Reply to Julia Murray

Responses and Replies 385 tended), which is that the "pointer" literally directs the viewer's gaze (sometimes by actuallypointing) to a motifcrucial to the meaning ofthe poem. Ofthe other paintings she offers as antecedents, the more relevant is the Goddess ofthe Luo River, which I do discuss; ReturningHome does not seem as useful, although it perhaps contributes more than even the Odespaintings to the later Southern Song theme offigures enjoying natural imagery. In my final chapter I make the argument, ignored by Müller, that the Odes scrolls had virtually no impact on painting after the Southern Song, and I discuss this rather surprising finding at some length. In spite ofMa Hezhi's considerable artistic attainment, he was defined primarily through his association with Gaozong, whose reputation plummeted after the Song. Moreover, the decline in the prestige ofillustration as a whole devalued Ma's accomplishments, because the genre later became identified with nameless artisans. The fact that Müller mentions none ofthis discussion probably reflects again our different interests as scholars, but it is dishonorable ofher to claim that my study of the Odes scrolls has no "larger framework." Her disquisition on the "appropriate historical context " that she believes necessary to "interpolate" is so arcane that readers outside the field will probably conclude that art history is simply baffling and irrelevant for understanding China. Julia K. Murray University ofWisconsin Reply to Julia Murray Contrary to Professor Murray's claims, I did not engage in a personal attack in myreview. My analysis ofher work is a dispassionate scholarly assessment based upon reasoned evidence and arguments drawn from contemporary scholarship in the discipline ofChinese painting studies. I stand by that criticism and refer the reader to my original review. Deborah Del Gais Muller Rhode Island School of Design ...