panthea.pdf

7/30/2019 PANTHEA.pdf

1/7

Panthea: Lucian and Ideal Beauty

Author(s): Robert I. EdenbaumSource: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Autumn, 1966), pp. 65-70Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for AestheticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/428885 .

Accessed: 16/04/2013 04:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and The American Society for Aesthetics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 04:06:48 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tasfahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/428885?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/428885?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tasfahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/7

ROBERT I. EDENBAUM

Panthea: L u c i a n a n d I d e a l B e a u t y

PLINY in his Natural History (XXXV, 64)says that Zeuxis, before painting a pictureof Hera which was to be dedicated in oneof her temples, "inspected the maidens ofthe city naked, and chose out five, whosepeculiar beauties he proposed to repro-duce in his picture." E. Sellers, in theintroduction to her edition of Pliny's chap-ters on art, comments that this anecdote il-lustrates the idea that, in the words ofFrancis Bacon, "there is no excellentbeauty, that hath not some strangeness inthe proportions"; that is, that concomitantwith every beauty in nature, there is a cor-responding defect, and that an eternalideal of beauty can be obtained only bythe most painstaking care in selection. Lu-cian of Samosata, in his dialogue Eikones,which is concerned with speculation onideal beauty, subscribes to the latter partof this view but, since his work is a panegy-ric to a lady (and the emperor's mistress atthat), substitutes for beauty in nature aselection of the most perfect characteristicsfrom the most beautiful works of art evercreated, the result to rival the beauty ofthe lady Panthea. Perhaps, by examina-tion of the painters and sculptors Lucianmentions, we can arrive at an approxima-tion of the ideal beauty he proposes and,at the very least, at a decision as to whetherhis compound would indeed be a magnifi-cent creation or an ugly hybrid of unre-lated features and discordant qualities.Since the additions from literary sourceswhich Lucian proposes for his composite areROBERT. EDENBAUMs an associate professor of Eng-lish at Temple University.

little more than irrelevant lyric rhapsodieson the statue and/or Panthea herself-e.g.,the "sawn ivory" teeth which he wouldborrow from Homer would be singularlyinappropriate in a closed Phidian mouth-I will concentrate on her painted andsculptured characteristics to the exclusionof Homer, Pindar, Sappho, and others.For his details Lucian calls on five worksby four sculptors-Praxiteles's Aphroditeof Cnidos, Alcamenes's Aphrodite in theGardens, Phidias's Lemnian Athena andan unidentified Amazon, and Calamis'sSosandra on the Acropolis in Athens-andon the work of four painters-Euphranor'sHera, Polygnotus's Cassandra, Apelles'sPacate, and Aetion's Roxana. Because ofthe severe limitations on modern knowl-edge of Greek painting, it would be almostimpossible to reconstruct painted elementsin the composite; however, since they aresubordinate (Lycinus, Lucian's spokesmanin the dialogue, has to be reminded of hisomission by his protagonist, Polystratus)and are limited to color alone, the recon-struction will not be exceptionally handi-capped. We can cull some small amountof information from direct and indirectliterary sources and need not be concernedwith scholarly investigations into the lim-ited evidence of painting still extant invases, reliefs, and other suggested paral-lels. Briefly, then, painting.Once Lycinus completes his sculpturedmonument, Polystratus calls him to taskfor failing to include an important beauty,that of painting, in his composite. Hesays,

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

ROBERT I. EDENBAUMIt is not the most unimportant, my friend, unlessyou will maintain that perfection of form is butlittle enhanced by color and appropriateness in eachdetail, so that just those parts will be black whichshould be black and those white which should be,and the flush of life will glow upon the surface, andso forth...Lycinus complies and answers that theyshallcall in the painters, of course, and particularly thosewho excelled in mixing their colors and in applyingthem judiciously ... Let Euphranor color the hairas he painted Hera's: let Polygnotus do the becom-ingness of her brows and the faint flush of hercheeks, just as he did Cassandra in the Lesche atDelphi, and let him also do her clothing, whichshall be of the most delicate texture, so that it notonly clings close where it should, but a great deal ofit floats in the air. The body Apelles shall representafter the manner of his Pacate, not too white butjust suffused with red; and her lips shall be done byAetion like Roxana's.

Euphranor is mentioned by Pliny, whosays he flourished 364-361 B.C. and had"mastered the theory of symmetry; hemade the body, however, too slim and thehead and limbs too large" (Nat. Hist.XXXV, 129). Pliny merely mentions theTwelve Gods in the portico of the Templeof Zeus Eleutherius at Athens, of whichthe Hera was one, but does comment thatEuphranor was "severe in his scheme ofcoloring." However, since Pliny also saysthat Euphranor was a contemporary ofPraxiteles and, since archeological scholarsseem to agree on the extremely close rela-tion of Greek painting to sculpture, itseems likely that Pliny meant his remarkrelative to the period in which Euphranorworked. As we shall see shortly, Euphranorcannot possibly have been hampered byearlier, pre-Apollodorian limitations; thusthe "severe scheme of coloring" would notbe out of keeping with the typically Greekmoderation which controls Lucian's criticaljudgments.Concerning Polygnotus (Pliny: fi. 420-417 B.C.) we learn little from Pausanias,though he does mention the particularpainting used by Lucian. Pausanias (De-scription of Greece, 10,26,3) says no morethan that the Cassandra in the Lesche atDelphi is "seated on the ground and hold-ing fast the wooden statue of Athene, forshe tore it from its base, when Ajax

dragged her away from the altar." Pliny,though he does not mention this work, doessay of Polygnotus (XXXV, 58) that he"first painted women with transparentgarments and gave them headdresses ofvarious colors. This artist made a first seri-ous contribution to the development ofpainting by opening the mouth, showingthe teeth, and varying the stiff, archaic setof the features." The fact that Polygnotuspainted transparent garments is particu-larly relevant; it will prove helpful laterwhen we try to arrive at a decision con-cerning the nature of the drapery whichLucian selects from the Sosandra of Cala-mis.Pliny summons up a considerably moreinvolved question in quoting Theophras-tus to the effect that Polygnotus first intro-duced painting into Greece from Egypt.Sellers says that Theophrastus meant that"Polygnotus was the first painter whocould be properly so called; writing doubt-less under the influence of Aristotle's ad-miration for the ethical qualities of thisartist." Aristotle in the Poetics (11,2)said ofPolygnotus that he "depicted men as noblerthan they are" and "delineated characterwell" compared to "the style of Zeuxis[which] is devoid of ethical quality" (VI,2). Sellers sees in these remarks and inAristotle's further statement that "the mostbeautiful colors, laid on confusedly, willnot give as much pleasure as the chalk out-line of a portrait" (VI, 15), a marked "pre-dilection for the pre-Apollodorian Polygno-tus." And, finally, she quotes Dionysius ofHalicarnassus in a statement which throwsadditional light on Lucian's composite:

In ancient painting the scheme of coloring wassimple and presented no variety in the tones; butthe line was rendered with exquisite perfection...This purity of draughtsmanship was gradually lost;its place was taken by a learned technique, by thedifferentiation of light and shade, by the fullresources of the rich coloring to which the works ofthe later artists owe their strength.Polygnotus, perhaps among the last of thepre-Apollodorian painters and thereforenot yet under the influence of Apollo-dorus's innovations, was still fairly simplein his approach. Lucian was apparently im-pressed by the contrasts of hair and flesh

66



4/7

Panthea: Lucian and Ideal Beautyachieved by Praxiteles (for, as we shall seelater, it is Praxiteles who will supply bothhair and brow to the ideal beauty). Eu-phranor's post-Apollodorian treatment oflight and shadow will serve to strengthenand intensify corresponding Praxiteleanhighlights, and Polygnotus's pre-Apollodor-ian simplicity will supply the subtle "flushof life" to brow and cheek.Both Apelles and Aetion, according toPliny, flourished 332-329 B.C., and hecomments that they used only four colors-white, yellow, red, and black. Sellersadds that this is considerably "more elabo-rate than anything attempted in the pe-riod of Polygnotus," who apparently usedas many colors but "used them pure orknew but few combinations." Pliny, pri-marily concerned with Apelles's delicateprecision in handling line, says littleabout color, though he does discuss a par-ticular glaze Apelles used to "prevent thebrilliance of the colors from offending theeyes-the effect was as when they arelooked at through talc,-and also thatwhen seen at a distance those which werevivid to excess might be imperceptiblytoned down." Once again, then, a balanc-ing contrast will come into play in theLucian composite; Polygnotus, it will beremembered, is to do not only the browand cheek but the "delicate texture" of herclothing against which will be set off thelater, more brilliant, but carefully sub-dued, tones of the body by Apelles-"nottoo white but just suffused with red."And finally, for Aetion, the last of thepainters, we have only the fact that Lucianhimself seems to have been particularlytaken by The Marriage of Alexander andRoxana, from which he selected the lips.Lucian describes the painting at somelength in a short piece called Herodotusand Acetion. Unfortunately, he says noth-ing about it stylistically but merely de-scribes Alexander and Roxana surroundedby Loves who carry the King's armor anddrag the lovers together. But perhaps thatdescription is enough to indicate thebaroque, Hellenistic character of the workand the freedom-not necessarily bene-ficial-under which the painter worked.To return to the beginning of Eikones

67and the more important sculptural ele-ments in the portrait of Panthea: Lycinustells Polystratus that he will "make a com-bination as best I can, and shall display toyou a single portrait-statue that compriseswhatever is most exquisite in each."From the Cnidian he takes only the head, as thebody, which is unclothed, will not meet his needs.He will allow the arrangement of the hair, theforehead and the fair line of the brows to remain asPraxiteles made them; and ... the eyes also . . . Buthe will take the round of the cheeks and all the forepart of the face from Alcamenes. . so too the hands,the graceful wrists, and the supple tapering fingers.But the contour of the entire face, the delicate sidesof it, and the shapely nose will be supplied by theLemnian Athena and by Phidias, and the masterwill also furnish the meeting of the lips, and theneck, taking these from his Amazon. Sosandra andCalamis shall adorn her with modesty, and her smileshall be grave and faint like that of Sosandra, fromwhom shall come also the simplicity and seemlinessof her drapery.Since Lucian mentions the particularwork in each case, it would certainly bedesirable to examine photographs of theoriginals or of identified copies, if theyexist, and only to resort to tabulations ofgeneralized characteristics as a last resort.In respect to two of the sculptors withwhom we have to deal, the problem ofattribution is a huge and much-besiegedbarrier which becomes an all but insur-mountable obstacle. We shall have todecide, in connection with each of the sculp-tors, which characteristics are in agree-ment with known features of the particu-lar artist's work. Thus we should be ableto come to conclusions in respect to theelements selected by Lucian in discussingparticular originals or replicas and, at thesame time, to avoid questions of attribu-tion.With Alcamenes we come upon an espe-cially confused variety of conjectures andattributions. Perhaps the earliest item inthe confusion stems from Pliny himself,who calls Alcamenes a rival of Phidias in achronological table and his pupil else-where. ("It is certain that Phidias was theteacher of Alcamenes the Athenian"XXXVI, 16.) Too, Pausanias credits Al-camenes with the West Pediment of theTemple of Zeus at Olympia and, since thetemple has been dated ca. 460-450 B.C.,



5/7

68makes him a close contemporary, ratherthan a pupil, of Phidias. One solution thathas been suggested by scholars relegatesthis reference to another, earlier Alca-menes; other scholars reject Pausanias, onall counts, as completely unreliable. Athird suggestion (made, notably, by SirCharles Walston) grants Alcamenes ratherlong life: a birthdate of 490/480 B.C. andcontinued production as late as 403 B.C. Iam reluctant to concur with many ofWalston's extraordinary deductions, andthe mere possibility of so wide a range ofactivity complicates matters considerably.Was the Aphrodite in the Gardens Transi-tional, Phidian, or post-Phidian (andtherefore moving towards the new style ofthe fourth century)? The question is cer-tainly not irrelevant to this paper.One thing seems clear: Alcamenes wasof the School of Phidias, characterized, ifto a limited extent, by something ofPhidias's Doric grandeur and simplicity.Even if he took his own direction at thebeginning of the classical period (say, 450B.C.), it is unlikely that he shed all ele-ments of Doric influence learned from-orwith-Phidias. And even if the much-disputed Venus Genetrix in the Louvrepoints (as Walston and others assert) to-wards Praxiteles in the calculated exposureof feminine charms in its clinging, almosttransparent drapery, it points back, too, tosomething of Phidian clarity in the ratherbroad face, heavily accented eyelids, roundchin, full mouth, and sharply delineatednose. Whether this is a copy after Alca-menes or not (Furtwangler, a long timeago, considered the attribution definite), itmay be enough for the purpose of thispaper that the styles of Alcamenes andPhidias were close enough to exhibitstrongly similar facial characteristics. In-deed, it is interesting that, in respect to theface of his Panthea, the elements Lucianselects from Phidias and Alcamenes arecontiguous: that is, from Phidias he takes"the contour of the entire face, the deli-cate sides of it, and the shapely nose" and,from Alcamenes, "the round of the cheeksand all the fore part of the face." The onlydifference possible is in some indefinablegrace, some subtlety of curve, some firm-

ROBERT I. EDENBAUMness of line which would further enhancethe ideal of feminine beauty. The impor-tant fact, I think, is that Phidias and Al-camenes have in common the avoidance ofindividualized emotion, for which theysubstitute the spirit of aloof and simplegrandeur. To resort to our primary sourceagain, Pliny indirectly testifies to the prox-imity of the Phidian and Alcamenean styleswhen he says (XXXVI, 16), "Phidias him-self is said to have put the finishing toucheson Alcamenes's Aphrodite in the Gardens."Concerning Calamis (ca. 480-440 B.C.)there is still less indisputable data thanfor Alcamenes. E. A. Gardner quotesCicero and Quintilian to the effect thatCalamis still had something of the archaichardness and stiffness in his style; Diony-sius of Halicarnassus, however, speaks ofthe delicacy and grace of his style. Sincethe information on this sculptor is so scant,I am forced to summarize scholarly opin-ion. Gardner and others agree that Calamiscame just before the period of greatestachievement in Greek art, just prior toPhidias. Lucian would use elements of theSosandra (says Gardner) not for perfectionof feature or for particular skill but forher expression and drapery, which are themost impressive qualities of earlier Atticsculpture. Calamis, then, may represent theperfection of the "pure Attic style" whilePhidias shows considerable Doric influ-ence. (Considering the variety of styleswhich affected Attic sculpture, I am not atall sure of the value of this use of thephrase "pure Attic style." The more preva-lent use of the phrase to indicate the com-plete and perfect fusion of the Doric andIonian in the Athens of ca. 450 B.C. isconsiderably more meaningful.) To con-clude Gardner's argument, he suggests thatthe bronze charioteer from Delphi may bethe work of Calamis or at least indicativeof the tendency of Calamis's work. Now,though Lucian's words referring to thedrapery he selects are variously translated"simplicity and seemliness" and "trim andmodest," I tend to doubt that this wouldindicate the extremely severe and brittle,if also extremely careful and varied, flutingof the charioteer's drapery. On the otherhand, attributions of the so-called Venus



6/7

Panthea: Lucian and Ideal BeautyGenetrix to Calamis (by Percy Gardner,for example) would not seem to followLucian's "trim and modest folds of hergarment." The all but invisible chiton onthe Genetrix is anything but modest (or"seemly," if you prefer). If we were con-structing our own composite we might ac-cept some compromise between the twoextremes: the astonishing treatment of thefolds on the arms of the charioteer blendedwith the "delicacy and grace" of theGenetrix chiton. Since we cannot so inter-fere with Lucian, the problem had best beleft. Finally, there is the apparent contra-diction in Lucian himself: the garment isto be modest but, at the same time, it is tobe painted by Polygnotus "of the most deli-cate texture, so that it not only clings closewhere it should, but a great deal of it floatsin the air." (You will recall that Pliny callsPolygnotus the first to paint transparentclothing.) Lucian apparently saw no contra-diction in his specifications; although ourseverely limited knowledge of Calamisdenies us the right to contradict Lucian, italso denies us additional information inreconstructing his composite.

Considering general agreement on thegenuineness of the Kaufmann CollectionAphrodite as a replica of the CnidianAphrodite, Praxiteles poses fewer difficul-ties than do Alcamenes and Calamis. TheKaufmann head, in conjunction with thepossibly original Petworth (Leconfield)head and several other fairly certain origi-nals (e.g., the one in the collection of theMuseum of Fine Arts, Boston) should en-able us to arrive at a fairly accurate con-ception of the Praxiteles Aphrodite.The Kaufmann head portrays a ratheryoung woman with a dreamy, almost va-cant expression on her face; a peculiartwist to her neck serves to increase thesense that she is not looking at anything inparticular. The effect is of serene and gen-tle passivity. The face is plump rather thanoval; the cheeks are full, marked by analmost voluptuous softness of outline andcontour. The forehead is almost triangu-lar-as in all Praxitelean and pseudo-Praxitelean heads-with the hair shapeddown to and covering the tips of the earsfrom the peak of the forehead triangle. The

69hair is parted in the middle and worksback along the temples in rich, wavymasses. The surface of the hair is ex-tremely rough (though not as rough asthat of the Hermes holding Dionysius) andalmost impressionistic in the manipulationof effects of light and shadow; thus thecontrast between the forehead and hair issharp. The mouth is soft, the lips not somuch full and sensual as suggestive ofsensuality because slightly apart.The Praxitelean female heads are allcharacterized by the forehead protuberanceso noticeable on the Hermes, though notto such an exaggerated degree. Partly be-cause of the protuberance, since it throwsthe eyes into heavy shadow, the eyes seemdeeply set; the transition from brow to eyeis gentle, gradual; the lower lid is consid-erably less accentuated than the upper andthis, too, increases the soft, dreamy qualityof the expression.Lucian was obliged to keep the Praxi-telean forehead if he wanted the hair, andvice versa; since the hairline, forehead,and brows work as a unit, Lucian shows acareful regard for consistency in retainingall these elements from one sculptor, par-ticularly since that sculptor is Praxiteles.It is interesting to note the items Luciandoes not take from Praxiteles: the wholelower half of the face-the too-heavy chin,the parted lips, and perhaps too-full con-tour-and, perhaps most important of all,the body, the S-curve of which, though cer-tainly less objectionable in a statue of awoman than in the Hermes is, neverthe-less, redolent of an eroticism not at allbefitting an ideal beauty, much less theconcubine of Lucian's emperor.Though some scholars raise objections tothe identification of the Bologna andDresden Athenas as replicas of Phidias'sLemnian Athena, it is certainly repre-sentative enough of Phidian characteristicsto serve our purpose. These heads displayshort, wavy hair carefully articulated inheavy masses from the part in the centerto the forehead and tips of the ears. Theforehead is smooth, bare of the raisedareas later typical of Praxiteles. The linesof the brows, sharp and thin but extremelydelicate, continue without interruption



7/7

70into the lines of a sharply delineated nose;thus, without the gradual transition ofbrow to eye in Praxiteles, the eyes are notdeeply shadowed and, again unlike Praxi-teles, both upper and lower lids arestrongly accentuated. The extremely hand-some, well-modelled nose is high and firmand strong, the nostrils flared wide thoughnot to any loss of grace. None of the high-lights of the face-cheekbones, forehead,chin-are excessively prominent but,rather, are insisted upon by the most deli-cate of softly curved lines. The lips areclosed, slightly pouting in the extremeseriousness of the expression of the face;the lips are particularly difficult to de-scribe because, though certainly not sen-sual, they are heavy and probably the mostfeminine feature in an otherwise boyishlyyouthful face. The head is an almost per-fect oval and the chin, which can so easilybecome heavy in an attempt at strength, isboth delicate and strong. The neck is long,graceful, almost tubular. The expression,again, is more than serious, almost sol-emnly contemplative. The face is idealizedbut, for all that, more beautiful and morealive than the fleshy "realism" of Praxi-teles.It will be remembered that Lucian takes"the contour of the entire face, the delicatesides of it, and the shapely nose" from theLemnian Athena and the "meeting of thelips, and the neck" from Phidias's Amazon.These last we may assume to follow theLemnian characteristics closely (cf. theheads of the Naples and Villa Albani Ama-zons). Lucian did not use the body of the

ROBERT I. EDENBAUMAthena Lemnia; this, like the face, is moreboyish than not; neither hips or breastsare accentuated but only partly because ofthe heavy drapery which conceals ratherthan reveals body and legs. The featureswhich Lucian does use-oval contour, mag-nificent nose, full lips-are among the mostexciting Phidian characteristics. In myestimation they would in no way conflictwith the Praxitelean elements in Lucian'scomposite.By now the limitations of this attemptedreconstruction of Lucian's ideal must beapparent. But I think it apparent, too,even with all the handicaps of our limitedknowledge, that Lucian was a highly per-ceptive critic whose composite would notat all be the bizarre hybrid it might havebeen. He knew better than to set deepPraxitelean eyes beneath a smooth Phidianbrow, or Phidian lips in a Praxitelean jaw.If the fifth century synthesis of Doric andIonian elements in Greek art can becalled "pure Attic style" perhaps Lucian'ssynthesis of fifth and fourth century ele-ments can be called "pure Greek style."Though he lived five centuries after thehigh point of Greek artistic achievementhe was still a Greek and, for a while, asculptor, and perceptive enough to isolatethe ideal elements in an ideal artistic age.From what we know and from what wecan gather, there would be nothing dis-cordant in Lucian's composite of Panthea.And perhaps, from what we do know, wecan accept Lucian's judgments on what wedo not know on a reasonably secure foun-dation of faith.

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 04:06:48 AMAll bj t t JSTOR T d C diti

panthea.pdf

Documents