You are on page 1of 10

The Rhetoric of Ekphrasis

Author(s): Frank J. D'Angelo


Source: JAC, Vol. 18, No. 3 (1998), pp. 439-447
Published by: JAC
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866203
Accessed: 05-02-2016 13:33 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

JAC is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to JAC.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 170.140.26.180 on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:33:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Rhetoric ofEkphrasis

Frank J.D'Angelo

For thepast sixor sevenyears,1have beenworking on a scholarlytextbook, tentatively


iixkdFwmNarrativetoA rgumenL'Rhetoric inLateA ntiquity,bdsedon\hcpwgymna$rnata
ofGreek sophistic educators under theRoman Empire. Thepro-gymnasmata were
rhetoricalmanuals or handbooks designed to prepare students to present public
a
performancesof complete speeches.These manuals presented seriesofpreparatory
exercises, arranged inorder of difficulty,thatbroke down the artof persuasion into
manageable units, each ofwhich related to the study of rhetoric as awhole. For
example, some exercisesaided intheunderstanding and development ofdeliberative,
judicial, and ceremonial speeches.Others aided in theunderstanding of theparts of
an oration (exordium,narration,division, confirmation,refutation,
peroration).
There are four survivingmanuals, attributed respectively toAlius Theon
(1st centuryA.D.), Hermogenes ofTaurus (2nd centuryA.D.), Aphthonius of
Antioch (4th century A.D.), andNicolaus ofMyra (5th century A.D.). The
manuscript attributed toHermogenes isof doubtful authenticity. Theon's
manual is the oldest. Theon's original sequence of exercises included the chreia,
the fable, the narrative, the commonplace, the description, the speech-in
character, the encomium, the comparison, the thesis,and laws,but thisorderwas
later changed to conform to the order of those texts (such as those of
Hermogenes andAphthonius) thatwere more popular. Theon does not include
inhis sequence the exercise on the gnome (i.e., saying, proverb), nor does he
include refutation and confirmation as separate exercises. Further, he does not
connect each exercise either to the three kinds of speeches or to parts of an
oration. He does point out, however, that these exercises can be useful for
composing all of the genres of composition?rhetoric, poetic, and historic
(Kennedy57).
Hermogenes' treatise is relatively simple. It consists of twelve exercises
which include the fable, the narrative, the chreia, the gnome, the refutation and
confirmation, the commonplace, the comparison, the speech-in-character, the
description, the thesis, and laws. There are few examples inHermogenes' text
and few suggestions fordeveloping the exercises. Unlike Theon, Hermogenes
does not integrate refutation and confirmation into the sequence of exercises,
but makes of them a separate exercise. He devotes a separate exercise to the
gnome, but includes no exercise on vituperation (Kennedy 59).

This content downloaded from 170.140.26.180 on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:33:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
440JAC

The treatise of Aphthonius is one of themost fully developed of all the


handbooks. It contains fourteenexercisesarranged inorder ofdifficulty?the fable,
thenarrative,thechreia, thegnome (orproverb), therefutation,theconfirmation,the
commonplace, the encomium, thevituperation, the comparison, the speech-in
character, thedescription, the thesis,and legislation (or laws).Aphthonius includes
more models and a fullerdiscussion ofhow todevelop the exercises thando Theon
andHermogenes (Kennedy 60).
Nicolaus' treatise is considered to be "themost thoughtful and mature of
the four" (Kennedy 67). According toGeorge Kennedy, Nicolaus' treatise "is
a synthesis of earlier views, sometimes taken over word forword" (Kennedy 67).
One of its chief virtues is that itconnects each exercise to one of the species of
rhetoric or to one of the parts of an oration. Like Aphthonius, Nicolaus gives
clear definitions of each exercise, divides each exercise into parts, and provides
suitable models and examples of each.
The ekphrasis, or formal description, was one of the exercises of the
progymnasmata. In the sequence of exercises, itcame afterthe commonplace, the
encomium, the vituperation, and the comparison, suggesting that ithas some
a
thing in common with the rhetoric of praise and blame. (A description of place,
for example, can easily move into praising or blaming a place.) Yet in its
treatmentof characteristic subjects (forexample, descriptions of persons, places,
times, and events), it seems to be more closely related to the narrative. The
history of the term suggests that there are differingconcepts thatmust be taken
into consideration if we are to understand itsrhetorical uses. The term ekphrasis
has been used to denote a rhetorical strategy, a rhetorical prose description of
awork of art, and a poetic or literary genre.
As a rhetorical strategy,ekphrasishas been defined variously as "an exposi
tory speech, distinctly presenting to view the thingbeing set forth" (Nadeau 279),
"an account indetail, visible as they say, bringing before one's eyeswhat is to be
shown" (Baldwin 66), and "any elaborate digressive description embedded
within rhetorical discourse" (Smith 11). In these definitions, ekphrasis isnot
described as if itwere a genre, complete in itself (except in the sense inwhich
description, as one of the four traditional forms of discourse?description,
narration, exposition, and argumentation?can be considered a genre), but as a
a a or
technique of persuasion, intended to be fitted into part of longer speech
discourse. As a technique of persuasion, itcould be useful in any of the three
kinds of speeches?deliberative, judicial, and ceremonial. Since description as
a technique played an important part inother exercises, such as thenarrative and
the fable, some sophistic educators did not include it in the sequence of exercises
(Clark202).
The purpose of the exercise indescription in the rhetorical traditionwas to
"
prepare the boys tomake theirmature public addresses more vivid and hence
more persuasive" (Clark 203). By penetrating the visual imagination of the
listener and involving him in the subject of the speech, the orator can persuade
more effectively than through logical argument alone" (Webb andWeller 332).

This content downloaded from 170.140.26.180 on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:33:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The RhetoricofEkphrasis441

The subjects suggestedforvivid,visual representationare "persons,places, times,


and events"Q ames andWebb 6). Some educators also includedescriptionsof animals,
plants, seasons, "andmanyotherthings" (Baldwin35). NicolausofMyraistheonly
rhetorician in theprogymnasmatic tradition to includeworks of art as a possible
subject fordescription.He also includesdescriptionsofbuildings, cities,and everyday
objects (Kazhdan 1991). "For hismodel theme,Aphthonius describes indetail the
Acropolis ofAlexandria, comparing itand contrasting itwith theAcropolis of
Athens, and going intogreatdetail over thehalls,porticos, temples,and library"(Clark
202-03). The listof subjects of description suggestedbyAphthonius, Theon, and
Hermogenes indicatestheclose connection thatekphrasis has to thenarrative.Persons,
places, times, and events are "the standard elements of narrative" (JamesandWebb
7). The purpose of ekphrasisas a technique of description as itrelates to narrative is
to set the scene and to describe persons and events Qames andWebb 7).
The close relationship thatobtains between description and narrationmay be
observed in the techniques thatGreek educators in late antiquity prescribed for
writing effectivedescriptions. For example,Aphthonius advises that"it isnecessary
forthosewho describe persons to go fromthe firstelements to the last,that isto say,
fromhead to foot; indescribing things,fromthose earlier than theseand those things
now in these andwhatever iswont to spring from these things; in
describing times
andplaces,fromthosesurrounclingandthosewithinthem,, (Nadeau279). Theonalso
connects ekphrasistonarrative inhis account ofdescriptive techniques: "Ifwe describe
places, times,procedures, or characters,we will have alongwith thenarrative that
results from these themselves, starting-points for arguments based on nobility,
usefulness,and pleasure" (Butts433). InFigures ofLiteraryDiscourse, Gerard Genette
points out the close relationship thatobtains between narration and description:
"Everynarrative... comprises twokinds of representations,which however areclosely
intermingled andin variableproportions: ontheonehand, thoseof actions andevents,
which constitute thenarration in the strictsense and, on the other hand, those of
objects or characters thatare the resultofwhat we now calldescription" (133).
According to the rhetorical handbooks, the twomost important qualities
of style in an ekphrasis are clarity and vividness, "for the stylemust through
hearing operate to bring about seeing" (Clark 202). The appeal is to the senses,
with the emphasis on realistic description. The idea is "to represent faithfully
the thingsbeing described" (Nadeau 279). But the styleof a description ismore
than "a simple window to visible phenomena" (Becker 8). Itmust also include
"the judgments and emotions of the describer" (Becker 11). In addition to the
qualities of clarity and vividness, educators advised speakers and writers to
embellish the description with figuresof speech (Nadeau 279) and tomake the
style appropriate to the subject and the occasion (Baldwin 36).
As a rhetorical prose description of awork of art,ekphrasishas been described
variously as "theverbal description of awork of graphic art" (Dubois 3), "theverbal
representationofvisual representation" (Hefferman3), and "a rhetoricaldescription
of awork of art" (Mitchell 153).The problemwith thesedefinitions,however, isthat
theyneglect the role of narration and of praising and blaming in the conception of

This content downloaded from 170.140.26.180 on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:33:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
442JAC

ekphrasisas the rhetoricaldescription of awork of art.For in thistradition,ekphrasis


isacomphcated genre thatcombines description,narration,andpraisingandblaming.
In fact,description may play a subordinate role in this conception of ekphrasis.
According to Svetlana Alpers, "ekphrasisoriginated in lateantiquity as a rhetorical
modeof praising and describingpeople, places, buildings, andworks of art" (196). In
A rtand theRoman Viewer,]as Eisner labels thekinds of prose descriptions ofworks
of art that sophistic rhetoricians in late antiquity presented to their audiences as
"rhetoricaldeclamations" (25).
The tradition of ekphrasis as a "rhetorical description of awork of art"
(Mitchell 153) had a separate development from that of ekphrasis as a formal
description of people, places, times, and events and as one of the exercises of the
progymnasmata. The formerhad itsorigins in theprose works ofPhilostratus the
Elder, Philostratus theYounger, and Callistratus. Philostratus theElder was a
Greek sophistwho taught inAthens, probably in the late second and early third
century A.D. Because he shares his name with other sophists of this period, it
isdifficult to be more precise about his background. Philostratus composed a
series of descriptions of paintings titled Imagines, "written as lectures or
rhetorical exercises to display the powers of the sophist. Insofar as he was a
teacher, theywere models to be followed by his pupils" (Fairbanks xxii). The
Imagines claims to be describing a series of paintings in an art gallery in a villa
on theBay ofNaples. Philostratus has been invitedby theowner to spend some
time there. At the request of theyoung son of his host and of other young men,
Philostratus delivers a series of lectures or declamations describing and inter
preting the paintings. This is the context for the descriptions of theworks of
art in theImagines.
Students of rhetoric aremore interested in the Imagines for the light they
shed on the rhetorical practices of professional speakers and educators during
the "Second Sophistic." Scholars of arthistory and criticism, however, view the
Imagines "as one of the great ruins of antiquity" (Bryson 255). The archaeological
metaphor used to describe the Imagines suggests that some scholars consider the
a
Imagines to be "our most extensive account ofwhat Roman picture gallery, a
Roman catalogue of pictures, and theRoman viewing of pictures may have been
like" (Bryson 255). But other scholars question whether or not the gallery or the
paintings ever existed. To JasEisner, the gallerymay have been merely "a literary
device for the fictional framing of his [Philostratus] descriptions" (24). "There
isno external evidence," hewrites, "other than the textofPhilostratus himself" (24).
Philostratus theYounger was the grandson of Philostratus the Elder. In
about 300 A.D., hewrote a series of descriptions of paintings (Imagines) similar
to that of his grandfather. He deals with similar themes and uses similar
conventions. For example, the themes of ten of his seventeen descriptions of
uses the
paintings closely match those of his grandfather. In addition, he
a
convention of addressing real or imaginary audience, although theyoung boy
that the elder Philostratus addresses recedes rapidly into the background of the
young Philostratus' declamations.

This content downloaded from 170.140.26.180 on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:33:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The RhetoricofEkphrasis 443

About Callistratus, we know very little except forwhat he tells us in the


Descriptions. The Descriptions are aseriesof lecturesdescribingand praising statuesand
the successof the artist.Callistratus usesmany of the themes setforthby Philostratus
theElder inhis descriptionsof statues.But theyoungmen who servedas theaudience
for the Philostrati have disappeared. Like the descriptions of Philostratus the
Younger, thedescriptions ofCallistratus seem tobe subordinate tohismore general
aim of praising and blaming the sculptor or thework of art.
From a genericpoint ofview, theImagines of thePhilostrati and theDescriptions
ofCallistratus seem tobe "a seriesof rhetoricaldeclamations inthe formof ekphrasis"
(Eisner 25). JamesHefferman puts these "orations" squarely in the encomiastic
tradition. "Classic ekphrasis," he argues, "salutes the skill of the artist and the
miraculous verisimilitude of the forms thathe creates" (4).Hefferman goes on to
maintain that it is "implausible to identify ekphrasis with anything like pure
description" (6). The ekphrasesof Philostratus theYounger, and Callistratus are
rhetorical exercisesdealingwith works of art, intended to be used asmodels to teach
studentstheartof declamation. The description and/or interpretationof thepainting
or the statue isa subordinate purpose.
"
The aims of ekphrasis in this tradition have been described variously as to
persuade andmove an audience to believe in theverisimilitude of atextual reality"
(Smith37)," to teach theyoung to interpretpaintings,and thework athand" (Bartsch
17), "to praise the skill of the painter and to cultivate the taste of the observer"
(Fairbanks xxv), to give "graphic accounts ofdramatic events and by articulatingthe
emotion aroused by the subject of thepainting... tomove the listener"0ames and
Webb 9), and "to display thepower of the sophists" (Fairbanks xxii).
Much of the subjectmatter of the paintings and sculpture described by the
Philostrati andCallistratus consistsof scenesfromliterature,myth, andhistory.There
are, of course, descriptions of landscapes and seascapes and a still lifeor two. But
according toArthur Fairbanks, "all but sixor eight of the paintings described by
Philostratus are based eitherdirectly on literarysources or onmyths which found
expression both in literature and painting. We may even say that in this epoch
literatureand painting actually viedwith each other in thepresentation of the same
themes" (xvi-wii). In termsof the rhetorical strategyof the speaker, "the ekphrasis
aims topresent the same subjectas thepainting, inan equally vividway, andthespeaker
often underlines thisby claiming to rival thepainting" (fames andWebb 8).
Just as there isa close relationship between description and narration in the
progymnasmatic tradition,there isalso a close relationshipbetween description and
narration in the traditionof ekphrasisconsidered as the rhetoricalprose description
of awork of art. According to Liz James and Ruth Webb, "ekphrasis evolved
essentially as a technique forpresenting events takingplace intime ratherthan static
objects. In Late Antique ekphrasis [sic] of paintings, narrative elements are
predominant; the speakers frequentlyuse theirknowledge of the subject tomention
events farbeyond what could possibly have been
represented ina picture" (7).Why
did thePhilostrati andCallistratus, intheirdescriptions ofworks of art,tend to turn
staticscenes "intomicro-narratives" (Beaujour 33)? One response isthat "the static

This content downloaded from 170.140.26.180 on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:33:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
444JAC

scenesdepicted are fictitiouslyand surreptitiouslyendowed with motion


(usually in
overt or implicit imitation of the poetry these pictorial scenes are supposed to
illustrate)99(Beaujour 33). Another and perhaps more important reason is "that
paintings convey thedramatic actions of human and divine events represented as an
illusion bymeans of perspective and naturalistic imitation.A knowledge of these
events,which are drawn from literatureandmythology, isprerequisite to a full
understanding of the artist's representation of them" (Land 33).
From a rhetoricalpoint of view, as thesedeclamations relate to the rhetorical
situation, by turning these static scenes intomicro-narratives, the speaker can
provide a narrative context to enable the viewer to better understand what is
going on in the painting. "In terms of the strategy of viewing, the painting
described alludes to a literarycontext which Philostratus seizes and rearranges
so that the picture can become its centre" (Eisner 30).
The techniques that sophistic educators used to depictworks of artvaries from
rhetorician to rhetorician.For example, Philostratus theEldermoves frompainting
topainting, discussing themeaning of each paintingwith his audience. He addresses
both his immediate audience and his readerby an extensiveuse of the second person
and by his constant questions ("What does thepaintingmean?" "What need isthere
ofmusic ina desertplace?") and exhortations ("Now look at thepainting and you will
see just this going on."). He alludes to the story thatprovides the context forhis
ekphrasisas toldbyHomer or some other poet ("Have you noticed,my boy, thatthe
painting here isbased onHomer...?"), retellsparts of the story, and develops the
theme. Then he describes theprominent featuresof thepicture. From time to time,
hemay pause to praise some featureof thepainting ("Ipraise, too, thedewy look of
the roses, and assert that they are painted fragrance and all").
Like the elder Philostratus, Philostratus theYounger moves frompainting
topainting, discussing themeaning of each. The young boy towhom Philostratus
the Elder addresses his remarks is stillpresent as a rhetorical convention ("Let
us ask theyouth, my boy, who he isandwhat is the reason forApollo's presence
with him . . .?"), but appears less frequently inmost of the declamations.
Philostratus theYounger follows the conventions used by his grandfather of
addressing his audience by using questions ("What is the meaning of the
painting?") and exhortations ("Now seehow the contestants have already joined
battle?") to direct the reader's perceptions. Like his grandfather, too, he alludes
to the story or myth depicted by the painting ("That Orpheus, the son of the
Muse, charmed by hismusic even creatures thathave not the intelligence ofman,
all thewriters ofmyths agree, and thepainter also tellsus..."), retellsparts of the
story, and praises the skill of the painter ("The painter is clever and exact inhis
craftsmanship; for ifone examines thewhole picture, nothing has been over
looked, not even as regards the attendants."). However, Philostratus the
Younger differsfrom the elder Philostratus inhis handling of descriptive details.
Whereas Philostratus theElder describes only themain featuresof thepainting,
the younger Philostratus describes each painting inmore definite detail. In
describing a boar in a boar hunt, forexample, he gives these descriptive details:

This content downloaded from 170.140.26.180 on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:33:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheRhetoricofEkphrasis 445

"you see how bloodshot ishis eye, how his crest bristles, and how abundant is
the foam thatdrips fromhis longupright tusks,which areunblunted at thepoint."
Callistratus differsinhis technique from thatof the two Philostrati because he
isdescribing a differentmedium and a differentkind ofwork of art. For example, in
describing a statueofDionysus, who was believed tohave visitedlndia (hence the title,
"On theStatue of an Indian"), he begins by giving the reader thename of the statue,
tellswhere it is located, andmentions thematerial ofwhich it ismade ("By a spring
stood an Indian, setup as adedication to theNymphs. The Indian was ofmarble
vergingon black"). Then he describes itsprominent features("ithad thickwooly hair,
shiningwith a hue not exactly black") and praises the success of the artist ("itwas
perfected only as regards the composition of its limbs"). Although Callistratus
includesmore descriptivedetails inhis ekphrasisthandoes Philostratus theElder, his
aim "is rather to praise, and thedescription isquite subordinate to his rhetorical
encomium of the sculptor'smarvelous success inhiswork" (Fairbanks 379).
Like the treatmentof style intheexerciseon ekphrasisintheprogymnasmata,the
treatmentof style in theprose description ofworks of artputs a strongemphasis on
clarity and vividness. In discussing the role of ekphrasis in the ancient novel, Shadi
Bartsch connects the two qualities of style inthismanner: "Providingthe readerwith
a vivid visual imagewas defined as theparticular role of all ecphrasis [sic]? The
other quality of ecphrasis [sic],largelyafunctionof thatvividness, is itsabilitytomove
thehearer" (111). Clarity and vividness become themeans bywhich the speaker or
writer enables the audience to absorb thework of art into themind. Clarity and
vividness help the speaker to create an illusion thatelicits an imaginative response
fromtheviewer. "By penetrating thevisual imaginationof the listenerand involving
him inthe subjectof the speech,theorator can persuademore effectivelythan through
logical argument alone" (Webb andWeller332).
As a literaryor poetic genre,ekphrasisrefersto "poemswhich describeworks of
visual art" (Mitchell 152). The earliest classic example, often cited by scholars, is
Homer's description ofAchilles' shield in theIliad. Another oft-quoted example is
Virgil's description of the shield ofAeneas in theAeneid. During theHellenistic
period, ekphrasisappears innarrative poetry as "an isolated unitwithin discourse"
(Dubois 6). Then itdetaches itselffromnarrative and appears ina variety of non
narrativecontexts, including lyricpoetry.
In earlierpoetic narrative, ekphrasisfocusedon everyday objects such as vases,
bowls, flasks,combs, cloaks, sandals,garments,murals, tapestries,and the like.The
description of everyday objects inearlyGreek literature leadsW.J.T. Mitchell to
conclude that"theearliestexamples of ekphrasticpoetry arenot... principally focused
on painting, but on utilitarian objects that
happen tohave ornamental or symbolic
visual representations attached to them" (115).
Today, scholars labelas ekphrasisonly thosepoems that"entailengagementswith
particular and identifiableworks of art" (Hollander 5). Some typical examples of
ekphrasticpoetry fromtheRenaissance on includeAndrew MarvelPs "TheGallery,"
William Wordsworth's "Elegiac Stanzas" (suggestedby a picture ofPeele Castle in
astorm),Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Ozymandias" (adescriptionof astatue of theancient

This content downloaded from 170.140.26.180 on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:33:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
446JAC

Egyptian ruler), JohnKeats' "Ode on aGrecian Urn," Robert Browning's "My


Last Duchess," W.H. Auden's "Musee des Beaux Arts" (suggested by Brueghel's
painting of Icarus),William Carlos Williams' Breughel poems, such as "The Fall
of Icarus" and "The Corn Harvest," and so forth.
The poetry of ekphrasiscannot easily be separated from itsprogymnasmatic
and prose counterparts. It shareswith them the situating of individual scenes
within theirnarrative contexts, thedescription of select featuresof thework of
art, the emphasis on clarity and vividness, and even the convention of praising
and blaming the artist and thework of art.Of thepoems with which I ammost
familiar in this tradition,Robert Browning's "My Last Duchess" follows closely
the conventions used by Philostratus theElder, the younger Philostratus, and
Callistratus in their prose declamations ofworks of art.
Although there isa tendency in recent scholarship to limit thedefinition of
ekphrasis to descriptions ofworks of art, in the rhetorical tradition, educators in
late antiquity assumed that speakers and writers should be skilled in scene
painting in the broadest sense. As a rhetorical strategy,ekphrasiswas considered
essential to all themajor genres-?epic, lyricpoetry, pastoral, drama, history, and
romance. "In the hands of the sophists of the second and third
century,"
however, "the ecphrasis [sic] became a literary form that delighted audiences"
(Clark203).

ArizonaStateUniversity
Tempe,Arizona

Works Cited

Alpers, Svetlana Leontief. "Ekphrasis and Aesthetic Attitudes inVasari's Lives." Journal of the
Warburg
andCourtauldlnstituteslb (1960): 190-215.

Baldwin, Charles Sears. Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1959.

Bartsch, Shadi. DecodingtheA ncientNoveh TheReaderandtheRoleofDescription in theHeliodorusandAchilles


Tatius. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1989.

Beaujour, Michel. "Some Paradoxes of theDescriptive." Towards aTheory ofDescription. YaleFrench


Studies61 (1981):27-59.

Becker, Andrew Sprague. The Shield ofAchilles and thePoeticsofEkphrasis. Lanham,MD: Rowman&
Littlefield, 1995.

Bryson, Norman. "Philostratus and the ImaginaryMuseum." A Hand Text inA ncientGreek Culture. Ed.
Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. 255-83.

Butts, James R. TheProgymnasmata ofTheoniA New Text with Translation and Commentary. Diss.
Claremont: Claremont Graduate School, 1987.

Clark, DonaldLemen. Rhetoric inGreco-RomanEducation. Morningside Heights, NJ:ColumbiaUP, 1957.

Conan, Michel. "The Imagines of Philostratus." Word&Image 3.2 (19 S7): 162-71.

Dubois,Page. History, Rhetorical Description and theEpic. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1982.

This content downloaded from 170.140.26.180 on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:33:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The RhetoricofEkphrasis 447

"Ekphrasis." TheOxfordLHctionaryofByzantium. Ed. Alexander Kazhdan, Vol. 1,New York: OxfordUP,


1991. 683.

Eisner, Jas.Art and theRoman Viewer. New York: Cambridge UP, 1995.

Fairbanks, Arthur. "Introduction." Imagines,Philostratus, Descriptions, Callistratus. Trans. Arthur


Fairbanks,London: WilliamHeinemann, 1931;NewYork:G.P.Putnam'sSons, 1931. xv-xxxii.

Genette, Gerard. Figures ofLiteraryDiscourse. New York: ColumbiaUP, 1982.

Hefferman, JamesA.W. Museum ofWords: ThePoetics ofEkphrasisfromHomerto Ashbery. Chicago: U of


Chicago P, 1993.

Hollanderjohn. The Gazers Spirit:Poems Speaking toSilentWorksofArt. Chicago: U ofChicago P, 1995.

James, Liz, and Ruth Webb. "To Understand Ultimate Things and Enter Secret Places: Ekphrasis and
ArtinByzantium." ArtHistory 14.1 (1991): 1-17.

Kennedy, George A. GreekRhetoric Under Christian Emperors. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1983.

Land, Norman E. The Viewer as Poet- TheRenaissanceResponsetoA rt.


University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
UP, 1994.

Mitchell, WJ.T. Picture Theory. Chicago: U ofChicago P, 1994.

Nadeau, Ray. "The Progymnasmataof Aphthonius inTranslation." SpeechMonographs 19.4 (1952): 264
85.

Smith,Mack. Literary Realism andthe Ekphrastic Tradition. University Park, PA: PennsylvaniaState UP,
1995.

Webb, Ruth Helen, andPhilip Weller. "Enargeia." TheNew Princeton Encyclopedia ofPoetry andPoetics.
Ed. Alex Preminger andT.V.F. Brogan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1993.332.

Composition Forum
CompositionForum,published serm-annuallybytheAssociation
ofTeachers ofAdvanced Composition and edited and pro
duced atTheWriting Program, SyracuseUniversity, invites
articles and review essays on the theoriesof, practices in,and
approaches towriting pedagogy.Articles and essays should be
between 2,500to 5,000words in MLA style. Send typescripts
(two copies) and diskettes toFredricG. Gale, Editor, Compo
sitionForum, 232HBC, SyracuseUniversity, Syracuse,NY
13244.

This content downloaded from 170.140.26.180 on Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:33:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like