Ekphrasis and the Other (Mitchell

7/24/2019 Ekphrasis and the Other (Mitchell

1/21

EKPHRASIS AND THE OTHER

W. J. T. MITCHELL

Tomado de: Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994) Ekphrasis and the Other. Chicago, Universidad deChicago. Tomado de: http:!!!.rc."md.ed"editionsshelle#med"samitchell.html ($echa decons"lta: agosto de %&&9)

Bibliografa! 'phrasis and the *ther.' +o"th tlantic -"arterl# 91, no. (+"mmer, 199%):/90219.

This article reprod"ced as part o$the Romantic Circles lectronic dition o$ +helle#3s 'Med"sa'# ind permission o$ the Universit# o$ Chicago 5ress.

'phrasis and the *ther' # W. J. T. Mitchell $rom PICTURE THEORYp"lished # TheUniversit# o$ Chicago 5ress, cop#right 1994 # The Universit# o$ Chicago. ll rights reserved.

This material ma# e "sed and shared in accordance !ith the $air"se provisions o$ U+cop#right la!, and it ma# e archived and redistri"ted in electronic $orm, provided that thisentire notice, incl"ding cop#right in$ormation, is carried and provided that the Universit# o$Chicago 5ress is noti$ied and no $ee is charged $or access. rchiving, redistri"tion, orreplication o$ this te6t on other terms, in an# medi"m, re7"ires oth the consent o$ the a"thorand the Universit# o$ Chicago 5ress.

dapted $or h#perte6t # Melissa J. +ites.

"nd#ing accents

repeated tillthe ear and the e#elie do!n togetherin the same ed

William Carlos Williams

This otherness, this'8oteing"s' is all there is to loo atn the mirror, tho"gh no one can sa#o! it came to e this !a#.

John sher#, '+el$5ortrait in a Conve6 Mirror'

Radio P"o#ogra$"%! E&$"ra%#i' Poe#i'%

() 8;*8 !ho gre! "p in the age o$ radio !ill recall a pop"lar comed# d"o called '


2/21

an aside to the a"dience, ' s"re !ish #o" $ols o"t there in radioland co"ld see thesepict"res.' 5erhaps this line stics in m# memor# eca"se it !as s"ch a rare rea in theintimac# o$ ect, descrie it, invoe it, "t it can never ring itsvis"al presence e$ore "s in the !a# pict"res do. Words can 'cite,' "t never 'sight' theiro>ects. phrasis, then, is a c"riosit#: it is the name o$ a minor and rather osc"re literar#genre (poems !hich descrie !ors o$ vis"al art) and o$ a more general topic (the veralrepresentation o$ vis"al representation) that seems ao"t as important as "st $or veralrepresentation o$ vis"al e6perience, "t $or the shaping o$ lang"age into $ormal patterns that

%
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#onehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twohttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#threehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fourhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fivehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#sixhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#sevenhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#eighthttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#onehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twohttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#threehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fourhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fivehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#sixhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#sevenhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#eight


3/21

'still' the movement o$ ling"istic temporalit# into a spatial, $ormal arra#. 8ot >"st vision, "tstasis, shape, clos"re, and silent presence ('still' in the other sense) are the aims o$ this moregeneral $orm o$ ephrasis.?9@*nce the desire to overcome the 'impossiilit#' o$ ephrasis isp"t into pla#, the possiilities and the hopes $or veral representation o$ vis"al representationecome practicall# endless. 'The ear and the e#e lie do!n together in the same ed,' l"lled# '"nd#ing accents.' The estrangement o$ the imagete6t division is overcome, and as"t"red, s#nthetic $orm, a veral icon or imagete6t, arises in its place.?1&@

-)


4/21

transparent !indo!s onto realit# are s"pplanted # the notion o$ the image as a deceit$"lill"sion, a magical techni7"e that threatens to $i6ate the poet and the listener.

0) The interpla# o$ these three 'moments' o$ ephrastic $ascination$ear, hope, andindi$$erenceprod"ce a pervasive sense o$ amivalence, an amivalence $oc"sed in ect o$ "topian spec"lation, an6io"s aversion, and st"died indi$$erenceH o!can ephrasis e the name o$ a minor poetic genre and a "niversal principle o$ poeticsH Theans!er lies in the net!or o$ ideological associations emedded in the semiotic, sensor#, andmetaph#sical oppositions that ephrasis is s"pposed to overcome. n order to see the $orce o$these oppositions and associations, !e need to ree6amine the "topian claims o$ ephrastichope and the an6ieties o$ ephrastic $ear in the light o$ the relativel# ne"tral vie!point o$ephrastic indi$$erence, the ass"mption that ephrasis is, strictl# speaing, impossile.

1) The central goal o$ ephrastic hope might e called 'the overcoming o$ otherness.'phrastic poetr# is the genre in !hich te6ts enco"nter their o!n semiotic 'others,' thoserival, alien modes o$ representation called the vis"al, graphic, plastic, or 'spatial' arts. The'scienti$ic' terms o$ this otherness are the $amiliar oppositions o$ semiotics: s#molic andiconic representationG conventional and nat"ral signsG temporal and spatial modesG vis"al anda"ral media. These oppositions, as have arg"ed at length in Iconology , are neither stalenor scienti$ic. The# do not line "p in $i6ed col"mns, !ith temporalit#, convention, and a"ralit#in one ro!, and space, nat"re, and vis"alit# in the other. The# are est "nderstood as !hatEredric Jameson has termed 'ideologemes,' allegories o$ po!er and val"e disg"ised as ane"tral metalang"age.?12@ Their engagement !ith relations o$ otherness or alterit# is, o$co"rse, not determined s#stematicall# or a priori, "t in speci$ic conte6ts o$ pragmaticapplication. The 'otherness' o$ vis"al representation $rom the standpoint o$ te6t"alit# ma# ean#thing $rom a pro$essional competition (theparagone o$ poet and painter) to a relation o$political, disciplinar#, or c"lt"ral domination in !hich the 'sel$' is "nderstood to e an active,speaing, seeing s">ect, !hile the 'other' is pro>ected as a passive, seen, and ("s"all#)silent o>ect. nso$ar as art histor# is a veral representation o$ vis"al representation, it is anelevation o$ ephrasis to a disciplinar# principle. ?1D@ Fie the masses, the coloniAed, thepo!erless and voiceless ever#!here, vis"al representation cannot represent itsel$G it m"st erepresented # disco"rse.

(2) Unlie the enco"nters o$ veral and vis"al representation in 'mi6ed arts' s"ch asill"strated oos, slide lect"res,?19@ theatrical presentations, $ilm, and shaped poetr#, theephrastic enco"nter in lang"age is p"rel# $ig"rative. The image, the space o$ re$erence,pro>ection, or $ormal patterning, cannot literall# come into vie!. $ it did, !e !o"ld have le$t thegenre o$ ephrasis $or concrete or shaped poetr#, and the !ritten signi$iers !o"ld themselvestae on iconic characteristics.?%&@This $ig"rative re7"irement p"ts a special sort o$ press"reon the genre o$ ephrasis, $or it means that the te6t"al other m"st remain completel# alienG itcan never e present, "t m"st e con>"red "p as a potent asence or a $ictive, $ig"ralpresent. These acts o$ veral 'con>"ring' are !hat !o"ld seem to e speci$ic to the genre o$ephrastic poetr#, and speci$ic to literar# art in general, inso$ar as it oe#s !hat M"rra#rieger calls 'the ephrastic principle.' +omething special and magical is re7"ired o$lang"age. 'The poem,' as rieger p"ts it, 'm"st convert the transparenc# o$ its veral medi"minto the ph#sical solidit# o$ the medi"m o$ the spatial arts.'?%1@This 'solidit#' is e6empli$ied in

4
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#sevtnhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#eightnhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#nintnhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twentyhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twonehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#sevtnhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#eightnhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#nintnhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twentyhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twone


5/21

s"ch $eat"res as descriptive vividness and partic"larit#, attention to the 'corporealit#' o$!ords, and the patterning o$ veral arti$acts. The ephrastic image acts, in other !ords, lie asort o$ "napproachale and "npresentale 'lac hole' in the veral str"ct"re, entirel# asent$rom it, "t shaping and a$$ecting it in $"ndamental !a#s.

(() 8o! the septic, indi$$erent to the magic o$ ephrastic hope, is liel# to point o"t that this!hole arg"ment is a ind o$ sham, creating di$$ic"lties at the level o$ representation and signs

that do not e6ist. The 'genre' o$ ephrasis is disting"ished, the septic might point o"t, not #an# dist"rance or dissonance at the level o$ signi$iers and representational media, "t # apossile re$erence to or thematiAing o$ this sort o$ dissonance. phrastic poetr# ma# speato, $or, or ao"t !ors o$ vis"al art, "t there is nothing especiall# prolematic or "ni7"e in thisspeech: no special con>"ring acts o$ lang"age are re7"ired, and the vis"al o>ect o$ re$erencedoes not impinge (e6cept in analogical !a#s) "pon its veral representation to determine itsgrammar, control its st#le, or de$orm its s#nta6. +ometimes !e tal as i$ ephrasis !ere apec"liar te6t"al $eat"re, something that prod"ced ripples o$ inter$erence on the s"r$ace o$ theveral representation. ect.?%%@ ven'description' itsel$, the most general $orm o$ ephrasis, has, as Berard Benette hasdemonstrated, onl# a ind o$ phantom e6istence at the level o$ the signi$ier: 'the di$$erences!hich separate description and narration are di$$erences o$ content, !hich, strictl# speaing,have no semiological e6istence.'?%@ The distinctions et!een description and narration,representation o$ o>ects and actions, or vis"al o>ects and vis"al representations, are allsemantic, all located in di$$erences o$ intention, re$erence, and a$$ective response. phrasticpoems spea to, $or, or ao"t !ors o$ vis"al art in the !a# that te6ts in general spea ao"tan#thing else. There is nothing to disting"ish grammaticall# a description o$ a painting $rom adescription o$ a "m7"at or a aseall game. n address or apostrophe to a stat"e co"ld,$rom the semiotic standpoint, >"st as !ell e an address to a tomato or a tomcat. nd thepro>ection o$ a $ictive voice into a vase prod"ces no special ripples or dist"rances in thegrammar that voice emplo#s. When vases tal, the# spea o"r lang"age.

(*) *"r con$"sion !ith ephrasis stems, then, $rom a con$"sion et!een di$$erences o$medi"m and di$$erences in meaning. We are contin"all# $alling into some version o$ MarshallMcF"han3s daAAling and misleading metaphor, 'the medi"m is the message.' n ephrasis,the 'message' or (more precisel#) the o>ect o$ re$erence is a vis"al representationG and,there$ore, (!e s"ppose) the medi"m o$ lang"age must appro6imate this condition.?%4@ Wethin, $or instance, that the vis"al arts are inherentl# spatial, static, corporeal, and shapel#Gthat the# ring these things as a gi$t to lang"age. We s"ppose, on the other side, thatarg"ments, addresses, ideas, and narratives are in some sense proper to veralcomm"nication, that lang"age m"st ring these things as a gi$t to vis"al representation.


6/21

stand in $or lang"age eca"se comm"nicative, e6pressive acts, narration, arg"ment,description, e6position and other socalled 'speech acts' are not medi"mspeci$ic, are not'proper' to some medi"m or other. can mae a promise or threaten !ith a vis"al sign aselo7"entl# as !ith an "tterance. While it3s tr"e that Western painting isn3t generall# "sed toper$orm these sorts o$ speech acts, there is no !arrant $or concl"ding that the# co"ld neverdo so, or that pict"res more generall# cannot e "sed to sa# >"st ao"t an#thing.?%/@t !o"lde ver# di$$ic"lt to acco"nt $or the e6istence o$ pictographic !riting s#stems i$ pict"res co"ld

not e emplo#ed as the medi"m $or comple6 veral e6pressions.

(,) The independence o$ socalled 'speech acts' $rom phonetic lang"age is ill"strated # thes"tlet# and range o$ comm"nication availale to the Iea$ in vis"algest"ral sign lang"ages.These signs are not, o$ co"rse, p"rel# pictorial or ling"istic (it3s hard to imagine !hat 'p"rit#'o$ this sort !o"ld mean in an# medi"m) "t the# are necessaril# visual , and !ith same sort o$necessit# that maes ecto>ect, spectatorimage). t taes on the $"llrange o$ possile social relations inscried !ithin the $ield o$ veral and vis"al representation.'Children sho"ld e seen and not heard' is a it o$ proverial !isdom that rein$orces astereot#pical relation, not >"st et!een ad"lts and children, "t et!een the $reedom to speaand see and the in>"nction to remain silent and availale $or oservation. That is !h# this indo$ !isdom is trans$erale $rom children to !omen to coloniAed s">ects to !ors o$ art tocharacteriAations o$ vis"al representation itsel$. =acial otherness (especiall# in the inariAed'lac!hite' divisions o$ U.+. c"lt"re) is open to precisel# this sort o$ vis"alveral coding.The ass"mption is that 'lacness' is a transparentl# readale sign o$ racial identit#, a

/
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twsixhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twsevhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#tweighthttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twninehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twsixhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twsevhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#tweighthttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#twnine


7/21

per$ectl# s"t"red imagete6t. =ace is !hat can e seen (and there$ore named) in sin color,$acial $eat"res, hair, etc. Whiteness, # contrast, is invisile, "nmaredG it has no racialidentit#, "t is e7"ated !ith a normative s">ectivit# and h"manit# $rom !hich 'race' is avisile deviation. t3s not merel# a 7"estion o$ analog#, then, et!een social and semioticstereot#pes o$ the other, "t o$ m"t"al interartic"lation. ?&@That is !h# $orms o$ resistance tothese stereot#pes so o$ten tae the $orm o$ disr"ptions at the level o$ representation,perception, and semiosis: =alph llison3s Invisile !an is not 'empiricall#' "nseenG he re$"ses

visiilit# as an act o$ ins"ordination.?1@The emergence o$ the racialiAed other into a visiilit#that accords !ith their o!n vision, conversel#, is $re7"entl# "nderstood as dependent on theirattainment o$ lang"age and literac#. s enr# Fo"is Bates and Charles Iavis p"t it, 'the ver#"ace o$ the race . . . !as contingent "pon the recording o$ the lac voice .'?%@$ a !oman is'prett# as a pict"re' (namel#, silent and availale to the gaAe), it is not s"rprising that pict"res!ill e treated as $eminine o>ects in their o!n right and that violations o$ the stereot#pe("gliness, lo7"acio"sness) !ill e perceived as tro"lesome. 'Western tho"ght,' sa#s WladBodAich, 'has al!a#s thematiAed the other as a threat to e red"ced, as a potential sametoe, a #etnotsame.'?@This sentence (!ith its totalit# o$ 'Western tho"ght' and its 'al!a#s')per$orms the ver# operation it criticiAes. 5erhaps ephrasis as 'literar# principle' does thesame thing, thematiAing 'the vis"al' as other to lang"age, 'a threat to e red"ced' (ephrastic$ear), 'a potential sametoe' (ephrastic hope), 'a #etnotsame' (ephrastic indi$$erence).

(/) The amivalence ao"t ephrasis, then, is gro"nded in o"r amivalence ao"t otherpeople, regarded as s">ects and o>ects in the $ield o$ veral and vis"al representation.phrastic hope and $ear e6press o"r an6ieties ao"t merging !ith others. phrasticindi$$erence maintains itsel$ in the $ace o$ dis7"ieting signs that ephrasis ma# e $ar $romtrivial and that, i$ it is onl# a sham or ill"sion, it is one !hich, lie ideolog# itsel$, m"st e!ored thro"gh. This '!oring thro"gh' o$ ephrastic amivalence is, !ant to s"ggest, oneo$ the principal themes o$ ephrastic poetr#, one o$ the things it does !ith the prolemsstaged $or it # the theoretical and metaph#sical ass"mptions ao"t media, the senses andrepresentation that mae "p ephrastic hope, $ear, and indi$$erence.

(0) +o $ar have een treating the social str"ct"re o$ ephrasis mainl# as an a$$air et!een aspeaingseeing s">ect and a seen o>ect. ect !ho (i$ ephrastic hope is$"l$illed) !ill e made to 'see' the o>ect thro"gh the medi"m o$ the poet3s voice. phrasis isstationed et!een t!o 'othernesses,' and t!o $orms o$ (apparentl#) impossile translationand e6change: (1) the conversion o$ the vis"al representation into a veral representation,either # description or ventrilo7"ismG (%) the reconversion o$ the veral representation acinto the vis"al o>ect in the reception o$ the reader. The '!oring thro"gh' o$ ephrasis andthe other, then, is more lie a triang"lar relationship than a inar# oneG its social str"ct"recannot e grasped $"ll# as a phenomenological enco"nter o$ s">ect and o>ect, "t m"st epict"red as a menage a trois in !hich the relations o$ sel$ and other, te6t and image, are tripl#inscried. $ ephrasis t#picall# e6presses a desire $or a vis"al o>ect (!hether to possess orpraise), it is also t#picall# an o$$ering o$ this e6pression as a gi$t to the reader. ?0@

(1) The $"llest poetic representation o$ the ephrastic triangle is proal# to e $o"nd in theBree pastoral or, to "se Theocrit"s3s term, 'id#lls' ('little pict"res'). These poems o$tenpresent singing contests et!een male shepherds !ho regale each other !ith l#ric

2
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thirtyhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thonehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thtwohttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#ththreehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thfourhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thfivehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thirtyhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thonehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thtwohttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#ththreehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thfourhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thfive


8/21

descriptions o$ ea"ti$"l arti$acts and !omen and !ho e6change material gi$ts as !ell. sJosh"a +codel notes:

The art o>ects "sed as gi$ts or priAes ma# e read as the re!ards poets sho"ld receive $ortheir prod"ctionshonor, $ame, mone#,etc.and the ephrastic description asserts poetr#3s!orth # sho!ing that poetr# can indeed 'capt"re in and receive s"ch val"ale things. ect'et!een men' (to echo ve +edg!ic3s memorale st"d# o$ the 'e6change o$ !omen'). o#ed # them in common, in an intimate male $riendship thate6cl"des (!hile pretending to incl"de) their entire a"dience. Whatever speci$ic shape theephrastic triangle ma# tae, it provides a schematic metapict"re o$ ephrasis as a socialpractice, an image that can no! e tested on a n"mer o$ te6ts.

C3$% a4d S"ield%! E&$"ra%#i' Poe#r5

*() The earliest e6amples o$ ephrastic poetr# are not, it seems, principall# $oc"sed onpainting, "t on "tilitarian o>ects that happen to have ornamental or s#molic vis"alrepresentations attached to them Bolets, "rns, vases, chests, cloas, girdles, vario"s sortso$ !eapons and armor, and architect"ral ornaments lie $rieAes, relie$s, $rescos and stat"es insit" provide the $irst o>ects o$ ephrastic description proal# eca"se the detachment o$painting as an isolated, a"tonomo"s, and moveale o>ect o$ aesthetic contemplation is arelativel# late development in the vis"al arts. The $"nctional conte6t o$ ephrastic o>ects ismirrored in the $"nctionalit# o$ ephrastic rhetoric and poetr# as a s"ordinate $eat"re o$longer te6t"al str"ct"res. phrastic poetr# originates, not as an independent veral set

piece, "t as an ornamental and s"ordinate part o$ larger te6t"al "nits lie the epic orpastoral. omer, as enneth tchit# points o"t, develops the signi$icance o$ his hero '#associating chilles, in one place or another, !ith nearl# ever# . . . ind o$ arti$act in the liadic!orld. Fie 5riam and eae, chilles stores his treas"res in a splendid ?'elaoratel#!ro"ght'@ chestG lie 8estor, he possesses a remaral# ?'!ro"ght'@ golet.'?2@*ccasionall#one o$ these o>ects is singled o"t $or special attention and e6tended description, and theseoccasions are the p"tative 'origin' o$ ephrasis.

**) 3d lie to egin, ho!ever, not at the origin, "t !ith a ver# late and p"re e6ample o$ephrastic poetr#, Wallace +tevens3s 'necdote o$ a Jar.'

placed a >ar in Tennessee,nd ro"nd it !as, "pon a hill.

t made the slovenl# !ilderness

+"rro"nd that hill.

The !ilderness rose "p to it,

nd spra!led aro"nd, no longer !ild.

The >ar !as ro"nd "pon the gro"nd

D
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thsixhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thsevhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thsixhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thsev


9/21

nd tall and o$ a port in air.

t too dominion ever#!here.

The >ar !as gra# and are.

t did not give o$ ird or "sh,

Fie nothing else in Tennessee.

*+) +tevens3s poem provides an allegor# and a criti7"e o$ its o!n generic identit# and mightalmost e seen as a parod# o$ the classical ephrastic o>ect. The >ar appears, not as acr"cial $eat"re o$ an epic narrative, an ornament to a pastoral drama, or even a $oc"s $orelevated l#ric meditation. nstead, the >ar is the principal actor in a mere 'anecdote,' literall#,an '"np"lished,' private stor# that is 'not given o"t' and the tone o$ !hich !o"ld have to edescried as impassive, ne"tral, and "n$orthcoming. The >ar is stripped, moreover, o$ all the$eat"res that constit"te the generic e6pectations o$ ephrasis. There are no 'elaoratel#!ro"ght' ornaments, no pict"red scenes or 'lea$$ringed legends' o$ Bod or man, onl# thep"rel# $"nctional made o>ect, a simple 'commodit#' in all its prosaic lac o$ splendor. ndeed,the apparent lac o$ vis"al representation on the "rn might lead "s to r"le this o"t o$ the genreo$ ephrasis altogether, at least $rom that central tradition o$ ephrasis devoted to the

description o$ aesthetic o>ects. t is as i$ +tevens !ere testing the limits o$ the genre, o$$ering"s a lan space !here !e e6pect a pict"re, a cipher in the place o$ a striing $ig"re, a pieceo$ re$"se or litter !here !e loo $or art.

*,) nd #et the emphasis on the shape, appearance, and !hat can onl# e descried as the'activit#' o$ the >ar mae it clear that this is no 'mere' o>ect, "t a highl# charged "orm and arepresentational $orm at that. $ the >ar negates the classical e6pectation o$ ornamental designor representational ill"sion, it all"des 7"ite positivel# to the !hole topos o$ the personi$iedarti$act and, speci$icall#, the ilical trope o$ man as a cla# vessel and Bod as the potter: '!eare the cla#, and tho" o"r potterG and !e are all the !or o$ th# hand' (saiah /4:D). Thecreation o$ dam (!hose name means cla#) o"t o$ the d"st o$ the gro"nd is the maing o$ a

h"man 'vessel' into !hich li$e ma# e reathed. +tevens simpl# literaliAes the ilicalmetaphor, or reverses the valence o$ tenor and vehicle: instead o$ manas>ar, >arasmana

>ar that (lie dam) stands solitar# and erect on a hilltop, organiAes the !ilderness, and 'taesdominion ever#!here.' +tevens also replaces the role o$ the creating deit#, godaspotter, !ithsomething more lie a detached oserver and 'distri"tor.' The narrator does not mae the

>arG he 'places' itG he doesn3t sho! the prod"ction o$ the ephrastic o>ect (as in omer3sdescription o$ chilles3 shield) "t its distri"tion and in$l"enceG and he doesn3t place it in ane! !orld or a !ilderness, "t 'in Tennessee,' a !orld alread# named, mapped, andorganiAed. $ 'dam' as vessel is red"ced to a personi$ied commodit#, a arren >ar, 'Bod' thespeaervie!er is red"ced to a traveling salesman !ith a sense o$ iron# and order.

*-) The >ar3s role as a ind o$ empt# rela# point or site o$ commerce and e6change issignaled # its characteriAation as 'a port in air,' and +tevens emplo#s it to e6empli$# three$orms o$ alterit# and di$$erence in its relation to its '!orld' and to the poet: (1) the di$$erenceet!een the h"man and the nat"ral (the >ar is 'lie nothing else in Tennessee')G (%) et!eenthe divine and the h"man (s"ggested # the all"sion to the ilical creation m#th)G and ()et!een the h"man and its o!n arti$icial prod"ctions. nd #et each o$ these $orms o$otherness is sim"ltaneo"sl# overcome: the 'slovenl# !ilderness' (!hich is alread#'Tennessee') is made to 's"rro"nd' the >ar in imitation o$ its ro"ndnessG the creat"rel# s">ectecomes a sovereignG and the static, spatial image o$ ephrastic description is temporaliAed

9


10/21

as the principal actor in a narrative. The poem stages $or "s the asic pro>ect o$ ephrastichope, the trans$ormation o$ the dead, passive image into a living creat"re. t does not !itnessthis trans$ormation as a $"l$illment o$ hope, ho!ever, "t as something more lie a spectaclethat ind"ces a st"nned, laconic amivalence in the speaer, a ind o$ s"spension et!eenephrastic indi$$erence and $ear. The >ar is, despite all the connotations o$ orderliness andaesthetic $ormalit# that commentators "s"all# celerate, a ind o$ idol or $etish, a made o>ectthat has appropriated h"man conscio"sness. There is something menacing and slightl#

monstro"s ao"t its imperio"s sterilit# ('t did not give o$ ird or "sh Fie nothing else inTennessee.') The do"le negatives ('did not give' 'Fie nothing') per$ectl# enact the po!ero$ the ephrastic image as intransigent *ther to the poetic voice, its role as a 'lac hole' inthe te6t. s the >ar simpl# arren and in$ertile, as empt# !ithin as it is 'gra# and are' on itss"r$aceH *r is it the !om o$ a more active negation, a 'port' that 'gives o$' an empire o$nothingness, $r"it$"ll# m"ltipl#ing its o!n sterilit# thro"gho"t its dominionsH nd !hat, !em"st as, does the poet give the readerH 5erhaps an 'anecdote' that not onl# re$"ses to 'giveitsel$ o"t,' "t activel# negates ever# e6pectation o$ ephrastic pleas"re.

*) s the metaphors o$ arrenness and $ertilit# s"ggest, there is >"st a hint o$ the $eminine in+tevens3s >ar, and the treatment o$ the ephrastic image as a $emale other is a commonplacein the genre. 3ve alread# s"ggested that $emale otherness is an overdetermined $eat"re in agenre that tends to descrie an o>ect o$ vis"al pleas"re and $ascination $rom a masc"lineperspective, o$ten to an a"dience "nderstood to e masc"line as !ell. phrastic poetr# as averal con>"ring "p o$ the $emale image has overtones, then, o$ pornographic !riting andmast"rator# $antas# (the image o$ the >ar as oth 'ro"nd "pon the gro"nd' and 'tall and o$ aport in air' lends it an e7"ivocal stat"s as a ind o$ 'phallic !om,' as i$ the >ar !ere oth theerection and the vis"al image that provoes it). =o"ssea"3s Con"essions provides the classicacco"nt o$ mast"ration and vis"alit#: 'This vice . . . has a partic"lar attraction $or livel#imaginations. t allo!s them to dispose, so to spea, o$ the !hole $emale se6 at their !ill, andto mae an# ea"t# !ho tempts them serve their pleas"re !itho"t the need o$ $irst otainingher consent.'?D@=o"ssea" '$ondling her image in ?his@ secret heart' is lie the male poet orreader $ondling the mental image o$ ephrasis, ind"lging the pleas"res o$ vo#e"rism, act"al orrememered.

*/) This, at an# rate, is one o$ the mechanisms o$ ephrastic hope, "t it rarel# occ"rs!itho"t some admi6t"re o$ ephrastic $ear, as !e have seen in +tevens3s image o$ the >ar. Thevo#e"ristic, mast"rator# $ondling o$ the ephrastic image is a ind o$ mental rape that ma#ind"ce a sense o$ g"ilt, paral#sis, or amivalence in the oserver. good e6ample o$vo#e"ristic amivalence is the divided voice in William Carlos Williams3s '5ortrait o$ a Fad#,'an ephrastic poem that ma# e an address to a !oman !ho is compared to a pict"re, or a!oman in a pict"re:

;o"r thighs are appletrees

!hose lossoms to"ch the s#.

Which s#H The s#

!here Wattea" h"ng a lad#3s slipper.

;o"r nees are a so"thern reeAeor

a g"st o$ sno!. gh !hat

sort o$ a man !as EragonardH

as i$ that ans!ered

1&
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#theighthttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#theight


11/21

an#thing. h, #eselo!

the nees, since the t"ne

drops that !a#, it is

one o$ those !hite s"mmer da#s,

the tall grass o$ #o"r anles

$licers "pon the shore

Which shoreH

the sand clings to m# lips

Which shoreH

gh, petals ma#e. o!

sho"ld no!H

Which shoreH Which shoreH

said petals $rom an appletree.

*0) The intr"sive 7"estioning voice ma# e that o$ the addressed !oman, or o$ the poet3s"nconscio"s, or o$ the poem3s implied reader, impatientl# nterr"pting the ephrasis todemand more clarit# and speci$icit#. n either case, the voice resists the smooth, pleas"rale

$ondling o$ the ephrastic image, the sens"o"s contemplation o$ the !oman3s od#, mediatedthro"gh the $amiliar metaphors o$ $r"it, lossoms, petals, !ind, and sea. t helps, o$ co"rse, tono! that the poem proal# all"des to Eragonard3s The #$ing , a sens"o"s rococo pastoraldepicting a #o"ng s!ain delightedl# looing "p the dress o$ a #o"ng !oman on a s!ing.Williams ma# e pro>ecting his voices into this pict"re, imagining a ind o$ dialog"e et!eenthe s!inging maiden and the #o"th$"l vo#e"r. Whether this painting is to e "nderstood as thescene o$ the poem or onl# as a passing comparison to a real scene, the amivalence o$vo#e"rismthe desire to see accompanied # a sense o$ its prohiitionseems to "nderlie thedissonance o$ the t!o voices. The discreet, metaphorical evasions o$ 'thighs' as 'appletrees !hose lossoms to"ch the s#' is immediatel# co"ntered # an insistence on e6plicitliteralness: 'Which s#H' The ans!er, o$ co"rse, can onl# e the heaven to !hich the #o"ng

man !ants to ascend, de$erred $ig"rativel# as a s# in #et another painting, '!here Wattea"h"ng a lad#3s slipper.' The speaer can even $ind a $ig"re $or his o!n amivalence et!eenhot desire and cold di$$idence in his response to her 'nees' as a 'so"thern reeAeor ag"st o$ sno!.' The movement o$ the speaer3s gaAe and o$ his 't"ne' $ollo!s the line o$discretion and di$$idence: $rom thighs !hose 'lossoms' to"ch the s#, the 't"ne drops' tonees, anles, and the 'shore' on !hich those anles '$licer.' s in Ere"d3s primal scene o$$etishism, the o#3s gaAe $inds something threatening in the $emale image ($or Ere"d, the!oman3s lac o$ a penis threatens the o# !ith the possiilit# o$ castration), so he m"st $indmeton#mic or metaphoric s"stit"tesa lad#3s slipper 'h"ng' in the s#G a seashore !here thepoet seems to $all on his $ace, the sand clinging to his lips.?9@ The more intricate themetaphorical evasions, the more insistent the voice o$ literal desire, demanding to no!

'!hich s#H' '!hich shoreH' and the more $i6ated and repetitio"s the poetic voice. The$etishist $inall# ret"rns to the $irst s"stit"te image he seiAed "pon, re>ecting the traditional$etisho>ects o$ slippers and $eet in $avor o$ the initial metaphor o$ the poem: ' said petals$rom an appletree.'?4&@

*1) The most $amo"s instance o$ ephrastic amivalence to!ard the $emale image is eats3s'*de on a Brecian Urn,' !hich presents the ephrastic o>ect as a potential o>ect o$ violenceand erotic $antas#: the 'still "nravish3d ride' displa#s scenes o$ 'mad p"rs"it' and 'str"ggle toescape.' ;et all this 'happ#, happ# love' adds "p to a sterile, desolate per$ection that

11
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thninehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fortyhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#thninehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#forty


12/21

threatens the ade7"ac# o$ the male voice (the "rn can 'e6press a $lo!er# tale more s!eetl#than o"r rh#me') and 'teases "s o"t o$ tho"ght.' eats ma# call the "rn a '$riend to man,' "the treats her more lie an enem# !ho onl# sho!s "p at $"nerals ('in midst o$ other !oe'),!here she pipes the repetitio"s and com$ortless ditt# o$ no tone, 'Tr"th is ea"t#, ea"t#tr"th That is all #e no! on earth and all #e need to no!.' 5erhaps the scholarl#controvers# over the o"ndar# et!een !hat the "rn sa#s and !hat eats sa#s re$lects aind o$ ephrastic disappointment. $ the poet is going to mae the m"te, $eminiAed art o>ect

spea, he co"ld at least give her something interesting to sa#.?41@

+2) more compelling strateg# !ith the ephrasis o$ the $emale image is s"ggested #+helle#3s man"script poem, '*n the Med"sa o$ Feonardo Ia Kinci in the Elorentine Baller#.'3m not sa#ing this is a etter poem than '*de on a Brecian Urn,' "t do thin it la#s are theephrastic an6ieties that "nderlie the "rn.

+() $ ephrastic poetr# has a 'primal scene,' this is it. +helle#3s Med"sa is not given an#ventrilo7"ist3s lines. +he e6erts and reverses the po!er o$ the ephrastic gaAe, portra#ed ashersel$ gaAing, her loo raing over the !orld, perhaps even capale o$ looing ac at thepoet. Med"sa is the image that t"rns the tales on the spectator and t"rns the spectator intoan image: she m"st e seen thro"gh the mediation o$ mirrors (5erse"s3 shield) or paintings ordescriptions. $ she !ere act"all# eheld # the poet, he co"ld not spea or !riteG i$ the poet3sephrastic hopes !ere $"l$illed, the reader !o"ld e similarl# trans$i6ed, "nale to read orhear, "t perhaps to e imprinted !ith alien lineaments, the $eat"res o$ Med"sa hersel$, themonstro"s other pro>ected onto the sel$.

+*) Med"sa is the per$ect protot#pe $or the image as a dangero"s $emale other !hothreatens to silence the poet3s voice and $i6ate his oserving e#e.


13/21

Eig"re . Feonardo3s Med"sa. linarirt =eso"rce, 8;.

++) +helle#3s o!n voice and te6t, ho!ever, seem designed to deconstr"ct, not >"st the

repression o$ Med"sa, "t the genre o$ ephrasis as a veral strateg# $orrepressingrepresenting vis"al representation. The te6t seems to str"ggle to e$$ace itsel$ andan# other '$raming' elements that might intervene et!een the reader and the image: that thisis a painting is mentioned onl# in the titleG a$ter that, Med"sa is descried as i$ she !eredirectl# present to the poetic oserver, and Feonardo3s painterl# a"thorit# vanishes (in $act, as+helle# ma# have no!n, the painting !as not # Feonardo).?4@=oles o$ veral a"thorit# lie+tevens3s anecdotal narrator, or eats3s apostrophiAing poet are esche!ed in $avor o$ thep"rest, most passive sort o$ description. The speaing and seeing s">ect o$ this poem doesnot spea o$ or (in a sense) even see Med"sa or the painting in !hich she is represented($ig"re ): the opening three !ords appropriate oth these roles: 't lieth, gaAing.' Med"sa,the s"pposed 'seen o>ect' o$ the poem, is presented as hersel$ the active gaAerG other

possile 'gaAers' on this spectacle are presented as passive recipients. The voice o$ thepoem is simpl# a passive recorder, an 'evershi$ting mirror' that traces the '"nendinginvol"tions' o$ its s">ect. The p"n on 'lieth' s"ggests that the m"te ephrastic o>ect a!aitingthe ventrilo7"ism o$ the poetic voice alread# has a voice o$ its o!n.

Med"sa is not personi$ied or 'given a voice,' there$ore, to dictate her o!n stor#: that !o"ldsimpl# amo"nt to a reinscription o$ poetic a"thorit# in the speaer. nstead, the s">ect o$ thepoem remains irrevocal# *ther, an 'it' that can onl# 'e descried' # an anon#mo"s,invisile, and passive poet !ho has himsel$ een imprinted # Med"sa. 't' is the principalagent in the $roAen action o$ the poemG '3Tis' and ';et 3tis' are its $avorite predications. t is asi$


14/21

and aandoned !omen, comparing them to 'harpies' and '$"ries' reveling in 'Thracianorgies'G +helle#, t!ent#$ive #ears later, co"ld vis"aliAe his revol"tionar# avenging angel as'some $ierce Maenad' !hose 'right hair "pli$ted $rom the head' is 'the locs o$ theapproaching storm,' an image that s"ggests a lin et!een the menacing locs o$ Med"saand the orgiastic !omen o$


15/21

v"lva.?4/@

+) Understood as !hat Bomrich calls an 'apotropaic image,' a deadl#, monstro"s,paral#Aing spectacle, the vis"al image o$ ephrasis is properl# located, not on an "rn or >ar,"t on a shield !hich ma# e displa#ed to the enem# !hile protecting its earer. t seemsentirel# $itting, then, that the canonical 'origin' o$ classical ephrasis is the description o$

chilles3 shield in the 1Dth oo o$ the Iliad% What is odd ao"t chilles3 shield in this conte6t,

ho!ever, is that it does not contain an apotropaic image, "t an enc#clopedic vision o$ theomeric !orld, $illed !ith narrative scenes rather lie those !e $ind on eats3s "rn. chilles3shield does not paral#Ae its eholders !ith a $right$"l monstrosit#, "t overa!es them !ith itsimpression o$ divine arti$ice, an emlem o$ the irresistile destin# o$ its earer. The shield is aper$ectl# alanced image o$ $ear and hope, serving oth as a 'eacon' to rall# the chaeansand as a spectacle to daAAle the enem# ('Tremling too hold o$ all the M#rmidons. 8one hadthe co"rage to loo straight at it.') ndeed, it3s not clear that an#one in the poem act"all#e6amines the shield. chilles is >"st happ# to have s"ch $ormidale e7"ipment, and the lindomer o$ co"rse can3t claim to have seen it. e is >"st repeating !hat he has heard $rom them"ses. The image on chilles3 shield is reall# $or "s, the readers and listeners !ho are giventime, # virt"e o$ ephrasis, to loo at its prod"ction and appearance in detail.?42@

+/) s a generic protot#pe, chilles3 shield has a capacit# to $oc"s ephrastic $ear and hopein the reader as !ell. Eor the tradition o$ literar# pictorialism, omer3s setpiece certi$ies theancient pedigree o$ ephrasis and provides a model $or poetic lang"age in the service o$pictorial representation. Eor antipictorialists, the passage is a prolem to e e6plained a!a#.Fessing, $or instance, treats the shield not as a protot#pe o$ ephrasis, "t as an alternative toit. The distinctive $eat"re o$ omer3s description is that it is not reall# a descriptive 'arrestingo$ movement' at all, "t a contin"ation o$ the narrative:

omer does not paint the shield $inished, "t in the process o$ creation. ere again he hasmade "se o$ the happ# device o$ s"stit"ting progression $or coe6istence, and th"s converted

the tiresome description o$ an o>ect into a graphic pict"re o$ an action. We see not the shield,"t the divine master!orman emplo#ed "pon it. (p. 114)

+0) n apostle o$ ephrastic hope lie Jean agstr"m m"st, o$ co"rse, disp"te Fessing3sarg"ment:

This is not, as Fessing elieved, the presentation o$ an action or a process. The reader3sattention is made to concentrate on the o>ect !hich is descried panel # panel, scene #scene, episode # episode. t is remarale ho! the e#e is held $ast to the shield. (p. 19)

+1) Fet3s loo $or o"rselves at a representative sample o$ this passage:

e made the earth "pon it, and the s#, and the sea3s !ater

and the tireless s"n, and the moon !a6ing into her $"llness,

and "pon it all the constellations that $estoon the heavens,

the 5leiades and the #ades and the strength o$ *rion

and the


16/21

,2) This passage can, in $act, e moiliAed to s"pport either Fessing or agstr"m, orperhaps neither. $ !e insist on thining o$ this passage as an occasion $or vis"aliAation, itseems clear that the reader is stationed in a position to move $reel# $rom vis"aliAation, itseems clear that the reader is stationed in a position to move $reel# $rom vis"aliAations o$ephaestos at !or to the images on !hich he !ors, and e7"all# $ree to see the images inmotion or at rest. The passage e7"ivocates et!een the categories o$ time and space, liethe image o$ 'the "st !hat ind o$ pict"res aremade # ephaestos, !hose golden a"tomata have mind and move # themselves.' ?4D@Thes"pposedl# 'static' images that Fessing !ants to temporaliAe !ith the vers o$ maing, and!hich agstr"m !ants to 'hold $ast' in the mind3s e#e, are alread# in motion, alread#narrativiAed, as agstr"m3s o!n phrase, 'episode # episode,' sho"ld s"ggest. similar"ndecidailit# characteriAes the description o$ the materials o$ the shield, and the o>ectsthose materials signi$#:

. . . The o6en t"rned in the $"rro!s,

straining to come to the end o$ the ne!plo"ghed landG

all la# lac ehind them, and looed lie plo"ghed soil,

#et it !as goldG indeed, a ver# !onder !as !ro"ght.

,() omer3s !hole point seems to e to "ndermine the oppositions o$ movement and stasis,narrative action and descriptive scene, and the $alse identi$ications o$ medi"m !ith message,!hich "nder!rite the $antasies o$ ephrastic hope and $ear. The shield is an imagete6t thatdispla#s rather than concealing its o!n s"t"ring o$ space and time, description and narration,

materialit# and ill"sionistic representation.?49@ The point o$ the shield $rom the reader3sperspective is th"s 7"ite distinct $rom its $"nction $or those !ho ehold it !ithin the $iction. Weare stationed at the origin o$ the !or o$ art, at the side o$ the !oring ephaestos, in aposition o$ percept"al and interpretive $reedom. This is a "topian site that is oth a space!ithin the narrative, and an ornamented $rame aro"nd it, a threshold across !hich the readerma# enter and !ithdra! $rom the te6t at !ill.

,*) The do"le $ace o$ chilles3 shield ecomes even more evident !hen !e as !hat itsimager# represents as a !hole, ho! it $"nctions in the Iliad , and !hat its stat"s is as the'parent' or protot#pe o$ a genre called ephrasis. Fessing, o$ co"rse, !ants to den# thee6istence o$ ephrasis as a proper genre, a separale, identi$iale poetic ind. chilles3 shield

cannot e separated $rom its place in the epicG to em"late this sort o$ setpiece as anindependent literar# ind is to prod"ce e6actl# the sort o$ vis"al $i6ation he $ears. ven !ithinan epic conte6t, ephrasis threatens to separate itsel$, as it does, according to Fessing, inKirgil3s description o$ the shield o$ eneas. The &eneid!rongl# separates the maing o$ theshield $rom eneas3s vie!ing o$ it, th"s prod"cing an image $ramed # predicates o$ vision('admires'G 'are seen') and plain indicatives ('here is'G 'there is'G 'near # stands').?0&@Fessing3s rhetoric o$ lame $or this practice is !orth 7"oting:

The shield o$ eneas is there$ore, in $act, an interpolation, intended solel# to $latter the pride o$

1/
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#foreighthttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#forninehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#forninehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fiftyhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#foreighthttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#forninehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fifty


17/21

the =omansG a $oreign roo !ith !hich the poet sees to give $resh movement to his stream.The shield o$ chilles, on the contrar#, is the o"tgro!th o$ its o!n $r"it$"l soil.

,+) The lin et!een ephrasis and otherness co"ld not e clearer. phrasis is, properl#, anornament to epic, >"st as ephaestos3s designs are an ornament to chilles3 shield. "st a 7"estion o$ thepop"larit# o$ the passage as an o>ect o$ teaching, research, and anal#sis. t also has to do!ith a sense o$ the $"nction o$ the shield as an emlem o$ the entire str"ct"re o$ the Iliad G theshield is no! "nderstood as an image o$ the entire omeric !orldorder, the techni7"e o$'ring composition' and geometrical patterning that controls the large order o$ the narrative,

and the microscopic ordering o$ verse and s#nta6. ?01@ndeed, the shield (and ephrastic hopealong !ith it) ma# have even more grandiose aspirations than this sort o$ s#necdochicalrepresentation o$ the !hole in the part, $or the shield represents m"ch more o$ omer3s !orldthan the Iliad does.?0%@The entire "niverse is depicted on the shield: nat"re and manG earth,s#, and oceanG cities at peace and at !arG plo!ing, harvest, and vintageG herding andh"ntingG marriage, death, and even a scene o$ litigation, a prosaic alternative to the settlemento$ disp"tes # !ar or lood revenge. chilles3 shield sho!s "s the !hole !orld that is 'other'to the epic action o$ the Iliad , the !orld o$ ever#da# li$e o"tside histor# that chilles !ill neverno!. The relation o$ epic to ephrasis is th"s t"rned inside o"t: the entire action o$ the Iliadecomes a $ragment in the totaliAing vision provided # chilles3 shield.

,-) Fie +tevens3s >ar, chilles3 shield ill"strates the imperial amitions o$ ephrasis to tae'dominion ever#!here.' These amitions mae it di$$ic"lt to dra! a circle aro"nd ephrasis, todra! an# $inite concl"sions ao"t its nat"re, scope, or place in the literar# "niverse. phrasisresists 'placement' as an ornamental $eat"re o$ larger te6t"al str"ct"res, or as a minor genre.t aims to e all o$ literat"re in miniat"re, as M"rra# rieger3s re$lections on the ephrasticprinciple demonstrate. M# o!n claim ao"t ephrasis !o"ld e oth more and less s!eeping. don3t thin ephrasis is the e# to the di$$erence et!een ordinar# and literar# lang"age, "tmerel# one o$ man# $ig"res $or disting"ishing the literar# instit"tion (in this case, #associating veral !ith vis"al art). do thin ephrasis is one o$ the e#s to di$$erence !ithinlang"age (oth ordinar# and literar#) and that it $oc"ses the interartic"lation o$ percept"al,semiotic, and social contradictions !ithin veral representation. M# emphasis on canonicale6amples o$ ephrasis in ancient, modern and romantic poetr# has not een aimed atrein$orcing the stat"s o$ this canon or o$ ephrasis, "t at sho!ing ho! the '!orings' o$ephrasis, even in its classic $orms, tends to "nravel the conventional s"t"ring o$ theimagete6t and to e6pose the social str"ct"re o$ representation as an activit# and arelationship o$ po!erno!ledgedesirerepresentation as something done to something, !ithsomething, # someone, $or someone. +tevens3s >ar, in m# vie!, doesn3t $"l$ill the poeticgenre o$ ephrasis so m"ch as it implodes it, parod#ing the !hole gest"re o$ the "topianimagete6t.

12
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fifonehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fiftwohttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fifonehttp://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mitchx.html#fiftwo


18/21

,) M# e6amples are also canonical in their staging o$ ephrasis as a s"t"ring o$ dominantgender stereot#pes into the semiotic str"ct"re o$ the imagete6t, the image identi$ied as$eminine, the speaingseeing s">ect o$ the te6t identi$ied as masc"line. ll this !o"ld loo7"ite di$$erent, o$ co"rse, i$ m# emphasis had een on ephrastic poetr# # !omen. ect o$ veral representation can reveal its di$$erence $rom thespeaer (and the reader) in all sorts o$ !a#s: the historical distance et!een archaic andmodern (eats3s Urn)G the alienation et!een the h"man and its o!n commodities (+tevens3sJar)G the con$lict et!een a mori"nd social order and the monstro"s revol"tionar# 'others'that threaten it (+helle#3s Med"sa)G the gap et!een a historical epic osessed !ith !ar anda vision o$ the ever#da#, nonhistorical order o$ h"man li$e that provides a $rame!or $or acriti7"e o$ that historical str"ggle (omer3s +hield). t is also clear that the otherness o$ theephrastic image is not >"st de$ined # the s">ect matter o$ the vis"al representation, "t also# the ind o$ vis"al representation it is (metal engravings and inla#s on a shieldG paintings onan "rnG a rococo pastoral # EragonardG an anon#mo"s =enaissance oil paintingG a plain,"nadorned >ar). have not mentioned the veral representation o$ other inds o$ vis"alrepresentation s"ch as photograph#, maps, diagrams, movies, theatrical spectacles, norre$lected on the possile connotations o$ di$$erent pictorial st#les s"ch as realism, allegor#,histor# painting, stillli$e, portrait"re, and landscape, each o$ !hich carries its o!n pec"liarsort o$ te6t"alit# into the heart o$ the vis"al image. This treatment o$ ephrasis, then, lie thet#pical ephrastic poem, !ill have to e "nderstood as a $ragment or miniat"re.

1D


19/21

No#e%To ret"rn to Mitchell3s essa#, hit the 'acklins, !hich !ill tae #o" to the eginning o$ the n"mered citation.1. This de$inition o$ ephrasis as 'the veral representation o$ vis"al representation is also the asis $or Jamese$$ernan3s article, 'phrasis and =epresentation,' (e$ Literary History%%, no. % (+pring 1991): %921/. +eealso e$$ernan3s The !useum o" )ords* The Poetics o" Ekphrasis "rom Homer to &shery(Chicago Universit# o$Chicago 5ress, 1994).%. 8elson Boodman,Languages o" &rt(ndianapolis: acett, 192/), p. %1.. Eor a good s"rve# o$ this scholarship, see Brant E. +cott, 'The =hetoric o$ Iilation: phrasis and deolog#,')ord + Image2, no. 4 (*ctoerIecemer 1991): &11&.

4. The p"n in 'cite''sight' aove might e cited (or sighted) as an e6ample o$ a 'literal' (that is, conve#ed #letters') intr"sion o$ vis"al representation into veral representation.0. The iconic character o$ radio 'so"nd images' is a nonveral $orm o$ ephrasis. These images (onomatopoeicth"ndering, st"dio so"nd e$$ects) might e said to provoe vis"al images # meton#m#, or c"stomar# contig"it#./. Jean agstr"m, The #ister &rts* The Tradition o" Literary Pictorialism and English Poetry "rom ,ryden to -ray(Chicago: Universit# o$ Chicago 5ress, 190D), p. 1D. +ee also Wend# +teiner, The Colors o" Rhetoric(Chicago:Universit# o$ Chicago 5ress, 19D%), pp. 4%4, $or an acco"nt o$ ephrasis as literat"re3s nostalgia $or the vis"alarts. E"rther page re$erences !ill e cited in the te6t.2. Beorge +aints"r#, 7"oted in agstr"m, The #ister &rts, p. 1D.D. M"rra# rieger, 'The phrastic 5rinciple and the +till Moment o$ 5oetr#G or Laokoon=evisited,' in The Playand Place o" Criticism(


20/21

11. Those !ho sa! ective o$ the te6t o$ art criticism . . . is $or me to place m#sel$ . . . e$oresomething that implies another disco"rse, a disco"rse that !ill not e in the te6t.... ' ( Painting and #ystem ,translated # +ima Bod$re# ?1922G Chicago: Universit# o$ Chicago 5ress 19D4@, p. v).19. John ollander proposes a distinction et!een 'notional' ephrases o$ 'imaginar#' or lost !ors o$ art and

descriptions o$ vis"al representation that re$er to $amiliar, !idel# reprod"ced, or even present o>ects o$ vis"alrepresentation +ee 'The 5oetics o$ phrasis,' )ord and Image4 (19DD): %&919. !ant to s"ggest, ho!ever,that in a certain sense all ephrasis is notional, and sees to create a speci$ic image that is to e $o"nd onl# inthe te6t as its 'resident alien,' and is to e $o"nd no!here else. ven those $orms o$ ephrasis that occ"r in thepresence o$ the descried image disclose a tendenc# to alienate or displace the o>ect, to mae it disappear in$avor o$ the te6t"al image eing prod"ced # the ephrasis. The art histor# slide lect"re is a per$ect ill"stration o$this point. $i6ed convention o$ the slide lect"re is the declaration that the image pro>ected on the screen is atotall# inade7"ate representation (the colors have $aded, the lighting !as poor, the te6t"re has all een lost).ven !hen the lect"re is per$ormed in the presence o$ the o>ect itsel$, the commentator is never at a loss $orstrategies o$ displacement and "pstaging, the most ovio"s eing a disco"rse that removes the o>ect $rom them"se"m or galler# and sit"ates it in some other, more a"thentic or appropriate place (the site o$ its originaldispla# or prod"ction, the artist3s st"dio, the artist3s mind, orest o$ allthe mind o$ the commentator) .%&. The claim that the# dotae on iconic characteristics, achieving veral arti$acts that 'resemle' at some levelthe vis"al $orm the# address, is one o$ the central claims o$ ephrastic hope.%1. rieger, Play and Place o" Criticism, p. 1&2.%%. nother !a# to p"t this is to note that the ephrasis o$ a !or o$ vis"al art need not prod"ce either an 'iconic'e$$ect (tho"gh this is certainl# a possiilit#) or an# other 'literar#' $eat"re. phrastic prose is an e7"all# availalepossiilit#, and the presence or asence o$ iconism or 'literarit#' in this prose is not preordained # its re$erenceto a vis"al representation. phrasis and veral iconicit# are, in short, independent $eat"res.%. +ee Berard Benette, .igures o" Literary ,iscourse , translated # lan +heridan (8e! ;or: Col"miaUniversit# 5ress, 19D4), p. 1/. Beorge +aints"r#3s acco"nt o$ ephrasis as a ' setdescription' re$lects thisdesire to '$rame' or 'set o$$' description as a separale $eat"re. +ee $ootnote 2 aove.%4. Te6ts may, o$ co"rse, achieve spatialit# or iconicit#, "t the vis"al o>ect invoed does not re7"ire or ca"sethese $eat"res.%0. The strange irrealit# o$ these 'gi$ts' does not, o$ co"rse, prevent "s $rom giving them and $rom thining o$ the!hole ephrastic gest"re as a ind o$ rit"al o$ e6change. *ne o$ the most $re7"ent sites o$ ephrasis in classicalpoetr# is the singing contest et!een t!o shepherds !ho descrie and e6change arti$acts as toens o$ m"t"al

esteem (see, $or instance, Theocrit"s3 d#ll, Kirgil3s clog"e K). 'The art o>ects "sed as gi$ts or priAes ma# eread as the re!ards poets sho"ld receive $or their prod"ctions . . . and the ephrastic description assertspoetr#3s !orth # sho!ing that poetr# can indeed 3capt"re! in and receive s"ch val"ale things' (Josh"a +codel,correspondence !ith the a"thor,19D9). The +hield o$ chilles is a gi$t $rom the hero3s goddess mother, and theephrasis o$ this shield # omer is a gi$t $rom his m"ses that is, in t"rn, given to the readerlistener. am ver#grate$"l to Josh"a +codel $or his e6tended response to earl# dra$ts o$ this essa#, and !ill e 7"oting $rom hisletters to me thro"gho"t this essa#.%/. n $act, a moment3s re$lection s"ggests inn"merale instances !here pict"res stand in $or !ords and !holespeech acts. Finda +eidel has sho!n, $or instance, that Kan #c3s $amo"s rnol$ini portrait is est "nderstoodas something lie a marriage contract, and the 'cave canem' inscription on the $ierce dog mosaics at 5ompeii

%&


21/21

(o$ten cited # Bomrich as e6amples o$ 'apotropaic' imager#) seems red"ndant in vie! o$ the image. +ee+eidel 'The rnol$ini 5ortrait,' Critical In/uiry1/, no. 1 (Eall 19D9): 04D/, and rnst Bomrich, 'The Fimits o$Convention,' in Image and Code, edited # Wend# +teiner (nn ror, Michigan, 19D1), pp. 114%.%2. *liver +acs, (e$ York Revie$ o" 'ooks, % *ctoer 19D/, p. /9.%D. +ee Ianiel Ti$$an#3s essa#, 'Cr#ptesthesia: Kisions o$ the *ther,' The &merican 0ournal o" #emiotics/, nos.% (19D9): %&919.%9. +ee chapter 1, 'The 5ictorial T"rn.'&. tae this to e Jac7"eline =ose3s point !hen she sa#s 'the lin et!een se6"alit# and the image prod"cesa partic"lar dialog"e !hich cannot e covered ade7"atel# # the $amiliar opposition et!een the $ormal

operations o$ the image and a politics e6erted $rom o"tside' ( #e1uality in the .ield o" 2ision ?Fondon: Kerso,19D/@, p. %1). 8eedless to sa#, the positioning o$ racial otherness !ithin the $ield o$ vision !o"ld displa#comple6 intersections !ith and di$$erences $rom the imagete6t as a gendered or se6"al relation +ee ToniMorrison on 'The lliance et!een Kis"all# =endered deas and Fing"istic Utterances in the Constr"ction o$ theColor Fine,' in Playing in the ,ark(Camridge, M: arvard Universit# 5ress, 199%), p. 49.1. Cp. also Toni Morrison3s short stor#, '=ecitati$' (19D%), !ith its deherate con$"sing o$ the veralvis"al signso$ racial identit#, reprinted in Con"irmation* &n &nthology o" &"rican &merican )omen , edited # miri ect, the anal#sand is the ephrastic speaer,and the anal#st is the readerinterpreter./. Josh"a +codel, correspondence !ith the a"thor.2. enneth tchit#, Homer3s Iliad* The #hield o" !emory(Carondale, F: +o"thern llinois Universit# 5ress,192D), p. 10D. +ee also Marc li

Ekphrasis and the Other (Mitchell

Documents

Transcript of Ekphrasis and the Other (Mitchell