Metal Maidens, Achilles' Shield, and Pandora: The Beginnings of "Ekphrasis" 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 Iliad, 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 art.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 genre 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 ancient Greek 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: Hephaestus' 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 shield of Achilles 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.