INTRODUCTION
Callimachus’ Iambus 6 is the first of a group of Iambi dedicated to divine statues (6, 7 and 9); written in Doric, the poem employs an epodic system combining iambic trimeter and ithyphallic. The same dialect and metrical structure are used in Iambus 7, which shares other similarities with the preceding iambus.
The subject of Iambus 6 has long puzzled readers. The poet takes the occasion of a friend’s departure to Olympia to describe Phidias’ masterpiece, the Olympian Zeus. However, Callimachus’ description of the statue is quite peculiar. It does not mention the majestic impression that the Zeus was said to create on its viewers. Instead, the poet seems to focus solely on technical details, listing the measurements (length, width and height) of the statue, without offering any portrayal of the iconography or account of the statue’s general appearance within the temple setting. This has sparked lively scholarly debate.
This article addresses several questions. Why does Callimachus choose this subject for his iambus? Why does he describe Phidias’ statue of Zeus in such a manner? What is the literary purpose of the poem? The article proposes an interpretation of Callimachus’ Iambus 6 that considers the poem in the broader context of his literary credos, showing how the subject was chosen to showcase Callimachus’ refined poetical skills. Engaging in a playful competition with Phidias, Callimachus offers a bare list of technical data, frustrating the public’s expectations for a poetic ekphrasis of the Zeus similar to those of divine statues found in the Iambi, the Aetia or other known examples of Hellenistic poetic ekphrasis. I argue that Callimachus refrained from offering such an ekphrasis to avoid composing a bombastic poem, which would be incongruous within the iambic collection, thus adhering to his own poetic and aesthetic principles detailed in the prologue of the Aetia.
STATVS QVAESTIONIS
The Milan Diegesis summarizes Iambus 6 as follows (7.25–31, transl. Acosta-Hughes, adapted):
‘The Zeus is of Elis, but the craft of Phidias’ | To an acquaintance of his sailing off to Elis to see the sight of Olympian Zeus, he narrates the length, height and breadth of the base, the throne, the footstool and of the god himself, and how much was the expense, and that the creator was the Athenian Phidias the son of Charmides.
The peculiar subject of the poem has long perplexed scholars.Footnote 1 Callimachus’ Iambi exhibit extraordinary variety in terms of their contents and themes, so it is not surprising that the poet devoted an iambus to the description of a statue.Footnote 2 Questions remain, however: how can we interpret the dry list of data the poet enumerates to his departing friend? And what is the literary purpose of the iambus?
Following the indications of the Diegesis, some scholars have labelled the iambus a propemptikon.Footnote 3 However, this identification is problematic,Footnote 4 since the trip of the poet’s friend is merely ‘the prophasis for the poem, not the subject’.Footnote 5 Except for the first-person address to his friend at line 45 and the abrupt close, where the poet invites him to leave (line 62), the entire iambus seems to present only a list of technical information concerning the statue of Zeus.
We cannot know whether more indicative elements of propemptika (such as blessings for the incoming voyage or wishes for a happy return) were provided by the fragmentary proemial section. However, if there were any, the Diegesis omits them, schematically listing in the summary the succession of the measurements (length, height and width)Footnote 6 of the statue. In any case, ‘tying Iambus VI to the rhetorical conventions of propemptika … is to attribute to Callimachus too narrow an understanding of the genre’.Footnote 7
On a strictly formal level, it is also unsatisfactory to regard Iambus 6 as an example of ekphrasis.Footnote 8 The meaning of ekphrasis is a debated issue:Footnote 9 ancient definitions (often referred to as ‘broad definition’) define ekphrasis on the basis of the psychological effects that the description of a given subject had on the readers. According to Theon, an ekphrastic description vividly presents the described object to the eyes of the readers; ἔκϕρασις ἐστὶ λόγος πϵριηγηματικὸς ἐναργῶς ὑπ’ ὄψιν ἄγων τὸ δηλούμϵνον.Footnote 10
Well-known examples of ancient ekphrasis include the description of the Shield of Achilles (Il. 18.478–608), the Shield of Heracles ([Hes.] Sc. 139–320), the Goatherd’s Cup (Theoc. Id. 1.27–60) or Jason’s Cloak (Ap. Rhod. 1.721–68). All of these, however, despite their differences, provide the audience or reader with a visual representation of the described piece; they comment on the shape, visual features and contents of the work, presenting it vividly, ἐναργῶς, to the eyes of their readers. By contrast, in Iambus 6 Callimachus provides no account of the iconography of the statue; he does not mention the general appearance of the Olympian Zeus, nor apparently comment on the psychological impression that the statue had on the viewers. In so far as we can infer from the text following the summary of the Diegesis, the poem must have merely displayed a list of measurements and technical details, and therefore could in no way provide a vivid, ἐναργής, representation of the workmanship of Phidias’ statue.
CairnsFootnote 11 has outlined the main features present in other examples of Hellenistic ekphrasis: a) the subjects are depicted in motion, allowing for a temporal progression and an internal narrative within the description; b) the author conveys information about the emotions of the depicted subjects, makes predictions or draws moral teachings from them; c) an (internal or external) observer other than the author is introduced; d) the author expresses awe or amazement towards the realism and the quality of the work; and e) two elements frequently present are the morbid psychology of love and luminist effects. In Iambus 6 none of these elements appear. Callimachus does not mention the god’s severe pose, seated on the throne, nor does he focus on the impact which the majestic statue must have had at first sight within the temple setting. The poet does not describe the features and the subjects of the god’s precious cloak nor does he hint at the figures and mythological scenes which adorned the statue, the sandals, the base of the throne and the screens which prevented spectators from entering the cella. Instead, Callimachus seems to provide only a list of data and technical information, more akin to a manual. The components of the statue (the base, the footstool, the Nike, the Horai, etc.) are recalled solely to provide their measurements, in relation to each other.
Such a list of data is a unique occurrence among ancient ekphraseis of works of art, especially in the Hellenistic age. Even Pausanias, who offers the most detailed description of Phidias’ statue, does not list its measurements, criticizing those who wrote them down, since these measurements fall short of the impression that the statue stirred in its viewers (see below). Similarly, the mention of the overall cost of the statue (lines 45–9?) is unusual, and unmatched in other examples of ancient ekphrasis. Considering all this, the iambus hardly fits the ancient definition of ekphrasis and contrasts with other examples of Hellenistic ekphrasis.
Positioned at a crossroads between different literary genres, Iambus 6 defies every attempt of categorization; ‘Callimachus takes a convention, pushes it to its limits, argues its consequences, and exposes its latent absurdities’.Footnote 12
PHIDIAS’ STATUE OF ZEUS: AN INDESCRIBABLE MASTERPIECE
To understand why Callimachus offers such a distinctive description of Phidias’ statue of Zeus, we must begin by considering ancient evaluations of the statue, which was regarded as Phidias’ greatest masterpiece and eventually included among the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.Footnote 13
Despite its immense ancient celebrity, we have no surviving copies of Phidias’ statue; yet we know it became a model for representations across various forms of art, as is clear from numerous plausible reminiscences on diverse materials.Footnote 14 These echoes align with a series of ancient descriptions, which preserved its memory vividly in classical literature.Footnote 15 Among these, the most detailed is provided by Pausanias (5.11.1), according to whom Zeus is depicted seated in a majestic pose, further accentuated by the contrast between the statue’s height (approximately 13 m) and the ceiling of the cella, which was just slightly higher (about 14 m).Footnote 16 In Strabo’s account (8. 3. 30), this gave the impression that, if the god had stood up, he would have burst through the ceiling of the cella. The magnificence of the statue was emphasized by numerous ancient sources, which praised Phidias’ skill in capturing the grandeur of Zeus’s divinity.Footnote 17 Some texts claim that Phidias was inspired by the description of Zeus nodding his assent to Thetis’ request.Footnote 18
The dimensions of the statue are the main focus of Callimachus’ Iambus 6, which seem to correspond to the measurements of the base and of the cella as established by the archaeological excavations at Olympia.Footnote 19 According to the Diegesis, Callimachus also mentioned the overall cost of the statue (line 45) and (probably) the artist’s signature (lines 59–61). Callimachus probably acquired these data from a technical text stored at the library of Alexandria; this would not be surprising, since he himself wrote technical treatises of different kinds (cf. Call. T 1 Pf.).
He may derive some information from a stele placed inside the temple. For instance, for the analogous case of the chryselephantine statue of the Athena Parthenos,Footnote 20 a bronze stele placed beside the statue preserved the name of the artist Phidias.Footnote 21 Fortunately, the building accounts of the statue are partly preserved and list the weight and the cost of the materials (per year) along with the names of the overseers.Footnote 22 However, the building accounts of the Athena do not provide measurements such as those found in Iambus 6, making such accounts an unlikely source for Callimachus.
This notwithstanding, we cannot rule out that these measurements were derived from a sketch of the statue by Phidias himself, who had to ensure that his gigantic statue could fit into the temple cella. To organize his work, Phidias set up a workshop near the temple of Zeus, whose dimensions matched those of the cella.Footnote 23 It is therefore probable that Phidias created a preparatory draft of the statue, which could have also included the dimensions of its various components (base, throne, etc.).
We are aware of some ancient treatises that documented highly detailed and technical information related to works of art; in most cases, artists explained and justified the proceedings of their works and the results they achieved.Footnote 24 For sculpture, the most renowned example is Polyclitus’ Canon, which presented a complex series of calculations and formulas utilized to achieve perfect symmetrical proportions, the results of his work for the Doryphorus.Footnote 25 Following his example, others composed praecepta symmetriarum (for example Silanion or Euphranor of Corinth).
It is not implausible, therefore, that Phidias himself documented the measurements of his Zeus. This idea gains further corroboration if, assuming that Mallwitz’s calculations are correct, Callimachus did really employ the so-called ‘pheidonian’ foot (roughly 327 mm) as a metric reference system, reflecting the unit of measurement probably also used by Phidias.Footnote 26
DESCRIBING THE INDESCRIBABLE
Iambus 6 is therefore a unique specimen; on the one hand it describes a work of art, yet on the other it does not. Moreover, the poet does not seem to have expressed any aesthetic judgement on the statue. Several interpretations have been proposed, which I will summarize here:
-
1) PfeifferFootnote 27 believes that the addressee of Iambus 6 ‘enjoyed the useful information, as well as the workmanship of the poem, felt the touch of irony and understood the fun’. The poet would therefore have provided his friend with some ‘touristic’ information, albeit loaded with ironic undertones; ‘he avoided any sort of flabby rhetoric, he aimed at precise facts’.
-
2) ZankerFootnote 28 considers Iambus 6 an example of pictorial poetry, a ‘monstrous display of erudition’. The poet would make his friend’s trip to Olympia pointless, since the description of Phidias’ Zeus would already be provided by his own poem.
-
3) SchmidtFootnote 29 asserts that Callimachus adopts the persona loquens of an Elean ‘tourist guide’, speaking in Doric, and thinks that the poem is a bitter satire addressed against the ‘exteriorization and materialization of art and the divine’.Footnote 30
-
4) ManakidouFootnote 31 interprets the poem as an example of docta poesis, in which Callimachus demonstrates his technical abilities; ‘the poet’s erudition is evident in the collection of specialized knowledge about the work, and his virtuosity in the way he introduces this non-poetic material into poetry … it realizes the ideal of learned Callimachean poetry as a whole’.Footnote 32
-
5) KerkheckerFootnote 33 shares the idea of the poet’s ironic intent but thinks that the target of this irony is the poet himself; ‘Callimachus laughs at himself; his interest is in the pedant’s cast of mind’.Footnote 34
-
6) PetrovicFootnote 35 proposes an allegorical interpretation of Iambus 6. Phidias’ Zeus would be the metaphorical representation of Homer, whose poetry would be sarcastically described (and mocked) by the speaker persona loquens, one of the Telchines, speaking in Doric as the Telchines were traditionally linked to Rhodes or Crete.
What unites all these interpretations is the idea that Iambus 6 is fundamentally ironic. A certain irony is difficult to deny,Footnote 36 especially when considering the disparity between the subject of the iambus and its blend of high and low style. Noteworthy is the contrast between a remarkable expressive richness (as evidenced by Callimachus’ extreme variety in listing the measurements to avoid monotony: 25 πέντϵ τ̣ϵ̣[τ]ρ[άκι]ν̣ [πο]δῶν̣, 26 ἐς ἰθύ, 27 τϵτράδωρα, 28 παλασταί, 31 τρὶς ἐς τὸ μακρόν, 32 ἴκατιν δ’ ἐς ϵὖρος) and some more colloquial and informal expressions.Footnote 37 Both the irony and the juxtaposition of high and low style are not novel elements in Callimachus’ Iambi. However, no-one has analysed the ironic undertones of the poem by interpreting them within the broader issue haunting Callimachus’ Iambus 6: the reason why Callimachus chose this specific subject and wrote such an unconventional poem about it.
So, let us return to the question with which we began. Why does Callimachus offer such a description of Phidias’ statue of Zeus? How can we interpret the list of measurements the poet presents to his departing addressee (and his readers)? First, as Acosta-Hughes says: ‘The description of Pheidias’ huge chryselephantine sculpture in a collection of iambic poems is in and of itself a declaration, a positioning of the poet in regard to expected and traditional delimitations of the elevated and the unelevated.’Footnote 38 Callimachus seizes the opportunity of a friend departing for Olympia to depict Phidias’ masterpiece. However, the choice of subject posed a challenge: how could the poet describe a work of art whose beauty was said to have encapsulated the god’s very divine essence? Crafting a literary ekphrasis of the statue, akin to other Hellenistic examples such as the Goatherd’s Cup or Jason’s Cloak (see above, page 309), would entail composing ‘loudly-resounding’ poetry (μέγα ψοϕέουσα), precisely what Callimachus rejects (cf. Aet. fr. 1.19–20 Pf.).
The poet therefore devises a method to convey to his departing friend a visual representation of Phidias’ magnificent creation while simultaneously avoiding describing it according to the features of Hellenistic ekphrasis outlined by Cairns, to avoid the risk of writing a bombastic poem. To achieve this, he conveys the grandeur of Phidias’ work by simply listing its measurements and dimensions, which would have left visitors to the temple awestruck, especially considering the visual contrast with the size of the cella. This reading of Iambus 6 seems to be corroborated by two ancient sources dealing with Callimachus’ poem. In a debated passage, Pausanias (5.11.9, transl. Jones) writes:
μέτρα δὲ τοῦ ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ Διὸς ἐς ὕψος τϵ καὶ ϵὖρος ἐπιστάμϵνος γϵγραμμένα οὐκ ἐν ἐπαίνῳ θήσομαι τοὺς μϵτρήσαντας, ἐπϵὶ καὶ τὰ ϵἰρημένα αὐτοῖς μέτρα πολύ τι ἀποδέοντά ἐστιν ἢ τοῖς ἰδοῦσι παρέστηκϵν ἐς τὸ ἄγαλμα δόξα, ὅπου γϵ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν θϵὸν μάρτυρα ἐς τοῦ Φϵιδίου τὴν τέχνην γϵνέσθαι λέγουσιν.
I know that the height and breadth of the Olympic Zeus have been measured and recorded; but I shall not praise those who made the measurements, for even their records fall far short of the impression made by a sight of the image. Nay, the god himself according to legend bore witness to the artistic skill of Phidias.
Pausanias’ criticism is generic, but Callimachus himself was probably his target.Footnote 39 Pausanias did not consider the possibility that Callimachus was ironic and disapproves of those who had written down the measurements precisely because they failed to catch the majesty of Phidias’ statue. Thus, merely presenting a list of its measurements fails to provide a vivid representation of the overarching magnificence and splendour of the Olympian Zeus.
Lucian may also direct a satirical remark towards Callimachus’ Iambus 6 (Hist. conscr. 27, transl. Kilburn):
ϵἰσὶ γάρ τινϵς, οἳ τὰ μϵγάλα μὲν τῶν πϵπραγμένων καὶ ἀξιομνημόνϵυτα παραλϵίπουσιν ἢ παραθέουσιν, ὑπὸ δὲ ἰδιωτϵίας καὶ ἀπϵιροκαλίας καὶ ἀγνοίας τῶν λϵκτέων ἢ σιωπητέων τὰ μικρότατα πάνυ λιπαρῶς καὶ ϕιλοπόνως ἑρμηνϵύουσιν ἐμβραδύνοντϵς, ὥσπϵρ ἂν ϵἴ τις τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ τὸ μὲν ὅλον κάλλος τοσοῦτο καὶ τοιοῦτο ὂν μὴ βλέποι μηδὲ ἐπαινοίη μηδὲ τοῖς οὐκ ϵἰδόσιν ἐξηγοῖτο, τοῦ ὑποποδίου δὲ τό τϵ ϵὐθυϵργὲς καὶ τὸ ϵὔξϵστον θαυμάζοι καὶ τῆς κρηπῖδος τὸ ϵὔρυθμον, καὶ ταῦτα πάνυ μϵτὰ πολλῆς ϕροντίδος διϵξιών.
There are some who leave out or skate over the important and interesting events, and from lack of education, taste and knowledge of what to mention and what to ignore dwell very fully and laboriously on the most insignificant happenings; this is like failing to observe and praise and describe for those who do not know it the entire grandeur and supreme quality of the Zeus at Olympia, and instead admiring the ‘good workmanship’ and ‘good finish’ of the footstool and the ‘good proportions’ of the base, and developing all this with great concern.
Lucian seems to have criticized Callimachus along similar lines as Pausanias; the focus on minor details fails to capture the overall magnificence of Phidias’ statue.
It is indeed plausible that this was precisely the intention behind Callimachus’ Iambus 6: portraying a majestic statue without resorting to a literary ekphrasis akin to the other Hellenistic examples we have seen above and, therefore, attempting to describe an indescribable work of art without creating an excessively grandiose poem, which would not align with the tone of the iambic collection. The criticism offered by both Lucian and Pausanias suggests that the iambus aimed to provide readers with an image of the majesty of Phidias’ statue of Zeus, an effort which these authors deemed unsuccessful.
IAMBUS 6: A HUMOROUS DIVERTISSEMENT
Neither Lucian nor Pausanias, however, takes the humorous tones of the poem into consideration. A certain humour lies in the contrast between the content of the iambus and its (failing) ‘descriptive’ purpose, as hinted by the mixture of high and low style. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, irony plays a pivotal role and can be discerned at different levels: 1) Initially, an ironic undertone can be detected in the implicit comparison with the poetic manifesto of the Aetia prologue (see below); Callimachus engages in a self-challenge, selecting the grandest subject for his iambus and attempting to describe it without composing a bombastic poem. This intriguing challenge showcases his poetic prowess. 2) Secondly, Callimachus engages in a playful exchange with his addressee (and consequently his readers too), who probably anticipated a literary ekphrasis of the statue akin to other Hellenistic ekphraseis. By subverting this expectation, Callimachus stirs his friend’s curiosity (cf. line 45) to see the statue first-hand.Footnote 40 3) At a third level, an ironic mockery is directed towards the aforementioned genre of technical treatises. Callimachus subtly pokes fun at the technical jargon of these treatises, while describing Phidias’ masterpiece whose magnificence contrast with Callimachus’ own aesthetic and poetical beliefs.
One might object that Callimachus dedicates several verses to Zeus in the eponymous Hymn, where he employs a more solemn style. Would it be legitimate, then, to interpret Iambus 6 in the light of the aesthetic beliefs declared in the Aetia prologue? However, Callimachus frequently declares his aesthetic and poetical credos elsewhere. In the Iambi Callimachus shields himself from the criticisms of his quarrelsome colleagues, defending the license of ranging between different literary genres and styles (cf. Iamb. 13.30–3 [fr. 203 Pf.]).
Concerning the Hymns, we may refer to the closing section the Hymn to Apollo (105–13) where the poet defends his poetry against the criticisms of his opponents. This passage exhibits remarkable similarities with the Aetia prologue.Footnote 41 Furthermore, the Hymn to Zeus represents a distinct case, as it belongs to a different genre, which necessitated a more solemn style. In addition, if the aesthetic beliefs expressed in the prologue pertain to the Aetia, they should also be valid for the Iambi, a humbler genre, as Callimachus himself states at the end of the Aetia (fr. 112.9 Pf., πϵζὸν … νομόν).Footnote 42
Furthermore, in Iamb. 7 and 9 Callimachus provides references to the iconography of the statues; however, both are of a humbler nature compared to the grandeur of Phidias’ Zeus, the first being a wooden xoanon (Iamb. 7) and the second an ithyphallic statue of Hermes (Iamb. 9). Ekphraseis of divine statues were also included in the Aetia; see for instance Aet. fr. 114 Pf., where Callimachus describes the iconography of the statue of Delian Apollo.Footnote 43 Nothing similar to these ekphraseis can be recognized in Iambus 6.
Additionally, as seen above, an aura of indescribability surrounded Phidias’ Zeus; by choosing this work as subject of his iambus, the poet must find a way of providing a description without writing a bombastic poem, respecting his own poetical and aesthetic beliefs. He does so by focussing on the measurements and other technical details. This would align with another Callimachean poetic custom; the special focus the poet reserves to minor or less known details. In the Hecale, for example, the poet apparently dedicated little space to Theseus’ deeds, instead focussing on the description of Hecale’s daily routine.Footnote 44 Besides, as he states once again in the prologue of the Aetia (fr. 1.25–8 Pf.), Apollo himself invited him to follow paths untrodden by others.Footnote 45 And the pedantic focus on details is precisely what leads Lucian to reproach Callimachus, as we have seen earlier (see also Hist. conscr. 57).Footnote 46
CONCLUSION: A MATTER OF TECHNÊ
The iambus can be interpreted as a literary game through which the poet exhibits his virtuoso poetic skills by transforming a dry list of data and technical information into verses. The poem begins by emphasizing Phidias’ craftsmanship (τέχνη), a term that holds significant importance in Callimachus’ literary beliefs, being the criterion by which the poet invites his readers to judge poetry (Aet. fr. 1.17–18 Pf.). The term aids us to understand Callimachus’ Iambus 6. The poet indulges in a humorous divertissement, taking the occasion of a friend’s departure to tantalize readers with a (missed) description of an iconic statue that had become the example of the earthly representation of Zeus. This playful intent operates on multiple levels: through the poetic sleight of hand that upholds the poet’s literary principles, the frustration of the audience’s literary anticipations and the plausible mockery directed towards the technical jargon of treatises. The poem stands as a testament to Callimachus’ poetic prowess; if it is true that ‘the poet indulged in a tour de force … displaying τέχνη rather than ἐνθουσιασμός’Footnote 47 one cannot help but marvel at his ability to transform such a technical subject into verse.
Open access
