Situational Aesthetics in Ptolemaic Culture

The Ptolemies fostered a literature of exquisite polish and slender proportions, most strikingly embodied in Callimachus, whose aesthetic principles became synonymous with Alexandrian artistry. At the same time, however, they had a penchant for ostentatious display and gigantism, as evidenced e.g. in Ptolemy Philadelphus’ “Grand Procession”. While these two impulses might appear to be at odds, we argue that Ptolemaic patronage embraced a “situational aesthetic”, accommodating both the grandiose and the diminutive: these rulers understood that different situations (and their respective audiences) call for different aesthetic approaches. 

Porter (2011) has argued “against leptotes” as an exclusive focus even in elite poetry, seeing rather a “logic of contrastive scales”, with the large always implicit in the small, the diminutive in the huge. To be sure, an author like Posidippus sometimes adopts an aesthetic of both the leptos and semnos. Yet we follow Prioux (2007) in regarding these as distinct categories rather than simultaneous aesthetic principles. The Milan papyrus, for instance, provocatively juxtaposes an epigram celebrating a miniature sculpture by Theodorus of Samos (67 A-B) with a poem praising the size of the Colossus of Rhodes (68 A-B). While the first repeatedly points to the intent gaze necessary to see the minute details, the second makes do with an overall impression of the statue’s enormous size. That is, the poems presuppose different contexts of viewing: the intimacy of meticulous observation versus the awe of massive spectacle. Perhaps Posidippus was open to the appeal of Callimachean refinement as well as the colossal because he wrote both for monuments (e.g. at the busy shrine of Apollo at Thermon, where he received proxeny for his work as epigrammatopoios) and for the book roll. 

An instructive example of the situational aesthetic at work in Ptolemaic culture appears in the contrast between Posidippus’ Lithika and Callixenus’ account of Philadelphus’ “gigantosymposium” (Bergquist 1990). Porter (2011: 287) claims that “fine ware” decorates even gigantosymposia. But in fact, Callixenus dwells only on the sheer quantity of precious materials in the furnishings of the pavilion, noting even their cumulative weight, while Posidippus focuses on the subtle craftsmanship of individual gemstones. The effect of such large-scale displays of power and wealth is not dependent on exquisite artistry; reports such as those of Callixenus aim to project the magnitude of the event to an extensive audience beyond those personally in attendance (von Hesberg 1981), not the learned elite. In his portrayal of Ptolemy IV’s enormous river barge, Callixenus tellingly describes a frieze as “mediocre in workmanship but most astonishing in its costliness” (τῇ μὲν τέχνῃ μέτρια, τῇ χορηγία δὲ ἀξιοθαύμαστα Athen. 5.205c). Similarly, Archimelus’ epigram (1 FGE) on the ship that Hieron named “Lady of Alexandria” when he gave it to the Ptolemies, exclusively highlights its gigantic proportions. This over-the-top poem conveys how such a vessel impressed through its over-the-top size and cost; leptotes is not in evidence.

In brief, diverse contexts and readerships point to the co-existence of different aesthetics within Ptolemaic cultural politics.