model just as ekphrasis refers back to its absent image. But just as with the image, ekphrasis makes the absent present; it conveys both presence and absence at the same time. Similarly, ekphrasis also communicates through both word and image. It appropriates visual material into words and, at the same time, the image it (re)presents appropriates the text and its audi ence by absorbing them, turning readers into viewers (Becker 1995,152). Ancient ekphrasis is thus a dynamic interface between the verbal and the visual.18 Ekphrasis, in the narrower, modern sense of a verbal description of a visual artifact, stands at the very beginning of classical literature in epic poetry.19 In many ways, visuality iswoven into the epic genre (Bak ker 1993,15):

epigram, see the insightful article by Chinn 2005; also Eisner 2002,10; Gordon 1979,10; Gross 1992, 139-40; Heffernan 1991, 304; Kreiger 1992, 15-16. On the development of Hellenistic literary epigram, see Gutzwiller 1998. 17 A symbolon was originally a disk or similar token used in establishing a contract. The disk was broken in half and one half given to each contracting party in order to prove their identity. It therefore stands, and stands in, for something or someone absent: e.g., money lent, a distant friend, a pledge not as yet fulfilled. 18 Since ancient ekphrasis seeks to compound word and image and conflate reader see a and viewer, I would take issue with approaches that primarily agonistic relationship between these modes of discourse in ekphrasis, e.g., Krieger 1992, esp. 1-2, and 7. Becker 2003 offers a superb refutation of the agonistic view, with a convenient bibliography of works representing these theories on 1-2, nn. 2,3, and 5; on a broader scale, see Bal 1991, 25-59. Heffernan 1993, 1, 33-34, 46-61, also sees ekphrasis as a duel, one between male and female gazes, with the voice of masculine speech striving to control the feminine image that is both alluring and threatening. This is, of course, classic gender analysis and quite valid and illuminating, but such analysis has come to be wary of overly rigid dichotomies. The "gaze" is gendered, but not monolithic or stereotypical; neither does power always migrate to the male. Fredrick 2002 offers a good summary of the body, sexuality, and the gaze in classical scholarship, with the accompanying issues and controversies. See Martin 1996,3-4, on more nuanced views. The assignment of strict gender identities to words and images is, in my view, reminiscent of Lessing's dichotomy between visual and literary art in Laokoon, i.e., dichotomous, inflexible, and totalizing; see also Fowler 1991, 30. Barton 2002,224-25, notes that the gaze of women in Rome could be as violating and penetrating as that of men; the invasive eye could shame men regardless of the gender of the viewer. In general, see Richlin 1991, Gleason 1995, Stewart 1997, Fredrick 2002, and their respec tive bibliographies. 19 For a good overview of issues in visuality in Greek culture, see the essays in Goldhill and Osborne 1994.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 8 JAMESA. FRANCIS

Epic narrative in many cultures is very different from what is commonly considered to be the essence of narrative?text type, the reference to past moves events and the presentation of information that narrative time for can ward and thus be called "sequential." Rather, epic narrative is typically presented as, in narratological terms, the description of things seen, with as the narrator (performer) posing eyewitness.20

Ancient Greek epic can be described as a genre of evocative description, true to its origins as oral storytelling where performance demanded a level of recreation or reenactment beyond simple description.21 The world of epic is vast indeed, and Homer and particularly so. Here let us confine ourselves to exploring different examples of artistic ekphrasis from the two earliest epic poets, Homer and Hesiod. The "Shield of Achilles" in Iliad 18.468-608 has been reckoned as the first example of the ekphrasis of art inwestern literature.22 Both the shield description itself and its immediate context provide important mate rial for studying the description of works of art. The scene in the poem begins after loses Achilles' armor in his fatal duel with . , Achilles' goddess mother, approaches Hephaestus for new armor made by the divine craftsman himself (18.368). Upon entering Hephaestus' workshop, Thetis sees him putting handles on a set of twenty automated tripods on wheels, mechanical servants able tomove back and forth to the Olympian feasts (373-79).These automatons give the audience a foretaste of an even more dramatic set of the god's creations. As Hephaestus puts away his work and leaves his forge to speak with Thetis, he is assisted by

20 On visuality inHomer generally, see Snodgrass 1998 with the review by Morris 1998, also Prier 1989 and Rakoczy 1996, which present two very different analyses. Prier 1989, 25-118, also offers a detailed discussion of words relating to seeing inHomer, acknowledg ing the preliminary work of Snell 1924; see also Pr?v?t 1935 and Prier 1987. 21 "Epic narrators in performance, too, are interpreters, not of visual evidence in their physical here and now, but of visual evidence provided by their memory," Bakker 1993,17; see also Gombrich 1957 and Arnheim 1969.

22The paradox, of course, is that while scenes inHomer are often cited by the Pro gymnasmata and other rhetorical treatises as examples of ekphrasis in antiquity, the shield is not. It becomes an example only with the narrowing of the definition of ekphrasis in the was and modern period. This is not to say that the shield of Achilles not highly as regarded in antiquity; it certainly was?producing such imitations the pseudo-Hesiodic "Shield of " and, most famously, 's description of the shield of . The point is that such scenes are not specifically termed ekphraseis in antiquity. Much of the on was groundwork for recent scholarship the shield laid by Reinhardt 1961,401-11, and Marg 1971; more recently, see Edwards 1991, 200-232; Stanley 1993, 3-26; Becker 1995; Scully 2001.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 9

attendants made of gold who are like living young women in appearance (z??isi ne?nisin eioikuiai). Unlike the tripods, however, the poet says these automatons possess intelligence (noos), sense (phrenes), voice (aud?), vigor (sthenos), and have been taught skills (erga) by the gods (417-20). The passage is curious. The only roughly similar instance in Homer is the gold and silver dogs Hephaestus made to guard the palace of king Alcinous in 7.91, but these are not described as animate. Note a significant difference between the tripods firstmentioned and these metallic maids. The tripods seem to be no more than mechanical devices, self-propelled carts designed simply tomove about on certain occasions. The maids, however, have the qualities of living beings and actually look alive. I suggest the reason for this difference is precisely because they are in the form of living beings. The maids are animate statues and not merely mechanical devices. Because they are in human form, they can possess human intelligence and the power of speech; they can learn and act with a degree of independence.23 We will see this again in the ultimate living image fashioned by the gods: Pandora. At the request of Thetis, Hephaestus sets about making Achilles' new armor. Although he does make a corselet, helmet, and greaves, these are tersely mentioned in only a few lines at the very end of Book 18. The principal focus of the poet's descriptive energy is on the shield, and the context of the description is not a static appreciation of the completed work but rather the dynamic process of the god fabricating it.The emphasis is on themaking, yet it is not even so much themaking of the shield per se as it is the god's creation of the images ornamenting it.24First mentioned isHephaestus' depiction of the earth, sea, and heavenly bodies (483-89). Then follow the three dominant scenes: a city at peace (490-508), a city at war (509-40), and a bucolic harvest scene (541-605). Lastly, two lines specify that the river Ocean is depicted around the outermost rim of the shield (606-7). Starting with the city at peace, the description becomes immediately and intensely detailed, presenting the motivations of indi viduals and the sequential action of the stories that would be difficult if not impossible to convey by solely visual means.25 In the city at peace,

23 Gordon 1979,8, states these were seen "neither as inert matter nor as humans nor animals; they required a special classification." 24 See esp. Taplin 1980. Heffernan 1993, 12-14, holds that this vivid, detailed, and "realistic" description is, in fact, not a description of a shield at all, but only the scenes upon it.Eisner 2002,5, discusses this emphasis on making and how it is a reflection of the poet's own work here; the shield is an image of the poem itself. 25 On this scene, see the interesting and accessible essay in Nagy 2003, 72-87.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 10 JAMESA. FRANCIS we know that two men involved in a dispute are arguing over restitu tion for someone one of them accidentally killed and that the aggrieved party refuses compensation. We know that they take turns laying their cases out before a council of elders and that two talents lying before the elders are to go to the one among them who gives the best counsel. In the city at war, an army marches out from the city, takes up its ambush and attacks. Yet the action is not described as a series of vignettes but as a continuous moving narrative, as if the shield were running some sort of movie in animated metal. Hephaestus even depicts the divinities , , Hate, Confusion, and Death as present in the scene. The description in these major scenes is not limited to the visual. In the city at peace, the poet describes the song of a marriage procession passing by in the scene, the bystanders speaking up in the manslaugh ter dispute, the speakers taking turns, and in the harvest scene, singing, whistling, and the music of the lyre. In one striking image in the harvest sequence, the absence of sound is described: the king stands behind his workers in silence?a condition paradoxically easy to describe inwords but difficult to do inmute images. The cast-metal images on the shield recapitulate the metallic maidens. The images are presented as vigorous and moving; they can sense, reason, and argue. Like the maidens, they are endowed with speech. They know the crafts of peace and war. In the ambush scene, the soldiers "battle like living mortals" (cb^iXeuv S'toc; te ?cool ?potol r|?' ?ji?xovTo, 18.539) similar to the way the "golden maidens scuttered about theirmaster like livingwomen" (pcoovto dvaKTt /xp?aeicu, ?cofjaiverrviaiv e?oikiucu, 18.417-18).26 The use of the simile here underscores both the lifelikeness of these images and their nature as representations. Both the figures themselves and their poetic descriptions make them both real and representational at the same time.27 Heffernan has suggested that the poet?or perhaps more precisely a poet?at some point in the long evolution of theHomeric epics is actu ally exulting here in the then newborn powers of writing and inviting the audience tomeasure the power of verbal description against the visual.28

26All quotations from the Iliad are taken from the Teubner edition, West 2000. 27 In the words of Gordon 1979,10, the metaphors of living applied to images "at once assert and deny that statues and painted figures are alive. 'Living' is broken down into its denotations: breath, sight, feelings, movement, skin-sheen, facial expression. So far as one or two of these denotations may be taken as 'sufficient' evidence of 'life,' the images live. But the whole inventory is never present." See also Stewart 2003, 35-41. 28Heffernan 1993, 9. The problem is, of course, exactly when this power of writing would be "newborn" and the assumption that this power could only belong to literacy. It

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 11

A case can certainly be made that the poet emphasizes those abilities which verbal representation possesses and which visual representation lacks, describing sound, human motivation, sequential time?all with articulated precision. But we should not be too hasty or superficial in our judgment here. Could this verbal description have achieved any of this precision without referencing some visual artifact? If words here are seen tomaster the visual image, the paradox is no less present that, without the image, the words would lose their meaning and purpose. Indeed, since this is a "notional" ekphrasis, to use the modern term, the poet must "create" the artifact with these images in the first place?but then again, all of this exists only inwords. The relationship between word and image here may or may not be agonistic, but it is profoundly complex and interdependent. There is a sophisticated reflection on verbal and visual representation here, not simple one-upmanship of one over the other. This is also consistent with the theme of appearance and reality that runs throughout the Iliad.29 The sophistication and intricacy of the interplay between verbal and visual representation in ancient ekphrasis is obvious from its very begin ning. There is no elementary stage of "mere" description.30 The focus on

is, however, not writing but rather words themselves that have this power. Heffernan ap pears not to take account of the oral tradition that lies behind the written Homeric we now have. There can be competition between visual art and poetry without written language. This oversight tends to be common among non-classical literary scholars in deal ing with a number of works of ancient literature, since it is, frankly, difficult for people in our era to conceive of a "literature" that was not written. A similar problem occurs when scholars and theorists forget that what we would recognize as literary theory and criticism was in antiquity primarily directed toward rhetoric, i.e., oral not written composition and presentation. 29 Certain characters in the poem especially manifest the conflict between appearance and reality, as well as a complex ambivalence regarding the verbal and visual. The most vivid is the ugly , whose appearance denies him any claim to status and, therefore, credibility, but who nevertheless speaks the "ugly truth" to the kingly appearing but hollow (//. 2.210-75). His true words go unrecognized and are driven out, overruled by appearance. At the same time, however, is themaster of words, but his smooth talk masks half-truths and deception. If a major theme in the poem is that appearances deceive, it is obvious that words, too, cannot be entirely trusted. 30 Krieger 1992,18, speaks of "the ekphrastic principle" learning to do without simple ekphrasis, i.e., the of an object in physical reality, in order "to explore more freely the illusory powers of language." Curiously, Krieger is speaking of Homer here, which one leaves wondering what "simpler," and presumably earlier, literature he might be referring to. This notion of simple, mimetic ekphrasis hearkens back to Friedl?nder 1912 and his concept of echte Beschreibung. Bann 1989,28, advances the same overly simplistic

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 12 JAMESA. FRANCIS making in this scene provides an important point of interface between the verbal and the visual. Homer's description is embedded inHephaestus' action of laying out the metals and placing the sculpted scenes, while at the same time Hephaestus' work of creating images in the visual realm parallels Homer's in the verbal realm. This adds further depth to one aspect of the poem that has been long recognized: the scenes on the shield are emblematic of the story of the Iliad itself, so that the shield is a multilayered image of the poem, created by and embedded within the poem.31 Andrew Becker has demonstrated that the shield episode serves as a paradigm for the audience's response to the Iliad as a whole. The actions of the figures on the shield, theirmotives, reactions, and feelings so clearly articulated, serve as a guide for the audience's response. Complex imagery is paralleled by an equally complex narratology (see Becker 1995, 44-153). James Heffernan speaks of the "representational friction" in this passage (1993, 19-20; see also Steiner 2001, 21-22), a dynamic Andrew Becker (2003, 6) describes more constructively in terms of engagement and detachment. At several points, Homer is careful to specify themetal Hephaestus uses to construct the various figures, even calling attention

n. an am concept of ekphrasis. See Becker 2003,7-8, and 21, for effective critique. Neither I certain that "illusory," with its connotations of deception, is the right word to use in this seems regard. Given the performative character of epic, indeed of all ancient poetry, it more likely that the poet very much wants his audience to be conscious of and admire his skillful use of language. Heffernan 1993,22, offers an eloquent and more refined analysis: "Yet Homer never forgets that he is representing representation itself: that he is describing both the act of sculpting and a work of sculpture as well as all the things it represents. He starts each narrative by referring to the making and placing of the scenes he narrates; he concludes his most dramatic narratives on a note of charged suspension that evokes the stasis of sculpture; and he fully exploits the representational friction between the sculptor's medium?the various metals of the shield?and its referents. He thus bears continual wit

ness to the Daedalian power, complexity, and verisimilitude of visual art even as he aspires to rival that art in language that both magnifies and represents it." 31 On the correspondences between the details of the shield and the main narrative of the Iliad, see Taplin 1980. Another example of mirroring the poem and poet occurs in war 3.125-45, where Helen is weaving a magnificent robe decorated with scenes from the summons to raging outside her walls. The goddess appears to her and her the walls to witness the pause that has just dramatically descended on the hostilities. As the battle see once stops, so her work on the image of the battle stops. She comes out to again with her physical eyes the people which she is depicting through her mind's eye in her weaving. See Kennedy 1986, 5-8, and Putnam 1995,428. Snodgrass 1998,161-62, argues that in his same a description, Homer "looks" at the shield in the way his audience would examine work of art, "grasping overall composition, deciphering gesture and movement, inferring passage of time," in a word, "making up stories" about what he sees.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 13

to their crafted realism: e.g., the ground looked like earth, even though itwas made of gold (18.549-50); golden grapes are darkened to appear realistic, though the vine-poles are silver (561-63); gold and tin oxen pour out of a farmyard to graze near a stream, shedding blood when they are attacked by lions (573-86). Although the god's skill makes the figures so realistic they (seem to?) move and speak, and although the poet aims at vivid realism, the audience is deliberately reminded that these are but images, representations inmetal.32 In the next example, however, we shall examine an image that actually becomes alive: Hesiod's Pandora. Though not often singled out as an example of ekphrasis of art, the creation of "woman" in the poems of Hesiod, Theogony 570-615 and Works and Days 60-109, where she is given the name Pandora, echoes themes and language seen inHomer.33 Like Achilles' shield, Pandora is made by Hephaestus, but from clay instead of his usual medium, metal (Theog. 571; WD 60-61, 70). The god, in effect, makes an archaic ter racotta statue in a form "like that of a modest maiden" (TtapG?vo) ai?otr] ?KeXov,Theog. 572; ?iaiceiv / TtapOevucfjc;KaX?v el?o?,WD 63; ?tapo?vcpat?oir) foeXov, WD 71).34 In Works and Days, the gods then bring the statue to life specifically by giving itpowers thatHomer says were given toHeph aestus' metallic maids: voice (aude) and vigor or strength (sthenos, WD 61-62,77-79; cf. //. 18.417-20). Just as themaids "were taught their skills by the gods" (a0av?t?)v Se ?ecov cuto ?pya ?aaaiv, //. 18.420), so "Athena teaches her skills" to Pandora (?0r|vr|v / ?pya ?iSaaKfjaai, WD 63-64). Goddesses bedeck her with glittering raiment, jewels, and flowers.35Works and Days then goes on to detail at length the gods' gifts of Pandora's interior character: craftiness, deceit, shamelessness, and irresistible allure. In Theogony, the description stops at the woman's external appearance, but the lifelike quality of Pandora is instead conveyed through the description of Pandora's crown:

t?] ?' ?vi ?ai?aXa TtoXX? Teteuxaxo, 9a?ua i??aGai, Kvcb?aX', ?a fjTteipo? ?eiv? Tp?cpei r)?? ?aXaaaa

32 For another example of plant life in embossed metal depicted as living, see Gutz willer 1986.

33Pucci 1977, 82-126, discusses the creation of Pandora in terms of sculpture and, similar toAchilles' shield, sees thismaking as a metaphor for poetry. Also on Pandora, see Saintillan 1996 and Vernant 1996.

34All quotations of Hesiod are taken from the OCT edition, Solmsen, et al. 1990. 35 Steiner 2001,116, points out that Pandora's adornment by the gods with shimmer ing raiment and jewels resembles the ritual clothing of statues of the gods.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 14 JAMESA. FRANCIS

tc?v ? ye rt?XX' ?v?Onice?X^PK & ^ n?oiv ar]To? oimv Oauu?aia, ? ?oiK?xa (pcovrjEaaiv. (Theog. 581-84)36

It, too, is made by Hephaestus, and like Achilles' shield, the figures ornamenting it are like living creatures with, significantly, voices (? oiatv eoiK?ta (p?)vr)?Gaiv).Like Hephaestus' maids and the figures on Achilles' shield, Pandora is a skillfully created object possessed of movement, intelligence, skill, and speech. Pandora is thus portrayed as a living image, but is she a woman described as a statue or a statue described as a woman? Though out of habit, nearly everyone refers to Pandora as "the firstwoman"; Christopher Faraone rightly notes thatHesiod never her calls her the firstwoman?or even a woman, period. He merely states that her shape, vigor, and voice are like that of a mortal woman and that all women descend from her (Theog. 590).37The use of similes here ("like" in various words inGreek) parallels Homer's descriptions of themetallic maids and the figures on the shield (Theog. 572,584; WD 62-63,71; cf. //. 18.417-18,539). The similes draw attention simultaneously to the vividness and vigor of the represen tation and to the fact that it is representation, not the "real" thing.Why use this language unless, in some sense, Pandora is not a "real" woman? In Theogony, this creature is the firstmanufactured entity.All creation prior to her arises spontaneously or from procreation?except formen, who simply appear without a clear origin?while Pandora is quite liter ally built. She is a constructed thing, a plasma, not a product of nature.38 Like the maids, she seems to be a very special form of statue, one that is invested with and serves as the prototype for all women and the evils that come through them. She is a divinely fabricated living statue.39

36"On itwere worked many marvelously detailed figures, wonders to behold, /Ter rifyingmonsters, such as the earth and sea spawn; /He crafted many of these?and breathed enchantment upon them all? /Most amazingly, as if they were living beings with voices." 37Faraone 1992,101-2. Hesiod never quite describes Pandora as human; neither is she the wife of a mortal man. It is often forgotten that she is given to the Titan , the brother of , not to a mortal husband. The overall impression is that she serves as some kind of archetype for the human women that will come after. Similari ties between the account of Pandora's creation and Hesiod's description of the birth of to (Theog. 190-205) and (Theog. 120-22) lend further credence this view. In Hesiod, Aphrodite is also a sort of prototypical woman, born with smiles, deceits, and irresistible allure (Theog. 201-6). 38 Steiner 2001,78, states that from Pandora onward, "statues have the power to bring con into existence something quite different from what existed before." Pucci 1977,89-90, siders her a copy or imitation of the various archetypal gifts the gods bestow upon her. 39This is also the conclusion of Faraone 1992,101-2, and Becker 1993,287-88. On liv see ing statues, in addition to the works mentioned in the notes above, Poulsen 1945; Dodds

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 15

Other elements underscore the complexity of these passages. dora ismost definitely not what she appears to be. The gods give her the form of a modest girl but fill her with guile and shamelessness. There is dissonance between appearance and reality reminiscent of the Iliad. In one sense, Hesiod appears to exalt verbal representation, since his words can describe Pandora's true nature and belie her deceptive visual are as appeal. But if this is true, then Hesiod's words also exposed weak are and unavailing, for Pandora's?and hence all women's?attractions insuperable. Aphrodite herself instilled cruel longing within Pandora WD( women. 65), and no amount of words can prevent men from desiring Moreover, Pandora's appeal is purely visual. When she is led out in are as soon as public for the first time, both gods and men awestruck they lay eyes on her. To emphasize the visual dynamic, Hesiod equates te seeing Pandora with springing ' trap: Gand?a ?' ?^ ?Bavctxoix; Gso?? BvrjTo?c;t' ?vBpcOTtou?,/ cb?el?ov ?oXov a'iTt?v,?|ir|xavov ?vGpcOTtoiaiv-("The immortal gods and mortal men were struck with amazement (thauma) at thismarvel, as soon as they saw this utter snare which men are help less against," Theog. 588-89). Though given speech, she does not speak in either of Hesiod's poems. Given that speech is elsewhere a particular quality of the living, that Pandora has this quality but does not use it makes her even more of a contradiction and raises further questions as to what kind of being she is. Andrew Becker sees this passage also as an example of audience response similar to that he saw in the shield of Achilles. The Pandora episode in Theogony is filled with descriptions of viewers' reactions, which in turnmodel the reactions of the poem's audience.40 Pandora's clothing and crown are both "a wonder to behold" (thauma idesthai) just as she herself fills gods and men with wonder (thauma) at her appearance.41

1951, 293, with notes; Ziolkowski 1977; Frischer 1982, 96-118; Brillante 1988; Freedberg 1989,283-316; Gross 1992; and Spivey 1995. Another example of living images, or at least their vital connection to their living archetypes, is binding and/or burying effigies to avert evil; see Faraone 1991 and 1992, 74-96,133-40. On rituals renewing the divine power of images, or perhaps even infusing divine life into them, see Steiner 2001,106-20. 40 See Becker 1993, 282-90. He concludes that this offers an early instance of the rivalry between verbal and visual representation. Since Pandora is most powerful in her effects on men, then poetry, themedium which can describe these effects?i.e., the response viewers have to her?is superior to art, which can merely describe her deceitful appearance. This is an acute observation and true enough, though again I would emphasize that this is still being mediated by vision; the reactions are those of a visual experience. Hesiod is constructing a more complex and subtle relationship between the verbal and visual here. 41 Prier 1989,94-97, discusses how the expression thauma idesthai serves as an inter mediary between the describer, the described, and the audience.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 16 JAMESA. FRANCIS

The figures on her crown are similarly wondrous things (thaumasia) and endowed with charis, a word meaning grace or charm (rendered as "enchantment" in note 36 above), difficult to translate here but indicative of a judgment based on something more than apparent beauty.42 Pandora herself ismade in the form of a modest (aidoie) maiden. Her clothes and jewels are expertly or cleverly made (daidald). None of the adjectives or expressions is visual; they are instead descriptive of the results of view ing.They express emotions, reactions, or judgments of physical or moral quality, the results of cognitive processes. Pandora is described not only by her visual appearance but also by the reactions of persons in the poem on seeing her. Her "audience" in the poem mirrors the audience of those hearing or reading the poem, and the reactions of persons in the poem engage, frame, and model the reactions of those who hear or read it.The description of Pandora presents not so much a visible object but instead the effects of seeing that object (see above, note 11). These two examples of ekphrasis of art from the earliest Greek literature demonstrate that the description of works of art was complex from the start.There appears to be no stage inwhich literature contented itselfwith any sort of simple ekphrasis, the mere mimetic description of a visual artifact. The very idea of representing a visual work of art with artistic words entailed a level of sophistication which had already begun to think abstractly about these modes of representation. Even the attri bution of lifelikeness, which could simply be a compliment to the quality of naturalistic art, inHomer's hands becomes a dialectic on the nature of representation and reality, as the poem simultaneously insists on the objective reality and constructed plasticity of the images it describes.43 In Hesiod, lifelikeness raises disturbing questions about the nature of the woman-creature the gods fabricated. Underlying this is an even more fundamental issue concerning the life of images. As Hephaestus' metallic maids demonstrate, there is no clear line between an image of life and life itself.What keeps an image in human form, endowed with power, ability, and speech, from being alive? At the same time, the images portrayed in these passages are not only looked at, they also look back. Seeing and being seen are active processes here. The scenes inHomer reach out to the audience of listeners/readers/viewers and engage them emotionally and viscerally. Pandora exerts her irresistible power simply by being seen.

42 Both Solmsen, et al. 1990, 29, and Becker 1993, 285, n. 18, prefer reading deina instead of polla in 18.582, creating another response-oriented description. The figures of the land and sea beasts "terrify" the viewer. 43 Becker 2003,6, describes this dynamic in terms of engagement and detachment.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 17

The viewing that takes place in these two passages is dialogic, which fur ther allows the poem itself to enter into rapport with the audience and to model reactions to events in the narrative to them.44 Also apparent at the dawn of Greek literature is an awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of words both in themselves and vis-?-vis images. By the nature of his description, Homer invites comparison between the visual image of the shield and the words he uses to describe it,which communicate knowledge that the images cannot. Yet both images and words are the poet's creations, so that the result is a complex mirroring not only of the visual and verbal representation of the shield but also of the making of the shield and the making of the poem itself. In Hesiod, the powerful reality of the vision of Pandora is actually the counterpart to the words which describe her character; rather than compete with one another, both the visual and verbal are necessary to describe her completely. Artists and poets both create images, and one form of image making can, or perhaps inherently does, reflect the other. Visuality and narratology are two sides of the same coin. These earliest examples set the stage for the development of ekphra sis in the rest of Greco-Roman antiquity. The living quality of images, the fine line between reality and representation, and the interdependent relationship between word and image are powerfully reprised in, for example, Ovid's tales of Narcissus and Pygmalion; Horace, Carmina 4.8;

44The force and power of this process is akin to prevailing ancient theories of physi cal, ocular sight. Ancient theories of vision fell into one of two categories: either that of objects emitting something that physically entered the eye, or of the eye emitting some thing that reached out and "touched" objects. "The Greeks did not understand vision as . the perception of reflected light... One common element in these theories is that there is direct contact between the viewer and the object.... A second feature of Greek visual theories is that what is seen enters into the mind itself because its images continue to recur in the 'mind's eye' even after the thing has been seen. Thus, what we see has the power to enter into our soul and to affect our behavior," Stansbury-O'Donnell 2006, 64; see also 61-67 for a succinct survey of Greek theories of vision. In general, see van Hoorn 1972, Lindberg 1976, G?rard 1988, Rakoczy 1996, and Park 1997. The physical effects of seeing can be quite dramatic. In Heliodorus, Ethiopica 10.14.7, the queen of Ethiopia looked upon a painting of Andromeda during an embrace with the king and bore a daughter who was not only white but also looked just like the Andromeda in the painting. Bettini 1999,199, notes: "Empedocles maintained that children acquire their form from the woman's imagi nation (phantasia) at the moment of conception, and it often happens that when women are seized by a passion for images or for statues, they give birth to children who resemble those images or statues." Vision, whether mental or ocular, is invasive and tactile, its impact concussive. What is seen, once it is touched by, taken into, or has invaded the mind, can have a life (and perhaps a will) of its own. This is all the more the case when the object is a representational image.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 18 JAMESA. FRANCIS

and Philostratus' Imagines. At the same time, the active, reciprocal nature of viewing seen in these passages, their vibrant strategies for engaging their audience, and complex reflections and refractions of verbal and visual representation belie a number of characterizations of ekphrasis put forth by scholars of later literature, as well as a number of universalizing theo ries of ekphrasis. From the beginning, ancient ekphrasis explored ways of combining word and image, alternative to the agonistic relationship that has been the focus of much recent scholarship. Insisting that ekphrasis communicate both verbally and visually, ancient writers present a com plexity that resists tidy rationalization and theorizing. Homer's shield and Hesiod's Pandora offer a salutary lesson in generalizing too readily about ekphrasis without taking its first practitioners into account.

University of Kentucky

e-mail: [email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnheim, Rudolf. 1969. Visual Thinking. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Bakker, Egbert J. 1993. "Discourse and Performance: Involvement, Visualization, and 'Presence' in Homeric Poetry." Cl. Ant. 12:1-29. Bai, Mieke. 1991. Reading ''": Beyond the Word-Image Opposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bann, Stephen. 1989. The True Vine: On Visual Representation and the Western Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barton, Carlin. 2002. "Being in theEyes: Shame and Sight inAncient Rome." In The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body, ed. David Fredrick, 216-35. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bartsch, Shadi. 1989. Decoding theAncient Novel: The Reader and theRole of Description in Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Baxandall, Michael. 1985. Patterns of Intention:On theHistorical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Beaujour, Michel. 1980. "Some Paradoxes of Description." Yale French Studies 61:27-59. Becker, Andrew Sprague. 1990. "The Shield ofAchilles and thePoetics ofHomeric Description." A/jP 111:139-53. -. a 1992. "Reading Poetry through Distant Lens: Ecphrasis, Ancient Greek Rhetoricians, and the pseudo-Hesiodic 'Shield of Hercules.'" AIP 113:5-24. -. 1993. "Sculpture and Language in Early Greek Ecphrasis: Lessing's

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 19

Laoko?n, Burke's Enquiry, and the Hesiodic Descriptions of Pandora." Arethusa 26:277-93. -. 1995. The Shield ofAchilles and thePoetics of Ekphrasis. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. -. on 2003. "Contest or Concert: A Speculative Essay Ecphrasis and the Rivalry between the Arts." CML 32.1:1-14. Bettini,Maurizio. 1999. The Portrait of theLover. Trans. Laura Gibbs. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. e Brillante, Carlo. 1988. "Metamorfosi di un' immagine: Le statue animate il sogno." In // sogno in Grecia, ed. E. R. Dodds and Giulio Guidorizzi, 17-33. Rome: Laterza. Chinn, Christopher. 2005. "Statius Silv. 4.6 and the Epigrammatic Origins of Ekphrasis." CI 100:247-63. Davidson, Michael. 1983. "Ekphrasis and the Postmodern Painter Poem." Tournai ofAesthetics and Art Criticism 42:69-89. Dodds, E. R. 1951. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. et comme Dubel, Sandrine. 1997. "Ekphrasis enargeia: La description antique 249-64. parcours." In Dire V?vidence, ed. Carlos Levy and Laurent Pernot, : Universit? Paris-Val-de-Marne. Edwards, Mark W. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 5, ed. Geoffrey S. Kirk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eisner, Jas. 1995. Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World toChristianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -. 2002. "Introduction: The of Ekphrasis." Ramus 31:1-18. Faraone, Christopher A. 1991. "Binding and Burying the Forces of Evil: The De fensive Use of 'Voodoo Dolls' in Ancient ." Cl. Ant. 10:165-205. -. 1992. Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and Ritual. New York: Oxford University Press. Fowler, Don P. 1991. "Narrate and Describe: The Problem of Ekphrasis." 1RS 81:25-35. Frank, Georgia. 2000. The Memory of theEyes: Pilgrims to Living Saints in Christian Late Antiquity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali fornia Press.

Fredrick, David. 2002. "Introduction: Invisible Rome." In The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body, ed. David Fredrick, 1-30. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Freedberg, David. 1989. The Power of Images: Studies in theHistory and Theory of Response. Chicago, 111.:University of Chicago Press. Friedl?nder, Paul. 1912. lohannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius: Kunstbesch reibungen justinianischerZeit. Leipzig: Teubner. Frischer,Bernard. 1982. The SculptedWord. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 20 JAMESA. FRANCIS

Gamble, Harry Y. 1995. Books and Readers in theEarly Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. G?rard, Simon. 1988. Le regard, l'?tre et l'apparence dans l'optique de l'antiquit?. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Gleason, Maud W. 1995.Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation inAncient Rome. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Goldhill, Simon. 1996. "RefractingClassical Vision: Changing Cultures ofViewing." In Vision in Context: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Sight, ed. Teresa Brennan and Martin Jay, 15-28. New York: Routledge. Goldhill, Simon and Robin Osborne, eds. 1994. Art and Text inAncient Greek Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gombrich, Ernst H. 1957.Art and Illusion: A Study in thePsychology of Pictorial Representation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Gordon, Richard L. 1979. "The Real and the Imaginary: Production and Religion in the Greco-Roman World." Art History 2:5-34. Graf, Fritz. 1995. "Ekphrasis: Die Entstellung der Gattung in der Antike." In Beschreibungskunst-Kunstbeschreibung: Ekphrasis von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Gottfried Boehm and Helmut Pfotenhauer, 143-55. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.

Gross, Kenneth. 1992. The Dream of the Moving Statue. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. on Gutzwiller, Kathryn J. 1986. "The Plant Decoration Theocritus' Ivy Cup." AIP 107:253-55. -. 1998. Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Hamon, Philippe. 1980. "Rhetorical Status of theDescriptive." Yale French Stud ies61:1-26.

Heffernan, James A. W 1991. "Ekphrasis and Representation." New Literary History 22:297-316. -. to 1993. Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ekphrasis from Homer Ashbery. Chicago, 111.:University of Chicago Press. Hollander, John. 1988. "The Poetics of Ekphrasis." Word and Image 4:209-19. James,Liz, and Ruth Webb. 1991. "To Understand Intimate Things and Enter Secret Places: Ekphrasis and Art inByzantium." Art History 14:3-41. Kennedy, George A. 1983. Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. -. 1986. "Helen's Web Unraveled." Arethusa 19:5-14. -. 2003. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Leiden: Brill. Krieger,Murray. 1967. "Ekphrasis and the StillMovement of Poetry; or,Laoko?n Revisited." In The Poet as Critic, ed. Frederick P.W McDowell, 3-25. Evans ton, 111.:Northwestern University Press. -, ed. 1987. The Aims of Representation. New York: Columbia University Press.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 21

-. 1992.Ekphrasis: The Illusion of theNatural Sign. Baltimore: JohnsHop kins University Press. Leach, Eleanor Winsor. 1988. The Rhetoric of Space: Literary and Artistic Rep resentations of Landscape in Republican and Augustan Rome. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Lessing, Gotthold E. 1766. Laoko?n oder ?ber die Grenzen der Malerei und Poesie. Berlin: C. F. Voss und Sohn (and since reprinted). Lindberg, David C. 1976. Theories of Vision from al-Kindi toKepler. Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press. Maguire, Henry. 1982. Art and Eloquence in Byzantium. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Manieri, Alessandra. 1998. Uimmagine po?tica nella teor?a degli antichi: phantasia ed enargeia. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligraf?a internazionali. Marg, Walter. 1971.Homer ?ber die Dichtung: der Schild des Achilleus. M?nster: Aschendorff. Martin, Jay. 1996. "Vision in Context: Reflections and Refractions." In Vision on in Context: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives Sight, ed. Teresa Brennan and Martin Jay, 1-12. New York: Routledge. Morris, Sarah. 1998. Review of Homer and theArtists by Anthony Snodgrass. BMCR 99.10.32, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr. Nagy, Gregory. 2003. Homeric Responses. Austin: University of Texas Press. Park, David Allen. 1997. The Fire within theEye: A Historical Essay on theNature and Meaning of Light. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Patillon, Michel, and Giancarlo Bolognesi, eds. 1997. Aelius Th?on: Progymnas mata. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Poulsen, Frederik. 1945. "Talking,Weeping and Bleeding Sculptures: A Chapter in theHistory of Religious Fraud." Acta Archaeologica 16:178-95. Pr?v?t, Andr?. 1935. "Verbes grecs relatifs ? la vision et noms de l'oeil." Rev. Phil. 9:133-60,233-79. Prier,Raymond A. 1987. "La linguistique orale et la ph?nom?nologie hom?rique et de la lumi?re." In Ph?nom?nologie litt?rature: Vorigine de Voeuvre d'art. ? Hommages Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, ed. Marlies Kronegger, 146-56. Sherbrooke: Naaman. -. 1989. Thauma Idesthai: The Phenomenology of Sight and Appearance in Archaic Greek. Tallahassee: Florida State University Press. Pucci, Pietro. 1977.Hesiod and theLanguage of Poetry. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press. Putnam, Michael C. J. 1995. " and Virgilian Ekphrasis." AIP 116:419? 40. Rakoczy, Thomas. 1996. B?ser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der G?tter: eine Untersuchung zurKraft des Blickes inder griechischenLiteratur. T?bingen: Narr. Reinhardt, Karl. 1961. Die und ihrDichter. G?ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 22 JAMESA. FRANCIS

Richlin, Amy, ed. 1991. Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Saintillan, David. 1996. "Du festin ? l'?change: les gr?ces de Pandore." In Le m?tier du mythe: lectures d'H?siode, ed. Fabienne Biaise, Pierre Judet de La Combe, and Philippe Rousseau, 316-48. Paris: Presses universitaires du Septentrion. Scully, Stephen. 2001. "Reading the Shield of Achilles: Terror,Anger, Delight." HSCP 101:29-47. Snell, Bruno. 1924.Die Ausdr?cke f?r den Begriff des Wissens in der vorplaton ischen Philosophie. Berlin: Weidmann. Snodgrass,Anthony. 1998.Homer and theArtists: Text and Picture inEarly Greek Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Solmsen, Friedrich et al., eds. 1990. Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. es am Spengel, Leonardus. 1854. Rhetor Graeci, 3 vols. Frankfurt Main: Minerva. Rpt. 1966. Spivey, Nigel J. 1995. "Bionic Statues." In The Greek World, ed. Anton Powell, 442-62. London: Routledge. Stanley,Keith. 1993. The Shield ofHomer: Narrative Structure in theIliad. Prince ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Stansbury-O'Donnell, Mark D. 2006. Vase-Painting, Gender, and Social Identity inArchaic Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steiner, Deborah T. 2001. Images inMind: Statues inArchaic Greek Literature and Thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Sternberg, Meir. 1980. "Ordering and the Unordered: Time Space, and Descriptive Coherence." Yale French Studies 61:60-88.

Stewart, Andrew. 1997. Art, Desire and the Body in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stewart, Peter. 2003. Statues in Roman Society: Representations and Response. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taplin, Oliver. 1980. "The Shield ofAchilles within the Iliad:9 G&R 27:1-21. van Hoorn, Willem. 1972.As Images Unwind: Ancient and Modern Theories of Visual Perception. Amsterdam: University Press Amsterdam. Vernant, Jean-Pierre. 1996. "Les semblances de Pandore." In Le m?tier du mythe: lectures d'H?siode, ed. Fabienne Biaise, Pierre Judet de La Combe, and

Philippe Rousseau, 381-92. Paris: Presses universitaires du Septentrion. Walker, Andrew D. 1993. "Enargeia and the Spectator inGreek Historiography." TAPA 123:353-77. Webb, Ruth. 1999a. "The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative Metaphor and Motion inEkphraseis of Church Buildings." DOP 53:59-74. -. a Word 1999b. "Ekphrasis Ancient and Modern: The Invention of Genre." and Image 15:7-18. West, Martin L., ed. 2000. Homeri Bias, vol. 2. Munich: K. G. Saur.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions METAL MAIDENS, ACHILLES' SHIELD, AND PANDORA 23

Zanker, Graham. 1981. "Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry." Rh. Mus. 124:297-311. -. 1987. Realism in Alexandrian Poetry: A Literature and Its Audience. London: Croom Helm. -. 2004.Modes of Viewing inHellenistic Poetry and Art.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Ziolkowski, Theodore. 1977.Disenchanted Images: A Literary Iconology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

This content downloaded from 150.210.226.99 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:28:54 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions