An Tard, 8, 2000 EKPHRASIS, AMPLIFICATION AND PERSUASION IN PROCOPIUS’ BUILDINGS

An Tard, 8, 2000, p. 67 à 71
67

EKPHRASIS, AMPLIFICATION AND PERSUASION IN PROCOPIUS’ BUILDINGS

RUTH WEBB

Ekphrasis, amplification et persuasion dans les Édifices de Procope

L’auteur souligne ici la nécessité de prendre en compte les usages rhétoriques spécifiques de
l’ekphrasis pour juger de la façon dont les contemporains ont reçu les Édifices de Procope. Ces
usages sont ceux que préconisaient les principaux manuels, et qu’illustraient divers antécédents (soit
pour des constructions déjà, soit pour d’autres réalités comme les batailles). Il s’agit essentiellement
de la multiplication de détails propres à rendre concret ce que l’on évoque, dans son aspect final
comme dans le processus de sa réalisation. Et dans le cas de la louange procopienne de Justinien, on
retrouve notamment l’ “amplification” prônée dans le Basilikos Logos de Ménandre ; ce n’est pas
une exagération, au demeurant, mais l’effet d’un souci de véritablement persuader. La présentation
de Sainte-Sophie est particulièrement révélatrice. Procope l’érige en œuvre maîtresse, pour mieux
convaincre surtout de ce qu’il affirme pour l’ensemble des réalisations de Justinien. Par l’ekphrasis,
l’écrivain vise encore à préserver les réalisations de l’oubli, assignant à son panégyrique le rôle
commémoratif d’une inscription sur un monument. [J.-P. C.]

The genre of the Buildings is notoriously difficult to define
since the work combines elements of panegyric,
historiography and periegetic literature1. Far from being a
question of purely literary interest, the problem of genre is
key to our understanding of how the work might have been
received and understood by its sixth-century audience. I
would like to approach this problem of reception by focussing
on one strand of the literary texture of the Buildings: the use
of ekphrasis. Most readers would agree that ekphraseis of
buildings play a major role in Procopius’ text. The pièce de
résistance is the elaborate description of Hagia Sophia in
Book One, but the rest of the text consists largely of more or
less elaborate descriptions of cities and fortifications. These,
although they do not reach the scale of the account of Hagia
Sophia, still satisfy the ancient definition of ekphrasis as a
circumstantially detailed account of a place or action, to name
but two of the standard subjects for ekphrasis cited in
rhetorical handbooks. Understanding the function of
ekphrasis and the presuppositions underlying its use (which
differ from the presuppositions which underlie our notion
1. On the generic affinities of the Buildings see J. Irmscher,
Justinian als Bauherr in der Sicht der Literatur seiner Epoche,
in Klio, 59, 1977, p. 225-9 and Cameron, Procopius, p. 90.
of description) can help us to understand how such a text
might have been received.
The rhetorical treatments of ekphrasis cannot directly help
us settle questions of genre (still less of the reliability of the
descriptions, which can only be determined by comparison
with the archaeological record) since ekphrasis was discussed
as a technique, equally useful to historians, poets and orators
of all persuasions, rather than as a genre in itself2. But the
specifically rhetorical uses of ekphrasis, particularly in
panegyric, are the ones which are most potentially valuable
for understanding Procopius’ project and how it might have
been received by an audience who were familiar with the
practice of panegyrical ekphrasis3. We do not need to sup-
2. By the sixth century ekphrasis had come to be used as an
independent form, often but not exclusively celebrating buildings
or works of art, as in Paul the Silentiary’s ekphrasis of Hagia
Sophia and works by Procopius of Gaza and John of Gaza. This
development is noted by Nicolaus, author of a fifth century ver-
sion of the Progymnasmata, but he insists that ekphrasis is still
essentially a constituent part of a larger work.
3. This is not to assume that the Buildings was necessarily composed
for rhetorical performance, though Downey’s hypothesis that
Book One was originally composed and performed separately is
attractive; see Downey, Notes. A knowledge of rhetoric is likely
to have informed the reception of texts which were read privately.
68 RUTH WEBB
pose that this audience (or even the author) were consummate
rhetoricians themselves, but rather that exposure to the all-
pervasive habits of panegyric would have engendered cer-
tain expectations which may differ from those created by
our own experience of literature.
USES OF EKPHRASIS
Ekphrasis was defined in the handbooks as a speech which
brought its subject matter vividly before the eyes of the
audience 4 . In this it is synonymous with enargeia,
hupotuposis, diatuposis and diagraphe which are used
interchangeably in other treatises5. Very little practical in-
formation about how to achieve the effect of «placing before
the eyes» is transmitted in the handbooks, but it is clear from
the model ekphrasis of the Alexandrian Acropolis given by
the fourth-century rhetorician Aphthonius, and from scattered
comments elsewhere in the literature that reference to details
of appearance was vital. Breaking down a subject into its
various parts was one method: Aphthonius’ own model
ekphrasis, of the Alexandrian Acropolis, takes the reader
on a tour of the site, describing each part in turn. For
Nicolaus, writing in the following century, an ekphrasis is
characterised by the amount of perceptible detail evoked
for the reader, in contrast to narration, which merely states
some fact6.
Aphthonius’ model ekphrasis of an architectural complex
reflects, like the Buildings itself, a growing interest in Late
Antiquity in the description of monuments. But these were
by no means the only type of subject matter which students
of rhetoric were taught to expand into ekphraseis, and I
believe it is important to treat ekphraseis of buildings against
the background of ekphrasis as a whole. For Aphthonius
and Nicolaus, detailed accounts of battles were as much
ekphraseis as descriptions of buildings. What makes an
ekphrasis an ekphrasis is the reference to perceptible details,
whether of objects or actions, the purpose of which is to
place the subject (whatever it is) «before the eyes» of the
audience.
In the case of man-made objects different modes of des-
cription were envisaged, each emphasising a different as-
pect of the subject matter. One method was to describe the
finished artifact, as Aphthonius does on his virtual tour of
4. See, for example, Aphthonius, Progymnasmata, ed. H. Rabe
(Leipzig, 1926) p. 36: ¦kfrasiw ¡sti lñgow perihghmatikòw êp ƒ
öcin gvn tò dhloæmenon. « Ekphrasis is a descriptive (literally:
leading around) speech which brings the subject matter (to
deloumenon) vividly before the eyes. »
5. Ekphrasis is a technical term, not usually found outside
handbooks and scholia, we should therefore not be surprised to
find that Procopius does not use it.
6. Nicolaus, Progymnasmata, ed. J. Felten, Leipzig, 1913, p. 69,
ll.2-3.
An Tard, 8, 2000
the Alexandrian Acropolis7. Another, which Procopius makes
great use of in the Buildings, is to describe the process by
which it was made, giving a detailed narration of the cons-
truction process. Theon’s first-century Progymnasmata is
the only version of these preliminary exercises to make
explicit reference to this practice as a category of ekphrasis,
which he terms ekphrasis of the tropos (the “manner in
which” something is made), citing as models the accounts
of the fabrication of the Shield of Achilles by Hephaestus in
Iliad 18, and of the construction of military fortifications
and stratagems in Thucydides and other historians8. But the
concept is implicit in Nicolaus and clearly present in the
later commentators on Aphthonius9.
The sources on ekphrasis which I have been discussing
are all handbooks describing the elementary rhetorical
exercises which a student would have encountered at the
very beginning of his rhetorical studies. As such they can be
read as reflections of the basic concepts and categories of
literary and rhetorical discourse which were deeply ingrained
in writers and audience alike. Most importantly, we find a
definition of ekphrasis which stresses the imaginative im-
pact of works on the audience, and which envisages the des-
cription of objects as a form of description of the actions of
a person or group of people. A study of ekphrasis in the
Buildings must therefore include the many places where
Procopius gives detailed, circumstantial accounts of the
manner in which (to borrow Theon’s formulation) Justinian
constructed certain projects. In fact, Procopius appears in
places to refer to the technical classification of such passa-
ges, most clearly in the introduction to his account of the
water-gate at Dara, where he says: « I shall show (deloo) in
what manner (tropos) he ensured that the city would never
again suffer such damage from the river, with God clearly
helping him in this work10. »
7. On this technique in sixth-century and later ekphraseis of
churches see Webb, The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative,
Metaphor and Motion in Ekphraseis of Church Buildings in DOP,
53, 1999, p. 59-74.
8. Theon, Progymnasmata, 118, 27-119, 2 cites a fragment of
Ctesias identifiable as FgrH III, 688, 9b F Jacoby, and
Thucydides’ account of the fortification (periteichismos) of
Plataea. This latter passage is identified in modern editions as 3,
21, a brief account of the finished construction. However, 2, 75-
8, a vivid account of the construction of the fortifications, fits
Theon’s argument much better.
9. In his eleventh-century commentary Doxapatres includes an
extended discussion of the ekphrasis of the tropos, with particular
reference to buildings, explaining that buildings can be described
either as they appear in their finished form, or through an account
of their construction. Doxapatres, Homiliae in Aphthonii
Progymnasmata, in Rhetores Graeci ed. C. Walz, 2 p. 513-14.
10. Procopius, Buildings, 2, 3, 1: ÷ntina d¢ prosepoÛhse trñpon
t» pñlei mhk¡ti aét» p‹yow pròw toè potamoè jumb»nai
toioèton, toè yeoè diarr®dhn aétÒ junepilambanom¡nou tò
spoædasma toèto, ¤gÆ dhlÅsv.
An Tard, 8, 2000 EKPHRASIS, AMPLIFICATION AND PERSUASION IN PROCOPIUS’ BUILDINGS
Both the verb deloo and the reference to the «manner in
which» Justinian constructed his defences at Dara link this
passage directly to the technical discussions of ekphrasis in
the handbooks. The Progymnasmata can give us an idea of
the sorts of compositional categories and techniques which
lay at the root of rhetorical training and which must have
informed common conceptions of literary and rhetorical
texts. These elementary discussions were simply a prelude
to the further stages of rhetorical training which taught
students how to put the skills they had learned into practice
in more elaborate compositions11. The ways in which students
were taught to make use of ekphrasis in larger contexts, like
declamations (meletai) or epideictic (or panegyric) speeches
can tell us more about the sorts of expectations an audience
familiar with this type of rhetorical production would have
brought to their reading of rhetorical ekphrasis.
Nicolaus, at the end of his discussion of the exercise of
ekphrasis, gives an indication of these expectations. In
explaining how ekphrasis could be used in various types of
speech, he states that this type of discourse had a properly
rhetorical effect in deliberative (political) speeches, helping
to persuade an audience, while in judicial speeches it was a
valuable means of amplifying a subject12. His words point
to a persuasive function for ekphrasis which informs its use
in many types of composition, including Procopius’ Buil-
dings.
EKPHRASIS, EPIDEICTIC AND THE BUILDINGS
Of all the rhetorical genres, epideictic (or panegyric) is
the one most directly relevant to Procopius’ project, as has
often been noted. According to Nicolaus, the function of
ekphrasis in panegyric was primarily to produce a feeling of
pleasure (hedone) in the audience13. This would seem to
indicate a primarily decorative role for ekphrasis in
epideictic, but Menander Rhetor’s instructions for composing
the many types of epideictic speech which articulated key
moments of private and public life for the late antique elite
hint at a more complex function, and one which brings the
role of the epideictic orator closer to that of the judicial or
deliberative orator who has to persuade his audience.
Menander implies, for example, that the ekphrasis of a city
in a speech inviting an official to visit that city would
contribute to the persuasive force of the speech, and that the
hupotuposis of earthquake damage was an essential part of
the Ambassador’s speech requesting imperial help (just as
today’s appeals for aid rely heavily on the visual depiction
of ruined buildings)14.
11. Theon, Progymnasmata, 70, 24-71.1 is keen to point out that
the elementary exercises he is describing are a useful preparation
for the composition of poetry and history as well as oratory.
12. Nicolaus, Progymnasmata, p. 70, ll. 9-13.
13. Nicolaus, Progymnasmata, p. 70, ll. 13-15.
14. Menander Rhetor, On Epideictic, 427. 9-16 cf 428 7-15 and
69
These two examples show how ekphrasis could be used
in a speech which was composed, in theory at least, to
produce a practical effect, persuading the governor to visit,
or the emperor to send aid. (In practice, of course, such spee-
ches would have been part of a carefully choreographed ritual
of persuasion, in which the decision would have been
motivated by many factors, but this did not release the orator
from his duty to produce an appropriately persuasive
speech15). Closer to the case of the Buildings is the Basilikos
Logos, the speech in praise of an emperor, which restricted
itself, as audiences would have been well aware, to « the
good things pertaining to the Emperor16 ». Menander advises
his readers to use description (using ekphrasis and the verb
ekphrazo interchangeably with other terms) not just of the
settings of the emperor’s victories, but also of the events of
his campaigns (recommending classical and hellenistic
historians as models). Such descriptions were part of the
general amplification (auxesis) of the emperor and his
achievements which formed the backbone of the Basilikos
logos. The use of ekphrasis in Procopius’ Buildings fits this
pattern: the ekphraseis of how Justinian constructed this or
that project play the same role as the ekphraseis of battles
and military stratagems which Menander advises. From the
point of view of the relation of the ekphraseis to their
historical subjects, this is tantamount to repeating the
generally agreed opinion that Procopius took his starting
point from agreed facts (the necessary starting point for
amplification) and proceeded to embellish them17. But if we
consider the Buildings from the point of view of the audience,
or readers (since we do not need to assume any particular
reception context), there is more to say.
The term auxesis refers to « techniques used to increase
the perceived importance of some fact taken as given18 ». It
served as a kind of verbal highlighting which aimed to af-
fect the audience’s perception of the subject. In this way the
degree of elaboration in each ekphrasis of a site serves to
point out relative importance of places and projects, rather
as on the Madaba Map the most important sites are portrayed
in stylised detail (the visual equivalent of ekphrasis) while
others are merely given a visual mention. Ekphrasis,
moreover, was only one of many such techniques, and we
423. 19-28. See R. Webb, Mémoire et imagination: les limites
de l’enargeia dans la théorie rhétorique grecque in Dire l’évi-
dence, ed. C. Levy and L. Pernot, Paris, 1997, p. 229-48 on the
psychological workings of such descriptions.
15. See P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity:
Towards a Christian Empire, Madison, 1992, p. 107 on the
analogous example of Bishop Flavian’s persuasion of Theodosius
16. Menander Rhetor, ed. D.A. Russell and N.G. Wilson, Oxford,
1981, Treatise 2, 368, 4-5.
17. See Michael Whitby, Dara, p. 737-72 and Antioch, p. 537-48.
18. M. Heath, Invention in S. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical
Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, Leiden, 1997, p. 95.
70 RUTH WEBB
can see others at work in the Buildings, like the frequent
implicit comparisons of Justinian’s actions with former
emperors’ neglect of the sites, or even the lists of place-
names at 4, 4, 4.11 and 5, 9, which aim to impress by sheer
quantity and are therefore in keeping with the overall effect
of the work19.
Within the rhetorical system of composition, amplifica-
tion was far more than embellishment or systematic
exaggeration. As Laurent Pernot has shown, it had persua-
sive ends, even in the context of an epideictic speech20. It is
true that epideictic orator did not need to argue for one side
or the other of a case since, particularly in the case of the
Basilikos Logos, he was dealing with generally agreed facts.
But he still needed to present them in a convincing manner
and to highlight particular qualities of the subject through
his speech. The ekphraseis of battles and the like which
Menander prescribes for the Basilikos Logos have a very
precise function. They are there to illustrate the emperor’s
qualities, as is clear from the way in which Menander advises
the speaker to intersperse them with praise for the emperor’s
wisdom (phronesis) and to emphasise that all the events
described are to be attributed to him alone: « he was himself
the planner, the commander, the discoverer of the moment
for battle, a marvellous counsellor, champion, general,
orator21 ».
Precisely as Menander suggests, Procopius credits
Justinian several times with solutions to architectural (rather
than military) problems: at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople
(1, 1, 67-78), where his suggestions are interpreted explicitly
as signs of his intelligence (1, 1, 67)22, at Dara (2, 1.11-2,
21) and Antioch (2, 2, 18). In fact Procopius goes one step
further, attributing Justinian’s inspiration to a divine source
at 1, 1, 71 and 2, 2, 9, so that the monuments become signs
both of the emperor’s intelligence, as envisaged by
Menander, and of divine favour, as befitted a triumphant
Christian emperor.
In Menander’s scheme there is an extremely close inte-
raction between description and evaluation. The interspersed
comments on the emperor’s qualities indicate how the
audience is to understand the phenomenon which has been
described. But the description also serves both to illustrate
and confirm the claims made. The aim of an ekphrasis was
to make the audience «seem to see» the thing or event
described in their mind’s eye. So an effective ekphrasis of
19. On comparison as a means of amplifying a subject see
Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, 8, 4, 9-14 and L. Pernot, La rhé-
torique de l’éloge, Paris, 1993, p. 690-8 on accumulation
(congeries) see Quintilian, ibid. 8, 4, 26-7.
20. L. Pernot, La rhétorique de l’éloge, p. 675-80.
21. Menander Rhetor, 373, 23-4 and 374, 25: aétòw õ tòn kairòn
t°w sumbol°w eêrÛskvn, sæmboulow yaumastñw, Žristeæw,
strathgñw, dhmhgñrow.
22. Cf. Buildings, 4, 1, 1; 4, 2, 11.
An Tard, 8, 2000
the emperor’s military achievements would, ideally, make
the audience feel as if they too had witnessed his prowess in
distant lands. The technique is the same as that recommended
by Quintilian for convincing a judge in a judicial case: he
must be made to feel that he can see the events playing out
in his mind’s eye23. Similarly, for Menander’s epideictic
orator it was not enough simply to state these successes,
instead the audience had to be made to feel as if they were
there (in a process analogous to the setting up of a monu-
ment, or holding a triumphal procession, to provide a visual
sign of victory for the people).
In presenting detailed accounts of Justinian’s building
achievements in distant parts of the Empire, Procopius was
doing much the same as the orator who attempted to evoke
the emperor’s success in battle in a speech after the event.
In the Buildings, as in Menander’s account of the Basilikos
Logos, ekphraseis thus serve a dual purpose: they provide
illustrations of the subject’s qualities and at the same time
serve as proof of the speaker’s claims. The vocabulary of
proof and demonstration is frequent in epideictic speeches24
and recurs throughout the Buildings. This is particularly true
of the opening sections, where Procopius lays out his aims
and hints at his methods. His concern is that people may not
believe (apisteo 1, 1, 17) that all these buildings are the work
of one man, his text is there to record Justinian’s achievement,
to persuade his present and future audiences that these are
Justinian’s works. Like a forensic orator, he is concerned to
counter disbelief, and to offer proof (tekmerioo, 1, 1, 16).
Including a convincing, circumstantially detailed ekphrasis
in a speech was a well established way of trying to achieve
persuasion.
It is particularly interesting to consider Procopius’
treatment of Hagia Sophia in this light. The account of the
building and of Justinian’s role in its construction is the most
elaborate in the Buildings, as might be expected. But
Procopius makes clear that it functions as part of a larger
demonstration of Justinian’s deeds. The church, he says as
part of the ekphrasis, is beyond belief (apiston 1, 1, 27) to
those who have only heard about it and not seen it. But its
existence was incontrovertible for a Constantinopolitan
audience. Procopius thus implicitly refutes any doubts his
audience may have about the rest of his work: for if the visi-
ble marvels of Hagia Sophia are attributable to Justinian,
then how much more believable are the lesser churches and
fortifications out on the frontier, which few would have seen
with their own eyes25?
23. Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, 8, 3, 62. See K. Eden, Poetic
and Legal Fiction in the Aristotelian Tradition, Princeton, 1986.
24. L. Pernot, La rhétorique de l’éloge, p. 680-2.
25. At De Aed. 4, 3, 1-2 Procopius appeals to visitors from distant
regions who can corroborate his claims.
An Tard, 8, 2000 EKPHRASIS, AMPLIFICATION AND PERSUASION IN PROCOPIUS’ BUILDINGS
Procopius therefore uses Hagia Sophia as part of an
implicit argument a fortiori26. He presents the church as the
center-piece of Justinian’s building programme, and
simultaneously establishes his description of it as proof of
his claims about that programme. The example of Hagia
Sophia points to the special nature of buildings as a subject
of rhetorical ekphrasis. Unlike the military skirmishes
discussed by Menander Rhetor, building activity left lasting
traces. But these traces demanded interpretation. The
audience had to think of these buildings as the result of
Justinian’s activities, and as signs of his intelligence, provi-
dence and so forth. In this way the ekphraseis of the manner
in which some of the buildings were constructed attempt to
fix these monuments as signs. They thus function like ins-
criptions, using the power of ekphrasis to associate each
building, whether it was known at first hand or only through
his verbal evocation, with a tale of Justinian’s involvement
in the mind of the listener. This desire to fix the meanings of
things is particularly clear in the ekphrasis of the equestrian
statue which follows the account of Hagia Sophia and in
which Procopius assigns a meaning to each detail of the sta-
tue. But, as Michael Whitby points out (above) the precise
identification of this statue was questionable. Though it
referred undoubtedly to the ideal of the emperor, the identity
of the emperor is left unclear. In this implicit appropriation
of an earlier monument, Procopius gives us a glimpse of the
process he is so eager to counteract in his opening remarks.
RHETORIC AND HISTORIOGRAPHY
It is precisely the dangers of time, which causes great
deeds to be swept away from human consciousness, which
preoccupy Procopius in the programmatic opening remarks
26. Aristotle, Rhetoric, 2, 19, 4, uses the example of a building to
illustrate this type of argument: if it is possible for a beautiful
house to be made, it is all the more possible for a plain one to be
made.
71
of the Buildings. There, in a passage reminiscent of the
classical historians, his concern is not only for the beliefs of
individuals in Justinian’s achievement, but that the effects
of time might completely obliterate all memory of it. His
work is to be a historia (1.1.1 and 2) whose purpose is to
save the memory of events from the oblivion of time (1, 1,
2). His work is therefore, implicitly, a textual monument
which promotes a particular interpretation of the physical
monuments it records, in an attempt to resist precisely the
type of appropriation we see in the account of the equestrian
statue. Procopius is concerned to record, but above all to fix
a certain understanding of what he records in the minds of
his audience. His rhetorical amplification of Justinian’s role
as builder served to « increase the perceived importance »
of this aspect of his reign. More precisely the ekphraseis of
Justinian’s activities create a history for the works in ques-
tion which is to be henceforth attached to the audience’s
idea of the monuments as firmly as an inscription is attached
to a building. The Buildings is a rhetorical work in that it
seeks to affect the audience’s perceptions of its subject matter
(whether the picture Procopius paints is historically accurate
or not is an entirely different question, since techniques of
persuasion can be used to convey fact and fiction equally).
In this ideal picture, Justinian emerges as the founder of the
empire in its present state. Procopius’ own reference to the
effects of time, however, open the door implicitly to the bleak
possibility of future oblivion and destruction against which
he attempts to struggle through his text. These forces may
have won, but the very fact that Justinian’s name is still linked
with some of the remaining fragments is a sign that the Buil-
dings is still working its effect.
Princeton University