The growing scholarly interest in ancient epigrams is unsurprising given the magnitude of material available. On the one hand, there is a massive corpus of literary epigrams in the so-called Greek Anthology alongside other scattered sources, most notably the Milan Posidippus papyrus (P Migl.Vogl. VIII 309) and the Vienna Epigrams papyrus (G 40611), both of which were first published in the new millennium.[1] On the other hand, there is an equally monumental corpus of inscribed epigrams from all corners and all eras of antiquity, which was subject to much different conditions of preservation and survival in comparison with its parchment- and papyri-bound counterparts. Recent years have seen Cambridge “Green and Yellow” editions dedicated to both types of ancient epigram,[2] and the present volume joins other recent studies which explore the points of contact and contrast between these two corpora and make a case for the literary value of inscribed epigrams.[3]
In particular, this volume considers what the author calls “descriptive Greek epigrams.” Epigram is, due in part to its brevity, a very flexible genre, and debates about its sub-genres can be interminable. What the author here means by “descriptive” corresponds in large part to what others would call “ekphrastic”—in fact, descriptio is the Latin translation of the Greek ἔκφρασις—namely, an epigram which depicts or reflects on (the act of perceiving) an object or artwork. Scicolone’s approach to the relationship between text and image or object draws upon the concept of deixis as articulated by the psychologist and linguist Karl Bühler, an approach which is also employed in a recent monograph by Flavia Licciardello (2022). Bühler’s concepts of “Deixis am Phantasma” and “Deixis ad oculos” serve as the main organizing principles of the second and third chapters, whereas the fourth chapter is centered on “diminished deixis” or “deictic displacement,” a concept of the author’s own devising (see below). The understanding of what counts as deixis is very broad, including not only deictic determinatives and adjectives, but also personal pronouns and temporal sequences. The arguments reflect a thorough consultation of the scholarly literature in English, French, German, and Italian.[4] Most of the inscriptions are accompanied by high quality black-and-white or color figures which help to illuminate and contextualize discussions of the relationship between image and text.
The introduction offers a lucid overview of the history of ekphrasis and epigram in antiquity as well as the current state of research. The author justifies her choice of terminology (“descriptive” instead of “epideictic” or “ekphrastic epigram”) and sets the terms of her following discussion. In particular, sections §1.2–1.4 (pp. 7–34) offer a detailed and clear narrative of the development of ekphrastic (AKA descriptive) epigram and modern scholarly treatments of it, which could be usefully assigned as a point of entrance into this field for graduate or advanced undergraduate students.
Each of the main chapters treats a unique corpus of texts from a particular period and examines a different form of deixis. Chapter 2 (“Deixis am Phantasma in Epigrammatic Contexts: Strategies for Interacting with Fictive Frames of Reference”) studies literary epigrams from the Hellenistic and Imperial period and employs the concept of Deixis am Phantasma to draw attention to their imaginative visual effects, e.g. simulating objects and conflating the living model with the artistic representation. Chapter 3 (“Ocular Deixis: Strategies for Interacting with Real-Life Material Contexts”) studies inscribed epigrams from the Hellenistic and Imperial period and uses the concept of Deixis ad oculos to underscore the way that these texts contribute to the explication and interpretation of their accompanying images. These two forms of deixis are aptly applied to their respective corpora, since literary epigram was effectively detached from an inscriptional context, in which it would be associated with a real object, while inscribed epigram presupposes the presence of the accompanying object. The third chapter also studies, however, instances in which literary epigrams have been returned to an inscriptional context as in the casa degli epigrammi in Pompeii. Thus, unsurprisingly, some of the inscribed epigrams discussed in Chapter 3 also engage the imagination of the reader and present ‘more than is there,’ an attribute of Deixis am Phantasma. Chapter 4 (“Deictic Displacement in Descriptive Epigrams from Late Antiquity”) studies inscribed epigrams from Late Antiquity which emphasize the social or honorific value of the image while omitting specific reference to its visual content, a relationship between text and image which the author dubs “deictic displacement.” This should not be confused with Bühler’s use of the same term which refers to an effect produced when words conjure up an imaginary or absent referent, which serves as the cognitive foundation of Deixis am Phantasma.[5]
Each chapter is divided into sections which pursue close readings of groups of epigrams selected according to a theme or approach. This compartmentalized organizational scheme, which resembles that of some ancient epigram collections, leads each chapter and subsection to function as a seemingly enclosed unit, insulated from the other chapters due to its distinct corpus and theoretical frame. These close readings draw upon established approaches to the study of ancient ekphrasis in order to frame the author’s own literary analyses. The second chapter offers a range of reflections on the relevance of the ancient philosophical discourse of phantasia for the study of Hellenistic ekphrasis (succinctly summarized on pp. 44–49). A review of the cognitive processing modeled by ancient riddle epigrams, in which a viewer attempts to interpret obscure or unrelated symbols, provides a helpful preamble to the discussion of the relationship between text and object in Chapter 3. The fourth chapter reviews the simultaneously material-oriented and encomiastic nature of descriptive poems such as Paul the Silentiary’s ekphrasis of the Hagia Sophia and John of Gaza’s Tabula Mundi, before demonstrating a similar encomiastic conceit in Late Antique inscribed epigrams. I was particularly intrigued by the association between the deictic displacement of Late Antique epigrams and the trope of “the apology for baser materials,” i.e. the highlighting of the honorific value of an object by drawing attention to its failure to employ more valuable materials such as gold (pp. 235–249). The conceptual similarity between this established trope and the author’s own term of “deictic displacement,” both of which employ praeteritio in service of encomium, helps to clarify and justify the latter.
The collation and interpretation of such a broad range of materials is the real strength of the book, but this sheer mass of material also becomes somewhat of a hindrance. The long chapters composed of series of running commentaries grouped together on thematic grounds become repetitive. To be fair, this repetition does help to support the validity of the overarching observations, but the organizational and rhetorical scaffolding of the book does not always succeed in presenting a clear and unified narrative that weaves together the deictic theoretical framework, the established scholarly approaches, the historical and generic background, and the analysis of the text at hand. The concluding chapter, which recapitulates all of the preceding arguments, is helpful and necessary because a reader often loses the forest for the trees while following the associative thread from one text to another. In addition, the book pursues an argument of historical development, according to which the function of deixis in epigrams changes over time, but this argument seems largely determined by the selection and organization of the material by the author. For example, the telos of the social and communal function of Late Antique epigrams also can be identified in the Ptolemaic propaganda of Posidippus of Pella’s ekphrastic epigrams in the early Hellenistic period, as the author herself points out (p. 202).
A further impediment to the reader is the book’s English style, which is often obscure. This obscurity arises from the erroneous use of English vocabulary and syntax—including a high frequency of dangling modifiers—and a tendency to unnecessary verbosity and abstraction.[6] One wishes that the press had engaged a more vigorous copy editor, who could have standardized the English and made the text more reader-friendly. Consider the following excerpt from the third chapter (p. 111, emphasis in original):
The analysed instances of Hellenistic inscribed epigrams deploying strategies of ocular deixis reveal an increased attention to the real-life material context in which the audience’s perceptual encounter takes place. This is the result of a sustained reflection on the importance of context as to enlighten the accompanying text, which is engendered by the progressive self-sufficiency of Hellenistic literary epigrams.
The first point is clear enough: the studied instances of ocular deixis draw attention to the material of the object and perception of the audience. This literary strategy in epigraphic poetry is then connected with trends in literary epigrams, which were decontextualized from an inscribed context by being gathered in literary collections. Yet, the wording makes several assertions whose level of abstraction makes them difficult to prove. Where and how can we measure the purported increase in attention to materiality and perception? How is this “reflection on the importance of context” being sustained? What does it mean for it to “enlighten the text” rather than enlightening the reader, as this verb is used in standard English? And how is the “reflection on the importance of context” engendered by the transmission of epigrams from stone to book, assuming that this is the correct interpretation of the antecedent of “which”? Much of the book is written in this highly condensed, highly abstract way, and it was very disorienting for this reader.
This is an ambitious book. It offers a broad survey of the mechanisms by which different forms of inscribed and literary epigrams communicate. It brings together some of the most important and well-known inscriptional and literary epigrams from antiquity alongside other less-discussed examples in order to offer new insights on the relationship between text and object. There are some issues of rhetorical fluency and argumentative framing, but the author shows an intimate engagement with the primary sources and scholarly literature, and, even if some of her arguments and conjectures remain unconvincing, she capably explicates texts from a wide range of eras. The book offers an impressive range of material and useful reflections on the literary elements of ancient epigraphic poetry. Scholars working on ancient epigram and ancient ekphrasis would be advised to consult it.
Works Cited
Austin, C. / Bastianini, G. 2002. Posidippi Pellaei Quae Supersunt Omnia. Milan. (= A-B)
Bühler, K. 1982 [1934]. Sprachtheorie. 2nd unrev. ed. Stuttgart / New York.
Bühler, K. 1990. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Trans. D.F. Goodwin. Amsterdam / Philadelphia.
Chaldekas, M. 2023. “Trügerischer Anschein und Nachdenken im ekphrastischen Epigramm und in der hellenistischen Philosophie,” in: A. Gerok-Reiter / M. Kovacs / V. Leppin / I. Männlein-Robert (eds.), Schein und Anschein: Dynamiken ästhetischer Praxis in der Vormoderne. Leiden / Boston: 303–42.
Christian, T. 2015. Gebildete Steine. Zur Rezeption literarischer Techniken in den Versinschriften seit dem Hellenismus. Göttingen.
Hunter, R. 2022. Greek Epitaphic Poetry: A Selection. Cambridge.
Männlein-Robert, I. 2009. “Klage im Kontext oder Allegorie hellenistischer Spolienpoetik: Überlegungen zu Kallimachos’ Sepulchrum Simonidis (frg. 64 Pf.),” in: A&A 55: 45–61.
Licciardello, F. 2022. Deixis and Frames of Reference in Hellenistic Dedicatory Epigrams. Berlin / Boston.
Parsons, P.J. / Maehler, H. / Maltomini, F. 2015. The Vienna Epigrams Papyrus (G 40611). (Corpus Papyrorum Ranieri, XXXIII.) Berlin / Boston.
Sens, A. 2020. Hellenistic Epigrams: A Selection. Cambridge.
Notes
[1] Austin / Bastianini 2002 (editio minor); Parsons et al 2015.
[2] Sens 2020; Hunter 2022. For my review of the former see BMCR 2021.11.26.
[3] E.g. Christian 2015; Licciardello 2022.
[4] I missed a reference to Männlein-Robert 2009 in the discussion of Callimachus’ Sepulchrum Simonidis (Aet. fr. 64) on p. 153. This article would have also been helpful for the discussion of spoliation in Chapter 4 (e.g. pp. 231–34). My own study of phantasia and ekphrastic epigram (Chaldekas 2023) probably appeared too late to be consulted for chapter 2.
[5] Scicolone discusses and justifies her use of terminology on pp.179–80. “Displacement” is Goodwin’s translation of Bühler’s term Versetzung, see Bühler 1982: 134 and Bühler 1990: 150.
[6] Typographical errors and misspellings are, nevertheless, relatively infrequent and rarely impede the sense. On p. 106 n. 42: “sich befand,” not “sieh befand;” p. 117 n.72: “Zanker 2004” not “2003” (repeated in an almost identical footnote on p. 124 n. 95); p.149: “long-choked” not “chocked” (spelled correctly on p. 151); p. 158–159: πνίσμα is translated as both “weft” and “woof”; p.193: “[t]he ἡμέρα τῶν ῥόδων.”