View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Nottingham ePrints Lorenz, Katharina (2011) Image in distress? The death of Meleager on Roman sarcophagi. In: Life, death and representation: some new work on Roman sarcophagi. Millennium-Studien (29). De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 305- 332. ISBN 9783110216783 Access from the University of Nottingham repository: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/28750/1/10_Kap-9_Lorenz.pdf Copyright and reuse: The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of Nottingham available open access under the following conditions. · Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. · To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in Nottingham ePrints has been checked for eligibility before being made available. · Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not- for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. · Quotations or similar reproductions must be sufficiently acknowledged. Please see our full end user licence at: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdf A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information, please contact [email protected] 1 2 3 4 9. 5 Image in Distress? The death of Meleager on Roman 6 7 sarcophagi 8 atharina Lorenz 9 K 10 11 The recent interest in Roman mythological sarcophagi has been fuelled by their 12 potential to throw light on the ideas and ideals that governed Roman social life 13 and behaviour. In particular, sarcophagi offer genuine insight into Roman 14 approaches to Greek myths as a device for producing meanings related to the 15 context of death, to rituals at the tomb, and to strategies of commemoration in 1 16 general. This perspective has been opened by moving away from approaches 17 prevalent in the later nineteenth and most of the twentieth century, which 18 concentrated on matters of iconography, the relationship between depicted 19 scenes and literary or philosophical texts, and on how the reliefs on Roman 20 sarcophagi could be used to provide insight into the Greek originals which they 21 allegedly copied.2 22 The most pressing current questions for our understanding of mythological 23 sarcophagi include asking how life and particular lives may be plotted not only 24 against the narratives of myth but particularly against myths borrowed from a 25 different culture: to what extent do mythological reliefs on sarcophagi represent 26 a miraculous or supernatural narrative and to what extent can they be 27 understood as representing or reflecting on the everyday? Can one establish the 28 general devices by which either of these two areas of signification is generated 29 within Roman images or signalled for Roman viewers, and can one trace the 30 ways these characteristics play out in any one image? Can certain periods of 31 production or themes within mythological imagery in Roman culture be 32 distinguished by the way in which this relationship between the mythological 33 and the everyday is defined or re-enacted? 34 Ruth Bielfeldt has recently demonstrated that one answer previously given 35 to these questions, an answer opting for historical development as explanation, 36 37 1 Relevant studies include: Blome 1978; Giuliani 1989; Brilliant 1992; Grassinger 1994; 38 Koortbojian 1995; Zanker 1999; Ewald 2004; Zanker and Ewald 2004; Bielfeldt 2005. 39 The earliest work in this vein: Rodenwaldt 1935; Schefold 1961. See also Junker 2006 40 on the emergence of the genre and Ewald 2004 and Zanker 2005 on the distribution of mythological topics across the different periods of its use. 41 2 For recent overviews on sarcophagus scholarship, past and present: Koch and 42 Sichtermann 1982, 6–20; Zanker and Ewald 2004, 24–27; Bielfeldt 2005, 16–22. 306 Katharina Lorenz 1 can no longer be sustained: in her study of the Orestes sarcophagi of the second 2 century she demonstrated that even in the Hadrianic and Antonine periods 3 myth is used as a paradigm, and thus refuted Peter Blome’s hypothesis that a 4 development can be traced from the sarcophagi of the earlier second century as 5 purely enacting a classicistic revival of Greek myths to those of the late second 6 and third century as being devoted to what he labels an interpretatio Romana,as 7 geared towards an allegorical reading.3 8 In emphasising the connection between the mythological and the everyday, 9 Bielfeldt pursues a line of enquiry first explored by Luca Giuliani who labelled 10 the balance between elements pertaining to the world of factual or lived reality 11 and to that of figurative imagery as an allegoria apertis permixta. Here Giuliani 12 followed Quintillian’s description of a similar device in rhetoric, in the Institutio 13 Oratoria: ‘Oratory often has use for allegory of this kind, but rarely in a pure 14 state, for it is generally combined with words used literally. (…) The mixed form 15 is always the commonest [in Cicero]: ‘I thought that Milo would always have 16 other storms and squalls to weather. I mean in the troubled waves of our public 17 assemblies.’ If he had not added ‘of our public assemblies’ it would have been a 18 pure allegory; as it is, he has given us a mixture. In this type, we get both 19 splendour from the imported words and intelligibility from those used literally.’4 20 The Quintilian passage vouches for the existence of this line of thought in 21 22 Roman imperial discourse. But Bielfeldt puts the sarcophagi reliefs at the centre 23 of a still wider discourse about the nature of the image. She argues against the 24 explanatory models still current and popular in sarcophagus scholarship that 25 stress abstracted reading or visualised rhetoric, because of their inability to 26 account fully for the combined, intertwined transmission of myth and 27 interpretatio Romana on any one Roman sarcophagus, in no matter what 5 28 period. In their stead, she introduces a model in which both allegorical 29 paradigm and mythological narrative join forces in order to generate a narrative 6 30 that is located within the actual myth as well as pointing beyond it. In this 31 proposal, Bielfeldt’s discussion leads directly to some of the more prominent 32 black holes of art historical scholarship – questions of the nature and character 33 34 3 Bielfeldt 2005, 20–22, 329–332; Blome 1992, 1071–1072. 35 4 Quintilian 8, 6, 47–48: Habet usum talis allegoriae frequenter oratio, sed raro totius, plerumque apertis permixta est. (…) Illud commixtum frequentissimum: ‘equidem ceteras 36 tempestates et procellas in illis dumtaxat fluctibus contionum semper Miloni putavi esse 37 subeundas.’ Nisi adiecisset ‘dumtaxat contionum’, esset allegoria: nunc eam miscuit. Quo in 38 genere et species ex arcessitis verbis venit et intellectus ex propriis (transl. Russell 2001). 39 Giuliani 1989, 38–39; cf. Bielfeldt 2005, esp. 277 nr. 810. Zanker refers to this 40 phenomenon as an act of bridge-building for the viewer: Zanker and Ewald 2004, 69. 5 Bielfeldt 2005, 22. For concepts of abstracted reading: Koortbojian 1995, 9–15; Zanker 41 and Ewald 2004, 52–54. 42 6 Bielfeld 2005, 277–278; 329–332. 9. Image in Distress? The death of Meleager on Roman sarcophagi 307 1 of the image, of what the image is and what it wants.7 And it touches upon the 2 perennial dispute of image versus text, on the question of whether an image is 3 descriptive or narrative, or whether it fluctuates between the two concepts, thus 4 negating their heuristic value with regard to the realm of the visual. 5 Bielfeldt’s findings raise a further set of questions with regard to the share of 6 each of the two components – myth and interpretatio Romana – in generating 7 visual narrative. In the following, my aim is to break up Bielfeldt’s synthesis 8 once more in order to explore how mythological narrative and paradigmatic 9 content are balanced on the sarcophagi to form the distinct narrative voice of a 10 sarcophagus relief. By addressing one particular sarcophagus and by comparing 11 it to sarcophagi with similar decorations and to earlier representations of the 12 particular myth depicted, I want to keep my sample set articulate while at the 13 same time maintaining suitably wide axes of enquiry so as to tackle the Romans’ 14 appropriation of the image in the funerary realm in general. 15 The sarcophagus I choose, a piece now in Paris, presents events from the 16 myth of Meleager.8 This story is frequently told throughout the ancient world,9 17 and it gains particular popularity on Roman sarcophagi from the early Antonine 18 period onwards: it provides the storyline for about two hundred sarcophagi still 19 extant today, the largest group of mythological sarcophagi devoted to one 20 hero.10 Meleager’s story unfolds around the hunt for the Calydonian boar. One 21 strand has him fall in love with Atalanta during the hunt.11 He presents her with 22 the animal’s hide and infuriates his uncles whom Meleager kills in the ensuing 23 quarrel.