VISUALITY, ART AND ECPHRASIS IN THE MONOBIBLOS OF PROPERTIUS Rod Freeman A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2013 Full metadata for this item is available in Research@StAndrews:FullText at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/3738 This item is protected by original copyright ‘Visuality, Art and Ecphrasis in the Monobiblos of Propertius’ Rod Freeman This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews Date of Submission: May 2013 1. Candidate’s declarations: I, Rod Freeman, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 80,000 words in length, has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in 10/2008 and as a candidate for the degree of Ph.D. in Latin Literature; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 10/2009 and 04/2013. Date 11/05/13 signature of candidate 2. Supervisor’s declaration: I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of Ph.D. in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree. Date 15/5/13 signature of supervisor 3. Permission for electronic publication: In submitting this thesis to the University of St Andrews we understand that we are giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. We also understand that the title and the abstract will be published, and that a copy of the work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker, that my thesis will be electronically accessible for personal or research use unless exempt by award of an embargo as requested below, and that the library has the right to migrate my thesis into new electronic forms as required to ensure continued access to the thesis. We have obtained any third-party copyright permissions that may be required in order to allow such access and migration, or have requested the appropriate embargo below. The following is an agreed request by candidate and supervisor regarding the electronic publication of this thesis: Access to printed copy and electronic publication of thesis through the University of St Andrews. Date 15/5/13 Signature of candidate Signature of supervisor Contents Part One: The visual artist. Introduction: ‘Cynthia and the Temple to Apollo’ pp. 1-29. Chapter One: Propertius’ visual and pictorial imagination, style and influence, pp. 30-52. Chapter 2: ‘Getting to know Cynthia’: Dramatic realism, text and art: a reading of the opening three poems of the Monobiblos, pp. 53-76. Chapter 3: Poetic and Pictorial fides. Myth and fides in art and poetry: pretence, deception, illusion, pp. 77-90. Part Two: The Monobiblos and Painting of the Second and Third Styles Chapter 4: Dreaming and visual art, pp. 91-106. Chapter 5: The Propertian ecphrastic dream-narrative, pp. 107-125. Chapter 6: Artistic pendants and visual narratives, pp. 126-148. Chapter 7: Pictorialism and poetics in Books One and Two, pp. 149-179. Conclusion: pp. 180-181. Bibliography: pp. 182-194. Illustrations: pp. 195-208. 1 Abstract In this thesis I argue that the conflation of puella, art and godhead in Propertius 2.31 and the succeeding 2.32 strongly impacts upon the opening book, the Monobiblos, of the same author. The dynamic of vision, the poet’s pictorial imagination, and the feminised, subservient stance of the elegiac lover are all well documented strains of Propertian elegy, but have generally been treated as independent areas of study. By emphasising vision as the key factor that inextricably binds lover and beloved, confusing their roles within the text, I argue that the poems of the Monobiblos respond both to contemporary effects in visual art within the changing fashions in wall painting, and a literary tradition of visuality. In the second half of this thesis I show how Propertius draws on stylistic effects in late Second and early Third Style wall painting and so provides a poetic response to viewing contemporary art. Yet not only does his poetry, like wall painting, aim to involve the reader visually but also requires the reader’s participation in the dynamic verbal artefact he creates. Just as the emerging imperial ideology was being increasingly impressed upon the Roman citizenry through the power of imagery, so this text creates a multifaceted narrative that enables a constantly shifting accessibility of viewpoint across traditional gender lines. As a consequence, the imbrication of erotic and poetic concerns highlights the tension between art and literature in this text. Part One: The visual artist Introduction Cynthia and the Temple to Apollo: 2.31 and 2.32 The mediation between art and poetics in the Monobiblos that I wish to explore in this thesis begins with an examination of two poems from outside of this text. Poems 31 and 32 of Book Two present a continuity that holds the political and private in tension and as a dramatic pair openly grapple with issues concerning writing about visual art; as such I hope to show how these two poems can illuminate the relationship between art and text in the Monobiblos.1 1 While there are clear indications that the Monobiblos was conceived as a single unity (at the opening of 2.3 for instance an interlocutor mentions an alter liber to complement the first book), there are indications of deliberate connections being drawn 2 Most of the previous scholarship on 2.31, the ecphrasis of the temple to Apollo, reads the poem as evading the ideological concerns to which the temple’s location, structure and imagery points, to focus attention on poetics, turning the temple from a celebration of Octavian’s victories to a celebration of elegiac poetry. So Keith: ‘Just as Octavian’s temple complex aestheticizes his naval victory over Sextus Pompey by transmuting it into a lavish gift to his patron divinity, so Propertius aestheticizes Octavian’s martial victories by commemorating them as a glorious promenade for literary and mythological lovers at their leisure, under the patronage of the god of literature.’2 As the only poem where Propertius writes at any length about a specific artwork, it offers a particularly fascinating case study for my project in that it participates in the tradition of the poetic ecphrasis of art as well as being concerned with a key monument of the Augustan building programme.3 Dedicated on October 9th 28 BC,4 the temple evidently had great resonance in the eyes of the public, being visible from all parts of the city and a focal point for acts of pietas,5 and is mentioned more than any other monument by the Augustan poets for its incomparable beauty. Propertius’ choice is also significant for the temple’s visual and thematic complexity. The terracotta plaques hark back to classical models in both motif and material, and the general philhellenism is apparent from various artworks which illustrate a blending of old and new styles. Equally intriguing however are the various ambivalences surrounding the temple’s design and associations for the contemporary viewer, which illustrate how the across books. Thus in 2.13.25 the narrator refers to his tres libelli, and the final poems of the third book, 3.24-25, appear to refer back to the first poem of the first, denoting the beginning and end of a love affair. These various links between poems from different books, as I go on to argue, extends to the art / literature paragone, and throughout this thesis I consider various poems from Books Two and Three as offering theoretical insight into the poems of the Monobiblos. By the term Monobiblos I am referring only to poems 1-19. This is not to deny that poems 20-22 form an integral part of the book, but as the body of ‘Cynthia’ poems, 1-19 hold a particular interest as a unit. For dates of publication and composition see Gunther 2006.224-225, who argues for Book One being published before 28 BC and Book Two some time after but before 25 BC. The Monobiblos is relatively free of the notorious textual difficulties associated with Book Two, on which see Heyworth 2007. 2 Keith 2008.148. Only Gurval 1995 argues against the temple as a celebration of Augustus’ victory at Actium as well as Augustus’ self-identification with Apollo. His argument is useful in guarding against the presumptions of hindsight but goes against the grain; Miller 2009.192-193 argues cogently for why one can confidently associate the temple with the celebration of Augustus’ victory in contemporary eyes, and Welch 2005.82 considers the temple’s various Actian nuances. It is also notable that the Greek painter Apelles, referred to in 1.2, was a clear favourite of the princeps. For instance the two paintings of Apelles in his forum – Castor and Pollux with an image of Victory and Alexander the Great – carry clear implications of Augustus as a great general, supported by the gods. Also the painting by the same artist of Aphrodite Anadyomene in the temple of Divus Iulius (Pliny Nat.