Abstract
The article explores the problem of literary pictorialism, i.e. literary representation of the
visual arts, with respect to the term hypotyposis. It appears to have sunk in oblivion, although it can
boast of no less respectable origin as ekphrasis, and is by no means synonymous with the latter. In
this article the precise meaning of hypotyposis is made out by means of comparisons with terms
like trompe-l’oeil, anamorphosis, mise-en-abîme, and palimpsest. On the whole, hypotyposis does
not describe a work of art but constitutes its verbal variant, or a structural and thematic equivalent
in which the plot brings forth animated allegory of the image. We should distinguish, the article
argues, two types of hypotyposis, the mimetic and the diegetic. The mimetic hypotyposis animates
the content (the what) of the work of art, i.e. what is presented, or, in other words, the components
of the fi ctional world. The diegetic hypotyposis dynamizes the manner (the how) of the presentation,
i.e. it activates the manner in which the fi ctional world is constituted and the philosophical or
formal problems raised by the work’s representation. Finally, the article examines the differences
between hypotyposis and the generally accepted meaning of ekphrasis.
Go to article