DECODING THE ANCIENT NOVEL ™ THE READER AND THE ROLE OF DESCRIPTION IN HELIODORUS AND ACHILLES TATIUS Shadi Bartsch CLASSICAL LIBRARY | CAMBRIDGEopr i te Fe To my parents ‘Published by Princeton University Press, 4x William Seret, vn mee ner eee then es se Sy nt senate tan ty oto es resp wed cational a ghana, ety ia snag ee te ey een a ee bay of Conese Ctl aban Date anc, Sa, “neds Asie Tc Sha Bans, Scie nee ' sop lk pps "Grek feton aye 3 Reman Cesky ‘isin Helos ese Ao + Aa Tosa ‘Teepe and Cee yeep ctcum 6 Doon hee)? ere, Anco Tie an Geol (e208) fevas io qoContents * ‘ont, Description and Interpretation in the ‘Second Sophistic 3 ‘two, Pictorial Description: Clues, Conventions, Girly and Gardens 40 ‘runs Dreams, Oracles, and Oracular Dreams: ‘Misinterpreation and Motivation 60 our. Descriptions of Spectacles: The Reader as Audience, ‘the Author as Playwright 09 ‘VE. The Other Descriptions: Relation to Narative ‘and Reader 144 1%. The Role of Description 172 -Avpanpix. Summaries of Leveippe and Clitophon ‘and the Aethoptea 279 inuioceaniy 185 iwpax Locosuat 192 ccENERAL IDI 196Preface % “Tas s00%, which grew out ofa thesis originally wrote at Princeton University a an undergraduate, considers the role played by the descriptive passages so fequent inthe ancient hovels of Heliodorus and Achilles Tatus. Noe atop to set ‘acing the pulse of many a modem reader, perhaps, and cer {Ginly the discursions themselves have had litle luck in ap- Dealing to contemporey etcs fr the most par, chey have een regarded as more or les necessary blots onthe main iartative, To zelegae them to this status, however, is really fo misjudge the novels themselves. A careful inquiry into the role thatthe deseripive passages play in the narrative land how they might invite the parieiption of ther reader ‘Ship, involving and entangling this audience i the question Gf what the narrative means, suggests «completely different view, As [argue in thls book, theve passages not only con: Seitate an integral par of the text hut even provide a key to the eotec understanding and interpretation of the two 10> ances here considered Towe debes of gratitude to many who helped me in cis undertaking Special thanks must go to Professor John J. ‘Winkler of Stanford University, whose book on Apuleius set ime thinking about readers and authors two years ago. Pro: fessor Winkler’ patient and perceptive advice wa inval tle in giving this work ita present shape, and his sugges tions for revision have basically been adopted herein thelt trey ifthe Book has shaken of is dissertation dust itis ‘hanks o him, Another unpayable debt is owed to Professor oma I. Zeitlin of Princeton University, say orginal ad- visor, who bas been a source of support, encouragement, and Jneresting ideas from the star, Professors Gregory Nagy of Harvard, Job J, Keaney of Princeton, and James Tatum ofDartmouth read the early draft ofthe manuscript and oblig- ‘ingly offered their impressions. ll helped to improve the book, the errors and omissions that remain ini ofcourse, would like to thank, to, Joanna Hitchcock, my editor st Princeton University Press; Buan MacDonald, who copy- edited the manuseript, and Deborsh Teganien, who feed ‘my numerous questions and phone calls. Filly, several fiends and fellow graduate students read parts ofthe manu: script and helped to smoothies path: Louise Fredeichsen, David Engel, and Margo Vener. All the translations i the book are my own unless other wise speciied, and the emphasis, ¢ should be noted, has been on the literal rather than the graceful. The permission to use tations from “The Description of Paintings a8 a Lit rary Device and Its Application in Achilles Tatius” (PAD. Aisereation, Columbia University, 1965] was kindly granted by Professor Eva C.Keuls formerly Haran). October 1988 Shoal Bartsch DECODING ‘THE ANCIENT NOVELDescription and Interpretation in the Second Sophistic “Tw rims four centuries 4. have bequeathed to us the cu fously familiar and yet curiously strange Greek prose £0 Inances: works with a preetious postion in our literary none, bom moreover Of an epoch undistinguished for its Iiterature These novels seem familar because they revolve round certain time-honored plot staples—boy-mees i, the obstacles to thet unin, afnal happy marrage—and a8 Such evoke enduring aspects of literature and popular ext ture. But they also appear strange, not only because their patent use of these plot components can seem artless but tlso because the advance of the plo is frequently intr fupted by discursions and descriptive passages that seem Ianifestly ielevant to the “real” business ofthe story—a twat chat has provoked enticiam from many a disgruntled reader. Not all the Greck novels, however, share equally this pro- caivity forthe parenthetie Five have survived in thei en titty the Epheciaca of Xenophon of Ephesus, Ghaereas and Calli of Chariton, Daphnis and Chioe of Longus, Leu pe and Clitophon of Achilles Tatius, andthe Aethiopica ‘of Heliodorus. In all of these, the gist ofthe story is remark Sly similar, it has even been elaimod that their plots are ‘Composed of identical elements, one novel difering fom an fother "only in the number of such elements, thei propor tomate weight within the whole plo andthe way they are combined” [Bakhtin 1981, 87. And we do find again andgain a common plot: aftr boy and gir, both besutiful, both (essentially) chaste, fal wildly in love at ist ight, they are subsequently kept apart by a ventable mob of dsasten— idaappings, pists, shipwrecks, slavery, bested tyrant, sttempted suicides, and human sacrifice, to name a few— yet overcome all difficulties and are nally united in mar rhage at the novels close ‘Set apart from the other novels, however, despite come spondences in plot, ae Levepe and Clitophon and the Ae thiopica. These two, to a degee unparalleled in Longis's Daplinis and Chloe and the less sophisticated works of (Chariton and Xenophon of Ephesus, are distinguished by an spparenty inexplicable appetite for dscursions and descrip five passages of every sort We find detailed descriptions of paintings and artworks, stange animals and exotic plants, fardens and rivers, reams and orale, cities, processions fd theatrical spectacles, a8 well as fequent digressions on religion, psychology, and natural history. Although deserp tion plays « comparatively limited role in easier Greek It- trature, in these to romances it oecupies a disproportion ate share of the text: a strmge situation, and one that prompted Rohde to complain of Leucippe and Clitophon ‘hat “such trimmings have overrun the actual narative in such rank profusion that they have tamed into nothing short ofthe main issue” [Rohde 1914, 480) Ii tis char fcteristc that often alienates the modern reader, to whom these novels seem strange and oddly inept preceey in thelr embrace of the itelevant. ‘Scholars of the genre, n fact, have tended to focus an this spect of the ancieat somances se symptomatic of their faults on a larger scale ifthe romances in thei entirety ap pear to some vnpalatable and contved, is che fequent Alescriptve passages inthe Aethiopica and Leucippe and Cli- taphon that have been singled out (and that are often dis- risted still today) as the most inclevant and excessive Wiollf put forward this view unequivocally seventy-five ‘years ago, claiming that the “excess of description” was one of the most suiking faults of the whole genre" and ding to this the disparaging observation on Leucippe and CCtophon that “such is the mass, and such the damnable iteration, ofthe irlevancies that for the most pare they simmply put the reader out of patience” (Wolf 92, 167-68, 20a), Since then, the litany has been much the same. De Seriptions are ‘mere purple passages designed to display the ‘hetoriian’s ski” (Todd 1940, 23), their ony relevance to the story is "to vary ite color orally retard its progress” [Hades 196, vi they have “no organi connection with the plot” and are “hardly more than relevant dgzesions in tended to dazale or entertain the reader” (Mittelstae 1967, 753) of, aga, they “contbute nothing 10 the atsty of ‘the main story” [Pezy 1967, 119) In Grimal’s view, they are regrettable “pedantic expositions that from time to time Suspend the namative” (Grimal 1958, 873; he actually pre seribes “un peu de patience to hep the reader get throws them. Finally, Reardon denounces in one fll swoop "the comparatively unimportant thetorical trv, the batons [deseripeve passages, che tetome excursions on natural ‘henomens, the purple pssages which to our taste dsfigure [Leicipe ad Ciitophion andthe Bthiopca, It is asin any art the abiley to use a basic structure that matters” [Reatdon 1363, 50) ‘Such an assumption regarding "basic structure” 9 itselh suspect, and the modem eri should be wary about dis: ‘isting elements of the novels out of hand end ealing into play standards of plot coherency and relevance thatthe an- ents may not hive shared. Classical views on romance’s busi structure remain unknown to us and the genre was an fopen one and “not regulated by any authoitauve prescrip tions” (Hgg_ 1971, 109). Yee preudice comes easily, no Adoub in part because the subgenre of the descriptive, which plays so predominant a pare here, soften seen as 2 femasive to narative b ltearycaitclam in general" An- "As Haron (a6, 1 comment, “Deseo seems be cons cichin a comenitry manner tert 1 neste of err Sos belo waver wring for iene) rar se Sues ype, scours omarentsemument, so of spe xeother issue deserving consideration, however, is the nature ‘of literary convention more brosly viewed asa background ‘of aesthetic and cultural codes in a specific period. Works that incorporate such codes aim ata defined audience in a ‘ven social contest) consequently, "es enough for these texts tobe interpreted by readers rfesing to other conven ‘ons or oriented by her presuppositions, and the result is {incredibly disappointing” (E20 198, 8)" Cleaty, the deli ‘erate use and even manipulation of such eultualy instilled {ssumpions om the par of our novels Would likewise ex plain why they have so rarely met with recognition and ap preclation among thie Iatterdayresdersbip ‘As auch, the use of deseripcive passages in the novels of Heliodoras and Achilles Tatis shouldbe consiered against the backstop ofthe thetrial and literary practices of their ‘own epoch, not merely dismissed from our own. By clarify ing what readers of the Second Sophistic expected tupon en ‘countering these “suepensions ofthe narcative,” we eam in tum provide some direction fr our own expectations, some ‘ea of how to proceed. As Thope will be clear by the ead of this chapter, a clone Took thls backdrop of Hhtorical and literary practices ls eri to our own understanding ofthe novels and their use of the deserptive. A consideration of ‘he ways in which literary description was employed in the heyday ofthe Greck romances, along with a better grasp of the acsthetie codes that informed their composition and therefore shape the expectations of their audience, suggests tha the oe of the descriptive passages in Leulppe and Ch taphon and the Aethiopica has been entirely misunderstood. “These passages ate no mere thetorial showpiece bt forge playful and insieate connections wieh the nazative and its ‘ows ccs mst cml flip” The same pine ale by Eensour gan aida carbigh utr te htry of een le apresaton wnt contd seme sneered "Th fot oly athe ancien orl shoul elsif wo sero’ defn of ved ath ae end for = reac ‘Redbone cmp of epee oy ‘events, As tis bok will argue such passages present them elves, for readers guided by the conventions ofthe epoch, slaminators of the text, they promise insight nto they ‘ll for aes of interpretation, As such they necessarily figure 5 croval tools inthe authors’ native srtegy and in our ‘own rediscovery of how to read Leuippe and Chtophon and the Aethiopca. “Tne Greek prose romances flourished during the Second Sophistic ofthe Roman Empitea period that Flavius Philos ‘rats named for that resurgence inthe influence and popu- Tavtyof the sophie that began in the second century 40? ‘To this time are dated most ofthe romances we possess i+ tact, as well at several related works and fragments of nov tls The Ephesiocs, Dophnis and Chloe, Leveippe and Ci tophon, the Vita Apollont, the Jolaus fragments, and the fragments of Lalliants's Phoencico and lamblichus's Baby Ioniaca are all ascribed to the second century. Only Chat ton’s Cheereas and Callizhoe and the peeudobiographleal ‘Alexander romance ae earlier works. Heliedorus hs been situated, not without controversy, in the fourth centary Interestingly in the Second Sophistic we aso find a frow- {ng interest inthe nature and components ofthe descapive paige as literary and rhetorical technique. This new con- ‘erm with description manifests itself in one of its forms in the weatses ented Prgymnasmata (Meorsrayaa, oF ‘handbooks delinesting exercises in rhetorical and historical Composition for students in the schools of the Hellenistic > Lines of he Sophie (i pan #8 a elimi that the rmotenea! dees fm the ear Ashi, Pista aces ‘he fourhcentuy yt bo plan at tat he econ Sapte ‘werent growth fe ik pant woul wt hae ison snl man called pew” oweck 96 3) Oa te dng he oa nme soe Pana °A Grek Se sya bales ofthe Ina of Ceca! Stades 18 G97 §t- ‘eon thao the Pvc sr A Heth, Die Pata der a. ‘itor flan) or he Cie omancen the eer eel to the og of ecvam wrk om crcl Higa tos 15 © 1 esto 197, 334 9704 Perso 48819 (nelsEast, Four of the five handbooks sill extant discuss method as el as give examples, these are the works of Theon, Her ‘mogenes, Aphthonius, and Nicolaus, dated to the early and Tate second exneury, the fourth century, and the ith entry ‘Ap, respectively. In cach ofthese, description, or eephasis (beta a ti calles eeated a8 an exercise that takes ts place among the tn wo fourteen others adiressed by the handbooks. This is interesting of itself since the proportion of he total work occupied by the topic of description is ‘without precedent inthe ealier handbooks of the Roman ‘herricians.” Significantly, to0, the word eephrasi tel is ‘not adopted asa regular term until the Second Sophiste* In short, as a major component of rhetorical technique descrp- ‘on appears to more ar less Come into its own in the course of this epoch, ‘These Progymnasmate already formed an important past of education atthe elementary level thus establishing anor mative basis forthe use of the thetrial devices they define. "Thi the chronology suggested by Ct 3957, 99-8. Kenny get, sent, plsos Then ate it Contry whe the Oxford Cisnea! Diccnarywpbolds the second cenay ante oie the ‘ourincetary Pagmmgumete of Lisa, whice conan le oma examples ther than ay scion tay thc oer aby ay ram staan ae, “tie ‘mas ai aaron aoa, eognue eat Ing aod cusation’ oer noe "woman na oe “cam and infect) mean, “oman” fon," cog of ehrater ine “ten son tae, 3 a Sdmenena, “demain of cer * Wefindn there work seve em with th aprxinate meting fhe rack oe Deas me eto age lode tf pasa eg, Cle Topica 385, ini 93 ear remo general tem bot wih ee Sonnets lea ney orm ocr mbecan the equa tthe Creek hae (egy Cleo, Aendemicae Qusstenes 617, Guinan 83 0°00 ‘Yioh demons o sei dlrien, Ragen Actor ad Fe anlan spt detec, to the ano a the Teagan ‘a1 Paral osln, se Haeen a6, 4-243. ‘ietonly two secanene blr thi ne inh De nitatione le 3a] znd the es Rte [ro] of DionatanHacmaenty, ‘thorn and coin othe ist ectery 2 Maan 1965, ‘The approach these handbooks take proves tobe relatively Any and matteroffaet they purvey gidelines for content tnd procedure rather than provide sugestions on fancton Jn a terary context and thet theory, if it deserves the tame, stays within bounds too narow to zeveal how such passages might be manipulated for broader sime. Neverthe less, they do demonstate several important points: the gen ‘eral ingrest ofthe epoch inthe descriptive, es reatment 36 ‘component of shetorical and compositional technique; and ite relatively early ose, inthis simple guise in the schools of shetori ta time when education as hetoical taining. Even the more sophistiated employers ofshetorc after all, ‘must have stared here and because [as willbe shown) the handbooks’ discussion of proper topics for desenption pro- vides a common denominator forthe passages in contem- Porary thetoricans and in the novelist, 2 quick perusal of What they sy seems inorder. ‘The Progymnasmata discuss and define description (ec: ‘phrase in language that remains very similar from one tea tise tothe next. As Theon, probably the eats ofthe four, defines the figure, “bupeate ton itor neemmaanais ‘uy x yar pea” (ed, Spengel 1885, 3° 118 “eephrass isa desripcive aceount banging what i illus caated vividly before one's sight). This quality of eeating a vivid visual image forthe reader is the essential character [ste ofthe device. Theon expands on the ide later, saying that "dgcat 8b taped ae, aoe pv yhonn x fe oyna wo ohn din vs wager” fed. Spengel 1885, 2: 129,"the vires of ecphrass ae in particular car ity and vividness such that one can almost see what is na. ‘ated, The handbooks also list the posible subjects of ec: phrasis, along with llustraive examples, and distinguish between simple [ia and compound (overran oF po sel ecphrass. They further stress the importance of «thor. {The scons on cpa in ech ofthe fur ators itl a = ted Spngel thee vole en eye fll Her ‘ogeoes 3161), Athen, 24-49, Them, 3.10620, Niels,‘ugh and systematic approsch. Only Theon and Nicolaus fertend their discussions farther: both show how eephrasis Ailers from nanation (bo) oF the other shetoncal ex tercises, and Nicolaus eats the question of artwork. "The classifications of the handbooks show that certain topics were conventionally perceived as suitable for such de scriptive accounts, From the range of five topics listed by the ‘various authors, four remain constant persons, circum: ‘tances, paces, nd period of time (rou, mola, 0s, {and yobs. Thcon supplements thie list eth customs ros ‘ol, Hermogenes with exsesjgol and Aphthonius with fnimals and plants (Soya baa vel ms voir geal, Ni lnus ads festivals or assemblies (nevjipes] and later also Introduces statues and paintings (yeca and eves ™ Lists of examples ae provided fr each topic. Theo cites as ‘ypleal subjects for animal deseripsions the iis, he hippo potamus, and the erocail, for “circumstances” (xo, ‘ar, peace, storm, famines, plagues, and earthquakes, for places (enol, meadows, shores, cities islands, and deserts, tnd for periods of time feo, Seasons and festivals. Under tuatoms ot methods gs he incluses examples of mil tary preparations and Ube usage of weapons and siege apr ratus, Hermogencs and Aphthonius add descriptions of bat fles to circumstances (nglnura) and harbors [as does Nicolaus] to the category of places (Sn ‘Camera to moter ws the som cpr at the Hie of tt isan in theft handbooks ar no ned marly wo de. ldnute the dompn of srr [he Osler Cla Dicionty [Bhd sop tr example, ncurtlydefos ona te thea Nel dep of» wk oat oe ofthe pes of preymnang ‘Mage notes eis mon tency to occas cpa With a ‘heft he epan th fal eons 9 mk fs ‘lings ae te he mest tare ype of ecpani resabe f ‘hero dey hae plaesia the hte cost lst Bean {Se mosusent apie 198, 2823) Comal most f he eri. {epg the Creck mance re ot cncemed ith wor {reheat umber sock dessins cert Le ad I ‘Siemans on hy Op he scarey of oping he term ‘Steins of puns lr neue thd catary ay 633 0 Elements-of the prose romances match these guidelines ‘well andthe handbooks st of examples find many corre spondences among the descriptive passages in Leuelppe and Clitophon andthe Aethioptca. Both Heliodomus and Achilles Tatius dwell Ivishly on the appearance of various odd an nals the erode for example, is described at great length by Achilles Tats, who informs us cha the creature appests to have a head (as many do) until it opens its mouth: at which point its head altogether disappears and becomes nothing but a pir of jaws, gaping so hugely thatthe exoco- ile’ belly is visible chrough them [Leucippe and Cltophan 4419-45)" This blend of the vivid andthe recherche i Teal af the author, but Heliodorusto0 shows an interest in the unusual, witness the descipion of the “eameleopard” cor grafe at Aethiopica 10.373-4 ‘animals are frequent, so are battles and sieges, especially {in Heliodorus. The siege of Syene (9.1.1-8.6 18 along and complicated ffi, won bya cunning stratagem of the Et fopian king Hydaspes: Heliodorus deseribes how the king has his troops builds second wall around the city’s own walls and then flod the intervening space by diverting a channel from the Nile, The river's waters rush around the city, eu- ing is inhabitants into panicstrickem islanders, when the Ince walls show signs of weakening, the citizens decide to ‘capitulate and ate putin the unusual postion of having to aceept peace terms delivered by boat A imal taste for pat ‘dosical stutions appears in another description related to ‘the topic of battles: the novel sctually opens with a descrip tion ofthe Egyptian coast at the mouth ofthe Nile, where ‘the remnants ofa fere bette are tobe seen (1.1.16), Bod Jes, some quivering, some quite dead, ae strewn across the shore, and everyethere the trappings of «drunken fast are mixed with goresplattered implements of war—including "References to Ackil ati ae tom the etn of Ee Vor (Sock, isi eteeaces to Medora om te Bale snes ee "em of Ranbury sod Lamb, rench wamlton Wy. Malon Ps, ish aseveral wine goblets, which, seized in sudden urgency, ap ‘pear to have done double duty for both banquet and brawl (Other categories of desription are also well represented; among the many descriptins af places, che lush gnden of Clitophon [Leucippe and Clitophon”t.x5.1-8] andthe ‘meadow in the painting of Europ (r-.3-6) provide exau- ples of vivid foc! amoen marked by Achulles Tatu’ em- phasis on the thiviag Iuxuslance of their greenery, tes, ‘vines, and flowers are growing everywhere, a spring bubbles between them, the sunlight makes pattems through the leaves and lls colored by language that i sexnalyaugges tive. The picture of Europe herself, long with the three ‘other paintings that the author describes, a couche in the ‘same sjggestive terms a che meadow, grabbing the readers attention by playing to their more prurient interests and paying careful attention to Europa’s anatomy, conveniently revealed by her clingy clothing. Hellodors is much more ‘lrcumspec in is descriptions of is hero and heroine, who meet [as is virtually a convention inthe novel) ax partic: pnts in a festival procession |Aethiopca 3.1.3~5.6)-aguin 4 topic sanctioned by the Progymnasmata and one partic: [aay frequent in Heliodoras. This festival desription, how. ever, is unnvaled for sheer length and detail alter giving us the words ofthe byron sung and describing everyone's cloth ing, Heliodorus—to provide us with some measure of his hero's appeal—includes the fact thatthe women watching Jose control of themselves and pele Theagenes with fut ond lower. “These few examples, selected slmost at random, offer some indication ofthe types of descriptive pastes to be ound inthe novels complete listing a the opis that oc curs provided in the nots). These tapi conform well to "snap: Heino, Chala (etl 1302 34.2~ 4 Thegees [51957] aod Cane fata Ale ‘hs Leng Lepe and Ctpton a apes ‘Aegan Helodra the “cme o fe 1037.14 the stools meatone ely ty at 3) in chiles ato the Stone (tg the bpopotams lea hela 3 n the suggestions advanced inthe handbooks, and to this de see the novels undeniably reflect the zetorical ang literary ‘conventions ofthe day. However, the precepts of the Pro. symnasnata are not entirely helpful for understanding the tole ofthe novels descriptive pasages in thelr relation to ‘the narrative. As it tums ou, the theory never goes so fa, sand the question persis: Why do the authors of Leucine ‘and Clitophon and the Acthiopica make ruch extensive use 2) ie pwns a 7 the Heo x 3-4 a ie ing fhe ps tate vie ih i om Ccistencer: in Hooray, «man bate bewen al a of ‘xara ian ape mnyntemoxeh ofthe Nile (532-01 Hyde” lang bat and ee Spee 1 3.5 ie cash with Orcas [peasant ltrs a Inn ans meeps the wep aad tcc ete Teg Jedyes3) ndfthe“insmen ope” y.9 9) Ia aces “Ta the tw Bate the Epis gee Chars th get suniedveling Winds (3.7 443) te cos of Een sa ht foe the fan’ “weapons (5153) and ther Se ‘Stl esses Alen stm wee Act sym Lae {Sg and Cito ye) "Pht Aches Tain, he ator So. he meadow on {he punting of Enop [1 9-8, Copbon's adn ets he land the swamp 24-3} he en old ye ate the Ne atl oer sivas ag lake [nt 249-10 40m cg sya ad the fly of Alexoaa1-) lodry Seat the Ne whe the remnants ofa bate se tobe seen use brands’ masa home and sian (1.9) the mld iy of Men eo a jpg, fl aad ad yen "eid of ne inching kei a elders, te pocesion ix eco of Ne‘plemus 1.56 the fatal fhe Nie gt the spontaneous proceso a te otto Tyson with is eter andthe an cela le ces Eon "ates and plang: ia Acie Tas, far sings: these ion of ropa e95) Amc caged wo wake 79 ‘aes eg paswed on 33.17 a be sty of Pls 34 1 ala he state of Zeer Cara) te wren wie Boel Gis, sd Calishics neddne (2se-gh Helden The ‘soe eel lak.) Chale elaborate cir. {tnd the ety gta serena het sas ps5 3-14 acof «device tha sms to have litle init favor except being vivid "The greater part ofthe answer to this question, and the mort intriguing, is hinted at nthe practical rather than the- ‘retical employment ofthe descriptive in the works of the Prominent Sophists of the period. These “theoreticians. pactice”®\—Lucian, the Pilosrat, and ocher wellknown Figures of the Second Sophistic—olfer more revealing in sights on how ingenious minds might use description, as Reardon remarks of Lucan [oubsequently saying much the same of Philostatus Lemnius), “starting fam 2 thetrial foundation, he makes an artistic ose of the literary forme ‘employed in the schools for essentially educational pur poses” [Reardon 1971, 159) and again, Lucian is elsewhere Called “evidence forthe great scope description found in prtica chetoric” Palm 1965, 138). These master shetor- ‘ans ofthe period not only used the devices found in the Progymnasmata but developed and deployed them with a ‘view to their own larger literary goals: the works of Lucian and the two Elsie: |Imagins, of Pantings} ofthe Philos toa, as well ag. Callistatur’s “Expense [Descriptions] about a scries of statues andthe long pictorial description that is Cebes's tives (Pinax) all contain detailed deseripsive passages that aze used in an ambitious context by thet. Clans who ae concerned sot only with showing thei skill at simply describing but also at interpreting what isto be ‘described, or at manipulating the description in such a way ‘that it takes ona new relation to the material i introduces ‘orn which iis embedded. In short, "the Second Sophistic Specialises not ony in eephrass sslf but i fasing t with other literary possibilities” (Anderson 1986, so) In Lucan, the artistic developmen ofthe descriptive is best seen in the ‘cniext of his lectures, in which this element often consists ofthe description of «painting placed atthe beginning of a Toger discussion, The two Philosratl, however produced in thelr Bide [Paintngs) works consisting of nothing but de- “Lowe this happy pease wo Wik 1“ scriptions of paintings.« The Fis are composed ofa se- ‘ies of sch pletorial descriptions connected by the commen {head of the naretors voice: both the elder and the younger Philostratas purport to be standing beloce the pictare in ‘question and when the description is complete, tobe mo Ing onto the next one. This situation i clearly defined by Philostratas the Elder, who informs the reader in his preface that the pictures ate hanging in a gallery he as visited, both authors, too, use the fiction ofthe wewer at their side to ‘whom the works must be explained, Inall these works we beg to see how a descriptive pa sage might be used to daw in ite audience and ask of them sn ellor a interpretation. There are, howeves, interesting Aiferences in technique beeween the Philostrati and Cali tratus on the one nd, and Lucian and Cebes om the othe, diferences ultimately iavlving the question of ow to in texpret. I the Philostat, in describing a painting. wil in ‘vest thls description fs we shall ee) with more than could possibly be actualy painted, in this way clarifying context 4nd meaning, Lcian chooses rather to create out of his de Seriptions 2 momentary enigma, and the accompanying viewer or viewers this author invents are usually at loss 38 to what the puineing means until an interpretation is up plied from some other character or source ‘The Hives of Philostratus the Elder consists ofa series of descriptions of panel paintings that he explicitly situates roe 4) on the walls of am art gallery in Naples.» As the the hetgitlilrmation the fly eet ae One {lasse! Dicionary. This dings lor Past: the seod (Pavel weet Lvs of he operand the Vita Allon, iso {law Phloventon Lamas lr We Eder) moe the fat as {em eg ea Pals Yeas {hte nd hee sods an re sclataon oie poles nepoon, orate etal casa, se Anderson 1665, 391-96 "eThe boe oh stent the pangs Phe econ ta eo th oj omc Sede adel ele Any cf ke hogan enti ope may be nd nO Schnee‘author nanatorPhilostatus moves ffom painting to paint ing he discusses what he ses with his audience in the tex, ‘the young boy # whom he s explaining the painsings. In 30 dling, he draws in the reader as well, an effet heightened by his use of the second person in the constant comment, questions, and exhortations ois (ent, for us] pupil. Thus hae will ask, "Why are the Muses heret” 28.6] or "What is ‘Amphion saying?” (1.103}, offer various instructions "Don't wonder at the numberof Cups" 16.1) or “Look at Aphrodite, please” 1.6.7) or appeal tothe boy's own know edge: "you discovered in Homer, eink, ehat Achilles loved ‘Antilochus” (27.1 As these comments already suggest, Philosrates does noe restrict himself tos eatalog of visible details: what he tells his imaginary audience (and us) about the pictures is far from purely descriptive, involving both the detals actually vale in exch peture and those he has brought in from myth, literature, and historiography. Nor is he always at pains to distinguish between what is painted and what isextzneous, and he can be vague about the top- Cal arrangement of thove details cat apparently do belong in the pieture proper. Other considerations alfect his approach Tn the broadest tems, he undertake, like Calliseatus and ‘Sion of BR's Phat: is Ber ic, 988) Despite ew robert punt Id Les mpemet er te ‘sty pesureamelr tha cai repeats in what Paste {ceo ave oe sed whet chow otto ou co ‘Beant tn ire ta the mig ere pebble ies ly, as Ly pats out tat he opt dep puns ch Noe pico oes of which we ow and then forced. lly ‘esl Hom som snensons by mea tthe tet tio esky ogo, Se, hawere the reservations Aeon 986, sort, Labs een to eu or aut a Ing the he tres Srbd by Piston wee nat pon {ly rele in tea tangent on he pally wally th fue ‘htc she Paeetann deed thee Shot rp ote se lop snd Yomal slain which ad dicated th coins,” [ove acring fo chan Harte gta hat be acter {he punting Fors rcmsideason ofthe tiene lo prams foi see Tompson 96 the younger Philostatus to rival ot ouedo the artwork by means of his ov lteary/artistie composition, both in ‘raftsmanship and in che appeal tothe emotions of the au itor But a more pressing concer is the aspect of this pro ‘ess that he himself pus forward as his porpose in the into- Auction: he wishes to teach the young to interpret [owe] paintings, and the work at hand hence the adressce—is to Stand as an example of such interpretation |i, poem 3) ‘As [have emphasized, interpretation for Philosteatus en tails secing—and deseubingmore than what could be i mediately visible. In his highly shetcieal accounts, the painted characters ate given thoughts, motives, and emo tions; they are often made to pas through a whole sequence factions and states, and thei stories are extrapolated into the petiod before and alter the moment eaptored on the pc. ture: Philostratus's principle seems to be that “in order to tunderstnd che painting coreety, one must picture to one. self ts context, 2 pat of which s supplied by the moment portrayed" [Palm 1965, 168) Atypical example of progres sive temporality, the iaoduction of mythical background, and Philestata's communication of what was seid oF ‘thought—allaspecs usually of narrative rather than of de Seription—is the desripcion af the chai race of Pops for the hand of Hippodanela [Eady 1.27 1H pty begs BY Obondie “Aes, of BF” abe ooeres—tnnns aout Ape Eon xa Sor fie Mtonnevow. orone 86 envy ob doua term MootBow. "Opa, at, ros ub wo Olvoptou, dy Bev ‘rival ogobg! Squon hey esl 8¢NO8 oma — tout 88 ol soir “Apwadas eg: pial nel ve, trad dene al oe nc Fehr, 105 8 co Manas, Ino slow nl th fit meSObOE Tiaboss ce frignr wal ypnurtboee: gor wa iSiewv os vb, 16 te Oleshanr, de fo aa Ac 5 ei Pagans ee xa wa cus eos, gen 88 oid "Faphanks (1931, Silly, Polit (74 10} cin the ape ‘ert "tery aloo” far tbe ep ”Mons darn Hlowboy moet abn aby ic Seas oloyooovne fo Sint sa Oris cheats Anema fs ren ed an wigan 7 Hn Ga. x 8 eas Tar thy shy Glare Bowe, nal ob Gc te Civic ye ve, ae BE, Coa, no ae wig Trans. TOW ney oly Bgiuov 6 THBoy wena “Tenobuea vine igen Bug gue ton sete, np 8 ofras Freon bv Sh wo mee wn, ovine 88 & yew AVON He nal GREY 108 ov fini cal gy Sy, al ured meter es, Se ‘anos tv lone es 7.1-3F Here is dismay over Oenomaus the Arcadian) there men shouting at himfr pethaps you can hear—and this is Arcadia and part of the Peloponaesus. The char fot has fallen shattered through Myrelus’ erick Look, boy, at the [horses of Oenomaus, how fearsome they ae ad eager t ace, fll of eenzy and foth—you fan find this pe among the Arcadian in paricuar— land how black, since they were hamessd fr foul and Inauspicious purposes; but see those of Pelops, how white they are and compliant to the reins, companions Persuasion, whianying soy and with quick percep tion of vitory, and see Oenamanus, how like the Thrs fan Diomodes he les there, a barbarian and fierce in {ppearance. But Ido not think you wil dbe about Pe Tops that Poseidon once adanired his youth when he was serving wine to the gods on Moune Sipylu, and through ‘sdmiration set him, when sn adolescent, upon tis char foe The chariot traverses the ee like land, and not @ drop from [the sea leaps onto the axe, but it supports the horses, steady asthe earth. But as fr the race, Pe: lope and Hippodanea are victorious, both standing on Stats rom he ein ang of Pes em th ts ol Parana be ang ane tao Deeps tear ane he thoughost hm the Lo Clea! ary (Scie ch San al te waked sn tone by SSirfarbns 30 18 the chariot and united there, overcame by each other that they are shout eo embrace. He is decked ot in the Lydian manner dainly, snd his youth and bloom are 8 you saw litte while ago, when he was asking Pose don fr the horses, ‘The whole race seems to be taking place before our eyes and ‘hose of Phllostatu’s young viewer: the chariots are racing land yet Oenomaut's chariot has aleady shattered, Pelops is ‘competing to win Hippodameia and then has won hes, nd ‘they seem about to embrace, a short time earlier we "saw" him ask Poseidon for his horses and we sw, to0, his abc: tion over the sea by the same god. The inital aide, too— asking if the boy can “hear” dhe men shouting—exemplifes ‘conceit found in many of the descriptions and often ex fended to the painted flgures’ thought 3s well as their speech, at 1.10.3, for example, Philostatus can tellus the Content of Ampbion's song, at 1.15.3, Theseus thoughts, at x6, what iti Pasiphte is planning at 126.34, the threats of Apollo; and so forth ‘The words and thoughts that Phlostratus imputes to these characters in interpreting the painted pictures ate gen- erally vocalizations of their known mythical situation and fs such a natural offshoot ofa process that i essentially lit trary rather than pictorial. Thus Apollo speaks, sn angily demanding back the cattle stolen by Hermes (1.264) The etical prpectve that frequently colors the descriptions is Tikewise derived from lterture—for example, the terms in ‘which Hippolyeasis described (a4) Furthermore literary oF ‘mythical material soften expliily interpolated to explain ‘hat is happening in given picture, such asthe brief ac- ‘count of dhe mythical events leading up to Phaethon’ fall from his father’s chariot that precede the picture proper (11a) A pariculanty dramatic llustation of this ten- “Beasjour aot, 33) nots “teary dso remain gute pau amd tein to ewe tnaare ofthe tary than hem "Thence the pesting eed hr inept, the hemneeutal »dency to see" beyond che pictorial in the act of interpreta {on Is provided by another literary interpolation, this one st the beginning of the description of the river Seaman, Here Philosuatus instructs the young viewer, a6 the (Wo stand before the painting, “ovsioumer oly 8 vot, ob 82 {exeyor i, Son v8, you |L-- 1 "et ‘us therefore conjecture what it means, you then, gaze upon ‘those dhings on which the painting is hase, nso as i is possible to soe them» Discussing then the passage from Homer from which the painting is derived, he concludes with "ga 8 xu ne abe” (1.3, “now lookback [at ‘the painting), All feiss there” [emphasis added). In other ‘words, the earlier act of gazing was not atthe picture itself {he hoy to whom Philostatus is speaking is asked to see be ‘yond the painting, to look, in effet, upon Homer) once he ‘has done this, he wil be the better prepared to understand ‘what is iterally petored= ven more interesting Pilostatuy, in his procedure of in terpreting what he sees by means of explanation and embel lishment, cecasionally seems to do violence tothe details of ‘the painting he describes. Leky has drawn attention tose zal cares where sucha discrepancy between Deurtng inte pretation) and Darstellang fepresetaton) seems Ukely [Cesky 1940, esp. 44-49). He points out that the painting ‘rascoding eg omnes woven into ds wap af ie descriptive “Tic puuage problema. Le he mtr hare ated Whe wh ag ts nny rr {utente rs, abo Palm f6s, 16 The pantie oben he fre af aracton, not septation (pesca communicston, Aa > 19 Cee thi makes er tene coment any ae the oto semaine centile sme nee sity elves re "Remon este nine heat errant the ating proper ser contemplation of wher isnot be sano sce of common eoigh ecence Inthe tg legs toy, 99) 1359, ean a7 ata 223 ‘king er bowen heaton feta te ane tal, hed ‘akeln wih tenet oe that Philostratus identifies as being of Comus, “Revelry coms rather tobe of Hymenacus, the god of mariage, since the figure described is standing watch before the doors of 2 bedroom and a newly marred couple are in bed within [EL sings ta Not that Philostatus has though carelessness for ignorance made a mistake, on the contrary, the sophist thas chosen to reinterpret the picture to extact from it che sense that he himself wants: the portrayal ofthe sleeping figure, he says, “iets 68 cya mageradinns ney soe f sig tito" (23) Yexhors those ofthis youth's ‘age not to revel with their heads unveiled The whole piece, in shor, is "a showpiece of sophistcal inerpeeuive ‘kil (Lesky 1049, 4s]; what Dhllosuatus can do with the ‘intng, rather than a display of what the painting is meant {o show isthe test of his kill. Likewise, none ofthe acta