[Rory Waterman]

R.S. Thomas wrote several good ones and a few less good ones, though I don't have the book to hand and I'm too tired to run a search.

Rory

[Maryann Corbett]

Originally Posted by Rory Waterman

It was my understanding that Larkin didn't have a specific screen in mind when he wrote 'The Card-Players'. I'm probably misremembering, but if I'm not it surely can't be considered a true example of ekphrasis. Can it?

Somewhere on one of these old threads there's a post by Alicia Stallings about her poem "Amateur Iconography: Resurrection," which appears in Hapax. Although there's an icon of the Harrowing of Hell on the front of the book, Alicia says she had no specific icon in mind for the poem--I've forgotten her words exactly but she talks about the icons as being derived from standard iconographic elements and models. In a case like that, where many icons might be similar, I think a poem could be ekphrastic even without being derived from a unique work. Can Larkin's poem be thought of that way?

[Rory Waterman]

Maryann,

Quite. Seconds after posting I thought about what I'd written and tried to excise this little paragraph, but never mind: you'd already seen it and started commenting. This is a manifestation of the phenomenon known as Rory's Law, and an argument in favour of more sleep.

Best,
Rory

[Janice D. Soderling]

I agree with Rory. The Larkin poem is not an example of ekphrasis. At first glance it might seem to be, but in fact it is using a supposed painting as a vehicle in order to cleverly paint with words.

An ekphrasis has to be based on some other work of art and in someway enlarge it. That is the usual definition. The word means "to speak out of" and the Larkin poem is its own reference.

[Chris Childers]

Actually, Janice, 'ekphrasis' is a noun meaning "description" which comes from the verb ekphrazein, to show thoroughly, describe. Had you actually gotten around to reading the thread which I bumped up and you locked, you might have noted my old posts there, to the effect that in ancient practice the genre of ekphrasis involved not the description of some pre-existing work but the invention of an entirely new one, like, for example, the shield of Achilles in the Iliad. Most Latin & Greek examples of the genre happen to fit your definition pretty precisely of what an ekphrasis is not, in that they use "a supposed [artwork] as a vehicle in order to cleverly paint with words." Personally, I see no reason to be dogmatic about the definition of the term.

By the way, for anyone who might not know, American classicists pronounce this word EKphrasis, because the Greek accent falls on the first syllable. The British tend to pronounce it ekPHRAsis, to rhyme with molasses. I advocate the first way, but then, I'm an American classicist.

Chris

[Philip Quinlan]

Originally Posted by Chris Childers

I see no reason to be dogmatic about the definition of the term.
Chris

Well, I ain't no classicist, but I agree. To me an ekphrasis is something which:

1) Is occasioned by another work, or form, of art in some way.
2) References it in some way.
3) Celebrates it in some way.
4) Doesn't necessarily restrict itself to description (which seems pointless unless you are trying to describe a painting to a blind man - actually, pointless even then). A work of art describes itself, non?

Philip

[Janice D. Soderling]

Actually Chris, I do not speak Greek and I cannot dispute what you claim. I made it easy for myself and quoted from

The word comes from the Greek ek and phrasis, 'out' and 'speak' respectively, verb ekphrazein, to proclaim or call an inanimate object by name.

I daresay there are other interpretations that are close variations on the above definition and the one you contributed.

It is true that I did not read the entire thread before I locked it, but I assure you that it was not the content that caused me to lock it. I locked the thread, Chris, because of past praxis. On occasions when new members have dug up old threads and given their thoughts on discussions that started and ended six or seven years ago, there has been a hullabaloo. So to protect the nearly-asleeps and half-awakes, I locked it. I don't see anything wrong with that action.

Certainly there was no hinder for you to start a new thread for fresh scholarly comments from members who are currently active.

As regards the Achilles' shield, I don't know if there was a real one or not, and neither do you. It is possible that an actual shield fitting that description once existed, the description of which entered oral tradition and finally the written poem.

I do know that the description of the other shields in the Illiad fit the description of shields I have seen in museums in Greece. I can't quote you the exact section and line, but I remember that there is a passage stating that the shields were made strong by several layers of ox hide. These shields most certainly existed. In fact I have often reflected that regarding certain shields of thin gold which are said to be ritual shields rather than battle shields, it might be that the gold was an overlay of these many layers of ox skins. They would of course have rotted away leaving only the frame and the gold covering. I can't prove it of course, and I don't claim to. My point is though, that a shield similar to that described as Achilles' might have had a prototype.

Personally, I feel that "dogmatic" is quite an awful thing to be ("Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.") and I truly hope I am not guilty of it.

Thank you for sharing your pronounciation erudition and preference.

[Gregory Dowling]

The Hecht poem I posted above is, like the Larkin one and Alicia's "Resurrection", based on "standard iconographic elements". However, in the same volume that contains the poem, The Transparent Man, is his long-ish narrative poem, "See Naples and Die", which contains a wonderful passage giving a very detailed and brilliant description of Bellini's "Transfiguration" in the Capodimonte Museum in Naples. I don't have my books to hand but I'll come back later and edit the section in to this post.

Let me just repeat that the old thread excavated by Chris is a fascinating read. But as it obviously isn't the last word on the subject there's no reason for us not to have fun in this one as well. And Janice's action had the simple aim of making it clear that this was the new active thread on the subject.

[Andrew Frisardi]

The description of the bas-reliefs in Purgatorio canto X (the bas-reliefs are by God the Artist!) are a good example of ekphrastic writing.

Luca Signorelli’s monochromes in the Orvieto cathedral depict scenes from Dante, including images of the bas-reliefs--visual art based on ekphrastic poetry that is based on imaginary works of art (no doubt a composite of ones Dante actually saw).

How's that for complicated?

[Chris Childers]

Originally Posted by Janice D. Soderling

As regards the Achilles' shield, I don't know if there was a real one or not, and neither do you. It is possible that an actual shield fitting that description once existed, the description of which entered oral tradition and finally the written poem.

If you say so. I still don't really understand the locking of the other thread, but I don't care that much, and the subject is tedious.

Why don't we get back to posting examples of the genre? How about "An Arundel Tomb," has anybody mentioned that one yet? A quick scan of Gregory's list does not reveal it. Here's a link with Larkin's reading.