N. Bryson - Philostratus and the Imaginary Museum

JOHN ELSNER

w And Christopher Hobins two names when taken lOpethcr with

Trespassers after an uncle and William after Trespassers became

proof They did not simply prove that Piglet had a grandfather

They proved that the language-game of two names Iould work

and that it could provide an identity for all concerned for Piglet

for PigletS grandfather for the sign TRESPASSERS wand for

Christopher Robin Through competition the limits of the

credible of identity itself had changed 34

lH

CHAPTER EIGHT

philostratus and the imaginary museum

NORMAN BRYSON

The Imagines of the Elder philostratus must cuunt as one of the

great ruins of antiquity (Fig ]9) From the Renaissance until the

time of the excavations at Pompeii and ITerculaneum the-Imagines

together with tlie--sur~T~ing-ragments preserved in RO~le

~titUted virtually all that couldJ)k~I~-E~~bpe-l~~~r~~ classical painting Even today when so much more of that painting

has been brought to light the Imagines remains ~ ~~e reso~~ce It is our most extensive account of what a Roman picture gallery

a Roman catalogue of pictures md the Roman viewing of pictures

may have been like philostratus claims to base his account in

actuality In the Proem he assures his reader that his sixty-odd

verbll descriptions are rendered after original paintings (pil1akes) housed in a single collection ill Neapolis (Naples)

I was lodging olltside the walls lof Neapolisj in a suburb facing the sea

where there was a portico built on four I think or possibly five terrlCes open to tile east wind and looking out on the Tyrrhllian sea It ws

resplendent with all the marbles favoured by luxury blll it was

particularly splendid by reason of the panel-paintings set within the walls paintings which I thought had been collected with real for thev exhibited the skill of very many painters I

philostratus has been asked by the son of his host to speak about

the paintings and he agrees The text that follows presents itsd as

the record of his discourses delivered before an IUdience ofynung

men eager to learn in the presence of the pictllr(s

Parr of the fascination of the text for the Renaissance and 2~)

-~~ ---shy

PHI LOS T RAT USA N I) TilE I MAG I N A II Y M Sj

NORMAN BRYSON

eighteenth century seem to have intensified this At1anti~-like )

aspect of the Imagines and in the nineteenth century attempts were 1

undertaken to correlate philostratus text with the ~ ul1earthJ_~ ex~v~ti~~ One consequence of such efforts was that

the ctescriptions were found by some scholars n~~ to correspond I lt-U)l)Ut)l)r1

or not to correspond closely 5nough wit]I the Campaniln

paintings A debate accordingly developed from the second half of (ft l the~Teteenth century and into the twentieth century in which the in--l~

CJuestion of the authenticity of the descriptions became the leading

CJuestion Were they reliable or had philostratus invented the

entire gallery out of nothing as a virtuoso exercise in ecp1Irasis (

~ll~~n became polarised~with figures such as Welcker gt Brunn and Wickhotf on the side of authenticity opposing CayIus)

Friedrichs Matz and Robert 2 Scholarship in English played a

lesser role in the debate with the great exception of Karl

Lehmann 5 article The Imagines of the Elder Philostratus

published in Art Bulletin some fifty years ago in 19411 Coming

almost at the close of the authenticity debate Lehmanns article

advanced what is perhaps the most vigorous and ingenious case

ever mounted in defence of the view that the Imagines were blsed

on an actual picture collection from the late second century or

early third century CEo

Lehmann begins ~h Goethes essay Philostrats ~emalde Jok written in 18184 Goethe had maintained that the present order of

the sixty-odd elements in the Ifllaljines is confused and confusing

Acc( rdingly he rearranged them under nine separate headings ( 1)

Heroic an(1 Tragic Subjects (2) Love and Wooing (3) Birth and

Education (4) Deeds of Herakles () Athletic Contests laquo(i)

Hunters and Hunting (7) Poetry Song and Dance (8)

Landscapes and (9) Still Lite Lehmann takes Goethes thematic

re-ordering which aimed at a clearer editorial se(luence and puts

it to use within the debate on the authenticity of Philostratusmodern reader has been the promise contained in the idea of pictures Working entirely from the existing and apparentlyresurrection from its pages might be constructed an entire gallery confused sequence Lehmann argues that it is possible to account of the lost paintings of antiquity together with the context of their for both the coherence of thematic groupings within the Imarillesreception by a living audience Though the paintin~s at Pompeii and the seeming incoherences of sequence also present in the text and Herculaneum antedate philostratus by two centuries the by mapping the Imagines against an arclitectura~ -

discoveries in Campania anel their publication from the midshylS(i

Fig 29

NOHMAN BRYSON

) X

Some examples will help to clarify Lehmanns processes of

reasoning In the second book of the Imagines occur six

consecutive pictures illustrating the adventures of Herakles

Lehmann points out that it is inconceivable that this grouping

could be accidental [ Apart from a fleeting appearance in the

picture of the Argonauts (2 I 5) Herakles features nowhere else in

the sixty-odd descriptions And yet the sequence of the Ilerakles

pictures is strange The first (220) portrays the contest between

Herakles and Atlas the scene takes place in north-western Africa

The second (221) shows the fight between Heraklcs and Antaios

now the scene is Libya The next depicts Herakles again in north

Africa sleeping and attacked by the Pygmies (222) Obviously

these three (220-222) are concerned with Herakles African

adventures Then ()liows a picture representing the madness of

Herakles and now a temporal series can be inferred after

completing the last of the twelve Labours Herakles voyaged along

the coast of Africa encountering on the way Antaios and later the

Pygmies before his return home and his attack of insanity This

sequence accounts clearly for numbers 220-223 four of the six

Herakles episodes But the two remaining pictures (224 and 225)

do not fit this scheme at all Picture 224 deals with Herakles and

Theiodamas In the myth the episode can be located in two

different regions - Thessaly and Rhodes philostratus reads the

landscape of 224 as Rhodian To Lehmann this sounds odd For

if the painter had intended the landscape as that of Rhodes the

picture should properly have been placed between the African

adventures and Herakles final homecoming Lehmanns resolution

oT the anomaly is to claim that philostratus was wrong to interpret

the landscape as that of Rhodes In fact the mountains in the picture must be those of Thessaly which is where lIcrakles

middot lLabours begm

Picture 224 thus inaugurates the narrative sequence The next

picture in the Imagilles shows one of the Labours - the taming of

the horses of Diomcdcs Though it comes last in the series in

terms of a continuous chronicle it follows 224 and precedes the

later episodes 220 to 223 Vhat has happened is that the

Imagines has run through a continuous story but starting and

~-

PHllOSTRATllS AND TIIF IMA(INARY ~llSE

20

r A~~sl Imiddot Africa I

_ J

WALL II

0 ej ___

)1 ---lUi

I

Ir libY I~

~raJ -I -I ~ ~

il 3 ~

AlllrtM

A1IUes~1 EL

Fi- lO

ending at the wrong points The sequence should be the

commencement of Herakles adventures in Thessaly Heraklcs and

the horses of Diomedes Herakles and Atlas then I Ierakles return

voyage including the episodes with Antaios and with the Pygmies

in North Africa finally Herakles homecoming and madness If Philostratus account were cut and resequenced it would make up

a single story How has this Raw in the presentation come about

It is here that Lehmann advances the hypothesis of the Room

(fig 30 ) If the secluence is laid out as it continuous chronicle its

six component episodes can be thought of as forming a band of

pictures inset into the walls ofa single chamber The hypothesis of

the Room then permits Lehmann to advance the corollary idea of

the Doorway That the Imagines confusingly recounts the

Herakles episodes in the order 345 6 12 can be explained if

PiJilostrHts is imagined entering the room through a

placed between the second and third pictures (22~ The horses of ] II

NOHMIIN BRYSON

(

Diomedes and 220 Atlas ) philostratus passes through the

door turns to one side and begins his text in the middle of the

Herakles legend (fig 30) Observing the correct narrative

sequence is evidently less important to him than describing the

pictures as he Ilnds them in situ set into the walls I f the existence

of room and doorway is accepted the break in sequence can be

read as an architectural caesura not a textual glitch (In Lehmanns

reading all textual discontinuities will be projected as architectural

registers disunity in the text is to be resolved into the unity of the

building the texts openings interruptions and incompleteness

will be transformed through a specific ecphrastic operation into

the wholeness of an image an edifice a museum)

Having tested the hypotheses of the room and the doorway and

finding them secure Lehmann now proceeds to blotk in the walls

of his mlsee imaginaire from dado to cornices For it turns out that

sometimes within an evidently coherent sequence such as that of

Herakles there appear quite unrelated pictures pictures that

interrupt the sequence for no apparent reason Such cases can be

resolved by hypothesising a second tier of pictures placed above

the Ilrst towards the ceiling 7 The opening pictures of book 2

Lehmann maintains form a continuous series of episodes to do

with love To the group as a whole he gives the name Room of

Aphrodite R Loves power features in the opening scene showing

girls in a procession for Aphrodite (21) it continues in the stories

of Hippolytus refusing to love Phaedra (24) in the love of

Critheis and Meles (28) in the suicide of Palltlteia (29) and the

death of Cassandra (210) Yet this catalogue of loves woes is

i~terrupted by pictures quite unconnected with love Chei ron

educating Achilles (22) and female Centaurs (23) Chciron goes

widl female Centaurs but not with the Aphrodite seriet yet the

interruption can be resolved if these pictures are imagined a~a pair

placed above the main scene This upper tier can now establilth

its own band and its own independent life The education of ~ -~Achilles (22) and female Centaurs (23) can absorb a third scene (

frnm the life of Achilles where he mourns the death of Antilochus ~~ (27) The picture of the youthful Antilocltus can then attract as its

cornire partner a picture of Arrhidikos (26 the feature held in

~ ~~

PHILOSTRATliS AND THE IMAGINARY MISEl

WALL

9

t l I

J

bull ~

AI1WM

I (SOlVJO SnJ11z JOll1

UOH

II ~

jmiddotmiddotoP UOP~SOd put ~dOj3d -~_o~e~ ~~ ~~Q~~~P

or 6r

I-i~ 11

common is that both show the corpses of young men) while the

idea of Antilochus as a young Olympian victor can draw to itself

the story of the birth of Pindar the f~lmous bard of such victories

(212) And since Pan is present at Pindars birth Pans presence

with nymphs in an adjacent picture (211) can also be explained

Lehmann docs not stop with the room To enclose the whole of

the text he must build an edillcr a stoa How is it to be lit The

walls require windows and windows turn out to be doubly useful

they provide light for the pictures and they fill up space when

there seem to be not enough pictures to go round Consider for

instance the Hoom of Dionysus (fig 31)9 In Lehmanns analysis

this comprises a lower-level tier devoted to six Dionysian suhjects

and an upper tier with eleven miscellaneous scenes Ohviously

there is a difficulty here How could walls which in their lower I

N()I~MAN BRYSON

2(2

tier show only six scenes leave space for eleven scenes above

Evidently the upper pictures should be imagined as smaller in

scale small enollh to allow on Wall 2 as many as live scenes

(218224) to lit above two below lo Still it makes for a long wall

and one which has only two pictures Oil its lower level But if a low

window is added (between 218 and 219) the emptiness of the

walls lower section is filled Lehmanns museum is now rapidly

acquiring detail The question arises of the layout of room to

room Goethe had proposed nine divisiol1s but Lehmann arrives

at five the number corresponding to Philostratus recollection of

the bull four I think or possibly five terraces Now the final

architectural touches are ready At the end of each of the two

books Lehmann argues stand stilllifes these mark then the exits

of the text the porticoes of the building The room size remains

remarkably unchanging but this would not be surprising if the

building is thought of as a s10a composed of separate terraces In

terrace architecture the principal variable is not room size but the

placement and size of windows which Lehmann further suggests

are adapted to the seasons This makes for four seasonal dining r~ ~)thalls an aesthJum given over to pictures of rivers an alllumllale ~dominated by stories of Dionysus a trielillium Female set aside

for Aphrodite alld a hibernale with scenes of the primitive ~ Saturnine world Finally the whole ensemble resplendent with igt

~ all the marbles favoured by luxury is turned to the West the sun ~scasts its changing selsonal liht on the different clllmiJers of the I

house before setting in the Tvrrhenian sea ~1

bullIjj

~k

I I

It would be possible to object to Lehmanns reconstructibn on

number of counts His case rests on an unargued premise that

Philost~atus ney~ ltLmits_ny pictures from the collection he is

supposed to describe philostratus is denied any powers of

selection over the works he discllsses Moreover there is a further

unaruecl assumption that the text of the I1I1a(inelt~ sll~~i~~lS a

perfect avatar of its fIrst edition Textual corruption is not

something that cOI~I~1 ~~iIy show up in Lehmanns malysis I

PHILOSTRATllS AND TilE IMA(INAIIY MUSmiddot

Whatever changes of sequence that might have beflllen the text in

its transmission from the third century would inevitably take the

f()rm of architectural syntltlX as doors windows cornices dadoes

porticoes terraces It could also be said that at many places the

criterion defining what constitutes the semantic centre of a group

seems strained ll It is hard to conceive of Cassandra with

Agamemnon (210) or the victory of Rhodogune and the Persians

(2S) as types of love

Blit to quarrel with Lehmanns argument in this fashion would

be to miss what is most enduringly interesting about t1is commentary The central claim of his essay is that both the

coherence of thematic groupins in the Imagines and the seeming

disturbances of sequence that also occur can both be explained by

proj(cting the text as architectonic form Lehmanns primary

readi IIg strategies involve heavy use of the tropes of metaphor and

metonymy It is metonymic liaison that provides some of

Lehmanns most convincing se(luences tor instance the reconfigushy

ration of the Herakles pictures in the torm of a continuous band or

Jabula The patterns deriving from metaphor are able to embrace

even more extensive segments of the text A term such as love

being elastic (to say the least) is able to ullite scenes even as

disparate as a singing procession of maidens the deaths of

Cassandra and Agamemnon and the suicide of Pantheia So

Lehmanns groupings resemble those of Goethe or perhaps of any

editor or reader seeking to give order to a gnomic and fragmentary

text What is interesting is the way that with Lehmann till tropes

of mctonymy and metaphor do not remain editorial or textual

operations but are figured in terms that are visual and volumetric

Metonymy projects as the gaze of a beholder who standing at

the centre of the room traces a continuous narrative frieze across

the tiers or as the pathway of the spectators body moving from

room to room up and down staircases and across terraces and

finally out of the building at its exits Xenia I and Xenia 2 (r 36 and 226) Metaphor projects as the repetition of enclosing frames

wherehy the unity suggested by shared semantic features ( love

primitive world) is concretised as the singleness and unshybrokenness of mlJr~1 n~( Inmiddot klt~

ii () 1 [ A N B 1 Y SON

singular risks of uncurtailability Once a common feature such as

love is unleashed it is hard to see what story may not one way

or another be subsumed into the resulting series Similarly once

the idea of chronological series cOllies into play it becomes in

principle possible to order all sixty-odd descriptions into overshy

lapping temporal groups i3ut the potential of both metaphor and

metonymy for unlimited expansion across the whole corpus of the

imagines is held in check by the spatial boundaries of dado and

cornice window and door terrace and swircase Architecture

emerges as the containment and pacification of textual energies

which without that binding inAuence from matter fixed in space

would soon run across the text from end to end

What governs both metaphor and metonymy is another figure

visualisation The text as a whole is envisioned as a luxurious

Neapolitan building This response to the imagines is Lehmanns

distinctive ecphrastic operation H is work wi th rhilostratus text

results in a crossing from text to image Lehmann reacts to each

round of difiiculty within the imagines by creating a new building

feature First the room whose walls soon present dadoes cornices

and doorways they are lit by windows of varying size and

position the rooms are tiered as the terraces of a stoa finally like

any good architect Lehmann considers his building in relation to

the seasons and the orientation of the site He is faced with a text

filled with hiatuses and inconsistencies Under pressure from the

texts internal stress lines he produces step by step an architecture

of containment Vhat emerges within the text as difficulty and

disruption is projected in the visual domain as plenitude and unity

The texts moments of incoherence and disruption produce an

architecture of massive and stable blocks i

It is in this doubling of the broken text as an IInbrokeljimage

rather than in his deductive reasoning that Lehmann enacts a

reading of the imagines which I want to suggest is entirely

sensitive to the contours and topology of rhilostratlls writing At

the same time this sensitivity is consigned by Lehmann to the

unconscious of this text To help locate that other submerged

reading of the imagilles one can begin by noticing that successflll

though Lehmann finds his own analysis to be by his own

lt -Aj-

PlIlLOSTIATlS ANIl TilE IMA([NAHY ~[IS I

admission there remains a grollp of pictures that fall qllitl olltside

the boundary of his analysis Beviewing his work from its end

Lehmann reckons that he has been able to account for all thirty-six

sections of book I and the first twenty-six of book 2 Yet eight

miscellaneous cases remain 12 Accordingly Lehmann expels the

entire group from his definition of the imagines He concilldes

that lacking in the relations he has been proposing the peccant

images are in fact later additions grafted on either before the real

publication or else for a second edition 13 nearing ill mind what

Denmiddotida calls the logic of the sllpplement by pressing on what

Lehmann rejects one may come to see the principles of lxclusiotJ

by which his interpretation is structured That supplement to the

imagines so far from standing beyond its pale may delineate that

which Lehmanns reading must constantly repress in order to

sustain itself and as part of this what may be the features of the

imagines which are the hardest for commentary in general to

reach

One would wish to examine in detail all eight supplementary

items (227-234) Here just the first two in the group will be

considered and especially 228 Looms The selection is in some

sense justified by Lehmann own gesture ofexcusion His system

has been working well it has brollght order to all the previous

pictures in both books however bizarre or dislocated they may

have initially appeared Yet after Xenia 2 (at 226) the system

breaks down entirely In spatial terms Lehmanns (re)construction

of the stoa is now complete With the placing of the second still

life Philostratus writes The End The reader passes out of the

portico - out of Lehmanns text-as-architecture --- into th( outer

disorderly world Interestingly the bce which the world presents

is exactly that of a broken building filled with debris

Now Ih~ doorway belonglt to a house by no means prosperolls you will say it has been abandoned by its master and the court wilhin seems deserted nor do the columns still support its roof for they have set tied and collapsed No it is inhabited by spiders only ltll Ihis crelIure loves to weave its web in quiet ( Looms 21-6)

Lehmanns inspired solution to his texts difiiculties - its dOlIbling

as a perfect building ensemble - confronts at its exit the spectacle

(e 204

IOIMAN BRYSON

of a ruination at once textual and architectural What the ti~ure of

the building had particularly enabled was the transfer of all

problems of the text back into the space supposed to stand behind

it the terraced spaces of the villa The moment when Lehmann

declares the true text of Imagines to have ended is that of an

edifice collapsing

Lehmanns entire reading turns on a suppressioll of the texts

being as written representation his gradual construction of the

stoa with all of its loms mapped and its piuures securely placed

in tiers within chambers depends on a reading of the Imagines in

terms of transparency before a pre-existing referent Concerning

philostratus work within language and of the pictures work with

their represented scenes Lehmanns account says nothing In

pointing this out the aim is not in fact to criticise or fault

Lehmanns interpretation One of the principal desires of the

descriptions in the Imagines is exactly to cease being words on the

page to come alive in the fltgtrIn of an imaJe to pass from the

opacity of words to the luminous scenes behind the words

Frecluently met with in the Imaiines is a textual moment at

the description at last feels its own language to dissolve into the

of the scene it opens upon This is the philostratian Look

Now the painter has been successful in these respects also that he has wrought the spider itself ill so painstaking a fashioll has matched its spots with fidelity to nature and has painted its repulsive fuzzy surface and its savage nature - all this is the mark of a good craftsman and one skilled in depicting the truth For look here is a cord I)rming a squaPe ( Looms 3 I

The painters attention to truth has realised the spider in all its

repulsive detail Having traced that fidelity to nature wittla pen

no less observant than the painters Philostratus earns the riglhfor

his OWl] words also to be recognised as fully backed by truth After

his exclaimed For look the description at last rcaches the

moment of lift-off

Three related labours come together in a single disclosure and

presence the work of rhe spicier building its web strand

strand the work of the painter tracing each of the threads stroke ( stroke the work of the ecphrasist tracing the two previous sets

_--- _14_-

PHILOSTRATliS AND THE IMAGINARY MISF11

line by line 14 At look the words the paint and the spiders web

merge in a moment of visionary presence Out of the diverse tissue

woven by the spider the painter and the writer comes a living

image the weavers travel across [their webs J drawing tight such

of the threads as have become loose In this visionary space there

is no separating the individual strands of image text or web The

ecphrasis itself draws tight any threads that come away pulling

them back into the unitary ima~e that is at the same time a web a

pitture and a text With part of itself the ecphrasis seeks to shed

the opacities it possesses by virtue of being made of words

only an arbitrary connection to things It seeks to fuse the words

into something beyond wurds an image a picture and then to

fuse that picture with what is real in a web tltat is no longer lexical

but pictorial and no longer pictorial but alive

Lehmanns desire for a text of the Imafiines that will dissolve

first into the pictures of a collection and then into the architectural

ensemble that hOllses them is ullcannily true to this aspect of philostratus text Yet it embodies only part of that texts energies

Though in the passage just quoted the separate re~isters of

weaving of picturing and of describing all come together ill

radiant fusion at Philostraws For look elsewhere the Looms

description presents these registers as separable separate and out

of phase

In fact Looms opens with a picture of - representation The

first and seemingly gratui tous pictu re in the description shows

Penelopes loom complete with its shuttle warp threads and lint

What opens the ecphrasis then is an image describing the

fabrication of images the representational means by which

Penelope creates iJer tapestry The image is made (and with

Penelope unmade) within the apparatus of representation The

ecphrasis begins by emphasising representation not as something

which vanishes before its referent but which stays stubbornly

visible and in place as material technique

Similarly Looms foregrounds Its own apparatus of repshy

resentation language Penelope is presented not only as tlte site of

work with images but of work with words She is the creation of Homer and it is with Hnmpr linEC th nhlwltr 111 L_

NIlHMAN EllYSON

1( X

own picture of herbull Penelope

Homer melts the snow with them This is a

reference to Ocyssey 192deg4 bull Her tears flowed and her face melted

as the snow melts on the lofty mountains and as it melts the

streams of the rivers flow full so her fair cheeks melted as they

In the same way philostratus makes a point of telling his

reader that the fine threads on which the spiders drop from the roof

and then climb up again are taken froll] llesiod 15 At these points

in the text the words exactly t~lil to dissolve either into pictures

(Penelope) or into things (spiders) They remain the embedded

lines of Homer and of Hesiod woven into a text which refuses to

assimilate them as its own or to dissolve them before a referent in

pictures or in the world

Just as the text insists on its own opacities its ineradicable

wordiness so it points to ways in which nature itself will not be

absorbed into the supposedly higher realm of human represenshy

tation and culture The place of the spiders is presented as the

annihilation of human work ~here roofs and columns

the spiders thrive Human observers may compare the

Penelupe and apply to their webs the terms of or

geometric measurement (lelraliaslOs) but the webs take over

where human creation comes to its end Interestingly the spiders

in Looms are imagined not only as they appear in the picture

description also includes a scene which exceeds that picture

bull the flat [nests] are good to summer in and the hollow sorl is in winter This is a aside a

to other times and the picture but

within it The that moment

race across their web it does not shd~ them in

other seasons when in summer spiders choose the ~~t webs

and in the winter the hollow ones Looms points to another life

of spiders which the scene in other words implies but does not

state to a world of ruins silences and spider-life that goes on

whether or not there are people around to see it Nature takes over

from culture culture in fact collapses its columns broken but

spiders silently persist away from the human labours of building

weaving painting and describing

------

PHILOSTRATliS AND TilE IMA(JNAHI ~ll1SI1

III

Against Lehmanns maps of the architectural referent one might

posit another topology of things pictures and words not as these

come together in the ensemble of a resurrected museum but as they

fail to connect in a fracture or ruin of representation The

magines work with three dil1erellt substances words things

and images With part Phiostratus- act ()t descriptio-n

middotwrks t~ blur these three in visionary merger (fIg )2)

(~ ~~ ~

(-) lp Fi~ J2

In the heat of this words turn into images or images into real things (4)middot But such excitement and

animation is only one of the Imagines many possibilities There

are others less ecstatic Words come unstuck from things they

hark back not to things in the world but to other words by

Homer or Hesiod (3) Or images pull away from the task of

representation they are shown as products of material technique

threads weft lint looms (J) Or the world pulls away from its

representation in art and language (2) the courtyard appears as

deserted abandoned by its master a place where the visual order

imposed by human cultivation collapses alld the primary

of human space - columlls roof shelter way to the openness of nature

I t is appropriate that Looms opens with

standing both for the capacity of art to provide marvellous

of the world and for the unravelling of art back into mere

and lint The ecphrasis is in tJct in continuous aeros all of the interstices between the world til word and Image

1 to 7 see also fig A t times ( For ) it seems I hal

~ ~)

(~

o H ~l A N B R Y SON

27C

art concealillt art mlkes the dead mailer of leLters and

brushslrokes corne alive BUl this is only one phase ill the

ecphrastic process Equally important are the momellts when the

ecphrasis fails when words revert to being words tapestries

revert to thread and architecture to rubble

One reason that Lehmanns reading banishes Looms from the

Imagines may perhaps be the descriptions eminent f~lilure instead

of giving way to a luminous and ostensible referent

enthusiasm that enables philostratus to say Look The spiders

and Lehmann to say Look The sma - Looms darkens the

picture making it a place of shadows dust and broken

architecture Spatially it figures itself as a ruined courtyard

Textually it traverses not only the place of ecphrastic excitement

where words turn into pictures and pictures turn into things but

all the negative ecphrastic spaces whcre words remain words or

form hybrids with pictures and pictures revert to thei I constituent

elements threads WII hering lint on a loom That philostratus

intends this cffect of netativity and intends it as a figure for his

own ecphrastic enterprise is confirmed by the pairing which

Looms (228) forms with its preceding picture bullThe birth of

Athena (227)

The link of course is Arachne 16 As Ovid tells the tale

Arachne is a human weaver who challenges the skill of the divine

weaver Minerva and is punished ltH Iter hubris when Minerva

turns her into a spider At the contest both welvers set lip their

looms

The web is bound upon the beam the reed separates tlw threads of the warp the woof is threaded through them by the sharp shuttles which their busy fingers ply and when shol through the threads ofdle warp the notched teeth of tilt hammering stay beats it into place l

I~

Minerva pictures the twelve heavenly gods 011 majestic thrones At

the four corners of her tapestry are set miniature scenes of

presumptuous mortals IS Arachne counters this imagery of the

gods punishing humans ()r hubris with scenes of the gods and

especially Jupiter19 violating human females Appalled by

Arachnes work Minerva hits her three times with a shuttle then

robs her of human form

PHI LOS T RAT J SAN D THE I MAG I N A It Y 1lH I

Fig 33

Forthwith her hair touched by the poison fell off and with it both nose and ears and the head shrank up her whole body also was small the slender lingers cling 10 her side as the rest was belly 20

For many interpreters of the Arachne fable the official moral

- a cautionary tale against hubris contains a second level a

of reflection upon the capacities and limitations of an For

Velazquez the competition concerns not only weavers but

painters At the rear of the inner stage in The Fable o( Arachne is

shown Titians painting The Rape of Europa and

presents his own craft in parallel to the art of weaving placed

somewhere perhaps between Arachne and Minerva between the

genre painting of the foreground and Titians history painting in

the middle distance (fig 33) III the reading of Leonard Barkan

this capacity of the Arachne topos to act as arts self-reflexive

shy

2~

OltMAN BRYSON

~~ 2

commentary on art is already present in Ovids text I t requires

no great leap of the imagination to see in Arachnes tapestry all the

elements of Ovids own poetry in the Metamorphoses Just as she

tells the stories of the loves of the gods and the metamorphoses of

their victims so does he 21 Like Velazquez Ovid positions his

own work somewhere between the disorderly profusion

metamorphoses that issue from Arachnes loom and

theologically correct carefully framed tapestries that come

the loom of Minerva

That philostratus intends Looms to unfold in the space of this

a number of details The Birth of

the first subject of Minervas tapestry immediately

precedes the text of Looms in philostratus gallery In Ovid the

contest of Arachne and Minerva is visualised as a spectrum of

iridescent colours

As when after a storm of rain the suns rays strike through and a rainbow with its huge curve stains the wide sky though a thousand different colours shine in it the eye cannot detect the change from each one to the next so appear the adjacent colours22

This is precisely the metaphor philostratus uses to describe the

armour of Athene as the goddess emerges fullv armed from

head of Zeus

As for the material of her panoply no-one could guess iI Ii)r as many as are the colours of the rainbow which changes its light now to one hue gt1d now to another so many are the colours of her armour 2

1

Taking Philostratus two descriptions in sequence one can say

that Looms applies to the competition between Minerva and

Arachne the figure of hathos It is a comic transformation orOvids

contest down-scaled with Penelope in the place of MinerW1

spiders in the place of Arachne

philostratus begins where Ovid left off with Arachnes

metamorphosis the rest was belly is expanded into the spiders

repulsive fuzzy surface and its savage nature and the spiders

grisly meaL Where Ovid uses the Arachne fable as a means to

comment on his own project in the MUal11ornwses niacin his

book somewhere between divine

-~

P II I L () S Tii A T USA N Il TilE J M A ( I N A H Y ~Il S Hmiddot

comically deflated retelling of the fable philostratus places his own

project the Imagines somewhere between the higher artists

(Homer Hesiod Ovid etc) and the beasts Ovid and

use the images of their own

the inverts the rhetoric in a comic

desublimation or parody

Let us touch again on the philostratian exclamation Lookmiddot

k fI

The moment when a picture seems to come alive is encountered

again and again in the 1m agiles In Xenia I philostratlls remark~

that the painted grapes are good to eat and full of winey juice

(r3 I) In Xenia 2 he invites the reader to reach out and take a loaf

from the painted basket (226) In Narcissus he says he cannot

real (123) At the core of the Imagines is the promise tl1at at

ments words

intense experience that

oth pictures and words It is not simply that words arc

tell whether a real bee has been deceived bv the painted Hower or

whetlier we are to be deceived into thinking that a ~

supplemented by pictures and pictures by words To read the

Imagines that way is to model it on the example of the illustrated ~ shybook The logic of the text is in fact closer once again to that of

Derridas supplement What words lack (because they are

words characters on the page marks without light) images can hJluinaJvt with a presence which is based on that lack which grows fro~l it

and turns it into light What images lack (because they are

in time mere pigments on a surf~lce threads on a loom) words Gill

sugply with narration and movement This strange hallueinatoy

power of ecphrasis calls on the capaei~ies of words and I~ to

describe the world but goes beyond their several powers into a

~ _ moment when Look becomes the only appropriate -- ~ ~L

response The exclamation directs the reader not towards the text J t or its Image but past them both into another space where presence )f

~vo to 11 th 0 ooce (gl hdoS tooeh t) fiJtJ - Yet compared with Ovicl (or Vehizquez) philostratlls text is (

clearly self-mocking and self-defeating Its lines move Ollt into all ~ the negative ecpilrastic spaces where the enanIeia of Iookmiddot j

NORMAN BHYlgtON

exactly unfortilcoming Instead of Aracillle the spider instead of the loves of the gods in tapestry an insect meal Oil a web

Accompanying the project of inciting the reader to envision is

Philostratus awareness that with every ecphrasis at some point

the lines and strokes always separate and unravel The text presents

itself as hollowed out by its own rhetorical self-awareness and as

haunted by an inescapably secondary or belated relation to

pictures In the Proem the author dramatises himself as a painter

mangul

Now the story of the men who have mastery in the sciellce of painting and the states and kings that have been passiolltltely devoted to it has been told by others writers Ilotably Aristodemus of Carla whom I

visited for four years In orcler to study paintinf 1n the present discussions however we propose to describe examples of painting in the form of addresses which have been composed for the young 24

Four years of study with Aristodemus have led not to a career in

painting but only in criticism In the scenography of the text

Philostratus is always old and lesser than the young The son of

his host must summon him before he speaks SpJtially he is at the

perimeter beyond the city walls a Greek wandering in Italy

Secondary in relation to painting his pictures are also belated in

time not the work of men who have won mastery in the science

of painting discussed by Pliny but of painters who are never in

fact given names

G- lc o this negative dinlension of the Ima(inegt Lehmann appears

1vt tgt emarkably insensitive Jn his hands the Imagilles are tt come

alive he will infuse them with his own visionary energy~~ resurrecting the fragments of the text into a luminous stoa whose

every corner he can visualise His work with the blta(illes is in a

sense part of the Pompeian tradition which from Winckelmann

to l3ulwer-Lytton to Ilollywood aims to coiJre ivil~ flesh from

the ashes In terms of its own rhetoric Lehmanns is a heroic reading The example of the Irrcltlt Goerhe2f tTllirlp hi274

bull vJ ~_ _

PHILOSTRATLJS AND THE IMAGINARY MI~I

enterprise26

Filling out what remained only tentative in Goethes

essay he perceives an order in the Imagines which not even their

author realised The Imagines have to be wrested from philoshy

stratlls hands Philostratus misreads the mountains of Thes~ly as

mountains of Rhodes Philostratus takes no advantage of these connections and does not mention them27 Although

Philostratus was perfectly able to see immediately many of the

implications of single pictures he did not discuss the cyclic idea

He was not interested in it2R As Lehmanns analysis gains

momentum Philostratus tends to get referred to as thelcctUle~ Like many orators and letter writers and teachers before and after

him he decided to pllblish these lectures as a model of his

tecllllillue and style in handling such a task 29 He paraphrased

rather than described the paintings and pointed out the emotional

values and psychological associations ofeach picture His emphasis

in this collrse ill the appreciation (Ifart was one-sided as flax heen tlwl

elery professor (~f tlzis kind after Ilim (emphases added) ~o

Lehmann himself is not of course a lecturer or professor of this kind

If Philostratus mocks his own secondariness Lehmann expels

secondariness from his text in tbe person of the outmoded

professor who only appreciates and who cannot see what

Lehmann sees the hyper-realistic image of a gallery with all its

rooms envisioned simultaneously and in detail But these abject

personifications the lectlirer and the professor arc not the

bearers of anxiety in his reading or its only scapegoats The

Imapnes need to be reconstructed Lehmann maintains because

without them the third century is the dark century in the history

of ancient painting the era ofa great crisis ofancient art in which

the foundations for the development of later western art were

bid 11 Here are Lehmanns words for the threat his reconstruction is to dispel

In a period lor which a lower-middle-class tomb in Rome like that of the Amelii is used as a cornerstone [or the history of palntin) and Ir which the discovery of the frescoes of a Jewish synagogue in Mesopotamia tends to revolutionize the entire picture of the historv of lnrn

NOH~lAN BRYSON

Is it too much to find in these words a threat to a cherished image

of antiquity an image that must be protected

Art history emerges here in one of its dubious heroising guises

as the custodian of culture working against a background of crisis

and collapse Quite naturally the custodians must live in a great

house resplendent with all the marbles favoured by luxury

but particularly splendid by reason of the panel-paintings set in

the walls The force required to protect the custodians is that of

museum circa 1941 It is a modernist exhibition space

stripped down diagrammatic programmatic yet still (at the end

of the reconstruction) conceived as a house of the great with

dining-chambers for the four seasons Better than most museums

with their difficult diplomatic balance between the needs of

scholars and of patrons it is wholly designed by the art historian

The scholarship that builds this space is to judge by the footnotes

an exclusively German affair And the account endorses the

protocols of a certain strand in the German art history of its time

We shall always regret where fi)nllal problems are concerned the

limitations of a description which aimed not to descrile but to

interpret what the audience saw (emphases added) Painting is to

be approached formally not hermeneutically and interpretation

now a negative term is to be confined to an outpost of

iconography the identification of subjects and programme cycles

Lehmanns own hermeneutic operation presents itself as

opposite of interpretive work It proceeds by excluding lt111 those

images which appear to Lehmann to be editorial additions grafted

01 to the main text supposedly anomalous products of writing and

publication mere word-pictures un backed by actual referents It

prunes away the rhetorical elaborations of the lecn1rer and

bypasses the pictures themselves in order to reach th~ solid

masonry behind them as though representation itself verbal or

pictorial were a barrier to be torn dowH This process is presented

as a series of purifications The text contaminated for publication

is returned to its pristine state The visual field is purged of its

verbal dimension in a double movement from text In architecture

and from arl criticism to archaeology Antiquitys dark age is

banished Its whuralmainstrcam is protected against distortion by

-- - --~-

PHI I 0 S T RAT l SAN Il THE r M A (] N 1 H Y I S I I

inferior and marginlt11 groups Art history triumphs over art

appreciation The end product of these procedurts is the vision of

a purified architectural form whose authority is confirmed by a

tradition of national scholarship and national culture exiled to

America and written up in English yet still in direct contact with

the author of Phiostrats gemalde and with the Graeco-Homan past

Through rhetorical operations such as these Lehmanns

ecplrrasis becomes in a sense a tecitni(lue of the subject It is surely

much more than an archaeological reconstruction Like Auerbad~s Mimesis written in Istanbtll during World War II it mobilises the

energies of cultural resistance to its own dark century It invsts

those energies in an incandescent visualisation that configures the

beleaguered subject as a unified building I t would I think be

wrong to find fault with Lehmanns reading at the level on which

it appears to operate of slellth-like deduction and rationality

Expelled by the texts rational procedures rhetoric returns as

texts unconscious At this buried or subterranean level the

reading actually moves much closer into the Imagines than it is

able to admit Philostratus himself presents the art of painting not

as a copy of the world but ltIS in ternalisation of the world In 19 warns his audience not to be impressed by a works mimetic

realism ill that case he says we should praise an insignificant

feature of the painting and one that has solely to do with imitation

(mimesis) but we shollid nOI be praising its intelligence or

sense of decorum it shows though these I believe are the most

important elements of art l~ lust as painting shows the world as

it has already passed into the subjectivity of the painter so the

beholder should not dwell 011 the external matter of mimesis but

internalise the image drawing it inside the subject On their own

the audience can see pictures and judge mimesis perfectly well

the audience do not yet know are the techniques for

absorbing the pictures into the mind It is precisely

in this assimilation of pictures to subjectivity that the audience has come to hear Philostratus speak

It is in this aspect of internalisation that the Imafiines revcJ rhetoric itself as a techllolov Of elicnlin t1egt If T-_ r

1IIMN BRYSON

of the Ad Herenniuflt names memoria as the fourth part of

rhetoric 34 In order to memorise a lengthy speech the orator

should visualise the successive topics of his discourse as images

arranged in consecutive places within architectural space In the

words of Frances Yates who is that mlfi moving slowly in

lonely building stopping at intervals with an intent face He is a

rhetoric student forming a set of memory loci35 Architectures

role in rhetoric is as the supplier of milieux within which intense

visualisations are to occurUl As Cicero says the images should be

active sharply defined and unusual having the power of speedily

encountering and penetrating the psyche (quae oCCflrrere celerishy

terque percutere animum possim)37 The speech unfolds as

rhetorician walks in his mind past walls each memory-place hung

with a vivid image through rooms doorways stairways

porticoes terraces

The first notion is placed as it were ill the ()recourt the second let us say in the atrium lhe remainder are placed in order round the impluvium and committed not only to bedrooms and parlours but even to statues and the like3R

The stability and dependability of this internal architecture is vital

for the control of the self over its material To forget the existence

of a particular room is to leave out a whole stage of the argument

to lTIisremember the sequence of images is to garble the

presentation of the case

places are chosen and marked om with the utmost possible vlriety as a spacious house divided into a number of rooms Every thinK of note therein is diligently imprinted on the mind in order that thongl n~ay be able to fun through all the parts without let or hindrance The filst task is to secure that there shall be no difficulty in funning through these for that memory must be most firmly fixed which helps another memory all

Here architecture not only stands for the control of the self it is

the actual material means by which the self exercises its control

over its words and its world

If Lehmanns unitary and massively stable architecture stands ~1 _1 _~ bullbull l J ~

~ PHILOSTRATUS AND THE IMA((NARY MlISEU~1

c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34

1 reading rejoins Philostratus rhetoric as an operation whose means

is imaginary buildings and whose goal is mastery over self and

over representation Ecphrasis here is a technique for consolidating

the subject in terms of personal and professional control While on

the surface of his text Lehmann disavows hermeneutic art history

and expels the lecturer at other levels of his text Lehmann is

Philostratus shadow-partner or secret sharer Lehmanns entry

into the culture of late antiquity is through a shape-shifting in

which he performs the architectural ars memorativa of a thirdshy

century orator

Yet he does so in terms very different from those supplied in the

Imagines The kind of subject proposed and assllmed by 9

Philostratus text is much less driven by the urge towards unitary

self-possession The Imagines subject exists in a universe where

things images and words may frequently converge but do not

consistently fuse together ill the ardour of imaginary vision The

descriptions show the subject in transit across the interstices where

world pictures and language overlap Especially interesting 10

Philostratus are the hybrid or chiasmic zones where dillerent

registers cross over (fig 34)

Let us return for the last time to Looms Penelopes loom

exists at the place where images and the things of the world cross

over The loom is a thing that makes images yet we do not see the

images it makes only the things - warp threads shuttle it

works with Again when the weavers travel across the web or eat

their squirming prey they are seen as living moving creatures

hill at thl sme time the reader knows they are onlv a static nictllrf -j

--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(

Elsewhere the text moves to the place where the things of the

world cross over into words The author tells us that the spiders

cables are almost too tine to discern What brings them into view

are in fact Hesiods lines about spiders destending and astending

their threads The word makes the thing exist Or a single word in

Greek -- arachnc is able to generate two utterly different beings

spiders and the weaver who challenged Minerva The characters of

Looms are so to speak engendered by an ecphrastic pun Words

and things change pilCes At other times the text crosses the place

where words and image blend Homers text turns into a picture

then back again into Homers words The line between what is

verbal and visual cannot be drawn4o

The subject of the Imagines is in constant motion and dispersal

across this complex terrain qf wprld jmilg ltlAd texr When the

outward pictures enter the subject and are assimilated to the seWs

interior they scatter across an intricately divided and Auid space

The images of Philostratus exist as r~fractiollS in a multishy

dimensional space in which a variety of voices none of them

original blend and clash 41 The subject who performs this

internalisation is in perpetual motion The moments when at the

philostratian Look the various registers join in visionary

fusion do not last long Almost at once the visions separate out

into their component strands unravelling as fast as they came

together And they lead on to the next image - more than sixty

times The unravelling of one image clears the space for the

coming together of the next one Or better the unravelling of

each image calls into being summons the next It is in that

perpetual Penelope-like emergence and falling away of images

that the subject is spun by the text Not as a central storehp~se or

gallery more a~ a motion or desire

Lehmanns subject is in a sense the opposite of thiJ In

Lehmanns case internalising philostralUs text means seeking a

means to arrest the motions of the text and to tapture and

immobilise its energies in a final culminating form Into the

stability of the huilding that is to end the text as motion and desire

are poured all the authors ligures for the command of the subject

massive masonry the prestige of the museum purified form

_ --- ----

PHILOSTRATUS AND THE IMAGINAIY M(SEI

Goethe national culture ethnic centrality profcssionlIisll1 posishy

tive knowledge Which should make Lehmann Philostratus most

inappropriate reader were it not for the brilliance and the yearning of his own visualisation

Among other things Lehmanns reading exemplifies some of

the paradoxes inherent in the tradition of positivist scholarship to

which it belongs It is this aspect that raises his reconstruction

above the category of historiGl1 oddity to adumbrate some of the

vicissitudes of positive knowledfe in more general terms First

Lehmanns relation to the literary to textuality and intenextualitx

is remarkably strained and contradictory The architectural ord~r he proposes for the Imagines is itselfbibliograplllc Lehmann needs

texts 10 enable his reconstruction to take place in order to build

his version of Philostratus villa he must resort to the library what

he says for instance concerning the typology of rooms their

orientation and relation to the seasons is directly dependent on

Vitruvius Yet at the same time his analysis mllst bypass textuality

in order to dissolve the texts into architectural form Necessary at

certain moments of the analysis at others textuality becomes an

obstacle to be scornfully removed Inherently untrustworthy

beside the actuality (the positivism) of the archaeological find texts are aligned in his interpretation with ideas of parasitism and

mediocrity figured here by the lecturer or professor The

reading works both to banish textual corruption completely

(which cannot easily show up ill the analysi~ since hiatuses in the

text arc translated at once into architectural syntax) and to build

the necessity for textual wrruption into his case (as when

Lehmann axes the last eight descriptions as later additions )

Textuality features in this mode of analysis primarily under tlte

sign of repression Where it is able to grow transparent before the

three-dimensional architectural and archaeological order it can be

admitted Where textuality fails to become translucent hcfilfe

reference it must be expelled even if the effort to do so becomes

massive involving the whole battery of figures for the command of th~ sui)ject

Secondly this ef1ort to repress textuality runs counter to many

of the most conspicuous features of Philostratllt PIh So

tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2

writing especially its interest in exploring the negative ecphrastic

spaces in which the reader so far from experiencing a dissolution

of writing before the luminous referellt (tlte philostratian

Look ) apprehends the text as a sophisticated web of allusions

parodies puns and tonal plays Lehmanns quest for the stable

masonry of the referent seems altogether blind to the many ways

in which philostratus writing plays to the wplzia of the reader as

one who can see bizarre connections who can understand hidden

narrativcs within imagery (A rachne Mincrva) wilD can

exercise the visual eqllivalent of the elaborate verbal dexterity that

characterises Hellenistic poetry When philostratus says that the

web the spiders make is exceedingly fine (k)perleIIOS) he is

doing more dlan asking liS to visualise something hard to see he

is using a key term from Hellenistic poetics eplOs which means

witty fint clever small-scale sophisticated and doing

so as an invitation or a warning to the reader that his own writing

too is all of these things It is a warning that Lehmann perhaps

wisely does not heed for once ecphrasis is thought of as a form

writing that involves much mort than a simple visualisation of

a text it leaves behind the one certainty that ecphrasis seemed to

hold out to the archaeologist - its promise of presence of

resurrection and becomes something else a mode of writing

whose complexity we are perhaps only beginning to discern and

in relation to which tlie idea of visualisation begins to appear as a

simplification at best

Finally the scrupulous rationality of Lehmanns interpretive

method with its emphasis on what can be deduced and

demonstrated as positive knowledge and as archilectural form

renders it strangely unaware of its own aspect of tellIality of the

ways in which it is itself a working wilh words in whityen the words

carry more associations motivations and effect than the writer is

able to hear or control Working within a highly instrumental and

reduced picture-theory of language Lehmanns analysis radically

underestimates the capacity of words to exceed their allotted

functions of argumentation demonstration and proof Opening

on to other investments and other scenes tban that simply of

archaeology and reconstruction Lehmanns text speaks its own

PllILOSTRATS AND THE IMAGINAHY MliS

uncollscious and it is in that energetic and overdetermined

underside of his text that his deepest engagement with Philostratus

may be found What he writes is perhaps the dream-work of

positivism not the forensics of archaeology but its own buried poetics 42

~

l ltJTES TO PAGES 244--61

O On Pausanils see Frazer (1898) Heer (1979) Jacob (1980)

Habich 1 (1985) and Elsner (1992)

I These include discussions of the wild satyrs of the islands 1235-)

the Ethiopians I334- the Ionian Greeks 722-51) the

marvellous animals collected in Rome 9211-2 the islands of

Sardinia and Corsica 10171-13

32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20

33 See Frazer (1898) xiv compare other second-century CE descripshy

tions of ruins such as Dio Chrysostom on Thebes Oratio 7

Plutarch De ~rcctu oracuorum 8 Lucian Diaog 11I0rt 272

34 This chapter began as a paper on Herodotus pyramids delivered to

Paul Cartledges Ancient History Seminar in Cambridge in 1989 I

wish to thank him John Henderson Jamie Masters and the Editors

of this volume for their comments on earlier drafts My deepest debt

is to Joan Pau Rubies y Mirabet with whom I have fi)r several years

discussed the problems of travel travel-writing and identity This

chapter is dedicated to him

CHApTEH EIGHT PHlLOSTRATliS AND Tin IMA(INARY

MUSEUM

1 English translations are taken from the Loeb edition edited by

T E Page E Capps and W H D Rouse (London and New

York193 1)

2 For the history of the debate see the editions of Jacobs and Welcker

(1825) Kayser (1844) Benndorf and Schenkel (1893) and

Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)

4 The essay is conveniently to be f()Und in vo XXVI of Cottas

standard edition (1868) pp 276fT

Lehmann (1941) 21-4

6 Obviously he describes pictures that were topoglllttphically united

but without regard to the ideological and (JrluaJ rda~m which had

dictated their combination Lehmann (1941) 20

7 Indeed the only explanation of the relationships and the lack of

order is that philostratus saw real pictures which were to a certain

extent arranged on the upper and lower parts of walls Lehmann

(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2

10 [n fact the lmalfines do not supply indications concerning the

dimensions of any particular work

II [t should also be noted that Lehmanns groupings occasionally

require him to rewrite the given titles of pictures

11 These last eight pictures of the second book show a remarkable

absence of any stich relation and connection as we have found

everywhere else Lehmann (1941) 37

13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40

14 The image of weaving is frequently used of writing see for

example Catullus ()45ofr in which the marriage of Peleus and

Thetis is covered with a estis variata figuris pestit decorata

jiguris where filfura is also a literary term for Catullus (wn

rhetoric Perhaps the crucial sites of configuring language image

and weaving are words such as ypaqgteurolv grapIein which means

writedraw design (in thread)

I ~ Worfrs an1 Days 777

16 The presence of Arachne in Looms has been argued since the

Renaissance See for example the gloss on Les Etoiles in Blaise

de Vigeneres edition of 1610 514 Lehmann (1941) 39 also

suggests that the two pictures (227 and 218) both refer to the

Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8

18 Minerva depicts Rhodope and Ilaemus who dared to cal

themselves gods now turned to mountains the Pygmaean queen

who challenged Juno now turned into a crane Antigone turned

by the angered Juno into a stork Cinyras whose daughters are turned to stone

19 Arachnes tapestry shows Europa abducted by the bull Asterie

carried off by the eagle Leda pursued by the swan Jllpiter

disguised as Amphitryon Danae

20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16

26 In the first paragraph of Lehmanns article Goethe is found to be

disappointed by Pompeii and Herculaneum mere Middletowns as

GoetheLehmann put it from whose limited atmosphere they 112

NOTES TO IAUES 27~-83

turn away towards the Imagines Heference to Goethe recur

at several points in the essay Strangely enough no-one with the

exception of Goethe has ever called attention to the problem of the

general order of the paintings in the two books of philostratus

(19) Yet Goethes rearrangement of the Imapnes is also as

Lehmann put it cavalier his own essay lJl1ilds more sysshy

tematically on Goethes

27 Lehmann (1941) 2S

28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18

32 Lehmann (1941) 17middot

33 Imagines 19 18-22 1 have modified the Locb translation

here

34 In Ad Herelfiun the five parts of rhetoric are

eloculio memoria pmllUllialio

3) Yates (1966) 8

36 On architectures relation to the art of memory see the discussion

of Elsner (forthcoming) chapter 2 section v

37 Ad HerenniulII 2873)8 cited by Yates (1966) 18

38 Quimilian inH orat 11220 cited by Yates (1966) 22

39 Quintilian Inst oral 11218 cited by Yates (1966) 22

40 The diagram (Iig 34) is not satisfactory for instance its lines

fixity when the whole point is to suggest fluidity and continuum

But 1hope the reader will follow at least the diagrams gist that the

illlaNille constantly shuttles between words il1la~es and thin~s

Area (5) is that of merger between things and images (6) is the

hybrid area ofwordsubjects (7) is the area of blur between word

and image perhaps the principal ecphrastic space~ he space of the

wurd graphein r 41 Barthes (1977) 145-6

42 1am grateful to the members of the Laurcncc Seminar held in the

Department of Classics at Cambridge in May 1991 ltJr their help in

formulating the ideas presented in this essay and particularly to

Simon Goldhill jas Elsner and Stephen Bann for their very

welcome observations and

List of works cited

For abbreviations see pp xi--xiii

Adler J and Ernst U (1988) Text als Figur 11welle Poesie 101 der

Antike gtis rur Moderne Weinheim

Alpers S (1983) The Art ofDescrihlilg Chicago

Amyx D A (1988) Corinthian Vase Painting orrIe Arclaic Period The

Study of Corinthian Vases Berkeley

Arnheim R (1988) The Poet at rile Center A )tudl ofCompo siti 011 in the

Visual Artr Berkeley

Arnott P (1962) Greek Scellic COlventoils ill til Fijth Celllu~) BC

Oxford

(1989) Puhlic and Performance ill the Greek Theater London

Arnott W G (1987) The Stream and the Gold Two notes 011

Theocritus in Filologia e forme letterarie studi (1fimi a F Della

Corte vol I U rhino

Arthur [Katl] M (1975) Hurtides phoenislae and the Plitics

Diss Yale University

(1977) The curse of civilizatioll the choral odes of the PllOemu-ae

HSCP 81 163-8

Ashmole B (1972) Architect and Sculptor in Classical Greece London

Ashmole B and Yalouris N (1967) Olympia The Sculptures of the

Temple of Zeus London

Baladit H (1980) La Pilopollnese de Strahon Paris

-if Bann s (1989) The True Vine on Visual Representanim ald tllet

- lf7estern Tradition Cambridge -J Barber E J w (1990) Prellistone Textiles the Deleopmellt (Clotll ill

the Neolithic and Brone Ages Princctoll

(1992) The peplos of Athelia in Goddess and Polis tILl PaIlGtIz((c

-~~ ---shy

PHI LOS T RAT USA N I) TilE I MAG I N A II Y M Sj

NORMAN BRYSON

eighteenth century seem to have intensified this At1anti~-like )

aspect of the Imagines and in the nineteenth century attempts were 1

undertaken to correlate philostratus text with the ~ ul1earthJ_~ ex~v~ti~~ One consequence of such efforts was that

the ctescriptions were found by some scholars n~~ to correspond I lt-U)l)Ut)l)r1

or not to correspond closely 5nough wit]I the Campaniln

paintings A debate accordingly developed from the second half of (ft l the~Teteenth century and into the twentieth century in which the in--l~

CJuestion of the authenticity of the descriptions became the leading

CJuestion Were they reliable or had philostratus invented the

entire gallery out of nothing as a virtuoso exercise in ecp1Irasis (

~ll~~n became polarised~with figures such as Welcker gt Brunn and Wickhotf on the side of authenticity opposing CayIus)

Friedrichs Matz and Robert 2 Scholarship in English played a

lesser role in the debate with the great exception of Karl

Lehmann 5 article The Imagines of the Elder Philostratus

published in Art Bulletin some fifty years ago in 19411 Coming

almost at the close of the authenticity debate Lehmanns article

advanced what is perhaps the most vigorous and ingenious case

ever mounted in defence of the view that the Imagines were blsed

on an actual picture collection from the late second century or

early third century CEo

Lehmann begins ~h Goethes essay Philostrats ~emalde Jok written in 18184 Goethe had maintained that the present order of

the sixty-odd elements in the Ifllaljines is confused and confusing

Acc( rdingly he rearranged them under nine separate headings ( 1)

Heroic an(1 Tragic Subjects (2) Love and Wooing (3) Birth and

Education (4) Deeds of Herakles () Athletic Contests laquo(i)

Hunters and Hunting (7) Poetry Song and Dance (8)

Landscapes and (9) Still Lite Lehmann takes Goethes thematic

re-ordering which aimed at a clearer editorial se(luence and puts

it to use within the debate on the authenticity of Philostratusmodern reader has been the promise contained in the idea of pictures Working entirely from the existing and apparentlyresurrection from its pages might be constructed an entire gallery confused sequence Lehmann argues that it is possible to account of the lost paintings of antiquity together with the context of their for both the coherence of thematic groupings within the Imarillesreception by a living audience Though the paintin~s at Pompeii and the seeming incoherences of sequence also present in the text and Herculaneum antedate philostratus by two centuries the by mapping the Imagines against an arclitectura~ -

discoveries in Campania anel their publication from the midshylS(i

Fig 29

NOHMAN BRYSON

) X





































~-


20


_ J

WALL II

0 ej ___

)1 ---lUi

I

Ir libY I~

~raJ -I -I ~ ~

il 3 ~

AlllrtM

A1IUes~1 EL

Fi- lO
















NOHMIIN BRYSON

(




































~ ~~


WALL

9

t l I

J

bull ~

AI1WM


UOH

II ~


or 6r

I-i~ 11















N()I~MAN BRYSON

2(2























bullIjj

~k

I I












































ii () 1 [ A N B 1 Y SON






































lt -Aj-


















reach

















(e 204

IOIMAN BRYSON






edifice collapsing






















moment of lift-off




_--- _14_-























of phase














NIlHMAN EllYSON

1( X





































------


III








(~ ~~ ~

(-) lp Fi~ J2

















~ ~)

(~


27C





















Athena (227)





looms


I~









Fig 33













shy

2~

OltMAN BRYSON

~~ 2









the loom of Minerva






iridescent colours




head of Zeus


1












-~









k fI







ments words


















NORMAN BHYlgtON








mangul











fact given names








bull vJ ~_ _


enterprise26






























NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









NOHMAN BRYSON

) X





































~-


20


_ J

WALL II

0 ej ___

)1 ---lUi

I

Ir libY I~

~raJ -I -I ~ ~

il 3 ~

AlllrtM

A1IUes~1 EL

Fi- lO
















NOHMIIN BRYSON

(




































~ ~~


WALL

9

t l I

J

bull ~

AI1WM


UOH

II ~


or 6r

I-i~ 11















N()I~MAN BRYSON

2(2























bullIjj

~k

I I












































ii () 1 [ A N B 1 Y SON






































lt -Aj-


















reach

















(e 204

IOIMAN BRYSON






edifice collapsing






















moment of lift-off




_--- _14_-























of phase














NIlHMAN EllYSON

1( X





































------


III








(~ ~~ ~

(-) lp Fi~ J2

















~ ~)

(~


27C





















Athena (227)





looms


I~









Fig 33













shy

2~

OltMAN BRYSON

~~ 2









the loom of Minerva






iridescent colours




head of Zeus


1












-~









k fI







ments words


















NORMAN BHYlgtON








mangul











fact given names








bull vJ ~_ _


enterprise26






























NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









NOHMIIN BRYSON

(




































~ ~~


WALL

9

t l I

J

bull ~

AI1WM


UOH

II ~


or 6r

I-i~ 11















N()I~MAN BRYSON

2(2























bullIjj

~k

I I












































ii () 1 [ A N B 1 Y SON






































lt -Aj-


















reach

















(e 204

IOIMAN BRYSON






edifice collapsing






















moment of lift-off




_--- _14_-























of phase














NIlHMAN EllYSON

1( X





































------


III








(~ ~~ ~

(-) lp Fi~ J2

















~ ~)

(~


27C





















Athena (227)





looms


I~









Fig 33













shy

2~

OltMAN BRYSON

~~ 2









the loom of Minerva






iridescent colours




head of Zeus


1












-~









k fI







ments words


















NORMAN BHYlgtON








mangul











fact given names








bull vJ ~_ _


enterprise26






























NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









N()I~MAN BRYSON

2(2























bullIjj

~k

I I












































ii () 1 [ A N B 1 Y SON






































lt -Aj-


















reach

















(e 204

IOIMAN BRYSON






edifice collapsing






















moment of lift-off




_--- _14_-























of phase














NIlHMAN EllYSON

1( X





































------


III








(~ ~~ ~

(-) lp Fi~ J2

















~ ~)

(~


27C





















Athena (227)





looms


I~









Fig 33













shy

2~

OltMAN BRYSON

~~ 2









the loom of Minerva






iridescent colours




head of Zeus


1












-~









k fI







ments words


















NORMAN BHYlgtON








mangul











fact given names








bull vJ ~_ _


enterprise26






























NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









ii () 1 [ A N B 1 Y SON






































lt -Aj-


















reach

















(e 204

IOIMAN BRYSON






edifice collapsing






















moment of lift-off




_--- _14_-























of phase














NIlHMAN EllYSON

1( X





































------


III








(~ ~~ ~

(-) lp Fi~ J2

















~ ~)

(~


27C





















Athena (227)





looms


I~









Fig 33













shy

2~

OltMAN BRYSON

~~ 2









the loom of Minerva






iridescent colours




head of Zeus


1












-~









k fI







ments words


















NORMAN BHYlgtON








mangul











fact given names








bull vJ ~_ _


enterprise26






























NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









IOIMAN BRYSON






edifice collapsing






















moment of lift-off




_--- _14_-























of phase














NIlHMAN EllYSON

1( X





































------


III








(~ ~~ ~

(-) lp Fi~ J2

















~ ~)

(~


27C





















Athena (227)





looms


I~









Fig 33













shy

2~

OltMAN BRYSON

~~ 2









the loom of Minerva






iridescent colours




head of Zeus


1












-~









k fI







ments words


















NORMAN BHYlgtON








mangul











fact given names








bull vJ ~_ _


enterprise26






























NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









NIlHMAN EllYSON

1( X





































------


III








(~ ~~ ~

(-) lp Fi~ J2

















~ ~)

(~


27C





















Athena (227)





looms


I~









Fig 33













shy

2~

OltMAN BRYSON

~~ 2









the loom of Minerva






iridescent colours




head of Zeus


1












-~









k fI







ments words


















NORMAN BHYlgtON








mangul











fact given names








bull vJ ~_ _


enterprise26






























NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8










27C





















Athena (227)





looms


I~









Fig 33













shy

2~

OltMAN BRYSON

~~ 2









the loom of Minerva






iridescent colours




head of Zeus


1












-~









k fI







ments words


















NORMAN BHYlgtON








mangul











fact given names








bull vJ ~_ _


enterprise26






























NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









OltMAN BRYSON

~~ 2









the loom of Minerva






iridescent colours




head of Zeus


1












-~









k fI







ments words


















NORMAN BHYlgtON








mangul











fact given names








bull vJ ~_ _


enterprise26






























NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









NORMAN BHYlgtON








mangul











fact given names








bull vJ ~_ _


enterprise26






























NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









NOH~lAN BRYSON






































-- - --~-


































1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









1IIMN BRYSON















porticoes terraces













c~) (~~) ( 0 ~ ~

-~ ----~

hI 34










century orator


















--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









--

OIlMAN BRYSON

i(






































_ --- ----



































tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









tgtnHMAN BRYSON

2X2











































~








32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8
















32 See Elsner (1992) 17--20












MUSEUM



York193 1)



Steinmann (1914)

3 Lehmann (1941)



Lehmann (1941) 21-4







(1941) 20

8 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

9 Lehmann (1941) 31-3

NOTES TO P(I-S 2()2








13 Lehmann (1941) 39-40













Arachne story

17 Ovid Met 65~-8








20 Met 6140--4

21 Barkan (1986) 4

22 Met 663--6

23 227 1~-19

24 lmaxiner Proem

25 Lehmann (1941) 16













28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8


















28 Lehmann (1941) 30

29 Lehmann (1941) 41-2

30 Lehmann (1941) 41

31 Lehmann (1941) 17-18



here



3) Yates (1966) 8



















List of works cited










Oxford




Corte vol I U rhino




HSCP 81 163-8









Documents

N. Bryson - Philostratus and the Imaginary Museum