Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T17:01:18.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gods and Painters: Philostratus the Elder, Stoic Phantasia and the Strategy of Describing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Karel Thein
Karel Thein*
Affiliation:
Charles University, Prague
Get access

Extract

I shall comment upon the way the elder Philostratus, author of Imagines, inscribes both the art of painting and his own interpretation of 65 particular paintings within a larger framework, which is composed of nature on the one hand, and the human perception of nature on the other. To get to this framework in a slightly oblique way, I will start with a brief reminder of Philostratus' often neglected classification of the arts.

In his Life of Apollonius of Tyana 8.7, Philostratus takes notice of the established opposition between the mechanic and the liberal arts (τέχναι βάναυσοι and τέχναι σοϕαί), but then proceeds to further divide the liberal arts into three groups: some are simply σοϕαί (poetry, music, astronomy, the art of sophist and orator); others are only seemingly liberal, ψευδόσοϕοι (the art of wizards or jugglers); between these two groups are situated the ‘less liberal arts’ or ὑπόσοϕοι τέχναι, namely painting, plastic art, sculpture, navigation and agriculture.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 31 , supplement 1-2: The Verbal and the Visual: Cultures of Ekphrasis in Antiquity , 2002 , pp. 136 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For an elaborate example, see Galen Protreptikos 5, in Scripta minora, ed. Marquardt, 1.107. Cf. Plotinus Enn. 4.4.31,5.9.11, and Augustine De doct. chr. 2.30.47. They all seem to react to Cic. ND 2.60.150–52. Jaś Eisner reminds me of Philostratus’ account of σοϕια and τέχνη in the Gymnasticus. I will try to analyse these passages in another text. I am grateful to Jaś Elsner for numerous important suggestions.

2. Cf. Plin. AW 18.206.

3. Philostratus’ classification is noticed by Maffei (1991), 602, who takes the position of arts for an expression of uncertainty about their character. For my part, I believe it results from a clever and elaborated strategy. For a recent overview of the ancient classifications of arts see Whitney (1990), 23–55.

4. I skip the first sentence including the question whether we should translate άλήθεια as ‘truth’ or as ‘reality’. For άλήθεια as ‘reality’, see Quint. Inst. 12.10.9 on Lysippos and Praxiteles, whose works are perfectly faithful ad ueritatem, i.e. to the reality.

5. This last ekphrasis calls Philostratus’ own interpretations of the Seasons ‘harvestings from the painting’, . Evidently, I take all the Imagines as genuine. For a different reading see Lehman (1941) and critical discussion in Bryson (1994). The Seasons and the ring-composition of Imagines are discussed by Eisner (2000b).

6. If this is yet another hint at Homer, the word αίθήρ may be synonymous with heaven (see ll. 14.288). For αίθήρ as divine element in the universe and in the human soul, see Philostr. VA 3.34.

7. In what follows, I propose a kind of Stoic reading of Philostratus. I do not suggest he intentionally relied on Stoic concepts, though some degree of Stoic influence is clearly discernible. For an analysis of Stoic and Platonic ingredients in Graeco-Roman authors including Philostratus see Watson (1998). For Philostratus and κατάληψιϛ, cf. Eisner (2000b), 261f. The κατάληψιϛ in question (1.2 ‘Comus’), that of a probably golden door, is difficult because of the night which ‘is not represented as a person (), but rather it is suggested by what is going on’, i. e. the situation ().

8. Cf. Frede (1987), 151–76 and 201–22.

9. Chrysippos according to Aët. 4.12.3: ‘The word ϕαντασία is derived from (light); just as light reveals itself and whatever else it includes in its range, so presentation (ϕαντασία) reveals itself and its cause ().’ According to Chrysippos, ϕαντασία is not an imprint or an impression; it is rather a wave passing through the soul. Cf. Sext. Emp. Math. 7.229 and 7.374. Hence the ‘Chrysippean’ translation of ϕαντασία as ‘presentation’ rather than ‘impression’ which, on the other hand, would fit the ϕαντασία conceived as τύπωσιϛ by Zenon (cf. Diog. Laert. 7.50).

10. Cf. Sorabji (1990) and Labarrière (1997).

11. Epict. Diss. 1.14.7–10.

12. Ancient philosophical ‘probability’ in the sense of persuasiveness differs strikingly from the modern or mathematical one. I am well aware that my own use of ‘probable’ does not exactly match either. I try to come to terms with Philostratus’ strategy, not with Stoic or Carneadean orthodoxy. For a detailed analysis of pithanon, see Glucker (1999).

13. According to Zeno, ‘a probable [i.e. persuasive] proposition () is one which leads us to assent’, i.e. to assent to what is not necessarily true (Diog. Laert. 7.75).

14. For Narcissus both painted and described see Eisner (1996b) and (2000a). For general discussion see Frontisi-Ducroux and Vernant (1997).

15. See Pachet (1975), 245. We must never forget that for the Stoics, everything that is belongs to the physical structure of the world, including the acts of designation: a sign is vibrating air. Cf. Sext. Emp. Math. 8.1 If.

16. See Sext. Emp. Math. 8.254f.

17. For the Stoic conception of providence and its relation to fate, cf. Veyne (1990).

18. For this exclamation and its implications see Bryson (1994), 266–70.

19. Cf. Philostr. VA 4.28 on Apollonius adressing the statue of Zeus: ‘Hail, good Zeus, for you are so good that you share yourself with the human beings’ (). What does Zeus share? The seasons and the art of painting and sculpture? The same statue is praised in Pausanias 5.11.7. In VA 2.22, Philostratus refutes the idea of divine μίμησιϛ, (a passage easy to misread and to be completed by 6.19). Gods do not imitate. The imitation is natural capacity of man; the painting is τέχνχ (2.22, Loeb i.177). At 8.7 (Loeb ii.315), there is question of god as creator of the universe which depends upon him, this universe consisting of ‘things in heaven and all things in the sea and on the earth, which are equally open to all men to partake of, though their fortunes are not equal’.

20. Philostr. VA 8.7 (Loeb ii.323).

21. See Goldhill (1994) on ekphrasis and ‘seeing meaning’.

22. One of the younger Philostratus’ ekphraseis stands out by its length and would deserve a special attention. ‘Pyrrhus or the Mysians’ (no 10) contains a detailed description of a painted representation of the Homeric shield (10.5–20). Yet even this double derivation confirms the withdrawal from the cosmic or divine framework of the painting and colour as such. The weather becomes predictable, the men more interesting.