Abstract:

This paper argues that Philostratus' ecphrasis of a painting of "mad Hercules" killing his children (Imagines 2.23)—a subject-matter almost unattested in archaeology—is best understood via the epistemological debates between the Stoics and the Academic sceptics. First, I suggest that the ecphrasis visualises Euripides' Hercules furens as a sceptic critique of the Stoics' "cataleptic impression." Next, I suggest that this philosophical framing of the myth enables Philostratus to scrutinise the epistemological stakes of naturalistic painting and vivid description too. In doing so, Philostratus reconsiders naturalism and ecphrasis as manias ; the viewer and the reader as madmen.

摘要：

本文认为，费斯托拉图斯对一幅“疯狂的大力神”杀死他的孩子的绘画的迷信（想象2.23）是考古学上未经证实的一个主题，这是通过斯多葛派和学术怀疑论者之间的认识论辩论得到最好的理解的。首先，我建议将迷魂药形象化为欧里庇得斯的《大力神》，这是对斯多葛主义者的“僵化印象”的怀疑论批评。接下来，我认为神话的这种哲学构架也使哲学家能够仔细研究自然主义绘画和生动描写的认识论利益。在这样做的过程中，费洛斯特拉图斯将自然主义和遗忘症重新考虑为躁狂症。观看者和阅读者都是疯子。