Epigrams on Works of Art 153phrastic epigrams”^11. Both terms are incorrect. The error results from blindly
relying on the classification system that modern editions adopt in presenting
the epigrams of the Greek Anthology. These editions basically present the
epigrams in the same order as they are found in the Palatine manuscript, and
ignore the textual evidence of other sources. The problem here is that scribes B,
who copied the second part of the anthology of Cephalas, made use of a
manuscript that had a serious lacuna between AP IX, 583 and 584. Fortunate-
ly, with the help of the Planudean Anthology and the so-called syllogae minores,
we can reconstruct what this part of the anthology of Cephalas originally
looked like. Originally there were two separate books: (IXa) epideictic epi-
grams (AP IX, 1–583) and (IXb) epigrams on works of art (APl 32–387 + a
number of epigrams found in the syllogae minores + AP IX, 584–822)^12. As the
two books were clearly separated in the original Cephalas, it is obviously
incorrect to label the epigrams on works of art “epideictic”, for the term
“epideictic epigram” only refers to AP IXa (nos. 1–583), and not to AP IXb
where the epigrams on works of art are found. Since the Cephalan title and
prooemium to the book of epigrams on works of art are missing in the Palatine
manuscript (because of the lacuna in the exemplar that the scribes used), we do
not know which term Cephalas used for these epigrams. But it is highly
unlikely that he would have labelled the epigrams on works of art “ecphrastic”.
First of all, none of the Byzantine sources use this term. In his anthology
Planudes introduces the epigrams as follows: “this fourth book, containing the
epigrams on statues of gods and men, pictures of animals and sites, is divided
into the following sections: images of honourable men, etc.”. Although
Planudes was one of the leading rhetoricians of his time, he does not employ the
technical term “ekphrasis” for this kind of epigrammatic poetry, but rather
vaguely refers to ™pigr1mmata eœß ... Secondly, the rhetorical exercise of
Çkórasiß is not a plain description of art, as many people appear to think, but
involves much more. In the second volume of this book the formal aspects of
literary ekphraseis in verse will be discussed. One of these aspects is the sheer
length of such poems as a result of the large-scale development of ecphrastic
themes in terms of emotional depth and narrative width. As epigrams on works
of art are usually quite short, they only rarely display this sort of rhetorical
elaboration^13.
**
*
(^11) The term is used by many scholars. I regret to say that I, too, adopted this term in my
dissertation: The Byzantine Epigram in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. Amsterdam
1994, 21–70.
(^12) See LAUXTERMANN 1998c: 526–527. See also chapter 3, pp. 85–86.
(^13) See LAUXTERMANN 1998c: 528–529.