Icon: Studies in the History of An Idea 9780814723340

Citation preview

ICON

BY THE SAM E AUTHO R Imago Hominis: Studies in the Language of Art (1991) Modern Theories of Art, 1: From Winckelmann to Baudelaire (1990) Giotto and the Language of Gesture (198-7) Theories of Art: From Plato to Winckelmann (198j) Light and Color in the Italian Renaissance Theory of Art (1978) Gestures of Despair in Medieval and Early Renaissance Art (1976) Crusader Figural Sculpture in the Holy Land (1972)

MOSHE BARASC H

ICON Studies in the History of an Idea

NEW YOR K UNIVERSIT Y PRES S NEW YORK AND LONDO N

NEW YOR K UNIVERSITY PRESS New Yor k an d Londo n Copyright © 1992 , 199 5 b y Ne w Yor k Universit y All right s reserve d Library of Congres s Cataloging-in-Publication Dat a Barasch, Moshe. Icon : studies in the history of a n idea / Moshe Barasch. p. cm . Includes bibliographical reference s an d index. ISBN 0-8147-1172-3 (clot h : acid-free paper ) ISBN 0-8147-1214- 2 (paper : acid-fre e paper ) 1. Icons—Cult—Histor y o f doctrines—Early church , ca. 30-600 . 2. Imag e (Theology)—History o f doctrines—Early church , ca. 30-600. 3 . Iconoclasm . 4 . Icons—Cult—Histor y o f doctrines— Middle Ages , 600-1500. 5 . Imag e (Theology)—History o f doctrines Middle Ages, 600-1500. I . Title . BR238.B36 199 2 x 246'.53'o90i5—dc2o 9 -45350 CIP New Yor k Universit y Pres s books are printed on acid-free paper , and their binding materials are chosen fo r strength and durability. Manufactured i n the United States of Americ a 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Contents

Introduction

Reflections in

PART ON E Classical Antiquity 11

i . Th e Biblica l Prohibitio n o f Image s 2. Antiquit y I : The Animate d Imag e i. A n Introductory Observatio n 2. Eidolon 3. Th e God an d Hi s Imag e (i) Th e Desire to Be Close to Go d (ii) Drea m Literatur e (iii) Ritual s 4. Th e Animated Imag e 5. Conclusion s v

vi

Contents

3. Antiquit y II : Against th e Image s o f God s 4

9

4. Resemblance : Th e Interna l Developmen t o f th e Concep t 6 1. Allegor y 6 2. Resemblanc e 7 (i) Plato' s Cratylus 7 (ii) Plotinu s on Intuitiv e Knowledg e an d Resemblance 7 (iii) Porphyr y 7 (iv) Iamblichu s 8 (v) Proclu s 8

3 4 0 2 4 8 2 4

PART TW O The Icon in Early Christian Thought

93

5. Earl y Christia n Apologist s 9

5

6. Tertullia n 10

8

7. Orige n 12

7

8. Eusebiu s 14

1

9. Dionysiu s Areopagita : "Poetic " Theology 15 1. Som e Characteristics o f Hi s Thought 15 2. Conflictin g Theme s 16 (i) Transcendenc e 16 (ii) Hierarch y 16 3. Th e Doctrine of Symbol s 16 4. God' s Descent 16 5. Ascen t of th e Mind 17

8 8 0 1 3 5 8 2

PART THRE E The Doctrine of the Icon 183 10. I n Defens e o f Images : John o f Damascu s 18 1. Th e New Stag e 18 2. Joh n of Damascus : The Man an d the Author 18 3. Definitio n o f th e Image 19 4. "Wh y Are Images Made?" 19 (i) Th e Questions 19 (ii) Scheme s fo r Vindicating Image s 20 (iii) John' s View of th e Image's Purpose 20 (iv) Som e Implications fo r Art 21

5 5 8 2 9 9 0 4 9

Contents vi 5. Type s of Image s 22 6. Th e Visibility o f Bodiles s Being s 23 11. Th e Ico n an d th e Doctrin e o f Art : Theodor e o f Studio n 25 1. Th e Second Cycl e of th e Iconoclastic Debat e 25 2. Theodore' s Concept s an d Terms 25 3. Trend s and Themes i n the Second Cycl e 26 4. Theodore' s Repl y t o Iconoclastic Argument s 26 5. Differen t Concept s of th e Image 26 6. Th e Ico n and the Theory of Ar t 27 (i) Th e Sense of Sigh t 27 (ii) Circumscriptio n 27 (iii) Plac e 28 Name Inde x 29 Subject Inde x

i 0 6 4 4 7 1 6 8 7 7 9 2 1 *95

ICON

Introduction

The studen t o f religiou s image s wil l alway s wonde r abou t th e strang e ambivalence, o r eve n conflicts , i n attitude s t o th e artisti c depiction s o f the divine. O n the one hand , we kno w tha t often i n history suc h image s have no t bee n accepte d a s a matte r o f course . I n man y generation s w e find philosophers , priests , o r politica l leader s wh o doubte d o r eve n attacked th e validit y an d "truth " of hol y icons , sometime s goin g s o fa r as t o describ e the m a s "lies, " a s "dea d matter, " o r eve n a s outrigh t representatives o f th e devil , o r wha t i n differen t societie s passe d a s th e equivalent of th e devil. These thinkers found communitie s who followe d them, an d grea t movement s wer e sometime s initiated . W e know , o f course, that there were always large groups and organizations, ecclesiastical an d political , tha t defende d thes e ver y sam e images , an d investe d great effort i n demonstrating thei r value and usefulness. These defender s of sacre d images , however , neve r manage d t o restor e a naiv e belie f i n the image , a trus t untouche d b y doubt . Eve n th e mos t enthusiasti c i

2 Introduction champion o f picture s acknowledges , b y th e ver y fac t tha t h e o r sh e ha s to defen d th e image' s validity , tha t the object of hi s or her veneration i s problematic. O n th e other hand, the student als o knows tha t the philosophers, religiou s o r politica l leaders , o r simpl y fanatica l believer s wh o rejected sacred images as lies, as appearances lacking in substance, rarely merely neglected or ignored them , as one would perhap s expect i f something i s believe d t o b e devoi d o f trut h an d vigor . O n th e contrary , the y seemed t o hav e sense d a strang e an d uncann y dange r i n thes e images . Precisely becaus e the y fel t th e powe r o f images , the y wer e drive n t o destroy them physically, smashin g the statues and burning the paintings. Perhaps n o mor e eloquen t tribute s hav e bee n pai d t o th e forc e inheren t in image s tha n th e outburst s o f violen t hatre d directe d agains t thes e supposedly "dum b objects " an d th e sometime s uncontrollabl e urg e t o smash them to pieces. This conflic t o f attitude s i s perhap s laten t i n ou r viewin g o f picture s in general , bu t i t become s particularl y strikin g whe n w e conside r ho w people have approached the images of God or of sacred figures. We need not attemp t her e t o explai n wh y th e imag e o f th e go d o r th e sain t stir s emotions mor e profoundly tha n doe s th e imag e of a simple mortal . I t is sufficient t o not e tha t befor e a god' s image—i n whateve r culture , an d whatever the look o f tha t image—i t seem s to b e particularly difficul t t o maintain a neutral beholder' s detache d attitude . I t was therefore mainl y in discussin g divin e image s tha t feeling s ra n high , bot h i n rejectio n an d in defense . I n tryin g t o understan d som e basi c attitude s t o artisti c im ages, the student will hav e to concentrate on the portrayal o f th e gods. Thoughts abou t th e natur e an d statu s o f th e imag e hav e stood , a s i s well known , at the center of great historical movements ; they dominate d processes an d event s tha t shoo k societies , upse t ol d institutions , an d determined th e cours e o f event s fo r centuries . Wha t ar e euphemisticall y called Iconoclasti c Debate s i n th e Byzantin e Empire , an d i n Wester n Europe i n th e wak e o f th e Reformation , a s wel l a s othe r movement s with a similar ideology, 1 wer e in fact great social, political, and religious movements accompanied b y a great deal of violence. At least part of thi s violence wa s directe d toward s images . Man y o f th e statue s with chopped off noses , obliterate d faces , an d broke n limb s tha t populat e ou r mu seums bea r eloquen t witnes s t o th e amoun t o f forc e tha t wa s directe d against them. Carefully followin g th e deed s o f th e iconoclast s i n differen t age s an d

Introduction 3 attentively studyin g thei r slogans , on e necessaril y observe s th e emer gence o f a characteristi c an d articulat e attitud e toward s th e image . T o be sure, the specific reason s for smashing images differ fro m one country to the other and fro m one ag e to th e other. Bu t when we disregard fo r a moment the specific condition s an d formulations, i t is not difficult t o see some commo n element s i n th e attitude s o f th e variou s individua l move ments. I f "attitude" is too narro w o r concrete a term, we coul d perhap s say tha t th e iconoclasti c movement s an d trend s o f though t hav e a common horizon. This attitude, or horizon, is perhaps best grasped when w e compare i t with th e approach t o artistic images with which we ourselve s are most familiar, what we are used to calling "the aesthetic experience." Let us therefore briefl y tur n to the aesthetic attitude. I shal l no t attemp t her e a n analysi s o f th e aestheti c experience , a subject tha t ha s no t suffere d fro m neglec t i n moder n thought . I shal l only remar k tha t i n surveyin g th e variou s theorie s pu t forwar d t o ex plain this kind of experience one notes that, however different th e particular poin t o f departur e ma y hav e been , al l student s agre e tha t som e specific element s o r qualities determin e th e overal l characte r o f th e ex perience. Thus , th e aestheti c experience , al l thinker s accept , involve s a certain detachmen t o f th e spectator , a certai n psychologica l distanc e from wha t i s depicted i n the imag e he or she i s looking at . I f by lookin g at th e imag e th e spectato r i s carrie d awa y an d move d t o ne w actio n o r new behavior—al l theorie s agree—hi s o r he r experienc e ma y b e valu able fo r educational , political , religious , o r othe r purposes , bu t i t stop s being a specifically aestheti c experience. Aesthetic experience, it has been said man y times , i s pur e contemplation , a contemplation tha t doe s no t lead anywhere beyon d itself. Eve n when th e spectator only ask s what an image purports, or signifies, or symbolizes, he or she is already overstepping the limits of th e aesthetic domain. 2 Closely relate d i s anothe r featur e tha t mus t als o b e briefl y touche d on. I n a n aestheti c approac h i t i s essentia l tha t th e work o f ar t b e considered i n isolatio n fro m anythin g else , completel y restin g o n itself . What ha s bee n calle d th e "autonom y o f th e wor k o f art " o r th e "isle like characte r o f th e wor k o f art " ar e othe r expression s fo r th e tota l separation o f th e wor k o f ar t fro m an y realit y outsid e o f itself . Fo r ou r purpose i t mus t b e stresse d tha t t o as k wha t essentia l feature s th e wor k of ar t ha s i n commo n wit h wha t i s outsid e i t i s t o undermin e it s au tonomy.

4 Introduction Now, i t i s importan t t o remembe r i n our contex t tha t i n th e variou s great debate s concernin g th e icon' s status , th e aestheti c attitud e neve r even cam e u p fo r discussion . Fo r both th e breaker s o f image s an d thei r defenders, th e iconoclast s an d th e iconodule s fro m lat e Antiquity t o th e Reformation, a n aestheti c attitud e wa s utterl y beyon d consideration . However dramatically oppose d thei r views of icon s may have been, they held the common convictio n tha t the image does not exist for itself, tha t it is not autonomous, an d that it should bring the spectator beyond mere contemplation. I n fact, a study o f thes e debates can show u s how recen t the aesthetic attitude is, and how sligh t its hold in past ages. The grea t Iconoclasti c Debate s i n Europea n histor y wer e no t wage d for the sake of aestheti c experience, or even fo r the ultimate clarificatio n of theologica l concepts . On e nee d no t b e a n ancien t o r medieva l histo rian to know wha t was at stake in these debates, and that battles for the domination o f empire s were waged i n the turmoi l brough t abou t b y the iconoclastic movements . Behin d seemingl y theoretica l question s th e struggle wen t o n fo r th e establishin g o f ne w politica l an d socia l order s or for the preventing of change , fo r or against ne w classe s attempting t o gain control over society and the institutions of power. To use a parlance common i n ou r days : th e differen t attitude s t o sacre d image s wer e a kind of signboard of the radical and conservative camp s in the respective periods. Modern researc h o n iconoclasti c movement s an d conflicts i n wester n history i s indee d oriente d mainl y toward s th e "underlying " causes , th e motives "behind " th e slogan s an d doctrine s tha t wer e explicitl y pro claimed i n the course of th e debates. Man y scholar s se e the great iconoclastic crise s i n Europea n histor y essentiall y a s powe r struggles , an d therefore the y loo k fo r th e "true " causes or reasons , to us e som e o f th e terms frequently employed . W e need no t go into methodological discus sions (tha t is surely not our aim) in order to see the danger of approach ing ideologica l attitudes—tha t is , wha t wa s explicitl y sai d abou t icon s —as i f the y wer e mer e pretexts . Tha t historica l situation s ar e a grea t deal mor e comple x tha n woul d see m t o follo w fro m a simpleminde d division betwee n "true " reason, o n th e on e hand , an d "pretext " on th e other, ha s o f cours e no t escape d scholarl y attention . Som e o f th e historians who ar e inclined t o loo k fo r socia l cause s behin d ideologica l stance s are wel l awar e o f th e complexit y prevailin g i n th e turbulen t processe s and movements associate d with the question of images. 3 But having said

Introduction 5 all this , i t remain s obviou s tha t fo r th e genera l historia n th e explici t contents of iconoclasti c debate s ar e not the primary subject of attention . It i s natural , therefore , tha t th e historia n shoul d approac h th e disput e about the nature of th e image, and whether or not it is true and valid, as a kind o f document , askin g what w e ca n lear n fro m i t about the societ y and the culture in general. Now, n o moder n studen t wil l den y tha t th e historians ' us e o f th e literary record s o f th e variou s Iconoclasti c Debate s primaril y a s "docu ments" i s justified . H e o r sh e wil l agre e tha t th e text s tha t for m thes e records, and that so often strik e us as remote or even abstruse, are more valuable fo r wha t the y indirectl y suggest , disclose , o r betra y tha n fo r what the y openl y proclaim . I n studyin g th e past , i t i s wel l known , w e cannot d o withou t tha t indirec t testimon y tha t ofte n form s th e majo r part o f wha t w e cal l "sources " in th e stud y o f history . I do no t intend , therefore, t o questio n i n an y wa y th e legitimac y an d usefulnes s o f th e historians' approach . However , i n readin g th e conceptua l statement s and th e record s o f th e debate , a s the y wer e writte n dow n i n th e cours e of struggle s over th e us e o f sacre d pictures , on e canno t hel p observin g that the y als o contai n a doctrine o f th e imag e i n general, an d th e imag e of th e divine in particular. It s formation, an d perhaps even its character, may hav e bee n determine d b y th e conflic t ove r social , political , an d religious issues , bu t th e doctrin e itsel f i s a significan t contributio n t o human thought abou t the image. It is a doctrine, I think, from whic h w e can stil l learn , althoug h th e condition s o f ou r reflectio n o n image s hav e so dramaticall y changed . I n the following chapters , then, I shall concen trate o n th e doctrin e itself , o n th e argument s employe d i n attackin g images o f Go d an d i n defendin g them . I shall focu s o n thes e argument s in th e earl y Christia n world , fro m wha t w e cal l lat e Antiquit y t o th e great, an d classic , defens e o f image s b y St . Joh n o f Damascu s an d Theodore o f Studion . Speaking of a "doctrine of images " in this broad context is, of course, apt to make one apprehensive. Even in the period to which we shall limit ourselves, w e encounte r suc h a bewilderin g variet y o f contexts , o f reli gious belief s an d ritua l customs , tha t on e ca n neve r hope t o mak e the m fit the framework o f one, even if comprehensive, "doctrine. " In speaking about a theory tha t emerged i n a process lastin g fo r man y centurie s on e cannot thin k o f doctrina l position s i n a precise sense of tha t word, or of definite reason s give n fo r a specific position . Wha t lend s a certain unit y

6 Introduction to th e variou s statements , mad e ove r man y centurie s an d i n differen t political, cultural, and religious contexts, is that several definable theme s kept recurring , an d attracte d th e mai n attentio n o f th e partie s i n th e historical dispute . The unity , then , consists i n what wa s bein g discusse d rather than in the specific attitude s assumed towards these themes. Comparing thes e theme s t o thos e tha t forme d th e focu s o f ar t theorie s i n other periods , an d eve n comparin g the m t o present-da y reflection s o n images, make s i t possible , I believe , t o dra w a n outlin e o f tha t "doc trine," at least as it appears from a bird's-eye perspective . Perhaps th e mos t strikin g featur e i n tha t bird's-ey e ma p i s tha t i n iconoclastic literature—whethe r compose d i n attac k o r in defense—th e major theme is the image itself, totally disregardin g what preceded it , its own history , a s i t were . Wer e w e t o describ e thi s featur e i n term s customary i n th e workshop , w e woul d hav e t o sa y tha t i t was only th e completed picture , th e finished work o f ar t tha t wa s considere d i n th e Iconoclastic Debates . Thi s featur e stand s ou t wit h particula r clarit y when w e compar e iconoclasti c literatur e wit h th e mor e o r less practica l art theor y o f th e sam e perio d an d culture . Fo r th e painte r i n th e work shop, an d th e criti c wh o wishe s t o influenc e th e outcom e o f hi s efforts , the stage preceding the finished work, tha t is, the process of shapin g the icon, i s of cours e of centra l significance . N o wonde r that, in one form or another, question s pertainin g t o tha t stag e emerg e i n regula r ar t litera ture. Bu t i n th e literatur e originatin g i n th e Iconoclasti c Debates , refer ences t o tha t stag e ar e virtually absent . W e hea r close t o nothin g abou t the artist , nor i s there an y consideration o f ho w th e icon (tha t very ico n that i s s o violentl y attacke d o r s o enthusiasticall y defended ) come s int o being. All that is sometimes said is that the icon is "made by hands," or, rather rarely , tha t i t ha s descende d miraculousl y fro m heaven . S o fa r removed i s tha t literatur e fro m th e rea l artis t tha t th e author s d o no t even make demands on his behavior. This finished, complete d ico n wa s approached—an d thi s i s anothe r crucial feature of the doctrine that resulted from the Iconoclastic Debate s —mainly wit h on e particula r questio n i n mind : Ho w doe s th e imag e relate t o wha t ma y b e describe d a s it s model ? Ho w truthfu l o r "valid " an imag e o f th e go d i s it ? I n all th e deliberation s abou t th e sacre d ico n that wer e presented , b y on e part y o r th e other , i n th e cours e o f th e iconoclastic upheavals, no other question seems to have been considere d with comparabl e attention. Such modern consideration s as , for instance,

Introduction 7 whether th e ico n i s beautifu l o r artfull y executed , d o no t aris e a t all . What is asked is only, is the image "true" ? To th e studen t o f reflection s o n image s thi s formulatio n ma y soun d familiar, bu t th e familiarit y ma y wel l b e misleading . The questio n o f whether a pictur e i s "true " has bee n raise d i n history , primaril y i n th e Renaissance. Bu t Renaissanc e cultur e provided a conceptual framewor k within whic h a n answe r coul d b e found . A n independen t branc h o f knowledge, usuall y calle d "science, " served a s a criterion fo r determin ing whether an image is, or is not, truthful. Thus, geometrical calculatio n made i t possible t o tel l whethe r a perspective representatio n wa s i n fac t valid. Anatomy, the accumulated knowledge of the body's structure, was called upo n whe n on e ha d t o decid e whethe r a painter's depictio n o f a human figure was "true. " In the Iconoclastic Debates , on the other hand —regardless o f whethe r the y wer e conducte d i n a pagan o r a Christia n context—the proble m wa s altogethe r differentl y posed . Ther e wer e n o independent criteri a t o fal l bac k o n whe n yo u ha d t o decid e abou t th e truthfulness o f a n image. The god who was portrayed i n the icon had no known form , an d yo u di d no t kno w it s externa l appearanc e fro m you r own persona l experience . I n thes e conditions , wha t sens e doe s i t mak e to ask whether an image is true or false ? Sometimes th e proble m wa s raise d t o it s highes t levels , o r pushe d t o its ultimat e limits . Ca n Go d b e depicted a t all ? It was mainl y th e icono clasts wh o pose d suc h all-inclusiv e problem s an d use d suc h extrem e rhetoric. Presse d t o th e utmost , th e questio n naturall y seem s t o lea d t o querying the very basis of al l religious imagery. And indeed, whenever in history we are faced with such an extreme posing of the dilemma, a total rejection of image s is suggested. In th e histor y tha t wil l b e tol d i n th e followin g chapter s w e shal l sometimes find that an image's "validity " was seen as resulting fro m th e kind o f relationshi p tha t wa s believe d t o prevai l betwee n th e imag e an d its sacre d model . I f th e ico n "partakes " of , o r "participates " in , th e figure i t portrays, it can claim validity—this i s what was widely believed. Now, discussin g a n image' s partakin g i n th e "original, " th e figure o r even th e ide a wa s not , o f course , anythin g radicall y new . Suc h a notio n always loome d o n th e horizo n o f an y reflectio n o n artisti c imitation , especially in the period of Plato and in late Antiquity. For Plato, "partaking" o r "participation " (methexis) i s th e ter m use d t o describ e th e relationship betwee n eide an d sensibl e particular s (Phaedo iood ; an d

8 Introduction see als o Parmenides 1300-1313) . Aristotl e clearl y sa w ho w wid e wa s the scop e o f Plato' s concept . Ther e i s nothing , h e sai d (Metaphysics 987b), bu t a verba l differenc e betwee n methexis an d anothe r Platoni c term, mimesis (imitation) . At the very last stage of Antiquity , in the fifth century A.D. , Proclus , wh o wil l pla y a n importan t par t i n ou r story , frequently used , particularly i n The Elements of Theology, th e methexis metaphor in the traditional Platoni c sense. When the iconoclasts raise d the problem o f th e icon's methexis i n the original Christ , the y were , then , i n a sense continuin g a venerable tradi tion. Bu t th e intellectua l an d emotiona l urgenc y wit h whic h the y en dowed th e concept, an d the discussion s i n which i t was employed , wer e new, an d constitut e a significant departur e fro m th e ton e o f traditiona l explorations. I t was, i t seems , th e intrinsi c leaning s o f thi s concep t tha t became inseparabl y linke d t o a n attitud e o f tota l rejectio n o f images . "Participation," i t shoul d b e kep t i n mind , wa s i n iconoclasti c though t considered outsid e an y fram e o f sensua l experience , o f a beholder' s psychological impressions . I t is not a spectator's reactio n t o wha t h e o r she see s tha t make s hi m o r he r believ e tha t th e ico n i s "similar " to th e original. Similarity , resemblance , o r "participation"—howeve r yo u lik e to cal l it—i s considere d a s a purely metaphysica l problem , beyon d an y basis in sensual experience . The metaphysica l resemblanc e o f th e ico n t o th e tru e Christ , then , i s the secon d grea t them e o f th e iconoclasti c debate . A thir d them e i s altogether different ; i t i s no t wha t a sacred imag e is, bu t rathe r wha t i t does. A s we shal l see , th e belie f i n the icon' s effec t o n th e beholde r wa s very broadly held. It is known fro m both pagan and Christian traditions, in variou s versions—fro m th e simple , crud e belie f i n th e miracle s o f healing worke d b y th e image s of , say , Asclepiu s o r th e Hol y Virgin , t o the highl y sophisticate d analyse s o f th e spectator' s inne r experience, hi s or he r bein g carrie d awa y b y th e glimmering gol d o f th e icon , o r his or her min d bein g lifte d u p b y lookin g a t th e scene s depicted . Storie s an d ideas abou t th e holy image' s effec t o n believer s an d beholder s are , therefore, foun d i n th e whol e hierarchi c scal e o f literar y genre s i n lat e Antiquity an d the Middle Ages: from the simple legend about the miraculous interventio n o f th e Madonn a t o th e highl y intellectua l scholasti c treatise. Whenever suc h working s o f th e hol y imag e o n believer s an d specta tors ar e adduced , particularl y whe n th e defens e o f icon s i s base d o n

Introduction 9 them, thi s is as a rule an indication tha t the position o f th e icon's actua l "participation" i n th e divin e figure i s bein g give n u p (thoug h thi s ma y not b e openly stated) . I t was particularl y th e learne d an d critica l think ers, thos e wh o mad e th e assume d resemblanc e o f th e ico n t o Go d a metaphor rathe r than a statement of fact , who use d the icon's effects o n beholders, effect s the y subtl y observe d an d analyzed , a s thei r centra l argument in defending the use of image s in the church. This is not the place to analyze in detail ho w observation s o f th e holy image's psychologica l an d aestheti c effect s g o togethe r wit h a renuncia tion o f th e bol d metaphysica l position , namely , th e clai m tha t th e ico n really partake s i n wha t i t portrays . I n th e followin g chapter s w e shal l come bac k severa l time s t o thi s nexus . Her e i t wil l b e sufficien t t o sa y that, whateve r th e profoun d an d partl y hidde n implications , th e atten tion give n t o th e icon' s effec t o n th e spectato r form s a n importan t par t of the doctrine of images that slowly emerged from the great Iconoclasti c Debates.

NOTES 1. I am no t awar e o f an y systemati c investigatio n o f iconoclas m a s a social an d cultural phenomeno n foun d i n different religion s an d political systems . Som e idea o f th e universalit y o f iconoclasti c movements , a t leas t i n th e Europea n context, i s give n b y Marti n Warnke , ed. , Bildersturm: Die Zerstorung des Kunstwerks (Munich , 1973) . 2. Sinc e thes e view s ar e s o common , an d occur , i n on e versio n o r another , i n almost ever y systemati c presentatio n o f aestheti c doctrine , i t doe s no t see m necessary t o mention an y particular sources. 3. A s a single example I shall mentio n th e stimulating survey of recen t scholarl y literature o n Byzantin e iconoclas m b y Han s Geor g Thummel . Se e hi s "De r byzantinische Bilderstreit : Stan d un d Perspektiven de r Forschung," in Johannes Irmscher, ed., Der byzantinische Bilderstreit: Sozialokonomische Voraussetzungen, ideologische Grundlagen, geschichtliche Wirkungen (Leipzig , 1980) , pp. 9-40 .

ONE

The Biblical Prohibition of Images

The studen t attemptin g t o outlin e th e intellectua l backgroun d an d source s of iconoclasti c tradition s in the West has a clearly defined startin g point: it is the biblica l prohibitio n o f images . I n the Middle Age s or during the Reformation, i n the period between , say , Tertullian an d Luther or Ignatius of Loyola , whoever dealt with images had to come to terms with the Second Commandment , t o interpre t it , an d t o asses s it s plac e i n a comprehensive syste m o f beliefs . Moder n scholar s ar e o f cours e awar e of th e source s fro m whic h th e biblica l prohibitio n o f image s derived ; they know tha t this prohibition ha d forerunners i n prebiblical cultures. 1 But whe n w e loo k a t ou r proble m fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f a lat e antique o r early medieva l believer , whether highl y educate d o r illiterate , these prebiblica l source s an d earl y culture s vanis h int o nothingness , disappear altogether . T o th e period s betwee n earl y Christianit y an d High Baroqu e th e biblica l prohibitio n o f image s wa s a n absolut e begin ning, th e unprecedente d formation o f a persisting attitude . Ha d a n iso 13

14 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

lated fragment of an early aniconic culture ever been noted by a medieval or humanisti c schola r (a s i n som e isolate d case s ma y actuall y hav e happened), th e schola r woul d hav e ha d t o mak e i t dependen t i n som e way o n wha t th e Bibl e says . Fo r fifteen centurie s i t wa s a n establishe d truth that the ban on depicting God bega n with the Bible. The biblica l tex t itsel f i s beyond th e domain i n which a n historian o f aesthetic idea s usuall y feel s a t home . I t is only i n order t o outlin e som e of th e source s o f lat e antiqu e an d medieva l though t o n th e statu s o f sacred image s that I shall mak e some comment s o n th e biblica l prohibi tion of images. I wish I could ente r th e min d of a careful an d pious studen t livin g in one o f th e centurie s wit h whic h thi s stud y deals . Disturbe d b y ever renewed an d violen t conflict s ove r th e statu s o f sacre d images , h e ma y have turned naively—so w e imagine—t o th e Bible for hel p and instruction. Wha t coul d h e hav e foun d there ? W e know , o f course , tha t suc h direct questioning of th e Bible was rare in the periods we shall discuss in the followin g chapters . Bu t regardles s o f ho w i t wa s approached , th e Bible was , a s everybod y knows , th e ultimat e authority . Eve n thoug h a s a rul e the text wa s know n onl y throug h a thick filter of interpretations , biblical attitude s determine d th e directio n o f thought . Ou r first task is , therefore, t o understan d wha t ou r studen t ma y hav e found , o r believe d to be said, in the Scriptures. What th e Ol d Testamen t say s abou t image s i s no t fre e o f a certai n ambiguity.2 A modern student , tryin g to brin g the concise biblica l state ments int o a system , canno t escap e th e feelin g tha t h e o r sh e i s face d with contradictin g attitudes . The simpl e questio n o f wha t precisel y th e Scripture say s abou t image s i s not easil y answered . I n the Middl e Ages , every educate d person , on e assumes , mus t hav e bee n awar e tha t rejec tion, or at least suspicion, of image s was an attitude characteristic of th e Old Testament. Nevertheless, there must have been additional questions . What precisel y doe s Scriptur e prohibit ? Coul d I indeed ente r th e piou s student's mind , I woul d probabl y realiz e ho w muc h h e hesitate d i n proposing an answer, and how man y of his doubts remained unresolved. Eventually h e must have found—as hav e students in the course of man y centuries—that th e Bibl e suggest s mor e tha n on e answer , articulating , in quintessentia l form , tw o differen t attitudes . I n som e respect s thes e attitudes ma y b e felt a s contradictory, bu t they cannot be divorced fro m each other.

The Biblical Prohibition of Images 1

5

One attitude, an d also one answer to our initial question , may conveniently b e terme d "comprehensive. " I t i s th e attitud e tha t reject s ever y mimetic image , whateve r th e figure o r objec t i t represents . The classi c formulation o f thi s attitud e i s th e Secon d Commandment : "Tho u shal t not mak e unt o the e an y grave n imag e o r an y likenes s o f an y thin g tha t is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under th e earth " (Exodu s 20:4) . The sam e prohibitio n i s repeated , al most verbatim , i n Deuteronom y 5:8 . Anothe r passag e (Deuteronom y 4:9-20) i s s o detaile d tha t i t ha s recentl y bee n calle d a "theologica l expose." 3 "Onl y tak e hee d t o thyself , an d kee p thysel f diligently, " s o the tex t reads , "les t yo u corrup t yourselves , an d mak e yo u a grave n image, th e similitude o f an y figure, th e likenes s o f mal e an d female. " One shoul d no t mak e the image tha t i s "the likeness of an y beas t that is on th e earth , th e likenes s o f an y winge d fow l tha t i s i n th e air , th e likeness o f anythin g tha t creep s o n th e ground , th e likenes s o f an y fish that is in the waters beneath th e earth." What thes e famou s statement s amoun t t o i s a tota l negatio n o f th e image depictin g something . Th e "grave n image " and th e "likeness " are forbidden, n o matter what they depict. I t is clear, then, that here the text is no t concerne d wit h th e imag e o f God , an d doe s no t specificall y pro hibit thi s specifi c icon . On e notice s tha t i n thi s specifi c contex t th e danger o f idolatry—tha t is , o f worshippin g th e imag e o f Go d a s i f i t were th e go d itself—i s no t mentione d a t all . Wha t i s prohibite d i s th e pictorial representatio n a s such , "mimesis, " a s a humanisti c schola r might have translated it into his or her conceptual vocabulary . The educated person whom we earlier imagined would of course have known tha t even in biblical time s such a sweeping prohibition o f image s was no t observed . Scriptur e itsel f provide s ampl e evidenc e o f frequen t violations o f thi s prohibition , man y o f th e violation s bein g sanctione d by th e sacre d tex t itself . I t wil l b e sufficien t t o recal l th e image s tha t dominated th e Salomoni c Temple , an d th e shape s o f variou s ritua l im plements locate d an d employe d i n the Sanctuary . I n reading th e biblica l description o f thes e implements w e encounte r a ric h natura l imagery . The candlestick, for instance, should be patterned like a shaft and branches, each branc h wit h "bowl s mad e lik e unt o almonds , wit h a kno p an d a flower" (Exodu s 25:3 1 ff.) . I n shaping the candlestick th e artisan shoul d follow a model : "An d loo k tha t tho u mak e the m afte r thei r pattern , which wa s showed the e in the mount" (Exodus 25:40) . Elsewhere i n the

16 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

Bible, a long chapter is devoted t o describing the actual templ e building , and thi s descriptio n abound s i n mimeti c imagery . Th e figures o f th e cherubim ar e carved i n olive tre e wood ( i King s 6:23) . "An d h e carve d all th e wall s o f th e hous e roun d abou t wit h carve d figures of cherubim s and pal m tree s an d ope n flowers, withi n an d without " ( 1 King s 6:29) . The "molte n sea " i n th e templ e "stoo d upo n twelv e oxen, " an d th e borders o f th e base s "wer e lions , oxen , an d cherubim " ( 1 King s 7:2 5 ff.).4 Th e educate d medieva l perso n mus t hav e notice d tha t al l thes e mimetic renderings, recorded i n great detail, are not rejected and are not critically regarded . The Bibl e yield s record s o f artisti c representation s o f variou s crea tures, plants, etc., that suggest a keen observation o f natur e as well a s of the artifact . S o fa r a s w e ca n judge , mos t o f thes e rendering s di d no t serve a s ritual implements . Som e o f them , particularly th e images of th e fantastic beasts , ma y hav e bee n inherite d fro m ritual s performe d i n th e region i n prebiblica l times , an d other s probabl y emerge d later , a t th e time of th e Bible itself. 5 While thes e detaile d record s o f carve d image s sho w tha t i n biblica l times th e comprehensiv e prohibitio n o f sacre d icon s wa s no t (o r no t fully) observed , th e attitud e expresse d i n mos t o f th e record s indicate s that the condemnation survived . Thus Ezekiel copiousl y describe s (8:5 12) th e pictoria l relief s a t th e norther n cit y gat e o f Jerusalem , bu t h e does so with eloquent disapproval. Representation s o f beast s and hybrid creatures ar e foun d bot h i n th e palac e are a an d i n privat e homes , bu t these violations of th e Second Commandment ar e a grave sin. The relief s are "the imag e o f jealous y i n the entry" (8:5) , they ar e "great abomina tions," a s "ever y for m o f creepin g things , an d abominabl e beasts , an d all th e idol s o f th e hous e o f Israe l [are ] portraye d upo n th e wal l roun d about" (8:10). By rejecting the representation o f natura l creature s Ezek iel shows , eve n i f onl y implicitly , tha t h e accept s th e comprehensiv e interpretation o f th e prohibition o f images . Onc e agai n w e hav e t o say , no matte r wha t image s represent , the y violat e th e Secon d Command ment.6 To ou r question—wha t precisel y doe s th e biblica l prohibitio n o f images prohibit?—th e "comprehensive " attitud e provide s a sweepin g answer: an y mimeti c image , whateve r it s subject , i s banned . Bu t thi s i s not th e only answe r tha t biblica l text s an d tradition s yiel d t o th e ques tion we have asked. The other answer i s more restricted in scope: it does

The Biblical Prohibition of Images 1

7

not rejec t mimeti c representatio n a s such; rather, i t prohibits th e depic tion o f onl y on e subject—th e representatio n o f God . Thi s attitud e w e may conveniently cal l th e "restrictive" one. The historical impac t of thi s attitude was broade r and more decisive than that of the former one, an d therefore i t wil l als o pla y a mor e centra l rol e i n th e chapter s o f thi s book. The limit s o f th e "restrictive " attitud e ar e no t clearl y lai d ou t i n th e Old Testament . I t is implie d suggestion s rathe r tha n explici t statement s that poin t t o th e imag e o f Go d a s th e principal , o r only , subjec t o f th e prohibition. Thu s w e rea d i n Deuteronom y 27:15 , "Curse d b e the ma n that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the wor k o f th e hand s o f th e craftsman, an d putteth i t in a select place ; and al l th e peopl e shal l answe r an d say , Amen. " Here , i t seems , th e "graven o r molte n image " is rejecte d no t becaus e i t i s a mimeti c repre sentation o f somethin g i n nature , bu t becaus e i t i s a n idol , a n objec t considered t o b e an image of God . The passionate tone of thi s statemen t (and perhaps simila r ones) ma y also b e linked with the view that specifi cally the image of Go d i s here in question. I t is the tone that recurs in all later debates about the image of God . We know today , and it cannot hav e been lost on the medieval reader , that eve n th e prohibitio n o n portrait s o f Go d wa s no t strictl y imple mented i n biblica l times . Eve n i f on e disregard s th e classi c stor y o f th e golden cal f (Exodu s 22) , evidenc e stil l remain s tha t certain images wer e considered divine , an d were worshipped accordingly. Ancien t Israe l wa s familiar wit h cul t images , an d eve n th e virulen t condemnatio n o f the m attests t o a n intimat e knowledg e o f ho w the y wer e produce d (Judge s 17:3-5; Jeremia h 10:3-9 ; Isaia h 44:9—20) / W e kno w als o wha t i n biblical time s wer e considere d th e essentia l part s o f a n idol . T o b e complete, a n ido l seem s t o hav e consiste d o f fou r parts : (1 ) pessel wa s probably th e wooden kerne l o f th e whole image ; (2 ) masseha wa s probably a chased an d adorned covering, perhaps often o f precious material s (Isaiah 30:22 , 40:19; Jeremiah 10:9) ; (3) ephod wa s probably a n armorlike cloak ; an d finally ther e wa s (4 ) teraphim, a culti c mask. 8 Al l thi s seems to have been well known in biblical times, and it shows a familiarity with the idol "mad e by hands." As w e hav e said , Christianit y wa s concerne d wit h th e "restrictive " attitude; i t onl y marginall y touche d o n th e questio n o f whethe r image s as such, regardles s o f wha t the y represent , ar e justified, bu t it devoted a

18 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

great dea l o f intellectua l an d emotiona l energ y t o discussin g th e justifi cation o r rejectio n o f th e imag e o f God . Th e studen t educate d i n th e medieval exegetica l traditio n ma y wel l hav e note d tha t th e Bibl e neve r explicitly say s why precisel y i t is forbidden t o represen t God , or that n o specific reason is given for the Second Commandment. A modern scholar may explai n certai n confusions , o r eve n contradictions , i n biblica l lan guage a s the resul t o f history . Fo r the medieva l student , i t goes withou t saying, such an explanation was altogether excluded. For him, the sacred biblical tex t emerge d fro m divin e revelation , and , a s on e knows , n o historical approac h could be applied to the word of God . Only rarel y doe s th e Bibl e intimat e a reaso n fo r th e prohibitio n o f images o f th e divine , an d eve n whe n i t does , th e wordin g remain s obscure. I n the fourt h chapte r o f Deuteronomy , a text w e hav e alread y mentioned, Israel is admonished: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I comman d you , neithe r shal l y e diminis h ough t fro m it , tha t y e ma y keep the commandments o f th e Lor d your Go d whic h I command you " (4:2). Now, wh y shoul d precisel y th e image of Go d b e an addition? The text refer s t o th e mythica l even t o f Moun t Sinai . A fe w verse s late r w e read, "And ye came near and stood unde r the mountain; and the mountain burne d wit h fire unt o th e mids t o f heaven , wit h darkness , clouds , and thick darkness. And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye hear d th e voic e o f th e words , bu t sa w n o similitude ; only y e heard a voice " (4:11-12) . An d afte r a fe w sentences , a s i f t o dra w a conclusion fro m wha t ha s jus t bee n said , th e tex t agai n addresse s th e reader, o r listener , directly : "Tak e y e therefor e goo d hee d unt o your selves; fo r y e sa w n o manne r o f similitud e o n th e da y tha t th e Lor d spake unto you in Horeb out of th e midst of fire" (4:15). These sentence s ar e no w considere d a "scriptura l proof " fo r th e prohibition o f images , to quot e th e felicitou s phras e of a modern scholar. 9 But the y als o sugges t a kin d o f rationa l reasoning . I n its basi c features , this reasoning seems to be rather clear. Nothing should be added to what was reveale d b y th e divine , an d wha t th e childre n o f Israe l experience d in th e origina l revelation , tha t formativ e even t a t th e foo t o f Moun t Sinai, di d no t includ e an y visua l manifestation . Th e mediu m o f th e revelation wa s th e voice only , characteristicall y describe d a s a "voice o f words." (The Vulgate correctly translates vocem verborum.) The concentration o n th e word (an d specifically o n th e spoken word ) easily lends itself t o a spiritualizing interpretation, and may perhaps also

The Biblical Prohibition of Images 1

9

yield som e indication s concernin g th e ritual o f ancien t Israel . A moder n biblical scholar , vo n Rad , claims tha t "her e the antithesis i s worked ou t with ful l clarity. " Wit h particula r referenc e t o ritua l h e see s her e th e predominance o f th e spiritual . "I n it s relationshi p t o Go d Israel , unlik e other peoples , i s not dependen t o n ritua l image , onl y o n God' s words." 10 But does thi s mea n tha t the sacred image i s rejected becaus e th e supposedly "spiritual " character of th e word is a more appropriate mediu m fo r the revelatio n o f Go d tha n th e materia l natur e o f th e image ? Suc h a reading proved tempting to some exegetes, and commentators, especially in more moder n times , have tended t o accep t it. But the Bible itself doe s not sa y precisel y this , and som e scholar s woul d no w eve n maintai n tha t such spiritualizin g though t i s altogethe r alie n t o th e spirit pervading th e biblical text . Th e juxtapositio n o f wor d an d image , i n othe r words , provides n o explicit reason fo r the rejection of sacre d icons. In thos e part s o f th e Bibl e tha t ar e no w considere d a s belongin g t o the lates t stage s i n th e compositio n o f th e tex t w e find anothe r attemp t at rationalizin g th e rejectio n o f icons . Whil e i t ha s littl e t o d o wit h th e juxtaposition o f wor d an d idol , thi s rationalizatio n show s a n affinit y with th e though t o f ancien t enlightenment . Tw o feature s mak e th e ido l an object of suspicion : one i s that it is the work of man , the other that it is mad e o f material s tha t in themselves ar e profane, an d coul d b e transformed int o othe r objects . Isaia h 44:9-1 1 anticipate s som e o f th e liter ary motif s tha t wer e t o becom e famou s i n th e though t o f Hellenisti c rationalism.11 The prophe t begin s hi s invectiv e agains t idolatr y b y de scribing th e maker s o f images : "The y tha t mak e a graven imag e ar e al l of the m vanity ; an d thei r delectabl e thing s shal l no t profit; an d they ar e their own witnesses ; they see not, nor know; that they ma y be ashamed. Who hat h forme d a god, o r molten a graven imag e tha t is profitable fo r nothing? Behold , al l hi s fellow s shal l b e ashamed ; an d th e workmen , they are all of men : let them al l b e gathered together , le t them stand up; yet the y shal l fear , an d the y shal l b e ashame d together. " I n Hellenism , the fac t tha t th e ido l originate s i n th e wor k o f mortal s becam e a majo r topos in rejecting and ridiculing the worship of idols ; in the words of the Hebrew prophet , thi s moti f i s not a s prominent, bu t it is not difficul t t o see that it is meant to show tha t the idol i s a false image. The othe r featur e employe d i n ridiculin g th e ido l i s state d i n greate r detail: i t i s th e ide a tha t th e materia l o f whic h th e ido l i s mad e is , i n itself, devoi d o f an y divin e presence . Th e piec e o f woo d o r ston e o f

20 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

which th e ido l i s mad e coul d als o serv e other , altogethe r prosaic , pur poses. The craftsman , t o quot e Isaia h onc e again , "hewet h hi m dow n cedars, an d taket h th e cypres s an d th e oak , whic h h e strengthenet h fo r himself amon g th e tree s o f th e forest ; h e plantet h a n ash , an d th e rai n doth nouris h it . The n shal l i t b e fo r a ma n t o burn ; fo r h e wil l tak e thereof, an d war m himself ; yea , h e kindlet h it , an d baket h bread : yea , he maketh a god an d worshippeth it ; he maketh i t a graven image , the n falleth dow n thereto . H e burnet h par t thereo f i n th e fire; wit h par t thereof h e eatet h flesh ; h e roastet h roast , an d i s satisfied : yea , h e war meth himself , an d saith : Aha , I am warm , I have see n th e fire: and th e residue thereof h e maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth dow n unto it , an d worshippeth it , an d prayet h unt o it , an d saith , Deliver me ; for thou art my god." The poet o f th e Psalms link s th e character o f th e dead , inert materia l (even i f i t b e precious ) o f whic h idol s ar e mad e wit h th e fals e assump tions a n imag e arouse s i f th e depictio n i s taken fo r wha t i t depicts. The inert, opaque material exposes the figures' lack of life . A famous passage of the Psalms (115:4—8) reads , Their idols are silver and gold, The work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat: They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them. This awareness of ho w unfi t the icon's materia l natur e is for a proper image of God , together with the fact that it is produced b y men, reaches most explici t expressio n i n satire . Satir e i s no t a frequen t genr e i n th e Bible, bu t i t is employed wit h particula r vigor i n ridiculin g idols , and in manifesting thei r frailties . Thus , Isaiah , i n th e mids t o f proclaimin g God's assuranc e t o Israel , refer s i n passin g t o th e productio n o f idol s (41:6-7). Describin g th e cooperatio n o f differen t craftsme n i n th e pro duction o f idols , h e says , "S o th e carpente r encourage d th e goldsmith , and h e tha t smoothet h wit h th e hamme r hi m tha t smot e th e anvil ,

The Biblical Prohibition of Images 2

1

saying, I t i s read y fo r th e soldering : an d h e fastene d i t [th e idol ] wit h nails, that it should no t be moved." 12 A falling , tottering , nailed-dow n idol— a moti f o f iconoclasti c satir e that even the Enlightenment di d not surpass. At th e end of thes e brie f remark s let us return to th e medieva l reade r or exeget e w e hav e trie d t o imagine . Th e strongl y negativ e ton e o f al l biblical statement s o n image s o f th e divin e canno t hav e bee n los t o n him. Bu t could h e have forme d a n opinion a s to why image s o f Go d are denied an d eve n prohibited ? Non e o f th e man y biblica l passage s i n which image s o f Go d ar e rejecte d indicate s a reaso n fo r thi s negativ e attitude. Only the claim that on Mount Hore b the figure of God was not seen may perhaps suggest such a reason. But, then, why was God's figure not seen , whil e hi s voic e wa s heard ? Th e questio n remain s open . I t became th e focu s o f a n importan t contributio n t o th e theolog y o f im ages, and of the violent debate that raged around this theology. NOTES 1. Se e Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und SiegeIkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestdtsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 84/85; Stuttgart, 1977), especially pp. 37 ff. 2. O f th e literature dealing wit h th e prohibition o f image s in the Old Testament, see mainly K. H. Bernhardt, Gott und Bibel: Ein Beitrag zur Begriindung und Bedeutung des Bilderverbots im Alten Testament (Berlin , 1956). Bernhardt's article "Das 'Bilderverbot' im Alten Testament und im antiken Judentum," in J. Irmscher, ed., Der byzantinische Bilderstreit: Sozialoekonomische Voraussetzungen, ideologische Grundlagen, geschichtliche Wirkungen (Leipzig, 1980) , pp. 73—82 , is a concise statemen t of hi s position. G . von Rad , Theologie des Alten Testaments, I (Munich, 1966) , pp. 225-32 , makes an important contribution . (Ther e is als o a n English translatio n of this work. ) W . Zimmerli , "Da s Bilderverbo t i n de r Geschicht e de s alte n Israel: Goldene s Kalb , eherne Schlange , Mazzebe n un d Lade, " in th e author's Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie, I I (Munich, 1974), PP- 247—60, is particularly instructive in showing the complexity of trends prevailing in biblical times. How much of this complexity survived in the mind of a medieval reader is a different story. One would probably not go wrong in assuming that in late Antiquity and in the Middle Ages biblical attitudes were seen as more consistent than they appear to us now. 3. Se e G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments I, p. 228. 4. Fo r a detailed discussion of the texts with regard to the visual imagery, see Keel, Jahwe-Visionen, pp. 37 ff.

22

Reflections in Classical Antiquity

5. Zimmerli , i n hi s stud y o f th e "Bilderverbot " (se e above , not e 2) , offer s a suggestive discussion of image s inherited from Near Eastern rituals. I do no t feel competen t t o express an opinion o f m y own o n thi s problem. I t should be stresse d tha t fo r th e studen t o f medieva l reading s o f th e Bible , th e investigation of possible precedents of biblical images is of marginal interest . 6. Fo r th e interpretatio n o f th e "grea t abominations " Ezekie l sa w (8:6) , se e the old , bu t stil l valuable , wor k b y Wilhel m Neuss , Das Buck Ezechiel in Theologie und Kunst (Munster , 1912) , pp. 41 ff . 7. I n additio n t o vo n Rad , se e als o Tryggv e Mettinger , "Th e Vet o o n Image s and th e Aniconi c Go d i n Ancien t Israel, " i n H . Bazais , ed. , Religious Symbols and Their Functions (Stockholm , 1979) , pp. 15—29. 8. Vo n Rad , Theologie des Alten Testaments I , p . 229 , not e 60 ; Mettinger , "The Veto," p. 16 . 9. Keel , Jahwe-Visionen, p . 39 . 10. Vo n Rad , Theologie des Alten Testaments I , pp . 23 1 ff . Bernhardt , "Da s 'Bilderverbot,' " p . 73 , als o see s i n thi s passag e a "bibelkundliche r Beleg " employed b y the author of Deuteronom y who , writing at a late stage of th e biblical period, draws on the authority o f earlier traditions. 11. Se e below, chapter 3. 12. Moder n biblica l scholarshi p consider s thi s passag e a s belongin g t o a lat e layer of th e text , possibl y o f th e perio d o f th e Babyloni c Exile . This woul d make i t roughl y contemporar y t o th e earlies t Gree k expressions o f th e rejection o f sacre d image s (se e below, chapte r 3) . For a medieval reader , t o say i t onc e again , thes e chronologica l layers , an d th e possibl e relationshi p with development s i n Greek culture , would o f cours e be altogether withou t significance.

TWO

Antiquity I: The Animated Image

i. An Introductory Observation No studen t of th e ancient world, or of an y field of inquir y that has some bearing o n ancien t culture , i s i n dange r o f forgettin g th e par t tha t th e images o f th e god s playe d i n Greco-Roma n Antiquity. Ther e ar e to o many text s tha t evok e on e aspec t o r anothe r o f thes e images , an d de mand a n explanatio n o f thei r meanin g an d role . Whethe r w e tur n t o fantastic storie s of miraculou s healing s or to dreary document s attestin g to th e struggl e over politica l symbols , whethe r w e stud y myster y reli gions or the patterns and techniques of administratin g distant provinces, whether w e concentrat e o n ar t o r o n literature , w e ar e sur e t o com e across some face t o f wha t a god's image ma y have meant t o th e ancien t world. I t is not surprising, therefore, tha t it is so difficult t o offer a clear answer t o a seemingly simpl e question , namely , ho w di d the Gree k an d Roman worl d approac h sacre d images , an d ho w di d i t accoun t fo r it s *3

24 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

own attitud e toward s them ? Howeve r w e ma y tr y t o narro w dow n ou r question, an d thu s t o mak e i t mor e manageable , th e difficultie s o f pro viding a n answe r remain . I t ma y b e usefu l t o outline , eve n i f only i n a few words, some of thes e difficulties . To begi n with , ther e i s th e well-known , ye t astonishing , variet y o f religious belief s i n th e Greco-Roma n world , particularl y i n it s late r stages, which ar e also the more important one s fo r our story. "T o mov e about i n th e Roma n Empir e a t all, " Ramsa y MacMulle n wrote , "o r t o make th e hasties t surve y o f it s religiou s variety , bring s hom e th e pullulation o f beliefs." 1 Suc h a burgeonin g an d bewilderin g variet y o f reli gious beliefs , easil y understandabl e i n a worl d lastin g fo r a thousan d years an d extendin g fro m Spai n an d Irelan d t o Persi a an d India , coul d not have failed to affect attitude s to the images of gods. The socia l an d cultura l stratificatio n o f th e ancien t worl d pose s an other problem , perhap s mor e directl y bearin g o n wha t w e shal l hav e t o discuss i n the presen t chapter . I t is precisely wit h regar d t o th e attitud e towards sacred images that some concepts no w fashionable , suc h as that of popula r versu s elitis t culture , impos e themselve s o n th e student . Di d people livin g i n rura l condition s in , say , th e thir d centur y b.c . relat e t o the statue s o f th e god s i n a way simila r t o tha t o f th e educate d inhabi tants of th e wealthy quarter s of, say , second-centur y A.D . Alexandri a o r Rome? I t is enough t o formulat e suc h a question t o se e immediately th e significance an d implication s o f th e problem s tha t arise . Bu t thes e ar e problems difficul t t o solve . Ther e are , o f course , well-know n studie s o f popular religion an d popular piet y in Antiquity 2 that have deepened our understanding especiall y o f th e worl d o f lat e Antiquity . Bu t our specifi c problem—the attitud e t o divin e images—doe s no t see m t o hav e occu pied the minds of moder n scholars. How fa r do labels such as "popular" or "elitist " appl y t o th e attitud e t o divin e images ? D o th e naiv e storie s about miracle s worke d b y holy statue s reflec t a "popular " approach , and doe s th e sophisticate d iron y voice d i n makin g fu n o f thes e sam e statues expres s a n attitud e typica l o f a socia l elite ? Th e assumptio n i s seductive, yet one hesitates to reach conclusions. Another difficulty, directl y bearing on the subject of the present study, should also be mentioned. To speak of a n articulate attitude to the icon, images of th e gods mus t be perceived a s a specific group , set apart fro m images o f othe r figures that d o no t participat e i n th e divin e nature . Bu t

Antiquity I 2 5 did th e ancien t worl d conceiv e o f th e image s o f th e god s a s a distinc t group? Gree k an d Roma n writing s yield , o f course , a great man y refer ences to cult statues and to the images of th e gods in contexts other than ritual. Fro m thes e scattered , an d mostl y indirect , utterance s on e ma y perhaps b e abl e t o reconstruc t underlyin g attititudes . I t remains , how ever, tru e tha t ther e i s littl e i n classica l literatur e t o suppor t a n explici t separation o f divin e image s fro m th e image s o f othe r being s o r objects , and thus to make them into a class of their own. Fo r Plato, one suspects, the imag e o f a god woul d b e doubtful, o r downright false , fo r th e sam e reason tha t th e image o f a n ordinar y object , a bed o r a table, i s insuffi cient o r false . Moder n scholars , on e i s no t surprise d t o find, hav e als o treated th e divin e image s mainl y a s work s o f art , an d hav e thu s pai d relatively littl e attention t o th e problem s specifi c t o thi s particula r typ e of images. In thes e condition s i t ma y see m audaciou s t o sugges t a concret e typology o f th e gods ' image s i n th e ancien t world . Ye t i f on e want s t o understand ho w ancien t cultures approached th e representations of thei r divine beings , and to know wher e the main problems ar e in fact located , one must attempt to group the chaotic mass of materials—stories , state ments, deliberations—int o som e kin d o f pattern . I shall therefor e sug gest tha t i n Antiquit y w e find tw o basi c attitude s t o th e statu e o f th e god. On e tend s t o identif y th e imag e wit h th e god, an d the other denie s any kin d o f relatio n betwee n th e two . Thes e attitudes , I should stress , are no t mean t a s a portraya l o f actua l pattern s o f belie f an d behavior . They ar e onl y mean t a s indication s o f som e underlyin g trends , an d a s pictures o f wha t thes e trends migh t have le d to could the y have actuall y crystallized i n reality. The two pola r attitudes are, then, Idealtypen. "A n ideal type," Max Webe r said, "is achieved b y the one-sided accentuation of on e o r mor e point s o f vie w an d b y th e synthesi s o f man y diffuse , discrete, mor e o r les s presen t an d occasionall y absen t individual phe nomena, whic h ar e arranged accordin g t o thos e one-sidedl y emphasize d viewpoints int o a unifie d menta l construct." 3 I should particularl y em phasize that the juxtaposition o f thes e two contrasting attitudes is meant as a heuristi c devic e rathe r tha n a s th e depictio n o f menta l o r socia l reality. I n real life , an d i n mos t literar y document s reflectin g contempo rary conditions , th e tw o attitude s ar e no t neatl y separate d fro m eac h other, an d thu s i n individual , concret e situation s an d text s i t i s ofte n

26 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

very difficult t o draw a clear line of demarcation between the two mental tendencies. Man y o f th e text s I shal l refe r t o i n orde r t o suppor t m y suggestion are , i n fact , ambiguous , an d contai n element s o f bot h atti tudes. 2. Eidolon Before w e ca n star t t o char t a map , eve n i f only i n bar e outline , o f attitudes to the image, especially the image of the god, we should remember tha t Gree k cultur e wa s fro m it s earl y beginning s familia r wit h th e concept o f "image " in a specific sense . This imag e wa s believe d t o hav e an existenc e o f it s own , a t leas t a t certai n stage s o f huma n life , an d t o hold a unique, and crucial, position i n the world a s seen in Antiquity. In modern times , thi s concep t o f th e "image " (eidolon) ha s bee n carefull y explored b y students of Gree k religion, and at least since Erwin Rohde' s pioneering work 4 th e subject has not disappeared fro m classica l studies . These studie s ar e to o wel l know n fo r m e t o repea t thei r findings. From the many sources that have been quoted to illuminate this concept I shall select a few tha t will hel p to stress the points that may b e of importanc e for the understanding of th e god's image, as here discussed. I shall begi n with th e simpl e observation , stresse d i n man y studie s o f Greek religion , that in certain contexts eidolon i s a synonym o f psyche. 5 Eidolon, however , is not an overall synonym fo r psyche; th e human soul can b e calle d s o onl y afte r i t ha s lef t th e body , an d ha s thu s becom e a being in its own right . I t is not fo r m e here to attemp t a n analysis of th e different aspect s of "image " in Greek religion; I shall only briefly discus s what pertain s t o ou r subject. See n i n the context o f th e present study, it is tw o characteristic s o f th e concep t tha t ar e crucial . First , th e eidolon lacks an y materia l substance . I t ca n b e seen , bu t i t canno t b e touched . Secondly, th e eidolon, thoug h devoi d o f tangibl e matter , i s full y articu late i n form , an d i s clearl y outlined . A s fa r a s it s visibl e shap e i s con cerned, the "image" is a precise replica of th e person whose image it is. Already i n Home r thes e tw o characteristi c feature s ar e full y devel oped. Patroclus' s eidolon appear s t o Achilles , an d the y tal k t o eac h other. At the end of th e dialogue "Achilles held out his arms to clasp the spirit, bu t i n vain . I t vanished lik e a wisp o f smok e an d wen t gibberin g underground." Achilles , th e poe t tell s us , "leap t u p i n amazement . H e

Antiquity I 2

7

beat hi s hand s togethe r an d i n hi s desolatio n cried : 'A h then , i t i s tru e that somethin g o f u s does surviv e eve n i n th e Hall s o f Hades. ' " 6 I n the Odyssey w e rea d of ho w Odysseu s speak s to the "image" of his mother. "As m y mothe r spoke , ther e cam e t o m e ou t o f th e confusio n i n m y heart the one desire, to embrace her spirit, dead though sh e was. Thrice, in m y eagernes s t o clas p he r t o me , I starte d forwar d wit h m y hand s outstretched. Thrice , lik e a shadow o r a dream, sh e slipped throug h m y arms and left m e harrowed b y an even sharper pain." 7 On th e other hand, i t is clear that the eidolon full y resemble s th e real person. Odysseu s ha s no difficulty recognizin g th e images of hi s mother , of Elpeno r wh o ha d die d recently , an d o f hi s companions i n the Troja n war. He is aware that the eidola ar e not the real persons themselves: After him I noticed Heracles in all his strength— A mere image, for himself [was] with the immortal gods.8 This concep t o f th e "image " di d no t remai n withi n th e limit s o f religion and beliefs. Greek philosophical schools , in a long and venerable sequence, perpetuated the idea of th e eidolon, transferrin g i t from Hade s to th e worl d surroundin g us . The atomists ' theor y o f visua l perceptio n assumed tha t eidola o f th e sam e shap e a s th e bod y ar e give n of f an d enter th e pore s o f th e viewer. 9 The Epicurea n schoo l taugh t tha t thes e images ente r th e sense s o f peopl e als o durin g sleep , an d tha t peopl e consider them as of divin e origin. 10 Plato als o employ s th e concep t o f "image. " I n th e Sophist h e eve n speaks of eidolon i n connection with the work of the artist who produce s images (236a-c) . A discussio n o f Plato' s view s o f image s would , o f course, g o fa r beyon d th e scop e o f th e presen t brie f observations . Wha t we shoul d lik e t o stres s her e i s onl y that , whateve r hi s view s o n th e origin an d nature of eidola, h e enhanced th e concept an d broadene d th e range o f phenomen a referre d t o b y subsumin g unde r thi s ter m image s seen i n th e mirro r an d reflection s i n wate r (239c—240a) . Al l thes e phe nomena hav e th e characteristic s o f Homer' s eidolon —they ar e clearl y visible, the y precisel y sho w th e origina l figure, bu t the y lac k a materia l substance o f thei r own. I n the Timaeus (52c ) Plat o formulate s th e principle o f th e image : i t i s lik e th e rea l thing , bu t it s existenc e i s derived : "For a n image , sinc e th e reality , afte r whic h i t i s modelled , doe s no t

28 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

belong to it, and it exists ever as the fleeting shadow of som e other, must be inferred t o be in another." n In the centuries o f lat e Antiquit y th e metapho r o f th e image become s common i n description s o f ho w th e univers e i s structured . Plotinus , t o mention th e dominan t figure of lat e antiqu e thought , frequentl y speak s of eidola. H e als o perceive s th e chai n o f being , o r th e chai n o f emana tions, a s a chain o f images . I t is precisel y thi s extensiv e us e o f th e ter m that make s i t less precise . Thus th e imag e o f th e Sou l i s Matter (hyle), 12 and the image of Intelligibl e Matter is Sensible Matter. 13 Ye t although in the Plotinia n syste m th e notio n o f "image " ha s mor e facets , an d man y more applications , tha n i n earlie r doctrine s an d beliefs , th e essentia l characteristics o f th e concep t survive . I n Neoplatonism , a s i n earlie r stages o f Gree k thought , th e eidolon bot h resembles , an d i s differen t from, what it reflects. The concep t o f eidolon, a s outline d i n th e abov e sketch y remarks , i s not necessaril y linke d t o th e artist' s craf t an d work , bu t i t mus t hav e made Gree k cultur e susceptibl e t o th e carve d an d painte d imag e o f th e god. We now tur n to those images , and to how the y were understood .

j . The God and His Image (i) The Desire to Be Close to God Throughou t Antiquity , the historian knows, peopl e fel t a n intens e desir e t o b e clos e t o God , t o attai n hi s proximity. This wish ma y have been mor e powerful a t some stages or in some group s tha n i n others , bu t neve r an d nowher e di d i t completel y disappear. In these brief comments we shall concentrate on those periods and areas of ancien t culture i n which this emotional driv e seems to have been mor e topica l tha n i n others . Th e late r centurie s o f Antiquity , a s is well known , ar e considere d a s suc h a stage , an d i t i s therefor e natura l that mos t o f ou r materia l wil l pertai n t o thi s period . Wha t precisel y a desire for proximity ma y have meant is not always obvious. The modern student i s well awar e o f th e vagueness an d ambiguitie s tha t prevailed i n so muc h o f ancien t religion . H e canno t doubt , however , tha t one o f th e ways—and probabl y no t th e leas t o f them—o f gratifyin g thi s cravin g was t o pu t up, and adore, and be close to, an image of th e god. Ancien t literature abound s with storie s an d statement s o f al l kind s tha t provid e impressive testimony bot h to the emotional nee d for nearness to the god,

Antiquity I 2

9

and to th e practice o f erectin g statues . I n the presen t shor t section I can give only a few examples fro m th e great store of these statements. Let me star t with a well-known text . Takin g Senec a a s his authority , Augustine vividl y describe s i n The City of God ho w th e pagan s o f hi s age satisfied thei r craving to be phsyically nea r to the god: Go int o th e Capitol . On e i s suggestin g divin e command s t o a god; another is telling the hours to Jupiter; one is a lictor; another is an anointer, who with the mere movement s o f hi s arm s imitate s anointment... . A learne d an d distin guished comedian , no w ol d an d decrepit , wa s dail y playin g th e mimi c i n the Capitol, a s though the gods would gladly be spectators of that which men had ceased to care about. . .. Ther e sit certain women in the Capitol who think they are beloved by Jupiter. . . .14 Augustine her e sums u p a long history . Prayin g before a statue of th e god is , of course , an old custom, and it is frequently mentione d in Greek literature. Take , fo r instance , Herodotus' s stor y o f a mother standing i n front o f a statue o f Her a an d praying fo r he r sons, 15 o r the stor y o f th e nurse who too k a n ugly child t o th e shrine of Helen , "se t the child clos e to Helen' s imag e an d pray[e d to ] th e goddes s t o delive r he r fro m he r ugliness."16 O r se e wha t Euripide s tell s th e reader . I n the Andromache he makes the Messenger relate how th e hero is attacked in the temple: So my master faced the god and began to implore him When they, armed to the teeth, steel sharpened specially, Lunged at him from behind.17 But i t wa s mainl y i n th e late r centurie s tha t prayin g before , o r clos e to, th e image s o f th e god s become s a popula r theme . Sometime s th e authors becom e kee n an d empathi c observer s o f th e mood s permeatin g the perso n praying , an d th e movement s tha t perso n performs . T o giv e but one exampl e I shall mentio n ho w Heliodor , a Greek novelis t o f th e third centur y A.D. , describe s th e dramati c prostratio n o f a hero i n fron t of a n image of Isis. 18 Access t o th e god's image , normally place d in a grotto o r in a temple, is not always easy; the efforts investe d in overcoming th e difficulties an d dangers o f th e approac h indicat e th e importanc e accorde d t o th e task . Again on e o r tw o example s wil l suffice . Access coul d b e difficul t an d dangerous becaus e o f th e natura l sit e wher e th e imag e i s located . A n extremely ancien t statu e o f Apoll o tha t "give s yo u physica l power s o f any kind," as Pausanias tell s his readers, is located in an almost inacces-

30 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

sible grotto. "Me n consecrated t o this statue lea p from precipitou s cliff s and hig h rocks , the y pul l u p gian t tree s b y th e roots , an d trave l wit h loads o n th e narrowes t footpaths." 19 Bu t acces s t o th e image s o f god s could als o b e th e resul t o f polic y an d administrativ e rule . Philostratu s the Elde r gives a vivid accoun t of ho w difficul t i t was t o get at the gods' images i n th e temple s o f Rome . Telesinus , a n influentia l consul , offer s Apollonius o f Tyana , b y who m h e i s deepl y impressed , a remarkabl e favor: "Yo u shal l hav e acces s to al l the temples in Rome, and I will giv e you writte n instructions." 20 Apolloniu s protest s tha t h e prefer s ope n temples, wher e th e god s "le t [him ] share thei r roof, " but h e is told tha t the barbarians are in advance of th e Romans in deserving such praise. These texts, easily chosen fro m the many stories and descriptions tha t could hav e bee n adduced , sho w ho w pervasiv e an d deepl y fel t wa s th e desire t o b e nea r th e god' s image . A comprehensiv e expressio n o f thi s feeling i s th e atmospher e surroundin g th e cul t imag e i n th e temple . Beginning fro m archai c times, the temple's primar y functio n i s to b e the dwelling hous e o f th e god, that is , of it s image. 21 Bu t when th e imag e i s placed insid e a natura l grotto , th e emotiona l climat e i s th e same . Ovi d imagines th e cav e o f th e Mother-Goddes s a s filled with th e cul t image s of gods , and people, even if sinners, are attracted to them. 22 What al l thes e storie s tel l u s ma y no w b e rathe r trite . I t i s tha t i n Greco-Roman Antiquit y th e tendency t o fus e th e god an d its image int o one directl y perceptibl e figure was widesprea d an d wa s know n i n man y forms. T o fee l clos e t o th e go d whe n yo u ar e nea r t o it s imag e bring s home, however vaguely an d dimly, the perception that in some way they are one. This perception may not have reached an explicit and systematic formulation. Antiquit y di d no t hav e a n articulate , "rational " theolog y of th e holy image . Bu t such beliefs , th e traditio n o f practicall y equatin g the go d an d it s image , forme d a n importan t underpinnin g o f late r at tempts t o dea l wit h thi s problem . Togethe r with othe r factor s the y no t only shape d th e direction o f ecclesiastica l ar t and actual religiou s belief s of late r periods; they als o determine d som e o f th e theoretical reflection s and theological doctrine s that are the subject matter of the present study. It is, therefore, worth ou r while to try to extricate, a s far as possible, the semitheoretical assumption s implie d in the ancient beliefs . I am no t attempting , o f course , an y contributio n t o th e stud y o f th e religions o f Antiquity . Moder n scholarshi p ha s deal t wit h thi s field extensively, an d even a brief surve y of the recent literature on the subject

Antiquity I 3

1

would g o fa r beyon d th e scope o f th e present study . I shall onl y selec t a few example s o f ho w th e tren d o f mergin g th e go d an d it s imag e wa s expressed i n Antiquity , an d ho w th e hidde n assumption s wer e perhap s manifesting themselves . I t goe s withou t sayin g tha t eve n withi n thes e restricted limits , my sampling doe s no t aspir e t o give a balanced pictur e of classica l opinion s an d beliefs ; i t i s mean t t o underscor e suc h aspect s as ma y she d ligh t o n th e particula r question s wit h whic h w e ar e her e concerned. (ii) Dream Literature On e field from which I shall choose my examples is that o f ancien t belief s i n the significance an d meaning o f dreams , an d the literature concerne d wit h recordin g an d interpreting them. I n Antiquity, a s i s wel l known , dream s constitute d a large subjec t o f study . Fo r centuries, learned men devoted great intellectual efforts t o decoding their meaning. The literatur e devote d t o dream s wa s apparentl y ver y larg e (only a small par t of i t has reached us) , it had scholarl y tradition s o f it s own, an d i n modern time s i t has been intensivel y studie d fro m differen t points of view. For our purpose we should stress, as Ramsay MacMulle n has recentl y done , tha t apar t fro m image s i t wa s largel y dreamin g tha t was considere d t o mak e possible a direct contact with th e gods. 23 Dream s were considered a s the meeting point of peopl e with the gods; in dreams pagans o f al l classe s kep t compan y wit h th e gods. 24 It was believe d tha t dreams ar e sen t b y th e gods , an d on e coul d see k the m fo r differen t reasons: t o ge t advice , t o se e th e future , o r t o b e healed . Whateve r th e purpose, i t i s t o mee t th e god s tha t dreamin g i s encouraged . Sorcerer s offered spell s fo r conjurin g u p dream s o f al l sorts , mainl y propheti c ones; the y considere d "dream-seeking' * an d "dream-sending " a n essen tial part of thei r craft. 25 The best-known techniqu e fo r provoking a godsent dream was "incubation" : th e dream seeker will slee p in the temple, possibly nea r the statu e o f th e god, t o mak e th e god sen d a dream wit h the desired message or cure. 26 As one went to the temple to offer prayer s directly t o th e god (wh o wa s standin g ther e i n the shape of a statue), s o one wen t t o slee p i n th e templ e expectin g th e god' s direc t appearanc e and intervention. For the purpos e o f ou r discussio n th e crucia l featur e i s tha t a s a rule the gods, directly appearin g i n the "divine " dream, seem to hav e had an articulate shape. Directness of experience seems to have been linked with full articulatio n o f wha t is perceived. Th e god ma y appear t o th e dreamer

32 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

in it s own , authenti c shape , o r ma y disguis e itsel f i n th e for m o f othe r beings, o r transfor m it s figure in th e cours e o f th e dream . However , it s shape i s alway s distinct , an d eve n i n bein g transformed i t does no t los e its distinctness. N o wonder , then, that the dream figure could hav e bee n understood als o a s a n eidolon, a n "image " create d fo r th e occasion . That eidolon ma y lac k th e material substanc e of th e true figure, but it is fully identica l with it in shape and appearance. 27 Looking a t th e ancien t literatur e o n dreams , w e ar e no t concerne d with wha t i s recorde d abou t th e appearanc e o f th e god s a s such . Th e gods appea r s o ofte n i n th e dream s the y sen d tha t a stud y o f thei r manifestations woul d almos t b e tantamoun t t o a stud y o f thi s whol e literary genre. Here we ar e concerned onl y with what is said, or implied, about the images of th e gods, and what we can learn from this literature about ho w ancien t cultur e conceive d o f divin e portraits . Th e storie s concerning th e image s o f god s appearin g i n dreams , sai d Weinreich , a scholar who mad e a significant contributio n t o th e study of ou r subject , were to o commo n t o b e disregarde d b y th e professiona l drea m inter preter.28 A majo r an d well-know n sourc e o f wha t w e kno w abou t ancien t interpretations o f dream s i s th e Oneirocriticon b y Artemidoru s o f Dal dis, a manual o f drea m interpretatio n compose d b y Artemidoru s i n th e late second century a.d . i n Alexandria. Artemidoru s himsel f tell s us how diversified hi s source s were ; h e studie d th e professiona l literature , an d he spen t man y year s i n th e compan y o f th e soothsayer s wh o coul d b e heard in the open markets, and learned fro m th e "cities and festivities o f the Greeks." 29 He can thus be said to reflect bot h the scholarly traditio n and the opinions an d beliefs common i n all strata of society . It i s a matte r o f cours e tha t Artemidoru s ofte n speak s o f th e god s appearing in dreams; for us it is of particular interest that he also records our dreamin g o f th e images—mainl y statues—o f th e gods . Thes e two , the god s an d thei r images , h e treat s interchangeably , a s i f the y wer e identical. I f you dream that the gods leave your house or that the images of th e god s i n you r hous e ar e shattered , i t mean s th e deat h o f th e dreamer or of on e o f hi s or her relatives. 30 I t brings luck, h e says, to se e in one' s drea m eithe r Zeu s himsel f o r hi s statue. 31 A s i f hi s intentio n were no t sufficientl y clear , h e add s i n th e sam e chapter , speakin g o f Artemis, tha t "i t make s n o differenc e whethe r on e see s th e goddes s herself, as she lives in our imagination, o r her statue." In a more general

Antiquity I 3

3

formulation h e late r claim s tha t "th e god s an d thei r image s posses s a common relationship." 32 Thoug h Artemidoru s doe s no t sa y wha t pre cisely h e mean s b y "relationship, " w e shal l probabl y no t g o wron g i n assuming tha t he has the formal compositio n i n mind, what we ar e used to callin g "artisti c form. " Th e "commo n relationship, " tha t somewha t obscure identity of th e god and its image, becomes manifest in what they both "mean " a s indication s o f th e future . "Thos e divinitie s wh o i n themselves a s i n thei r image s signif y happiness , i t i s no t goo d t o se e either smashed o r shattered," we rea d in the same chapter. O n the other hand, i t i s beneficia l whe n eithe r th e god s o f evi l forebodin g o r thei r statues ar e seen disappearing . A t least i n their "function, " there is, then, no difference betwee n th e god and its statue or icon. Even wher e the—admittedl y partial—identit y o f th e go d an d it s image i s no t explicit , i t continue s t o pla y a crucia l role . Ho w doe s th e dreamer kno w whic h go d h e or she is seeing? On e of th e indications th e appearing go d gave , an d th e drea m interprete r ha d t o understand , wa s that th e god s ar e describe d i n th e shape s sanctione d b y th e statues. 33 (For iconographers , on e shoul d add , Artemidoru s i s a sourc e tha t ha s not ye t bee n full y used. ) Anothe r implici t indicatio n o f th e identit y lin k between th e god s an d thei r image s i s Artemidorus' s occasiona l concer n with th e facia l expressio n o f th e statues . I f the statu e o f a god, mad e o f durable material , smile s a t th e dreamer , somethin g goo d wil l happe n t o the dreamer. 34 (iii) Rituals S o muc h fo r dreamin g th e gods . I f th e readin g o f dream s indicates belief s tha t ar e widel y hel d i n th e dreamer' s world , w e woul d have t o conclud e tha t th e societ y reflecte d i n th e Oneirocriticon sa w a close connectio n betwee n th e go d an d it s carve d image . I n som e cases , as w e hav e noted , th e imag e i s eve n substitute d fo r th e go d itself . Bu t was suc h a lin k feasibl e onl y i n th e domai n o f irrationa l dream ? On e cannot hel p askin g ho w th e actua l statue s o f th e god s wer e approache d in real life. Statues of gods, we know, were erected in temples and public squares, they were seen, worshipped, or rejected by innumerable crowd s of people , an d obviousl y i t i s difficul t fo r u s t o gras p clearl y ho w the y were perceived . I n on e domain , however , th e meetin g with , an d treat ment of , divin e image s becam e institutionalized . I mean , o f course , ritual. I n recen t year s w e hav e becom e increasingl y awar e o f wha t ma y be termed "the cognitive value of ritual." 35 I n rituals a view of the world

34 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

is encoded, a s it were. A careful analysi s of ritual s can therefore revea l a whole system of attitudes, and even of conceptual approaches . It is, then, to the ritual treatment of divine images that we now turn. Again we shall briefly loo k a t onl y tw o examples , ritual s tha t see m t o hav e bee n wel l known in the ancient world. In Antiquit y th e apparelin g o f th e god' s imag e i s amon g th e best known ritua l act s pertainin g t o ou r subject . On e o f th e oldes t passage s in Gree k literatur e i n whic h a statu e i s mentione d ma y serv e a s a goo d example. Hector' s mothe r choose s a n embroidere d rob e ("shippe d acros s the sea fro m Sidon") , and, accompanied b y several olde r ladies, sets out for the temple. When they reached the temple of Athene in the Acropolis, the doors were opened for the m b y Thean o o f th e lovel y cheeks , daughte r o f Cisseu s an d wif e o f Antenor the charioteer, who had been made priestess of Athene by the Trojans. With a loud cry, i n which al l joined , th e women lifte d thei r hand s to Athene, while Theano of the lovely cheeks took the robe, laid it on the knees of the Lady goddess, and prayed to the daughter of Almighty Zeus.36 The dressin g o f th e goddes s (o r th e goddess' s image) , a s her e de scribed i n vivi d an d evocativ e detail , clearl y suggest s a behavio r tha t follows a n established ritual—th e openin g of th e doors b y the priestess, the liftin g o f th e hands , the crie s of joy . Mos t importan t i n our contex t is that in the crucial line s the reader is left i n doubt, at least according to the formulation , a s to who precisel y i s being dressed with th e robe . I s it the real goddess or is it her carved image? 37 The rationalistic approache s of late r periods suggested tha t from the beginning the Homeric formula tion clearly referre d t o a statue, 38 bu t in the light of moder n scholarshi p one canno t b e s o sur e tha t thi s wa s indee d th e origina l intention. 39 Ambiguity, i t nee d hardl y b e stressed , play s a par t i n bot h literature 40 and religion. It has been pointed out that Vergil's ambiguous wording in telling this story is particularly characteristic. 41 So well-known and widespread was the ritual of clothing the statue of th e god that it gave rise to an important topos in satirical literature , making fun of the superstitious worshipping o f sacre d statues . Polemica l literatur e abound s i n storie s about people removing the golden mantle of the goddess, placing around her shoulder s a woole n on e instead ; th e woole n cloak , th e thie f says , will kee p the goddess warme r tha n the golden one. 42 I n Greek art , as in Greek religion , th e clothin g o f a god' s statu e play s a memorabl e part , giving rise to the most famous works. The great Panathenaeic processio n

Antiquity I 3

5

that i s represente d i n th e Partheno n friez e coul d hav e take n plac e onl y with th e ritua l purpos e o f bringin g a mantle t o th e statu e o f a goddess , the statue that eventually was set up in the Erechteion. 43 The drapin g o f a divin e statue , o f course , i s onl y on e wa y o f ritua l "caring" fo r th e go d o r fo r it s sacre d image . Th e forma l bathin g o f a god's statu e i s anothe r ritual , on e tha t seem s t o hav e bee n commo n i n the ancien t world . Studie s o f primitiv e societies , o r cultures of a distan t past, hav e mad e u s familia r wit h act s o f forma l washing , bathing , o r immersion, o f a god' s imag e o r o f a miraculou s ston e believe d t o b e inhabited b y a god . Thes e ritual s hav e bee n explaine d a s derive d fro m ceremonies fo r th e magi c rai n making, 44 o r a s part of purificatio n cere monies.45 I n Gree k religio n an d Roma n religions , th e bathin g o f th e god's statu e seem s t o hav e bee n a well-establishe d ritual . Ho w firmly crystallized thi s ritua l wa s i n publi c awarenes s o f th e custo m an d i n social patterns one can infer from the fact that the statues of the differen t gods were bathed on specifi c days , and that this function wa s performe d by specificall y authorize d people . Thu s i n Athens , th e statu e o f Athene , so w e lear n fro m Plutarch , wa s bathe d o n specia l days , th e day s o f th e Plynteria, th e Athenia n festiva l i n hono r o f th e goddes s o f th e city , an d the ritua l wa s performe d b y a group o f th e Praxi , especiall y designate d for this task. 46 W e als o know o f Athene' s statu e bein g ritually bathe d in other places. 47 Aphrodite' s imag e wa s bathe d i n Sykion , a s Pausania s tells us, 48 and in Rome, as we know fro m a vivid and detailed descriptio n by Ovid: Take off the golden necklaces from the marble neck of the goddess; take off her gauds; th e goddes s mus t b e washe d fro m to p t o toe . The n dr y he r neck an d restore to it her golden necklaces; now give her other flowers,now give her the fresh-blown rose. 49 The mothe r o f th e god s wa s als o bathed . Onc e agai n Ovi d no t onl y testifies t o th e washing , bu t als o give s a n evocativ e descriptio n o f th e ceremony: There is a place where the smooth Almo flows into the Tiber, and the lesser river loses it s nam e i n th e grea t one . Ther e a hoary-heade d pries t i n purpl e rob e washed the Mistress and her holy things in the waters of Almo. The attendants howled, the mad fluteblew, and hands unmanly beat the leathern drums.50 The meanin g o f th e ceremon y o f bathin g th e god' s statue , th e ai m that wa s hope d t o b e achieve d b y washin g it , ma y hav e change d i n th e

36 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

course o f time. 51 Wha t remaine d unchanged , however , wa s th e treat ment o f th e imag e a s i f i t wer e a livin g being , th e attributio n o f som e kind of lif e to it. 4. The Animated Image There i s only on e ste p fro m drapin g an d bathin g a god' s imag e t o explicitly believin g tha t i t i s indee d filled wit h life , tha t th e statu e i s animated. Animation, i t was generally accepte d in Antiquity, mean s that the go d himsel f i s dwellin g i n it s image , an d tha t therefor e th e imag e possesses power s tha t woul d no t normall y b e ascribe d t o a statue. The belief i n th e animate d statu e o f th e go d i s a n attitude ; i t i s expressed i n stories o f miracle s an d healings , i n prayer s an d rituals , i n behavio r towards th e materia l images , an d i n variou s othe r ways . I shal l only briefly point out those aspects that are signficant fo r our present subject. Since stories about miracle s worked b y the statues of god s and heroes are s o wel l known , i t wil l suffic e her e t o selec t only a fe w typica l examples fro m th e abundanc e tha t come s t o mind . Thus , t o emplo y Pausanias's matter-of-fac t styl e o f recording , "th e statu e o f Artemi s which wa s bronz e wit h weapon s o f bronze , droppe d it s shield " whe n destiny decided on the fall of the city (Messenia). 52 The lance in the hand of anothe r god's statue trembled when Timoleon was about to overcome the Carthaginians. 53 The abilit y o f a god's statu e t o mov e b y it s own power s i s a striking manifestation o f it s supernatura l animation . Th e movement s thu s per formed b y animate d image s ar e o f grea t variety . On e coul d begi n a lis t of suc h act s with change s i n facia l expression , smiling 54 o r lookin g sad , raising the eyes or casting them down. 55 Mor e extensive movement s are, of course , als o recorded . I n a famou s story , frequentl y quoted , Lucia n tells of th e bronze statue of a hero, Pelichus, that moves freely accordin g to it s ow n intentions . "Perhaps, " say s on e o f th e interlocutor s i n th e story, "i t i s not Pelichu s a t all , bu t Talos th e Cretan , the so n o f Minos ? He wa s o f bronze , an d use d t o wal k al l aroun d th e island." 56 Som e statues of gods or heroes leave the spot on which they are erected to take a bath . Pelichus' s statu e doe s so , a s Lucia n th e satiris t put s it , becaus e "he i s fon d o f takin g a bath. " Another statue , suc h a s th e imag e o f th e hero Eunostos, to give just one mor e example, goes on it s own t o take a bath because a woman ha s entered its sanctuary. 57

Antiquity I 3

7

Nothing vindicate s th e miraculou s animatio n o f th e statue mor e clearly than th e healin g powe r i t possesses . The storie s abou t divin e statue s performing miraculou s cure s belon g t o th e repertor y o f al l religions . They als o aboun d i n Gree k literatur e i n Antiquity . Thes e stories , how ever, are too well know n t o b e retold here. While healin g statue s ar e commo n t o man y religions , th e oracle s pronounced b y the images of th e gods seem to be a feature characteristi c of Greco-Roma n Antiquity . I n th e storie s tellin g o f th e oracle s pro nounced by , o r i n connectio n with , statue s o f gods , othe r element s o f institutionalized religion , suc h a s praye r an d particularl y priest s an d magi, play a prominent part . Tacitus tell s of th e appeal t o th e magi wh o are "i n th e shado w o f Apollo." 58 Pausania s stresse s othe r feature s o f ritual. A stone statu e o f Hermes , place d i n the centra l squar e of th e city of Pharai , pronounces oracles: They call i t the Market Herme s and it has a traditional oracle . I n front o f the statue i s a stone hearthstone , wit h bronz e lamp s stuck ont o i t with lead . Yo u come in the evening to consult the god, burn incense on the hearthstone, and fill up the lamps with oil ; then you ligh t them al l and put a local coi n . . . o n the altar t o th e righ t of th e god; and then yo u whispe r i n the god's ear whatever your question is . . . and whatever phrase you hear next is the oracle.59 Let me conclude wit h a n example fro m th e last stage of paga n Antiq uity. A t th e very beginnin g o f th e fifth century o f ou r era, Macrobius i n his Saturnalia, tha t treasurehous e o f knowledg e fo r late r generations , tells o f th e gods, thei r statues , an d th e oracles the y give , an d als o o f th e rituals performed b y the people. Th e statu e o f th e god o f Heliopolis , h e tells us, is borne in a litter, as the images of the gods are carried in the procession at the Circensian Games, and the bearers are generally the leading men of the province. These men, with their heads shaved, and purified by a long period of abstinence, go as the spirit of the god moves them and carry the statue not of their own will but whithersoever the god directs them, just as at Antium we see the images of the two goddesses of Fortune move forward to give their oracles.60 The go d o f Heliopoli s i s eve n consulte d fro m a distance , Pausania s tells us , an d h e provide s precis e informatio n a s t o ho w thi s i s accom plished. Belief i n the animation o f th e divine images not only shaped the ritual approach t o them, but also how the y were treated (o r are related to have

38 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

been treated ) beyon d ritual , i n everyda y life , a s i t were . A n interestin g insight i s afforde d b y th e storie s o f ho w th e image s o f th e god s wer e chained in order to prevent them from escaping. 61 Pausanias , recountin g customs i n different—often rura l and distant—parts o f Greece , is a real mine. Fro m hi s boo k o n Arcadi a w e lear n o f a n "antiqu e statu e o f Enyalios i n chains. " Wh y wa s Enyalios , anothe r nam e fo r Ares , th e Greek go d o f war , chained ? Pausania s tell s u s wha t peopl e believed . "The Lakonians, " he says, "hav e th e sam e ide a abou t thi s statu e a s the Athenians hav e abou t Wingles s Victory : i n Lakoni a the y thin k th e go d of wa r will neve r desert the m i f they kee p him i n chains; in Athens the y believe Victory will stay with them for ever because she has no wings." 62 In the sam e chapte r Pausania s tell s o f anothe r chaine d statue , thi s tim e of Aphrodite . "Th e Beautifu l goddes s i s a titl e o f Aphrodite ; sh e i s enthroned an d veiled , wit h fetter s o n he r feet." 63 I n anothe r plac e i n Arcadia ther e i s a statue o f Eurynome , th e mothe r o f th e Graces . Sh e is "a wooden idol tied up with gold chains." 64 Another version of the same topos appear s i n th e boo k o n Boiotia : "A n apparitio n with rock s i n hand wa s devastatin g th e countryside. " T o chec k th e destructio n th e oracle ordere d th e citizens , i n additio n t o othe r actions , t o "mak e a bronze image of th e ghost an d rivet it with iro n to the rock." 65 Plutarc h mentions a particularl y Roma n versio n o f ou r theme , applyin g lega l concepts t o th e belie f i n the animatio n o f statues . Som e Roma n histori ans report , say s Plutarch , tha t ther e ar e certai n exorcism s b y mean s o f which the gods can be summoned out of a city; the Romans have already done thi s wit h th e god s o f hostil e cities . To preven t thi s happening , th e people o f Tyr e fastene d th e statue s o f thei r god s with chains . I n othe r places the y followe d a differen t pattern : whe n th e statue s o f th e god s had t o b e carrie d i n festiv e processio n t o b e bathed , the y aske d fo r securities.66 The treatmen t o f th e statue s o f th e gods , a t leas t a s i t i s reporte d i n many extan t ancien t texts , ca n b e explaine d onl y b y th e widesprea d belief in an identity of sorts of the god and its material image. Motivate d by approaching danger or enticed by magic spells, the gods could retrea t from thei r temples , o r eve n leav e th e city . Tha t th e god s leav e thei r abodes wa s understoo d a s leavin g thei r temple s an d statues . I n Seven against Thebes Aeschylu s make s the ruler of Thebes say, The Gods, they say, of a captured town desert her (218—219 )

Antiquity I 3

9

and i t i s fo r thi s reaso n tha t th e maidens , terrifie d b y th e ide a tha t th e protecting god s wil l foresak e th e cit y attacke d b y enemies , clin g t o th e feet o f th e ancien t idols ; b y holdin g th e fee t o f th e idols , the y believ e they ar e preventing th e gods fro m leavin g th e city. 67 The same moti f w e find in th e wor k o f Euripides . I n The Trojan Women h e record s Posei don's words: So I must leave my altars and great Ilium, since once a city sinks into sad desolation the gods' state sickens also. (2L5-27)68 Sophocles relate d tha t shortl y befor e th e fal l o f Tro y th e god s lef t th e city, carryin g thei r statue s o n thei r shoulders. 69 T o preven t th e god s from leaving , peopl e use d t o chai n thei r statues . Pausania s tell s o f a "wooden ido l tie d up with golden chains." 70 Another strikin g exampl e o f ho w th e belie f i n some identit y betwee n the god and its image influenced th e treatment of statues is the punishing of th e idol . Whe n Pa n doe s no t provid e sufficien t prosperit y fo r th e flocks, an d a s a resul t ther e i s a lac k o f meat , th e Arcadia n shepherd s scourge hi s statu e wit h onions. 71 Th e statu e o f a hero , a distinguishe d Greek runner, was flogged by "somebody who hated him in his lifetime," until i t eventually fel l o n th e attacke r an d killed him. 72 There is no nee d to tel l additiona l stories ; man y scholarl y investigation s discus s Gree k and Latin texts attesting to this custom. The anthropologis t ma y wonde r whethe r al l thes e storie s faithfull y record actua l customs ; fo r ou r purpos e i t i s no t crucia l whethe r statue s of god s wer e actuall y chained , o r whethe r rea l securitie s wer e aske d when the y ha d t o b e taken ou t fro m thei r temples an d carrie d i n publi c procession. What w e as k is , what i s the system o f belief s tha t motivate d the storie s an d mad e the m intelligible , indee d acceptable , t o th e reader s in late Antiquity? What is the attitude to the god's image that lies behind all these testimonies ? 5. Conclusions The beliefs and stories of which I have briefly touche d on a selection are, of course , wel l know n t o th e studen t o f th e classica l world . The docu ments wher e th e pertaining opinion s an d event s ar e recorded hav e bee n frequently explore d b y moder n scholars . The y hav e bee n approache d

40 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

from differen t point s o f vie w an d with differen t question s i n mind; they have bee n mad e t o answe r question s o n religio n an d socia l life , o n th e patterns of political symbolism , and on plain prejudice. So far as I know, however, the question of what these testimonies ma y yield for the understanding o f image s a s such, qu a images , ha s no t receive d th e ful l atten tion i t deserves . I cannot attemp t t o carr y ou t thi s task , bu t I wish t o conclude th e foregoin g comments o n th e animate d imag e b y a brie f discussion o f som e specific point s pertaining to this question. I begin with th e broades t proble m tha t her e impose s itsel f t o us . T o use the title of a recent study of ancien t religion , we could ask , "Did th e Greeks believ e i n thei r myths?" 73 T o pu t i t a littl e mor e modestly , w e could ask , wha t di d th e animatio n o f th e god' s imag e actuall y mea n t o people i n Antiquity ? N o doubt , i n th e cours e o f th e centurie s between , say, Home r an d Macrobius , man y peopl e literall y an d naivel y believe d that th e ver y imag e the y wer e worshipping , th e ido l carve d i n woo d o r stone, was indeed the god itself. Such a literal approach, though certainly quite common , wa s no t th e mai n facto r i n shapin g th e min d o f Greco Roman culture . Amon g th e educate d elite , man y altogethe r rejecte d th e belief i n a n identity , whateve r it s natur e an d extent , betwee n th e go d and it s imag e a s shee r prejudice , an d ridicule d th e simpleminde d fol k who believe d i n it . T o th e polemica l attitud e o f th e educate d w e shal l turn in the next section. Here we may only say that the dominant quality in th e ancien t attitud e t o image s o f th e god s wa s a certai n ambiguity . This ambiguity contain s som e o f th e problems that are of crucia l signifi cance fo r ou r theme, an d suggests how th e god's imag e wa s understoo d in the centuries to come. The centra l questio n tha t her e arise s is , ho w doe s animatio n com e about, an d what actuall y make s i t happen? Th e answe r t o thi s questio n may see m obvious , bu t i n fac t i t isn't . I n Greco-Roma n Antiquit y th e question was no t put in a direct and explicit way, bu t clearly it occupied people's minds . Tha t som e o f th e images , carve d i n woo d o r stone , t o which supernatura l power s wer e ascribed , were sai d to have fallen fro m heaven indicate s th e concer n wit h th e origi n o f thei r animation . Th e mysterious origi n of th e image also suggests the origin of th e animation . But some image s of god s believe d t o b e permeated with mysteriou s life , and thu s performin g miracles , wer e know n t o b e th e wor k o f famou s artists. A statu e coul d b e see n a s a testimon y t o th e greatnes s o f th e

Antiquity I 4

1

individual artis t wh o shape d it , an d a t th e sam e tim e b e regarde d a s performing miracles. 74 Walter Burker t ha s calle d attentio n t o th e significan t fac t tha t i n ancient Greece there were no magical rite s to give life to the cult image. 75 To b e sure , ther e wa s a certain tendenc y t o loo k for , an d indee d find, a ritual o f animation. 76 Bu t th e source s tha t hav e bee n mentione d t o support th e assumptio n tha t th e "pagans " did hav e a n animatio n ritua l are no t onl y vague ; the y ar e als o late , an d al l o f the m ar e b y Christia n authors.77 On e feel s saf e i n concludin g tha t i n Gree k lor e ther e wa s indeed n o specifi c ac t that, a t a specific moment , transforme d th e statu e from a n inanimat e objec t mad e b y ma n int o a livin g god . Tha t suc h a ritual wa s no t known , o r a t leas t wa s insignificant , i n Greco-Roma n culture is remarkable sinc e it did exist in the ancient Near East. 78 If the priests did not animate the god's image , who did? Philosophica l and religiou s reflection s i n Antiquity , particularl y i n th e lat e stage s o f that period, sugges t tha t the god inhabit s it s cult imag e becaus e i n som e way th e image resembles it, or that, at least, an affinity prevail s betwee n them. W e ar e no t her e askin g wha t suc h a n affinit y ma y mea n i n a general sense; in the present context we are concerned only with whethe r it was assume d tha t thi s affinity als o had a n optical aspect , a s it were— that is, whether w e ca n spea k o f a visually perceptibl e resemblance. 79 I t is enoug h t o pu t th e questio n i n thi s blun t formulatio n t o se e ho w difficult i t would b e to appl y a literal readin g of th e affinity suppose d t o exist betwee n th e go d an d it s image . Eve n fo r a devou t lat e antiqu e spectator, properl y worshippin g th e cul t statue , i t woul d b e difficul t t o maintain tha t th e facia l feature s an d bodil y characteristic s o f th e image faithfully reproduc e thos e o f th e go d itself . A s a rule , th e antique , especially lat e antique , believe r wa s wel l awar e tha t on e di d no t kno w the go d apar t fro m th e carve d image s on e sa w i n th e temple , o r else where. Dio n Chrysostomus , i n th e Twelft h (Olympic ) Oration , take s i t as a matte r o f cours e tha t w e imagin e th e god s i n th e shap e o f th e cul t images w e se e aroun d us . The artist' s responsibilit y i s s o great , Dio n Chrysostomus stresses , becaus e th e artis t determine s ho w w e wil l imag ine th e god s i n ou r minds. 80 The ide a o f th e affinit y betwee n go d an d image, then , remain s a feeling , a n emotiona l dispositio n o r attitude , rather than an explicitly state d doctrine. In th e expression s o f feeling s an d belief s concernin g th e affinit y be -

42 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

tween th e go d an d it s imag e tha t w e hav e fro m lat e Antiquit y w e encounter, fo r the first time i n the history o f ou r subject, tha t particula r ambiguity, th e conceptua l obscurity , tha t wa s t o remai n th e character istic featur e o f th e intellectua l atmospher e i n whic h th e proble m o f God's image was to be treated for centuries. A statement by Plotinus is in many respects typical . A brief analysi s o f thi s statement wil l illustrate , I hope, both the many-sidedness of the theme and the nature of the discussion. In a treatis e o n "Problem s o f th e Soul, " Plotinu s conjure s u p th e structure o f hi s whole system , an d introduce s som e o f hi s centra l meta phors. H e stresse s th e ide a o f affinity : "whatsoeve r touche s sou l i s molded t o th e natur e o f soul' s Real-Being." 81 Affinity , bein g a genera l principle, i s also use d t o explai n wh y shrine s an d cult image s ar e established: I think, therefore, that those ancient sages, who sought to secure the presence of the divine beings by the erection of shrines and statues, showed insight into the nature of the All; they perceived that, though this Soul is everywhere tractable, its presence will be secured all the more readily when an appropriate receptacle is elaborated, a place especially capable of receiving some portion or phase of it, something reproducing it, or representing it and serving like a mirror to catching an image of it.82 Plotinus goe s o n t o sa y tha t "ever y particula r entit y i s linke d t o tha t Divine Bein g i n whose likenes s i t is made." Ca n we her e assum e resem blance i n th e simple , straightforwar d sens e w e hav e i n min d whe n w e speak o f recognizin g a famil y likeness ? I t i s difficul t t o giv e a simple , unambiguous answer . Ye t the metaphors, and the suggestive tone, make it likely tha t the assumption o f a visual similarit y wa s no t fa r even fro m the mind s o f th e follower s o f Plotinus . Man y mus t have believe d tha t it is th e statue' s similarit y t o th e go d tha t make s th e go d inhabi t it , an d that ultimatel y accounts , howeve r vaguely , fo r it s animation . T o th e common believe r i t mus t hav e seeme d obviou s tha t i t i s th e go d itsel f who animate s it s image . Tha t commo n believe r woul d hav e foun d i t unthinkable tha t th e image s o f Aphrodit e o r Jupiter coul d b e animate d by anyone bu t Aphrodite an d Jupiter themselves. Now, i f we follow thi s trend o f thought , howeve r carefull y w e ma y qualif y ou r assertions , w e shall necessaril y arriv e a t th e conclusio n tha t ther e i s som e kin d o f identity—affinity, i f you wish—betwee n wha t was calle d th e prototyp e and the likeness, that is, between th e real god an d its artistic image. In a

Antiquity I 4 3 later chapter I shall attemp t an analysis of th e theoretical foundation s o f this affinity, a s they were laid down i n the late centuries of Antiquity . Every studen t o f Gree k an d Roma n religio n know s tha t man y mor e legends coul d b e related , an d tha t the y woul d enric h th e pictur e o f ancient belief s i n th e animate d imag e o f th e god . M y ai m i s no t t o provide suc h a picture. The fe w example s I have quoted ar e only mean t to illustrat e a continuou s tren d o f religiou s beliefs , quit e commo n i n many part s o f th e ancien t worl d throughou t it s history . Thes e belief s formed a significant componen t i n the approach t o the gods' images, as, I hope, the examples cited show. The theoretical assumption s underlyin g these variou s miracl e storie s ma y b e vague , confused , o r plainly contra dictory. The y nevertheles s constitute d a conceptual patter n that , despit e all its faults in logic, was of long-lastin g historical significance . Historians canno t hel p bein g curiou s abou t ho w fa r th e belie f i n animated image s of th e gods bear s some socia l imprint : Was i t commo n in certai n part s o f societ y an d rar e i n others ? I t i s tempting t o assum e that amon g lower-class , les s educate d group s th e belie f ha d a stronge r hold tha n amon g mor e highl y educate d ones . S o fa r a s I am aware , th e question ha s not been broached systematically. Bu t whatever the answer may b e whe n i t i s eventuall y investigated , th e historica l powe r o f thi s belief, its role in shaping European attitude s to divine images, and to art in general, will no t be placed i n doubt. The studen t o f aestheti c ideas , concerned wit h th e status of th e wor k of ar t and wit h wha t make s i t efficacious, wil l no t overloo k ye t anothe r aspect of th e beliefs and attitudes we have briefly outlined. It is an aspect that is not historical, i n the sense that it is not related, or restricted, t o a specific perio d o r style ; i t is , rather , a n innat e dimension , a s i t were, o f artistic rendering as such. The belief i n the animated image gives urgency —to b e sure, in a crude, coarse way—to th e complex, perhaps insoluble, problem o f a certai n unit y betwee n th e representatio n an d wha t i s represented. I n that sense , th e belie f i n icons , a s well a s th e criticis m o f this belief (t o which we shall no w turn) , reveal a basic problem o f art .

NOTES 1. Ramsa y MacMullen , Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Have n an d London, 1982) , p. 1 . The literature on ancient religions, I need hardly say,

44 Reflections

in

Classical Antiquity

seems to be inexhaustible, fa r beyond th e grasp of a single person, even on e who devotes all his or her energies to this subject. 2. I shall mention only Martin Nilsson, Greek Folk Religion (Ne w York, 1940 ; several reprints) , an d idem , Greek Piety (Ne w York , 1969) . Man y o f Pete r Brown's studie s relat e t o ou r presen t subject , bu t se e especiall y hi s articl e "Town, Village , an d Hol y Man, " reprinted i n Peter Brown, Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity (London , 1982) , pp. 153-65 . 3. Se e Ma x Weber , Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur Wissenschaftslehre (5t h ed. , Tubingen, 1982) , p . 191 . A n Englis h translatio n b y E . A . Shil s an d H . A . Finch wa s publishe d a s The Methodology of the Social Sciences (Glencoe , 111., 1949); the sentence quoted may be found on p. 90. 4. Erwi n Rohde , Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen (Tubingen, 1893) . 5. Rohde , Psyche, pp . 2-8 . ( I am usin g th e sevent h an d eight h edition s [Tub ingen, 1921] , i n whic h th e paginatio n o f th e first editio n i s give n i n th e margins). Among recen t studies I shall mentio n onl y Walte r Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge , Mass. , 198 5 [origina l Germa n edition , Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Zeit, Stuttgart , 1977]) , pp. 19 5 ff . See also Martin P . Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, I (3rd ed., Munich, 1976) , pp. 19 5 ff. ; an d Jan Bremmer, The Early Greek Concept of the Soul (Princeton, 1987) , pp. 78 ff . 6. The Iliad XXIII, 72 ff . I use the translation b y E. V. Rie u (Harmondsworth , 1950), p. 414. 7. The Odyssey XI , 204-8 . I us e th e translatio n b y E . V . Rie u (Harmond sworth, 1946) , p. 176 . 8. The Odyssey XI , 601-2 . 9. Democritus i s eve n sai d t o hav e writte n a treatis e (no w lost ) On Eidola, which, i n al l likelihood , containe d a theor y o f sensua l perception . Fo r th e sources, se e Kathlee n Freeman , Ancilla to The Pre-Socratic Philosophers (Cambridge, Mass. , 1970) , p . 9 3 ( # 10a) . Se e als o Alexande r o f Aphrodi sias, De sensu, 56 , 12 . 10. Sextu s Empiricus , Adversus Mathematicos IX , 19 ; and se e also Cicero's De natura deorum I , 19 , 49. 11. Fo r Plato's dialogues I have used Benjamin Jowett's English translations. 12. Se e Plotinus' s Enneads V , 2 , 1 ; see als o III , 9 , 3 . A passag e o f th e latte r i s worth quotin g i n ou r context : " . . . fo r b y willin g toward s itsel f i t [th e partial Soul] produces its lower, an image of itself— a non-Being—an d s o is wandering, a s i t were , int o th e void , strippin g itsel f o f it s ow n determine d form. An d thi s image , thi s undetermine d thing , i s blan k darkness , fo r i t i s utterly without reason , untouched b y the Intellectual-Principle , fa r remove d from Authenti c Being. " I use Plotinus , The Enneads, translate d b y Stephe n MacKenna (London , n.d.). The passage quoted is on pp. 25 2 ff . 13. The Enneads II, 4, 5 ; pp. 10 7 ff . o f th e translation quoted . 14. Augustine , The City of God VI , 10 . I use th e translatio n b y Marcu s Dods ,

Antiquity I 4 5 in the Modern Librar y editio n (Ne w York , 1950) . From the vast literature I shall mentio n onl y H . S . Versnel , "Religiou s Mentalit y i n Ancien t Prayer, " in Versnel , ed. , Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Leiden , 1981) , pp. 1-64 , esp . pp. 3 0 ff . 15. 1 , 3 1 .

16. VI , 61 . Se e p. 43 2 i n th e recen t Englis h translatio n b y Davi d Gren e (Hero dotus, The History [Chicago , 1987]) . 17. Andromache, 111 7 ff . (translatio n John F. Nims). 18. Se e Heliodor, Aethiopica VII , 8, 7 . 19. X , 32 , 4 . Se e Pausanias , Guide to Greece I , translate d b y Pete r Levy , S . J. (Harmondsworth, 1971) , p. 490. 20. Philostratu s the Elder, Life and Times of Apollonius ofTyana IV , translated by Charles P. Bells (Stanford, Calif. , 1923) , 40. 21. Rathe r tha n man y bibliographica l reference s I shal l mentio n th e concis e summary b y Walte r Burkert , Greek Religion, translate d b y Joh n Raffa n (Cambridge, Mass. , 1985) , pp . 8 8 ff . Burkert' s attention , o f course , i s focused o n the earlier periods of Gree k culture . 22. Ovid , Metamorphoses X , 69 5 ff . 23. Se e Ramsa y MacMullen , Paganism in the Roman Empire (Ne w Have n an d London, 1981) , pp. 60 ff. ; an d the literature listed in note 45 . 24. Th e classi c account , a t leas t i n ou r generation , i s E . R . Dodds , The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley , Lo s Angeles , London , 1971) , chapte r 4 . Fro m recent literatur e I should als o mentio n Robi n Lan e Fox , Pagans and Christians (Ne w York , 1987) , pp. 10 8 ff . 25. Fox , Pagans and Christians, p . 151 . 26. Se e Dodds , The Greeks and the Irrational, pp . 110-16 . Ver y valuabl e i s E. J . an d L . Edelstein , Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, 2 vols. (Baltimore, 1945) . For a general, very readable account, see Mary Hamilton, Incubation (London , 1906) . 27. Se e Odyssey IV , 79 5 ff . Joachi m Hundt , Der Traumglaube bei Homer (Greifswald, 1935) , speak s o f a "Bildseele. " Fo r a criticis m o f Hundt' s thesis, cf. Boehm e i n Gnomon X I (1935) . 28. Se e Ott o Weinreich , Antike Heilungswunder: Untersuchungen zum Wunderglauben der Griechen (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten), VII I (Giessen , 1909) , pp . 15 7 ff . An d se e als o MacMullen , Paganism in the Roman Empire, pp . 60 ff . 29. Se e th e introductio n t o th e Oneirocriticon. Particularl y informativ e i s th e introduction t o par t 4 o f th e book . O f moder n studies , se e Clae s Blum , Studies in the Dream-Book of Artemidorus (Uppsala , 1936) . R . L . Fox , Pagans and Christians, pp . 15 5 ff. , stresse s the "tireless empirical research " carried out by Artemidorus. 30. Oneirocriticon II , 33. 31. Oneirocriticon II , 35 . I f you se e th e god itself , Artemidoru s her e adds , i t i s better t o se e i t motionless , standin g o r sittin g o n it s throne , tha n movin g

46 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

around. On e canno t hel p feelin g tha t th e motionles s manifestatio n o f th e god make s it more statuelike than if it were moving. Se e the careful annota tion o f th e Frenc h translatio n (Artemidore , Le clef des songes, traductio n par A. J. Festugiere [Paris , 1975] , esp. pp. 14 4 ff.) . 32. Oneirocriticon II , 39. 33. Fox , Pagans and Christians, p . 158 . Ther e were , o f course , als o othe r conventions tha t coul d no t b e full y realize d i n statues. On e o f the m ar e the colors of th e figures, their draperies, etc. 34. Oneirocriticon I , 5. 35. Se e Cliffor d Geertz , "Religio n a s a Cultura l System, " reprinte d i n th e au thor's The Interpretation of Cultures (Ne w York , 1973) , pp . 87-125 , esp . pp. 11 2 ff.; an d S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge , 1984) . 36. The Iliad V\ y 31 1 ff . 37. A littl e earlie r (VI , 270 ) grea t Hecto r ha d said : "Tak e a robe, th e lovelies t and bigges t yo u ca n fin d i n the house an d the one yo u valu e mos t yourself , and lay it on the Lady Athene's knees." 38. Fo r an early, thoug h onl y brief , reference , se e J. Geffcken, "De r Bilderstrei t im heidnische n Altertum, " Archiv fur Religionsgeschichte, XI X (1916 1919), pp . 286-315 , esp . p . 286 , not e 3 , an d p . 291 . Rober t Lamberton , Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition (Berkeley , Lo s Angeles, London , 1986) , concentrates , as the titl e says , on a different traditio n o f interpretation , bu t i s useful als o for understanding the rationalistic approaches . 39. Walte r Burkert, Greek Religion, pp . 88—92. 40. Willia m Bedel l Stanford , Ambiguity in Greek Literature: Studies in Theory and Practice (Oxford , 1939 ; reprint New Yor k and London, 1972) . 41. Se e Geffcken's study , p . 286 . An d cf . The Aeneid of Virgil, I, translated b y C. Da y Lewi s (Oxford , 1952) , 480-85 . A s th e goddess' s ritua l rob e i s brought i n processio n t o th e statu e (?) , "the goddes s keep s he r eyes o n th e ground an d regard s the m not. " Her e th e reade r canno t hel p feelin g tha t ambiguity as to whether it was a statue or a living goddess who did not look at the women was intentional, an artistic device. 42. Fo r some examples, see below, chapter 3. 43. Se e C. J. Herrington, Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias (1955) . 44. J . G. Frazer , The Golden Bough, I (London, 1911) , pp. 29 9 ff . An d see als o O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte (Munich, 1906) , p. 8 2 1 , not e 1 .

45. Mirce a Eliade , Patterns in Comparative Religion (Ne w York , 1963) , pp . 194 ff . Fo r classical Antiquity , see Burkert, Greek Religion, pp . 75 ff . 46. Se e Plutarch, Alkihiades, 34 ; Pollux, Onomasticon VIII , 141. 47. I n Argos , a s w e lear n fro m Callimachus' s tal e o f Teiresias . Cf . Ulric h vo n Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos, I I (Berlin, 1924) , pp. 14-24 , a section called "Das Bad der Pallas."

Antiquity I 4 7 48. Se e Pausanias, Guide to Greece II , 10, 4. 49. Fasti IV , 13 5 ff . Se e Ovid's Fasti wit h a n Englis h translatio n b y Si r J. G . Frazer (Loe b Classica l Library ; Cambridge , 1967) . Th e line s quote d ar e found o n p. 199 . 50. Ovid , Fasti IV, 337 ff . Se e p. 21 3 o f th e English translation . 51. Gruppe , Mythologie, p . 821 , not e 2 , list s a wealt h o f material , suggestin g that th e ceremon y ma y originall y hav e bee n a char m fo r rainmaking , an d eventually becam e a n act of ritua l purification. I t is beyond th e scope of th e present study t o attempt an investigation o f th e process. 52. Pausanias , Guide to Greece IV , 13 , 1. 53. Plutarch , Timoleon, 1 2 ff . 54. Se e Suetonius, Caligula, $7. Th e soldiers , shivering with fear , well illustrat e the effect suc h miracle has on people. 55. Strabo , The Geography, VI , translate d b y H . L . Jones (London , 1949-69) , p. 26 4 (statu e closes the eye in order not to see a crime committed); Lucian, De dea Syria, 3 2 (statu e follow s wit h it s gaze th e movement s o f th e spectator); Cassiu s Dio , Roman History, LIV , translate d b y E . Car y (London , 1914-63), 7 ; XLVI, 33 ; XXXIX, 2 0 (statue s turnin g away); similar Athenaeus the Deipnosophist, XII , translate d b y C . Gulic k (Cambridge , Mass. , i 9 5 i ) , p . 521 . 56. Lucian , The Liar, translate d b y H. W. Fowler, 19 . 57. Plutarch , The Greek Customs, 40 . Se e Plutarch's Moralia, IV , translated b y Frank O . Babbit t (Loe b Classica l Library ; Cambridge , Mass. , an d London , 1972), pp. 17 7 ff . Fo r the passage referred to, see pp. 227 f . 58. Tacitus , Annales XII , 22. 59. Pausanias , Guide to Greece VII , 22. English translatio n I , p. 285 . 60. Saturnalia I, 23, 13 . For the English wording see Macrobius, The Saturnalia, translated by Percival Vaughan Davie s (Ne w York , 1969) , p. 151. 61. Th e chainin g o f a god' s imag e i s no t limite d t o ancien t Greece . Se e W . Crooke, "Th e Bindin g of a God: A Study i n the Basis of Idolatry, " Folklore VIII (1897) , pp . 325-55 . An d see also R . Merkelbach , "Gefesselt e Gdtter, " Antaios XI I (1970/71) , pp . 549—65 . An d cf . Edwy n Bevan , Holy Images (London, 1940) , pp. 28 ff . 62. Pausanias , Guide to Greece III , 15 , 9 . J . G . Frazer , i n hi s commentar y t o Pausanias (Pausanias' Description of Greece, edite d an d translate d b y J. G . Frazer [London , 1898—1913]) , collect s a great deal of material , bot h Gree k and comparative , importan t fo r th e stud y o f chaine d images . Cf . hi s com mentary to the passages in Pausanias mentioned in the present paragraph. 63. Pausania s III , 15 , 11 . Martin Nilsso n suggest s (Geschichte der griechischen Religion, I [3r d ed. , Munich , 1976] , pp . 8 2 f. ) tha t th e chain s coul d als o have serve d a s decoration . Ye t h e doe s no t doub t th e chainin g o f divin e statues in order to prevent their departure. 64. Pausania s VIII, 41, 6. 65. Pausania s IX, 38 , 4.

48 Reflections

in

Classical Antiquity

66. Plutarch , Roman questions, 58 . 67. Bevan , Holy Images, p . 28 , believe s tha t th e maiden s ar e awar e tha t th e idols ar e no t identica l wit h th e gods , ye t nevertheles s the y fee l tha t b y holding the images they keep the gods in the city. 68. Cf . Gruppe , Mythologie, pp . 981 ff . 69. I n a scholion , fr . 414 . I a m quotin g afte r Gruppe , Mythologie, p . 981 , note 6. 70. Pausanias , Guide to Greece VIII , 41 , 6 . H e ha s no t see n i t himself , h e conscientiously notes , sinc e h e "di d no t manag e t o b e ther e a t the momen t of th e festival. ,, Fo r additiona l text s tellin g o f chaine d statue s o f gods , se e Gruppe, Mythologie, p . 982, note 2. 71. Theocritu s VII , Idylls, 106. Th e stor y i s als o tol d b y Pausanias . Moder n scholarship, particularl y i n anthropology , ha s emphasize d tha t simila r be havior ca n b e observe d i n recen t times , eve n i n Europe . Fo r additiona l material se e Frazer , The Golden Bough I , pp . 29 6 ff. , an d Versnel , "Th e Religious Mentalit y i n Ancient Prayer," pp. 3 8 ff . 72. Pausanias , Guide to Greece VI , 11 , 6. 73. Se e Pau l Veyne , Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? An Essay on the Constitutive Imagination (Chicag o and London, 1988) . The original Frenc h edition, Les Grecs ont-ils cru a leurs mythes? wa s published in Paris, 1983 . 74. Th e example s ar e wel l known . I t i s sufficien t t o recal l thos e mentione d b y Burkert. 75. Greek Religion, p . 91. Given the broad scop e o f hi s work, Burker t unfortu nately canno t g o int o a discussion o f th e meaning s an d implication s o f hi s observation. 76. See , fo r instance , O . Gruppe , Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte (Handbuc h de r klassische n Altertumswissenschaft , 5 . Band , 2 . Abt. ; Munich, 1906) , p. 982. 77. Minuciu s Felix , Octavius 23 , 13 ; Tertullian, Apologeticus, 12 ; De Idololatria, 15 ; De spectaculis, 13 . 78. Se e A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago , 1964) , p. 186 . Burkert himself refer s to this source. 79. I shall com e bac k late r to the problem o f resemblanc e i n general (se e below , chapter 4) . Her e I touch o n i t onl y i n th e contex t o f th e animatio n o f th e god's image. 80. Se e Dion Chrysostomus , Discourses, esp . Xllt h discourse . An d cf . m y Theories of Art from Plato to Winckelmann (Ne w York , 1985) , pp. 25 ff . 81. Enneads IV , 3 , 10 . I use th e translatio n b y Stephe n MacKenn a (Plotinus , The Enneads [London , n . d.]) . Ther e ar e tw o essay s o n Problem s o f th e Soul, Enneads IV , 3 an d 4 . Fo r the passage s her e discussed , se e pp . 26 9 ff . of th e translation. 82. Enneads IV, 3 , 11 ; p. 27 0 of th e English translation .

THREE

Antiquity II: Against the Images of Gods

In a schematic ma p o f th e typica l attitude s t o th e image s o f th e gods i n the Greek an d Roma n world the belief i n the animated statue marks one end of th e scale. It embodies the tendency t o reduce the distance betwee n the go d an d it s portrai t unti l i t i s mad e t o dwel l i n th e statu e an d t o animate it . We are here close to identifying th e image with the god itself. At th e othe r en d o f th e scal e w e commonl y plac e th e rationalistic , skeptical approach , a n attitud e tha t ha s muc h i n commo n wit h th e Enlightenment outlook an d anticipates many modern formulations. 1 Th e critical traditio n stresse d th e gap between th e god an d its image. We are here clos e t o th e denia l o f an y possibilit y o f makin g a n appropriat e image of th e god. Critical though t ha s a lon g history , an d thi s i s tru e als o concernin g reflections o n th e image s o f th e gods . I t goe s withou t saying , bu t ha s perhaps not bee n sufficiently emphasize d i n modern studies, that even in 49

50 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

this relatively minor subject—the image s of the gods—a critica l attitud e should not be taken as a unified stance , or as an amorphous world view, devoid of interna l distinctions . Antiquity ha s not transmitted an analysis of the types of rejectio n of the images of gods, but it might be helpful fo r our purpos e t o propos e suc h a typology . Th e type s her e suggested , i t need hardly b e said, are not to be understood a s fully distinc t fro m eac h other; further, i n the many rejection s tha t have bee n transmitted, differ ent motives prevail. In a systemati c schem e on e shoul d begi n wit h th e rejectio n o f th e gods' images because th e very existence of th e gods is denied. In modern scholarship i t seem s t o b e generall y accepte d tha t outrigh t atheis m wa s rather rar e i n Gree k an d Roma n thought , an d especiall y tha t i t playe d no significan t rol e i n classical culture. 2 Ancien t literatur e doe s no t see m to hav e preserve d an y explici t atheisti c reason s fo r th e rejectio n o f images of the gods. Another reason for rejecting the statues and pictures of the gods is the belief tha t Go d i s imageless. Thi s is , o f course , a centra l them e o f th e present study , an d i n th e cours e o f th e curren t sectio n w e shal l hav e t o deal wit h th e majo r expression s o f thi s view . Alread y here , however , I should emphasiz e tha t th e attribut e o f "imageless " i s no t unambiguou s in Greek and Roman discourse . It may mean that God cannot be seen at all, somewha t simila r t o th e biblica l assumption ; bu t i t ma y als o mea n that Go d ha s n o huma n form . A s a rule, for m mean s huma n form , bu t there ar e als o othe r versions . We find a good exampl e o f thi s particula r ambiguity alread y at an early stage of ancient culture: Herodotus tells of the customs i n Persia , o f which , a s h e point s out , h e ha s persona l knowledge: "The y [th e Persians ] ar e no t won t t o establis h image s o r temples o r altar s a t all ; indee d the y regar d al l wh o d o s o a s fools , an d this, i n m y opinion , i s becaus e the y d o no t believ e i n god s o f huma n form, as the Greeks do." 3 The gods ' image s are , finally, rejecte d becaus e ido l worshi p i s criti cized. Ridiculin g th e worshippe r o f a statu e i s a commo n topo s i n ancient literature , one tha t occurs i n most phases of Antiquity . W e shall therefore hav e to refe r to this argument frequently , bu t it should b e said at th e beginnin g tha t a criticis m o f ido l worshippin g i s no t directl y concerned with the image, but with the worshipper's behavior. By implication, however , i t als o contain s a vie w o f wha t i s th e natur e o f th e

Antiquity II 5

1

image. I t i s thi s implie d view , ofte n comin g clos e t o a clea r statement , that concerns us here. From ou r poin t o f view , o f course , th e argument s pertainin g t o th e second type , that is, those concerne d wit h th e shape of th e gods, ar e the most interestin g ones. As long a s the Greeks reflected o n matter s divine , the questio n o f wha t th e god' s shap e (morphe) i s di d no t disappear . I t was non e other than Cicer o who showe d tha t this question remaine d a n essential par t o f investigatin g th e "natur e o f th e gods." 4 H e begin s th e second par t o f De natura deorum b y dividin g th e inquir y int o severa l themes; the secon d theme , th e kind s o f gods , als o include s th e questio n of thei r shapes. 5 At the beginning o f thi s history, a t least in Greek culture , we find the great Ionia n poet-philosophe r o f th e en d o f th e Archai c Age , Xeno phanes. Xenophanes * criticis m o f th e concept s w e for m o f th e god s i s well known ; i t ha s ofte n bee n sai d tha t h e wa s a n "intellectua l revolu tionary," an d tha t i t wa s thi s criticis m tha t opene d u p a philosophica l dimension i n the consideration o f th e divine. This does not mean that he was a n atheist . "I t i s prope r fo r me n wh o ar e enjoyin g themselve s first of al l t o prais e God, " h e say s i n th e "Elegy " o n th e openin g o f a symposium. Thi s shoul d b e done , however , "wit h decen t storie s an d pure words." 6 Wha t h e mean s b y thi s become s clea r i n th e followin g sentences, wher e h e turn s agains t treatin g o n suc h a n occasio n th e Homeric an d Hesiodi c myth s "o f th e battle s o f th e Titan s o r o f th e Giants, figments o f ou r predecessors. " The ancien t poet s picture d th e gods i n huma n for m an d attribute d t o the m huma n frailtie s an d fate . "Both Home r an d Hesiod hav e attribute d t o th e gods al l things that are shameful an d a reproac h amon g mankind : theft , adultery , an d mutua l deception."7 Paralle l t o seein g th e god s actin g lik e human s i s th e vie w that the y actuall y loo k lik e humans . Followin g th e ancien t poet s w e believe tha t th e god s ar e begotten , an d tha t the y hav e ou r "raiment , voice and body. " We reac h her e th e questio n o f wher e thi s anthropomorphis m origi nates. Xenophanes' thesis is clear: humanity projects its own imag e onto the gods . T o inver t th e biblica l phras e w e coul d sa y tha t huma n being s shape go d i n thei r ow n image . N o wonder , then , tha t th e god s sho w features characteristi c o f th e huma n frame . Thu s racia l difference s ar e mirrored in the gods. "Aethiopians hav e gods with snub noses and black

52 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

hair, Thracians hav e god s wit h gre y eye s an d re d hair." 8 H e carrie s th e idea tha t th e imag e o f th e go d alway s reflect s it s "creator " o n eart h t o the ultimat e conclusio n tha t beasts , wer e the y abl e t o creat e images , would create theriomorph icon s of the gods: But i f oxe n [an d horses ] an d lion s ha d hand s o r coul d dra w wit h hand s and create works of art like those made by men, horses would draw pictures of gods like horses , an d oxe n o f god s lik e oxen , an d they woul d mak e th e bodie s [o f their gods] in accordance with the form that each species itself possesses.9 Xenophanes doe s no t see m t o hav e know n tha t i n Egyp t ther e wer e i n fact images of god s cas t in the shapes of beasts . Whether or not this fac t would have disturbed his thought 10 is not for us to say. Now, doe s this mean tha t Xenophanes ' god i s altogether invisible , or has no traceable shape, and that therefore i t cannot b e represented? No t necessarily, som e scholar s woul d say. 11 Fro m a Hellenisti c source , th e authenticity o f whic h ha s bee n questioned , w e lear n that , accordin g t o Xenophanes' teachings, God has the shape of a sphere.12 Whether or not this is a reliable source, the idea that God look s lik e an abstract geomet rical body , a sphere , ha d littl e impac t o n th e conceptio n o f th e god' s image i n Gree k culture . Denyin g th e go d human for m was , fo r larg e parts of Gree k culture , tantamount t o denying it any form a t all. Xenophanes' observations of ho w th e images of th e gods are made to bear th e racia l characteristic s o f thei r huma n producers , i t ha s bee n suggested,13 attests to his wide travels; it also shows that he was a careful observer o f shape s an d colors . Wha t i s n o les s importan t i s that , bein g aware of popular beliefs, 14 he breaks away fro m them, and thus declares humanity's natur e a s a god-creating agent . I n so doing , h e announced a motif i n the intellectual rejectio n of the gods' images that was to have an important afterlife , an d t o becom e prominen t i n moder n times. 15 I n Antiquity, however, this motif wa s overshadowed b y another theme. The philosophe r Heraclitus , Xenophanes ' younge r contemporary , wa s also concerned with divine images. In negating the images of the gods he emphasized tha t othe r theme , an d formulate d a moti f tha t wa s t o be come a centra l subjec t i n th e rationalisti c critiqu e o f belief s i n th e ani mated image , an d i n hol y image s i n general . Thi s them e i s simple : i t emphasizes th e well-know n fac t tha t th e materia l o f whic h th e gods ' images are made is plain matter , regula r wood o r stone o r metal, totally inanimate an d utterl y incapabl e o f an y perception , o r understanding .

Antiquity II 5

3

Heraclitus expose s th e flagrant contras t betwee n people' s belie f i n th e image, an d thei r behavio r resultin g fro m thi s belief , an d th e rea l natur e of th e idol the y pray to an d address i n different ways . Believers , he said, "pray to statues of th e gods, that do not hear them, as if they heard, and do not give, just as they cannot ask." 16 I t is correct to say that Heraclitus is no t oppose d t o prayin g a s suc h for , "hi s complain t i s aime d a t th e obtuse ide a tha t th e image s ar e gods." 17 "Moreover, " s o anothe r frag ment reads , "the y [th e believers ] tal k t o thes e statue s [o f th e gods ] a s if one wer e t o hol d conversatio n wit h houses , i n hi s ignoranc e o f th e nature o f bot h god s an d heroes." 18 Heraclitus' s satirica l ton e i n th e rejection o f divin e images , i t ha s bee n said, 19 anticipate s tha t o f th e Christian polemicists. I d o no t inten d t o trac e her e th e histor y o f th e critica l attitud e t o sacred images i n Antiquity, bu t I should not e tha t the dependence o f th e god's form s o n thos e o f th e peopl e wh o mak e it s images , an d th e utte r lifelessness o f th e matte r o f whic h th e image s ar e made—tha t is , th e arguments o f Xenophane s an d Heraclitus—i n fac t becam e th e centra l topoi o f th e skeptical, critica l tradition . As I have said, it was mainly th e latter theme on which late r critics focused . Contacts, reliabl e o r fantastic , wit h foreig n culture s an d religion s i n distant lands brough t home th e acquaintance wit h aniconic cults. Of th e Scythians Herodotu s tell s u s tha t "images , altars , an d shrine s the y d o not mak e customarily , excep t t o Ares." 20 Bu t wha t wa s th e image o n the alta r t o tha t on e god ? I t was no t a statu e i n huma n shape . A larg e amount o f woo d i s pile d up , Herodotu s relates , an d "o n thi s pil e i s se t an ancien t iro n sword " tha t serve s a s th e cul t image. 21 Bu t storie s o f foreign countrie s ar e also mad e t o suppor t th e traditional theme s o f th e critical tradition , especiall y th e stres s o n th e materia l o f whic h a god' s image i s made . The Egyptia n kin g Amasis , w e learn , "ha d man y trea sures, an d amon g the m a golden footbath , i n which Amasi s himsel f an d his fello w guest s washe d thei r fee t o n occasio n o f need . Amasi s cu t thi s up an d mad e ou t o f i t a n image o f a go d an d se t i t u p a t th e mos t suitable par t o f th e city." 22 Th e Egyptians , Herodotu s continues , showe d great reverence to the statue. Rejecting th e god' s imag e becaus e i t i s a mer e materia l objec t i s a central argumen t i n th e satirica l literature , especiall y i n Hellenisti c an d Roman times . Ridicul e an d satir e playe d a majo r par t i n combatin g popular belief s i n sacred an d animated images . Making fu n o f th e gods'

54 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

statues lasted throughout Antiquity , an d in the course of th e centuries it assumed man y forms . A n importan t them e i s th e strikin g contras t be tween a god's omnipotence , an d other qualities deeme d t o b e characteristic of a divine being , an d the utter helplessness o f th e image represent ing th e god . Thi s particula r contrast , take n u p tim e an d again , wa s elaborated i n concret e detai l an d take n t o grotesque , laughter-evokin g dimensions. I shall mention only a few examples. Heraclitus alread y strike s a satirica l ton e i n dealin g wit h adorin g sacred images; as we hav e just seen, he compares th e believers who tal k to the statues of god s to people who ar e conversing with walls. But here the specifi c moti f i s tha t o f th e statue' s inanimat e nature , a subjec t t o which w e shal l shortl y return . Explici t satir e o f th e god' s imag e base d on th e helplessnes s o f matte r seem s t o hav e emerge d only i n Hellenism . The Battle of the Frogs and the Mice (know n a s th e Batrachomyomachia) is an ancient parody o f th e Iliad. Although actuall y composed only in the third century b.c . (possibl y even later), in late Antiquity i t enjoyed the prestig e o f a text o f legendar y age . Athen e (o r rathe r Minerva) , w e learn from the parody, complains to Saturn that mice have nibbled away her mantle, and she cannot afford t o pay the tailor for a new one. O father, never will I come as an assistant to the mice in trouble, since they have done me many ills, having befouled my garlands, and lamps, for the sake of the oil. But this thing, such as they have done, has particularly eaten into my soul, they have nibbled away a garment, which I had worked with my own toil, and they have made holes in it. Bu t the weaver presse s me, and demands usury of me, [and] on this account I am worn out. For having borrowed, I worked it, and have not the wherewithal to pay back.23 Mice inside the statue of a god, nibbling awa y a t its very substance — that wa s a n imag e tha t captivate d th e satirica l imaginatio n o f Gree k rationalists. On e coul d hardl y thin k o f a mor e strikin g exampl e o f th e contradiction betwee n a god an d its material image . We keep hearing of mice eroding a holy imag e fro m within . A satirist such a s Lucian woul d certainly no t mis s the point. I n the "Zeus Tragoedus" he tells the story, combining i t wit h a n interestin g observatio n o n th e material s artist s i n different countrie s prefe r fo r thei r work . H e juxtapose s th e technique s of Gree k an d Egyptian sculptors : the Greek s mak e marvelou s statue s of gold and ivory ( a good description of the xoana, th e typical cult statues). These statues , Lucia n says , "hav e grace , beauty , an d artisti c workman ship," bu t the y ar e "woo d inside , [an d thus ] harborin g whol e colonie s

Antiquity II 5

5

of mice. " The Egyptian statues , on th e other hand, are "dog-faced," bu t they ar e mad e o f soli d stone , an d the y thu s escap e th e danger , an d th e humiliation, o f bein g destroye d b y mice . N o wonder , then , that , t o us e Lucian's words, in the assembly summone d b y Zeus, "the front row will be exclusively barbarian." 24 Lucian come s bac k t o thi s imag e o f inne r corruption, s o totall y bely ing the pose of dignity and elevation. The works of the famous sculptors, pieces o f sculptur e tha t becam e legend s i n ancien t culture , ar e no t ex empted. I n another story Lucian makes the cock relating his dream say, I was like those colossal statues , the work of Phidias, Myron or Praxiteles: they too loo k extremel y wel l fro m th e outside; 'ti s Poseido n wit h hi s trident, Zeu s with his thunderbolt, all ivory and gold: but take a peep inside, and what have we? One tangle of bars, bolts, nails, planks, wedges, with pitch and mortar and everything that is unsightly; no t t o mentio n a possible colon y o f rat s or mice. There you have royalty.25 The menta l pictur e o f mic e erodin g th e statu e o f a god fro m withi n found it s wa y als o int o th e Christia n literatur e o f lat e Antiquity . I n th e early third century a.d . Arnobius , i n his Seven Books against the Heathen, gives a Christia n version . Th e Sixt h Boo k deal s wit h paga n temples , idols, an d ritual s (mainl y sacrifices) . Th e heathe n forge t tha t thei r idol s are mad e o f clay , wood , meta l sheets , o r "fro m th e toot h o f th e India n beast" (ivory). 26 Arnobius give s som e informatio n tha t i s of grea t inter est t o th e ar t historian , especiall y concernin g th e wa y th e statue s ar e composed o f independen t parts . Wha t h e emphasizes , however , i s tha t all th e material s o f whic h idol s ar e mad e ar e subjec t t o th e law s tha t govern th e material worl d i n general; they deca y an d disintegrate. I n his picturesque languag e h e describes ho w th e statues o f th e gods "crumbl e away under dripping of rain; . . . disintegrate through decay and rot; .. . vapors an d smok e begrim e an d discolo r the m . . . neglec t over a lon g period cause s the m t o los e thei r appearanc e becaus e o f weatherin g an d they ar e eate n awa y b y rust. " Al l this , needles s t o say , i s i n strikin g contrast to the supposed power and dignity of th e divine. Addressing the heathen, Arnobius exclaims , I say, do you not see that newts, shrews, mice, and cockroaches, which shun the light, build their nests and live under the hollow parts of these statues? that they gather carefull y int o thes e al l kind s o f filth , an d othe r thing s suite d t o thei r wants, hard and half-gnawed bread , bones dragged [thither] in view of [proba-

56 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

ble] scarcity, rags, down, [and] pieces of paper to make their nests soft, and keep their young warm?27 When he wrote his work, Arnobius was of course already a Christian, but h e wa s raise d an d educate d a s a pagan , an d hi s wor k reflect s th e tradition o f th e educate d tren d i n Gree k cultur e o f th e time . Hi s attac k on the idols shows, in style and imagery, how good a pupil he was of the Greek Enlightenment . A cluster of related motifs, perhaps less biting in tone but also satirical in intention , develope d i n Hellenisti c an d earl y Christia n literature . I t will suffic e t o mention one of them , which early Christian authors foun d particularly appealing . I t i s th e god' s statue' s inabilit y t o fen d of f th e birds, an d othe r creatures , tha t defil e i t fro m th e outside . Clemen t o f Alexandria mention s swallows an d other birds as unconcernedly defilin g the statues. H e gives famou s examples : the Olympia n Zeus , the Epidaurian Asclepius , th e Athen a Polias , an d th e Egyptia n Sarapis. 28 Arnobiu s tries to give a didactic turn to the motif: Do you not see, finally,swallows full of filthflyingaround within the very domes of the temples, tossing themselves about and bedaubing now the very faces, now the mouths of the divinities, the beard, eyes, noses, all the other parts on which the outpouring of their emptied fundament falls? Blush, then , howeve r late , an d tak e you r lesso n an d norm s fro m th e dum b animals and let them teach you that there is nothing divine in images, on which they do not fear or scruple to cast filth,following as they do, their own laws and impelled by their unerring natural instinct.29 Another them e belongin g t o th e subject s traditionall y brough t u p i n arguments agains t divin e image s relate s t o th e materia l origi n o f th e god's statue . Tim e an d agai n w e hea r tha t fro m th e ver y sam e piec e o f material th e artisa n ca n fashio n eithe r th e figure o f a go d o r som e everyday, regula r object, usually on e lacking significance o r dignity, an d sometimes eve n servin g bas e needs. As we hav e seen, this theme, clearly bearing a satirical character , alread y appear s i n th e Bibl e (Isaia h 44). 30 In Gree k an d Roma n literatur e i t i s wel l known . Earlie r i n thi s sectio n we hav e see n tha t Herodotus , wh o praise s the Persian s becaus e the y d o not imagin e thei r gods i n human shape , tell s of a golden footbat h bein g melted dow n t o becom e th e image of a god. 31 I shall no t her e set out t o trace th e histor y o f thi s moti f i n Greco-Roman intellectua l life . Perhap s its continuity ma y be suggested by a text composed man y centuries afte r

Antiquity II 5

7

Herodotus. Horac e begin s on e o f hi s satire s b y makin g a god' s imag e tell th e story of ho w i t came into being : "Onc e I was a fig-wood stem , a worthless log , whe n th e carpenter , doubtfu l whethe r t o mak e a stool o r a Priapus, chose that I be a god. A god, then, I became."32 The menta l pictur e o f a n artisa n contemplatin g a piec e o f woo d o r stone, wonderin g whethe r t o mak e o f i t som e ordinar y objec t o r th e image of a god, bear s testimony t o two importan t points. I t shows, first, that ther e i s nothin g divin e o r supernatura l i n th e stuf f o f whic h th e god's statu e i s made . I n its materia l substance , a t least , th e god' s statu e is not different fro m any other material object, and this total indifferenc e of th e matte r t o th e shap e o f th e god , int o whic h i t i s cast , canno t bu t affect th e god' s imag e itself . Secondly , tha t menta l imag e forcefull y shows tha t th e ver y existenc e o f th e god' s statu e i s a matte r o f chance , or a human' s arbitrar y decision . Ther e i s n o compellin g inne r necessit y of th e statue's coming into being. In Jewish-Hellenistic literature , wel l know n fo r it s influenc e o n th e intellectual worl d o f emergin g Christianity , th e motif s her e discusse d found forcefu l expression . I shall limi t myself t o one quotatio n fro m th e Wisdom of Salomon, a n influentia l wor k o f biblica l apocryph a com posed in the first century b.c . This passage from the Wisdom of Salomon (13:10-19) show s ho w severa l o f th e theme s repeatedl y adduce d i n rejecting divine images have grown together : But if some carpenter saws down a tree he can handle, And skillfully strips off all its bark. And shaping it nicely Makes a dish suited for the uses of life, And burns the chips of his work To prepare his food, and eats his fill; But the worst of them, which is good for nothing, A crooked piece, full of knots He takes and carves to occupy the spare time, And shapes it with understanding skill, He makes it a copy of a human form, Or makes it some common animal, Smearing it with vermillion, and painting its surface red, And coating every blemish in it; And making an abode for it worthy of it, He fixesit on the wall, and fastens it with iron, So he plans for it, so that it will not fall down, For he knows that it cannot help itself;

58 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

For it is only an image and needs help. But he prays to it about his property and his marriage and his children, And is not ashamed to speak to a lifeless thing. And appeals to something that is weak, for health, And asks something that is dead, for life, And supplicates what is utterly inexperienced, for aid, And something that cannot even take a step, about a journey, And he asks strength for gain and business and success in what he undertakes From something whose hands are most feeble. Considering th e god' s statu e a s a mer e materia l objec t lead s t o stil l another literar y version : th e statue , eve n afte r i t ha d bee n honore d fo r years a s th e imag e o f a powerfu l an d adore d figure, ca n stil l becom e "raw material, " a s i t were , an d b e turne d int o a n ordinar y object . I n ancient literature this particular version is found mainl y when the images of heroe s o r political leader s ar e discussed, bu t they ar e not i n principl e different fro m th e images of th e gods. The process of meltin g large-scal e bronze statue s (th e typica l for m o f reducin g image s t o ra w material ) reminds on e o f iconoclasm . Now , th e destructio n o f venerate d image s did no t pla y a majo r par t i n th e lif e o f th e ancien t world ; nothin g comparable t o th e iconoclasti c breakin g o f image s was know n i n classical Antiquity. 33 Still , w e d o find i n ancien t literatur e occasiona l refer ences t o th e breakin g o f statues , o r t o meltin g the m dow n an d makin g "useful" object s o f them . A lively , suggestiv e descriptio n o f destroyin g the statu e o f a powerfu l an d venerate d figure i s foun d i n Juvenal' s Satires. Th e tex t i s s o ric h i n allusion s tha t a larg e par t o f i t mus t b e quoted. Down com e thei r statues , obedien t t o th e rope ; th e ax e hew s i n piece s thei r chariot wheel s an d the leg s of th e unoffendin g nags . And no w th e flame s are hissing, an d ami d th e roa r o f furnac e an d of bellow s th e hea d o f th e might y Sejanus, the darling of th e mob , is burning an d crackling, an d from tha t face, which wa s bu t latel y secon d i n the entire world , ar e being fashione d pipkins , basins, frying pans and slop-pails. Up with the laurel-wreaths over your doors! Lead forth a grand chalked bull to the Capitol! Sejanus is being dragged along by a hook, as a show and joy to all.34 The studen t o f ancien t literatur e an d religio n know s tha t many mor e quotations coul d b e quote d t o suppor t wha t w e hav e bee n tryin g t o suggest. I hope , however , tha t eve n thos e chose n wil l suffic e t o sho w that the representatives o f th e critical traditio n considere d th e images of the god s primaril y i n thei r materia l nature , a s physica l objects . Befor e

Antiquity II 5

9

we tr y t o dra w som e conclusion s fro m thi s approac h w e canno t hel p asking, did the ancient authors know tha t this was in fact their attitude ? Were they awar e of th e principles directin g their thought? I n some case s at leas t i t i s obviou s tha t the y wer e full y consciou s o f th e principle s underlying thei r criticis m o f popula r beliefs . A singl e quotatio n ma y testify t o this . M y witnes s i s Athenagora s o f Athens , on e o f th e earlies t Christian author s who, describin g himself a s a "Christian philosopher, " composed i n Alexandria , betwee n a.d . 17 7 an d 180 , hi s Appeal on Behalf of the Christians, bette r known a s the Apology. The adoration o f the statue s of th e gods, s o commo n i n his world, was a subject he coul d not avoi d discussing . Namin g th e gods an d heroes worshipped , h e asks, "Is i t Neryllinos , Proteus , Alexander wh o brough t thi s [th e miracles ] about i n th e images ? O r i s i t th e materia l compositio n o f th e image s themselves? Bu t th e materia l [o f whic h th e image s ar e made] i s bronze . What can bronze by itself brin g about? On e can still cast it into anothe r shape; so , accordin g t o a stor y tol d b y Herodotus , Amasi s ha s cas t a n idol ou t of a foot-basin."35 The idea that it could be the form into which the bronz e i s cas t tha t perform s th e miracl e ha s obviousl y no t crosse d Athenagoras's mind . Seeing th e image of th e god primaril y a s a material objec t i s no t self evident; it calls for an explanation. The concern with the material natur e of the idol is particularly striking since most of the authors I have quoted in the present sectio n wer e philosophers an d theologians . The y wer e fa r removed fro m th e popula r belief s tha t tende d t o fus e th e go d an d it s image, and they had no links with, and very little interest in, the work o f the creativ e artist s wh o actuall y handle d th e materials . Wh y then , on e cannot hel p wondering , di d the y conside r th e gods ' image s onl y a s material objects ? I shall not attempt a discussion of the fascination wit h materials (suc h an investigation woul d go far beyond the scope of the present study) bu t would lik e t o mentio n briefl y tw o points . The firs t ma y b e calle d a didactic intention. Nowher e coul d the total incongruit y betwee n th e god and it s artisti c imag e b e mad e a s manifes t a s whe n on e considere d th e image a s a materia l object . I t i s no t surprising , then , tha t al l th e argu ments against the belief i n images—from Heraclitu s to Arnobius—focu s on th e idol's material . Wherever the "vanity" of th e gods' images had to be shown, th e corruptibl e natur e o f th e material s o f whic h th e idol s ar e made i s vividl y presented . The failur e o f th e imag e t o revea l th e go d

6o Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

becomes almos t tangibl e when we conside r th e material aspec t of th e idol. My secon d poin t i s mor e problematic ; wha t I a m goin g t o sa y i s admittedly hypothetical . I n identifying th e god's imag e with th e piece of material i n whic h i t i s carved , th e author s betray , o r suggest , a certai n social awareness . I n Gree k an d Roma n culture , on e ma y suggest , th e attitude hostil e t o divin e image s seem s t o hav e bee n characteristi c o f a thin laye r of intellectuals. W e hav e no explici t source s t o this effect, bu t such a conclusio n seem s t o follo w fro m man y indirec t statements . Th e aniconic religion s o f th e East , mainl y o f th e Persians , wer e know n i n Greece, bu t thei r influenc e remaine d limite d t o smal l group s o f intellec tuals.36 O f Socrate s i t wa s sai d that , i n spit e o f hi s wisdom , h e was no t impious a s ar e thos e "madme n . . . [who ] pa y n o respec t t o temple , o r altar, o r anythin g dedicate d t o th e gods." 37 Bu t i t is mainl y Clemen t o f Alexandria wh o ha s preserve d fo r u s th e spiri t o f th e educate d Greek s looking down a t the people worshipping images . In the fifth book of The Miscellanies, a wonderful testimon y t o the survival of classica l cultur e in early Christia n thought , h e quotes, an d elaborates on , Xenophanes ' and Heraclitus's statements , an d speak s abou t "th e idolatr y o f th e multi tude."38 I t is clearly a n intellectual aristocra t wh o i s here speaking , an d he sums up a venerable tradition. By the late third century a.d. the pagan author Porphyry , tryin g t o defen d th e cul t o f images , i s stil l sayin g (i n his early work About Images, preserve d only i n fragments) tha t it is only the uneducate d wh o identif y th e god s with th e images. 39 Fo r thes e intellectuals, on e feel s tempte d t o say , th e coars e identificatio n o f th e god wit h a piec e o f materia l i s a furthe r expressio n o f thei r settin g themselves off fro m "th e multitude. "

NOTES i. Fo r a concis e surve y o f thes e movements , an d a n interestin g typology , se e Dieter Metzler , "Bildersturm e un d Bilderfeindlichkei t i n der Antike," in M . Warnke, ed., Bildersturme (Munich, 1973) , pp. 14-29. 1 shoul d like to refer to a n ol d stud y tha t i s stil l remarkabl y useful , valuabl e bot h i n th e abun dance o f material s i t collect s an d i n som e penetratin g analyses . I mea n Johannes Geffcken , "De r Bilderstrei t de s heidnische n Altertums, " Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, XI X (1916—1919) , pp. 286-315 . 2. I am not awar e of an y recen t treatment o f atheis m a s a whole i n Greek an d

Antiquity II 6 1 Roman cultur e an d socia l life . Herman n Ley , Geschichte der Aufklarung und des Atheismus, I (Berlin , 1966) , i s writte n fro m a rathe r limite d poin t of view , bu t bring s muc h information . Fro m th e olde r literature , se e A . B . Drachmann, Atheism in Pagan Antiquity (London , 1922) , especiall y th e introduction. Anothe r rathe r ol d wor k i s Pau l Decharme , La Critique des traditions religieuses chez les Grecs (Paris , 1904 ; reprin t Brussels , 1966) . Decharme does not pay muc h attentio n t o outright atheism , but see pp. 12 0 ff. Cf . Walte r Burkert , Greek Religion (Cambridge , Mass. , 1985) , pp . 31 1 ff., fo r a particularly importan t stag e i n th e developmen t o f ancien t doubt s in religiou s truths . Muc h ca n b e learne d fro m P . A . Meijer , "Philosophers , Intellectuals, and Religion in Hellas," in H. S. Versnel, ed., Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Leiden , 1981), pp . 216—63 .

3. I , 131 . Se e The History: Herodotus, translate d b y Davi d Gren e (Chicag o and London, 1987) , p. 95. But see I , 60 (p . 59) , a striking illustration o f th e personification o f a goddess. 4. Se e Cicero , De natura deorum II , 1 an d 17 . I a m her e followin g Werne r Jaeger, Die Theologie der fruhen griechischen Denker (Zurich , 1953) , p. 56 . 5. Th e subject s ar e (1 ) esse deos, (2 ) quales sint, (3 ) mundus ab his administrari, (4 ) consulere eos rebus humanis. Th e questio n o f quales sint include s reference to the shape of the gods. 6. I use Kathleen Freeman' s English translation. Se e Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers (Cambridge , Mass. , 1970) . Fo r the sentence quoted, see p. 20 . On Xenophanes' views of God , see now, i n addition to Jaeger's chapter (se e note 4), Burkert, Greek Religion, pp . 30 8 ff . 7. Xenophane s o f Colophon , # # n , 12 , 14 . Se e Ancilla, p . 22 . An d se e Herodotus II , 53 , wh o claim s tha t Home r an d Hesio d "create d fo r th e Greeks their theogony; i t is they who gav e to the gods the special name s fo r their descen t fro m thei r ancestor s an d divide d amon g the m thei r honors , their arts, and their shapes." 8. Xenophanes, #16. 9. Xenophanes, #15. 10. Se e Werner Jaeger, Die Theologie, pp . 60 ff . n . Tha t go d i s altogethe r devoi d o f shape , Jaeger , Theologie, p . 56 , says , "would no t even cross his mind." 12. Th e pseudo-Aristotelia n De Xenophane, 977 , b i (se e Jaeger, Theologie, p . 247, not e 23 ) make s thi s claim . I t has bee n suggeste d tha t thi s reflect s th e influence o f Parmenides , wh o attribute s t o Bein g th e characteristic s o f " a well-rounded sphere. " I do no t fee l competen t t o follo w u p the philologica l discussion. 13. Se e E . R . Dodds , The Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford , 1973) , pp. 4 ff . 14. Drachmann , Atheism, p . 19 , stresse s tha t Xenophane s "everywher e start s from th e definitions o f th e gods as given b y popular religion. "

6z Reflections

in

Classical Antiquity

15. I think particularly of th e interpretation of Ludwi g Feuerbach. 16. Heracleitu s of Ephesus , # 1 2 8 {Ancilla to The Pre-Socratic Philosophers, p . 33). Th e readin g o f thi s passag e i s no t altogethe r certain , bu t fo r ou r purpose the variations are not significant . 17. Se e Meijer (see above, note 2) , p. 223. 18. Heracleitus , # 5 . 19. Se e Burkert, Greek Religion, p . 309 . 20. Herodotu s IV , 59 ; p. 30 2 of th e English translation . 21. Herodotu s IV , 62; p. 303. 22. Herodotu s II , 172; p. 206 . 23. Line s 178-87. 1 us e the English version i n The Odyssey of Homer, with the Hymns, Epigrams, and Battle of the Frogs and Mice, literall y translate d b y Theodore Aloi s Buckle y (London , 1906) , p . 344 . Cf . Geffcken , "De r Bild erstreit des heidnischen Altertums, " pp. 29 0 ff . 24. "Zeu s Tragoedus, " 7 , 8 . Se e The Works of Lucian of Samosata, III , translated by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler (Oxford , 1905) , p. 84. 25. Th e Cock (Somnium: Gallus), 24 . See The Works III , p. 121 . 26. Se e Arnobius Adversus Gentes VI , 14 . I n Englis h The Seven Books of Arnobius Adversus Gentes, XIX , translate d b y H . Bryc e an d H . Campbel l (Ante-Nicene Christia n Library ; Edinburgh, 1871) , p. 288 . 27. Arnobius Adversus Gentes VI , 16 ; II, p. 469 o f the English translation. 28. ProtrepticuslV, 52.4 . 29. Adversus Gentes VI , 16 ; II, p. 469. 30. Se e above, chapter 1 . 31. Herodotu s II , 172. See above in the introduction t o chapter 3. 32. I t is the piece known as olim truncus eram. Se e Satires I, 8, 1-3 . Se e Horace, Satires, Epistles, and Ars Poetica, translate d b y H . Rushto n Faircloug h (Loeb Classical Library ; Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1948) , p. 97 . 33. Se e Metzler, "Bilderstiirme und Bilderfeindlichkeit i n der Antike," p. 23. 34. Satires X , 5 6 ff . Se e Juvenal and Persius, with a n Englis h translatio n b y G . G. Ramsa y (Loe b Classical Library ; London an d Cambridge, Mass. , 1957) , p. 197 . 35. Appeal on Behalf of the Christians, translate d b y M. Dods , chapter 26 . For the stud y o f Athenagoras , an d ou r proble m i n general , th e ol d wor k b y J. Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten (Leipzi g an d Berlin , 1907) , i s stil l important. 36. Se e W. Nestle, Worn Mythos zum Logos (Stuttgart , 1942) , pp. 99, 141 . 37. Se e Xenophon's Memorabilia of Socrates, I, translated by A. D. Lindsay, 1,14 . 38. I us e th e translatio n b y Willia m Wilson . Se e The Writings of Clement of Alexandria, I I (Edinburgh, 1869) , pp. 28 5 ff . 39. Th e surviving fragments of this work ma y be found collected in J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre (Gan d and Leipzig, 1913) . Fo r Porphyry, se e below, chapter 4 , the section discussing Porphyry.

FOUR

Resemblance: The Internal Development of the Concept

In th e precedin g chapter s I have trie d t o outlin e tw o extrem e type s o f reading th e imag e o f God . T o pu t i t crudely , on e o f the m conceive d o f the imag e a s o f th e go d itself , an d th e othe r sa w th e imag e a s totall y inadequate an d alien t o th e god. I selected som e salien t texts an d storie s from ancien t literatur e t o illustrat e thes e extrem e approaches . Ye t not withstanding thes e literar y examples , thes e types , a s her e outlined , i n a sense remai n constructions . The notio n o f th e animate d image , o n th e one hand , an d th e concep t o f th e imag e a s a lifeless , merel y materia l object, o n th e other, represen t extrem e positions ; the y ar e the ends o f a scale constituted b y the various attempts t o come to terms with the icon of th e god , an d t o plac e i t properl y i n a n overal l vie w o f th e world . I n reality, suc h extreme s ar e rarely , i f ever , reached . T o b e sure , i n bot h cases, the approach i s consistent in itself, clear, and easy to grasp. But in such uncompromisin g formulation s the y remai n abstrac t types , an d d o not captur e an d revea l th e intricac y o f th e problem s pose d b y th e ver y 63

64 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

existence o f divin e images . T o understan d wha t th e imag e o f th e go d may really have meant, an d what were the sources of it s power, a power that often strike s u s as mysterious, one mus t enter the domain o f evoca tive suggestions , o f belief s tha t ar e no t full y though t through , o f ambi guities. Th e stor y w e ar e abou t t o stud y i n th e followin g chapter s i n effect unfolde d i n the shadow o f ambiguities . This state of affairs raises difficulties tha t are well known to historians and to students of fantasy , of religion , and of art . Workers in these fields are wel l awar e o f th e powe r with whic h ambiguitie s ar e sometime s endowed. T o stud y a psychological an d religiou s realit y on e need s cate gories capabl e o f bein g applie d t o th e domai n o f th e ambiguous . Ca n such categorie s b e discovered? Wit h regar d t o th e specifi c subjec t o f th e present study, the image of God , I should like to suggest such a category, resemblance. I shall tr y t o sho w tha t i n Antiquit y th e concep t o f resem blance was actually employed in discussions of divine images. But resemblance wa s fa r fro m bein g a clear-cut concept . Moreover , i n the cours e of th e centurie s i t underwen t som e remarkabl e transformations . I n th e present chapte r I shall attemp t t o trac e th e interna l developmen t o f th e concept. I n speakin g o f "interna l development " I do no t propos e tha t the ide a o f resemblance , quit e particularl y th e resemblanc e o f th e god' s image t o th e go d itself , wa s isolate d fro m othe r concepts , o r fro m th e religious, cultural , an d socia l lif e o f th e worl d i n whic h i t evolved . Ye t the challenge s an d pressure s o f th e externa l worl d brough t ou t th e potentialities an d limitation s o f th e concep t itself . I t i s thes e tha t th e present chapter will attemp t to investigate. J. Allegory To understan d ho w th e concep t o f resemblanc e wa s applie d t o th e images of th e gods, especially i n the centuries of lat e Antiquity, we hav e to begi n wit h a categor y tha t wa s ofte n applie d i n thi s perio d t o suc h images, namel y allegory . Th e categor y o f allegor y wa s develope d for , and applie d to , writte n texts . Wha t d o w e refe r t o whe n w e spea k o f allegory i n the context o f materia l image s of th e gods, carved statue s or painted icons ? As is well known , many efforts hav e been mad e to defin e allegory, and to set it off fro m other types of symboli c expression. I n the modern worl d i t wa s particularl y Germa n Romanticis m tha t trie d t o

Resemblance 6

5

establish suc h a distinctio n betwee n symbo l an d allegory . I shal l no t attempt an y additiona l definitions , an d shal l onl y recal l som e essentia l features. A s w e know , allegor y literall y mean s "sayin g somethin g else. " As a rule, we were taught, allegory is a narrative in which the agents and the actions, and possibly als o the settings, are contrived to make sense in themselves; at the same time, however, the y also signify a second, correlated order of things , events, or meanings. I t is the understanding o f thi s correlation, a correlatio n o f differen t realities , tha t th e concep t o f alle gory represent s i n ou r context . Wheneve r w e attemp t t o understan d a n allegorical imag e o f God , w e shal l hav e t o as k i n wha t thi s correlation consists, and how i t is experienced. In Antiquity, so far as we know, the concept of allegory was employed only i n th e interpretatio n o f literature . Lik e metaphor , allegor y wa s considered a category o f verba l expression . A continuous serie s of meta phors, said Quintilian , the great teacher of rhetori c and style, "run s int o allegory an d enigma." 1 Cicero , afte r declarin g tha t n o word s ad d mor e brilliance t o styl e tha n d o metaphors , say s tha t "fro m thi s clas s o f expression come s a development no t consistin g i n th e metaphorica l us e of a single wor d bu t i n a chain o f word s linke d together , s o tha t some thing other than what is said has to b e understood." 2 "Somethin g othe r than wha t i s said," we shoul d recall , i s a literal translatio n o f th e Greek term allegoria. Philo o f Alexandria , a s on e knows , wa s on e o f th e mos t explici t representatives o f th e allegorica l metho d i n Antiquity . H e ha d littl e t o say abou t sacre d images , eithe r carve d o r painted , an d wha t h e sai d i s not new . H e repeate d wha t wa s accepte d wisdo m amon g educate d an d enlightened critic s in his world. H e rejecte d materia l image s of th e gods, and i n s o doin g h e no t onl y showe d tha t h e wa s adherin g t o th e Judaic tradition, t o th e La w o f hi s fathers , bu t als o tha t h e belonge d t o th e upper clas s o f highl y educate d Hellenists . "Again , wha t shal l w e sa y o f those wh o worshi p carve d work s an d images? " he rhetoricall y exclaim s in hi s essa y On the Contemplative Life} The image s worshippe d ar e made o f ston e an d wood , an d thes e material s "wer e onl y a littl e whil e before [th e craftsma n carve d them ] perfectl y destitut e o f shape. " No r does Philo forget the other motif s o common i n the enlightened rejectio n of divin e images : wha t remaine d o f th e material s o f whic h th e gods ' images wer e made , "thei r nea r relatio n an d brother , a s i t were, " i s

66 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

turned int o ewer s an d foot-pans , "an d othe r commo n an d dishonore d vessels, whic h ar e employe d rathe r fo r th e use s o f darkness , tha n fo r such as will bea r the light." The studen t o f image s ma y b e particularl y intereste d i n Philo' s ac quaintance with Egyptia n sacred images and their theriomorph features . The Egyptians , w e learn , "hav e introduce d irrationa l beasts , an d thos e not merel y suc h a s ar e domestic an d tame , bu t eve n th e mos t ferociou s and wild beasts to share the honors of the gods." 4 Sceptics an d philosopher s o f th e critica l tradition , wh o s o violentl y denounce idolatry an d even the production of idols , seem hardly to have asked i n detai l wh y thes e image s ar e made , an d wha t i t i s tha t move s people t o makin g an d worshippin g them . Phil o seem s occasionall y t o have departe d fro m thi s inherite d limitation ; h e di d wonder , a t leas t from time to time, what might be the reason fo r such production. I n one of his most interesting essays, On Drunkenness, w e read, Man, wh o i s devoi d o f an y consideration , wh o i s blinde d a s t o hi s mind , by which alon e th e livin g Go d i s comprehensible , does , b y mean s o f tha t mind, never se e anythin g anywhere , bu t see s al l th e bodie s tha t ar e i n th e outward world b y hi s ow n outwar d senses , whic h h e look s upo n a s th e cause s o f al l things which exist. On which account, beginning to make gods for himself, h e has filledthe world with images and statues, and innumerable other representations, made out of all kinds o f materials , fashione d b y painter s an d statuaries , who m th e lawgive r banished to a distance from his state.5 Philo use s passionat e languag e t o describ e humanity' s desir e t o se e God. O f Mose s h e say s tha t h e "s o insatiabl y desire s t o behold " Go d that "h e wil l neve r ceas e fro m urgin g hi s desire, " an d thoug h h e "i s aware that he desires a matter which i s difficult o f attainment , o r rather which i s wholl y unattainable , h e stil l strive s on." 6 Bu t peopl e wh o d o not hav e th e spiritua l power s o f Moses , w e understand , attemp t t o substitute image s o f thei r ow n makin g fo r th e tru e Go d the y canno t attain. People, then, make idols no t simpl y ou t of stupidity , bu t becaus e of profoun d desir e tha t wil l foreve r remai n unfulfilled . I n moder n par lance on e coul d sa y tha t image s ar e th e produc t o f humanity' s tragi c limitation. Philo i s awar e o f ho w powerfu l image s ma y be. 7 H e use s stron g expressions t o describ e th e spel l th e image ma y cas t upon th e spectator .

Resemblance Gj The art s o f statuar y an d painting , h e says , wi n ove r th e spectato r "b y well fabricate d appearance s o f color s an d forms" ; they "ma y ravis h th e unstable soul " b y th e "exquisit e beaut y o f lifeles s forms." 8 Bu t al l thi s does no t mak e image s an y mor e reliable . H e denie s th e image s o f th e gods an y rea l existence . Idol s resembl e "shadow s an d phantoms" ; the y "have abou t the m nothin g strong , o r trustworthy , o r lasting. " Image s "appear as in a mirror, deceiving the outward senses and imposing upo n them with traps." 9 But does thi s mea n tha t image s d o no t revea l anythin g beyon d them selves? With al l hi s vehement rejectio n o f images , Phil o doe s no t detac h them entirel y fro m othe r things . Thu s image s bea r testimon y t o thei r source an d origin . I n a n attemp t t o dea l wit h th e questio n o f wha t th e essence of Go d (who m we cannot know directly ) ma y be, he says, It has invariably happened that the works which they have made have been, in some degree, the proofs of the character of the workmen; for who is there who, when he looks upon statues and pictures, does not at once form an idea of the statuary or painter himself ? And who, when he beholds a garment, or a ship, or a house, does not in a moment conceive a notion of the weaver, or shipbuilder, or architect, who has made them? 10 What become s manifes t i n the image, accordin g to what we have just heard, i s somethin g o f th e maker' s nature , rathe r tha n o f th e figur e represented. There i s still anothe r dimensio n t o Philo' s concep t o f icon ; i t fulfils a significant functio n i n his theory of allegory . H e thinks of th e image (this term take n i n a broa d sense ) a s o f a n important , perhap s a crucial , means o f reachin g universa l abstraction . The imag e i s somethin g tha t leads the mind fro m a specific, individua l objec t to a general, "spiritual " meaning. The inheren t significanc e o f th e icon i s made possible b y the elevate d position o f sight . Phil o continues , an d i s emphasizing , a n ol d belie f b y claiming that sight is the best of al l senses , and the eye is the finest of al l organs. Th e positio n o f th e eye i n the bod y i s analogous t o th e positio n of the mind in the soul. 11 The dignity of sight naturally makes what sight perceives, tha t is , th e image , a mean s o f understanding , o r a t leas t o f coming clos e to , th e mysterie s o f th e divine . Th e go d ha s create d th e universe a s a kind of allegorica l ico n of itself . Phil o explains th e proces s of God's creation of the world by looking at the architect building a city. (That h e i s her e followin g Platoni c thought , mainl y th e Timaeus, i s

68 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

obvious.) W e are not concerne d her e with th e creative proces s an d shall therefore no t analyz e hi s view s o f it . However , wha t h e say s abou t th e process allows us to draw some conclusions as to the nature of the world created, an d th e genera l meanin g o f th e image . Th e architec t wh o i s about to build a city, Philo says, forms an image of that city in his mind, and only afterward s proceed s t o tur n i t into a material reality . Bot h th e architect outlinin g th e pla n o f th e cit y an d th e builde r erectin g th e individual buildin g d o s o b y lookin g a t th e imag e i n thei r mind . Th e worker wh o i s buildin g th e house , Phil o say s i n th e sam e passage , i s "making th e corporea l substance s t o resembl e eac h o f th e incorporea l ideas." It is worth ou r while to repeat the obvious: the actual buildin g is a kind of image—one coul d say, an icon—of th e idea in the mind; what keeps th e ide a an d th e actua l buildin g togethe r i s th e resemblanc e be tween them. The icon s Phil o i s speaking abou t ar e dematerialized, an d the resemblance he refers t o i s metaphorical. Thu s h e conceives o f th e stars in the firmament as images of God . Ye t even in metaphorical speec h h e evokes the memory of th e real image. Taking into account that everybody kne w of th e gods' images in the temples, he thus defines the stars: But the Creato r havin g a regar d t o tha t ide a o f ligh t perceptibl e onl y b y the intellect, whic h ha s bee n spoke n o f i n th e mentio n mad e o f th e incorporea l world, create d thos e star s whic h ar e perceptible b y th e externa l senses , thos e divine and superlatively beautiful images , which on many accounts he placed in the purest temple of corporeal substance, namely in heaven.12 To understan d Philo' s use , even i f i t is only metaphorical , o f wha t h e calls God' s image , we mus t turn to anothe r concept , o f wha t i s befittin g to God. The general concep t of th e "suitable, befitting " emerged, as one knows, in th e analysi s o f linguisti c an d artisti c expression . Firs t i t emerge d i n rhetoric, late r i t wa s extende d t o othe r fields o f art , an d finally i t wa s applied, thoug h i n a vague sense , t o huma n behavio r i n general . Origi nally, then , th e doctrin e o f th e suitabl e wa s wha t i n moder n parlanc e would b e calle d a theory o f style . It s central assumption , underlyin g al l the variations o f th e doctrine, was tha t there exists, and should b e made manifest, a relationshi p o f congruenc e betwee n th e characte r o f th e subject o r figure described an d represented , an d the mean s employed i n describing an d expressin g th e subjec t o r figure. 13 T o b e sure , ancien t authors di d no t conside r tha t relationshi p t o b e on e o f physiognomi c

Resemblance 6

9

resemblance, o f a similarity tha t can b e perceived b y the nake d eye . But this doctrine , w e shoul d remember , wa s th e broa d contex t i n whic h reflections o f a physiognomi c similarit y betwee n a god's imag e an d th e god itself could emerge and be articulated. The specia l ide a o f th e "God-befitting, " fo r whic h i n Antiquit y a particular term , theoprepes, wa s coined , i s of cours e a further extensio n of th e genera l notio n o f th e suitable . I t playe d a n interestin g par t i n Greek though t abou t th e gods, an d is thus of immediate bearin g on ou r subject.14 The concept of th e God-befitting, a s it emerged in Greek though t an d letters, i s primaril y applie d t o behavior , bot h tha t o f peopl e towar d th e gods, an d tha t o f th e god s amon g themselve s an d t o people . Ye t visua l experiences are not altogether excluded, and sometimes the concept—a s a rul e implicitly , bu t occasionall y als o openly—i s referre d t o shape s produced b y artist s an d perceive d b y th e eye . I t has bee n note d tha t th e verb fro m whic h th e ter m fo r "suitable , befitting " i s derive d actuall y means "t o b e clearl y see n o r heard , t o b e conspicuous, " o r "t o b e distinguished in." 15 I t is , then , no t surprisin g tha t i t coul d als o b e applied to works of art . The "God-befitting, " i t goe s withou t saying , i s no t a concep t i n th e theory of art , or in art criticism; the term was not coined fo r the analysis of work s o f art . Thu s whe n Phil o mention s th e God-befittin g h e turn s mainly against attributing human passion s an d human emotions t o God. 16 Occasionally h e ma y thin k tha t anthropomorphi c speec h abou t Go d may serv e a s a mean s o f instructio n o r explanation. 17 Bu t even her e h e is thinkin g onl y o f texts ; artisti c image s ar e altogethe r beyon d hi s hor izon. Yet eve n thoug h th e concep t o f th e God-befittin g wa s no t designe d for th e treatmen t o f art , th e notio n o f wha t befit s a go d i s foun d i n ancient description s o f statue s representin g gods . I f on e consider s th e many cul t statue s tha t populate d th e ancient worl d i t is natural tha t th e notion o f th e God-befittin g shoul d als o hav e bee n applie d t o th e carve d image. It is mainly the expressive qualities of the carved or painted figure (more rarely , o f a work o f ar t i n general ) tha t i n Antiquit y wer e some times interprete d i n terms of th e God-befitting. Polycleitus , we rea d in a well-known passag e i n Quintilian' s wor k o n rhetoric , faile d t o properl y express th e auctoritas o f th e gods , "fo r thoug h h e gav e supernatura l grace to the human form, he is said not to have adequately expressed the

70 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

majesty o f th e gods . . . . Bu t wha t wa s wantin g i n Polycleitu s i s sai d t o have been full y exhibite d i n Phidias and Alcamenes. Phidias, however, is thought to have been a better sculptor of god than of men. " The majesty of hi s statu e o f Jupite r a t Eli s "i s thought t o hav e adde d somethin g t o the impressivenes s o f receive d religion ; s o exactl y di d th e noblenes s o f that wor k represen t th e god." 18 Thi s i s on e exampl e wher e th e visua l qualities inheren t i n th e concep t o f th e God-befittin g becom e manifest , and wher e th e notion , originall y on e o f paga n theology , i s applie d t o real work s o f art . Tha t thi s wa s no t mer e standar d praise , bu t tha t Quintilian mean t wha t h e said , tha t a qualit y o f th e go d i s reveale d i n the statue, one ca n perhaps learn by comparing hi m to his near contemporary, Lucian , who stresse d i n the sam e statu e th e "overal l beauty " of the famous image. 19 Expressive qualities, as everybody knows , are vague, and it is difficul t to defin e the m clearly . Powerfu l a s the y ca n be , the y ofte n remai n elusive, an d lac k clea r distinctions . I t wa s therefor e unavoidabl e tha t people aske d whether th e carved and painted imag e could not in a more specific sens e b e mad e suitabl e t o th e go d i t portrayed . I t i s i n thi s conceptual contex t that the problem of similarit y arose. 2. Resemblance Thoughts abou t th e God-befittin g perhap s becom e mor e specifi c i n an other concept , tha t o f resemblance . Philosopher s an d psychologist s o f our tim e hav e taken muc h interes t i n resemblance , an d hav e discovere d and discussed various facets of it. 20 It is not for us to take up this subject, and all I should lik e to d o i s to dwel l o n a few point s o f importanc e fo r the late antique and early medieval discussio n o f icons. The first point i s the simpl e statemen t tha t i n religious consciousnes s and theologica l reflectio n o f th e earl y centurie s o f ou r era , whethe r Christian o r pagan , th e matte r o f th e god' s imag e resemblin g th e go d itself emerge d i n various contexts . Suc h similarit y thu s becam e a them e of theoretica l consideratio n i n both theologica l thinkin g and in what w e would today call aesthetics . My second point concerns the extension, a s it were, of ancien t discussions o f suc h similarity , an d th e factor s tha t hav e t o b e take n int o account whe n yo u stud y resemblance . Her e th e distanc e betwee n th e modern attitud e an d tha t prevailin g i n lat e Antiquity an d i n the Middl e

Resemblance 7

1

Ages become s strikingl y manifest . T o moder n thinker s i t i s a matte r o f course tha t th e criterio n o f decidin g o n resemblance , especiall y o f a n artifact t o wha t i t portrays, i s th e viewer' s perception . I n Antiquity i t i s not s o muc h tha t the viewer's par t is rejected; it is not considere d a t all, especially wher e one spoke of th e cult image resembling the god itself . This lead s us naturally t o our third point. Similarit y wa s taken a s the manifestation o f a n inheren t objectiv e lin k betwee n being s o r object s resembling eac h other. The son resemble s his father—to quot e the best known formulation—becaus e ther e i s a n intrinsi c lin k betwee n them , a real, objective interrelation of their very natures. That resemblance coul d be produce d b y chance , tha t ther e migh t b e a similarit y i n appearanc e without a community o f natures—suc h a n idea simply doe s not seem t o have arisen at all. My final poin t i s th e mos t elusiv e one , an d i t seemingl y contradict s another observatio n I hav e alread y made . I t i s importan t t o stat e it , however, becaus e i t concern s a matte r mos t directl y pertinen t t o th e subject o f th e presen t essay . I n Antiquity i t was fel t tha t resemblanc e i s particularly ap t t o revea l itsel f i n visua l experience ; similarit y i s bes t perceived b y th e eye . Ancien t author s d o no t see m t o hav e reflecte d o n why thi s i s the case , no r on ho w on e ca n practicall y ignor e th e viewer' s judgment whe n claimin g tha t th e cul t imag e resemble s th e go d an d ye t believe tha t it is primarily th e eye tha t grasps similarity . I am no t awar e of a singl e classica l tex t tha t attempt s t o explai n thi s problem , o r eve n merely stat e it . Ye t Gree k an d Roma n literatur e provide s th e studen t with s o man y description s o f visuall y perceive d resemblanc e tha t th e reader tends to accept this connection a s a matter of fact . The discussio n o f similarit y wa s carrie d on , thoug h intermittently , throughout Antiquity . Bu t i t wa s mainl y i n th e las t phas e o f th e perio d that the discussion o f whethe r or not the divine image resembles the god itself becam e more intensive. The question arose , and was argued about , in differen t cultura l an d religiou s traditions , an d on e i s therefor e no t surprised t o find i n th e literar y work s tha t reflec t thes e th e mark s o f different school s o f thought . I t i s no t fo r m e t o describ e th e intricat e fabric o f lat e antique thinking ; I shall onl y briefl y not e th e interweavin g of tw o thread s tha t hel p t o outlin e th e proble m o f resemblanc e i n th e god's image . Thes e ar e th e attempt s t o explai n th e riddl e o f language , and to come to terms with th e problem of intuitiv e cognition .

72 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

(i) Plato's Cratylu s Ancien t reflectio n o n language—and , b y implica tion, o n an y for m o f articulat e communication—starte d wit h Plato' s Cratylus, an d late r ofte n too k th e for m o f commentarie s t o thi s text . (The ter m "commentary, " o f course , nee d no t b e take n literally . Wha t ancient commentator s aime d a t wa s no t alway s t o brin g t o ligh t Plato' s intention, obscure d b y difficul t formulations ; rather , the y ofte n use d Plato's tex t a s a starting poin t fo r statin g their ow n views. ) The Cratylus, i t i s well known , pose s th e questio n crucia l no t onl y t o the philosoph y o f language , bu t als o t o a grea t dea l o f th e reflectio n o n images. I t i s th e questio n o f whethe r word s describ e th e thing s "b y nature" o r "b y convention. " Thi s implies , thoug h i t doe s no t alway s explicitly articulate , th e othe r question : whethe r th e descriptio n b y words , be the y "b y nature " o r "b y convention, " i s a correc t an d vali d one , an d whether ther e i s a differenc e o f validit y betwee n th e tw o types . Th e problem i s clearly state d righ t a t th e beginnin g o f th e dialogue , an d on e sees tha t th e tw o themes , th e origi n o f word s "b y nature " o r "b y convention" an d th e question whethe r th e linguistic renderin g i s correct , are full y intertwined . Cratylu s claim s tha t "name s ar e natura l an d no t conventional," an d i n th e sam e breath , a s i t were , h e als o claim s tha t there i s "trut h an d correctness " i n them . Th e trut h o f th e name s i s warranted b y thei r bein g roote d i n nature . Thi s ca n bes t b e see n whe n you cross the border betwee n differen t languages . The truth o f the name s "is th e sam e b y natur e fo r all , bot h Hellene s an d barbarians " (383a). 21 Cratylus's opponent , Hermogenes , no t surprisingl y hold s th e opposit e view. Believin g tha t word s ar e base d "o n conventio n an d agreement, " he canno t accep t th e ver y existenc e o f a principl e o f trut h i n names . Hermogenes i s unable , h e says , t o "convinc e mysel f tha t ther e i s an y principle o f correctnes s i n name s othe r tha n conventio n an d agreement ; any nam e which yo u give , in m y opinion, i s the right one. " Plato's juxtapositio n o f th e tw o attitude s t o languag e ha d a ric h afterlife. I cannot g o int o th e man y problem s raise d b y the Cratylus an d its commentator s throughou t th e ages . I shoul d onl y lik e t o commen t briefly o n tw o issues . On e i s tha t generation s o f student s an d commen tators learne d fro m Plato' s Cratylus tha t a "name," give n t o whateve r i t may b e tha t i t designates , i s altogethe r detache d fro m th e speaker's , o r listener's, individua l natur e o r memories . Thes e persona l experience s i n no wa y determin e wha t a nam e means . Wha t w e nowaday s cal l th e speaker's "persona l contexts, " hi s "psychological " makeup , etc. , is sim-

Resemblance 7

3

ply no t considered . Wha t a word , o r a "name, " mean s i s determine d only b y th e relationshi p betwee n th e "name " and th e thing i t describes. A considerable par t of th e Cratylus i s made u p of etymologies . Mos t o f these ar e downrigh t mistaken , o r outrigh t fantastic, 22 bu t the y teac h u s an importan t lesso n becaus e the y indicat e th e direction o f Plato' s thought : the structure o f th e word reflect s th e structure an d nature of th e thing it names. S o crucial i s this ide a that , a s has bee n said, 23 th e proper under standing o f th e Cratylus, an d o f Gree k linguistic s i n general , hinge s o n properly graspin g an d appreciatin g thi s particula r point . Fo r centuries , and even millenia , i t was therefor e believe d tha t etymolog y ca n serv e a s a category of objectiv e cognition. 24 The them e o f th e Cratylus is , o f course , language , an d wha t th e participants in the dialogue talk about are words. But Plato cannot avoi d bringing i n th e proble m o f images . "An d yo u woul d furthe r acknowl edge tha t th e nam e i s a n imitatio n o f th e thing? " ask s Socrates . "Cer tainly," echoes Cratylus . Moreover , "primitiv e noun s ma y b e compare d to pictures," Socrates specificall y stresses . There can, of course , b e goo d and ba d pictures ; i f yo u rende r to o man y color s an d figures, o r i f yo u depict too fe w of them, the picture will b e deficient. Bu t "he who renders all gives a perfect pictur e and image" (43ic-d) . Such a good—or , a s Socrate s put s it , "perfect"—pictur e wil l als o produce ful l communication . The spectato r wil l recogniz e wha t i s de picted, and this is so because, in some way, the picture is "like" the thing it portrays. Socrates does not forget that even in the most perfect likenes s there remain s a crucia l differenc e betwee n origina l an d icon, 25 bu t h e still believe s tha t th e imag e doe s sho w somethin g o f wha t i t represents . This i s mad e possibl e b y the resemblance betwee n them . With regar d t o materials thi s i s obvious . "Ho w coul d an y on e eve r compos e a pictur e which woul d b e lik e anythin g a t all, " Socrate s asks , "i f ther e wer e no t pigments i n natur e whic h resemble d th e thing s imitate d i n portraiture , and ou t o f whic h th e pictur e i s composed? " (434a—b) . Bu t what i s true of materials is also true of shapes and colors. There is an affinity betwee n the picture and the object it represents, even if that affinity i s confined t o only on e aspec t of th e object, suc h as shape. Even if the picture does no t capture the full amplitud e of reality , it produces a real likeness. Here w e canno t undertak e a discussio n o f wha t thes e sentence s sa y about Plato' s view s o f images , an d ho w the y relat e t o hi s theor y o f art . What i s obviou s i s tha t th e statement s h e make s abou t languag e are , a t

74 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

least t o som e degree , applicabl e t o images . Thinker s o f late r ages , ap proaching Plato' s text s an d idea s with grea t veneration, coul d no t fai l t o draw conclusion s fro m thes e statement s fo r thei r investigation s o f hol y images. (ii) Plotinus on Intuitive Knowledge and Resemblance A n importan t stage i n th e unfoldin g o f ou r proble m i s reache d wit h Neoplatonism . I n contemplation, a s Plat o understoo d it, 26 a certain affinit y t o visual expe rience wa s alway s present . Bu t i t wa s mainl y i n th e Neoplatoni c tradi tion tha t th e element s o f visua l experienc e cam e t o b e considere d i n a new light , an d image s wer e see n a s on e o f th e mai n road s t o cognition . Plotinus's work abound s i n metaphors o f lookin g an d contemplation ; h e also frequentl y employ s th e nou n "image. " H e no t onl y speak s o f imag e in genera l terms , but als o ofte n use s words tha t designat e a work o f art , a carve d o r painte d image . In the treatise on Intelligibl e Beauty, Plotinus say s tha t one must not then suppose that the gods or the "exceedingly blessed spectators" in th e highe r worl d contemplat e proposition s (legoumenon), bu t al l th e Form s we spea k abou t ar e beautifu l image s (agalmata) i n tha t world , o f th e kin d someone imagine d t o exist i n the soul of th e wise man, images not painted bu t real. This is the way the ancients said ideas were realities and substances. Here, then, we have a clear distinctio n betwee n "menta l images, " tha t is, th e image s dwellin g i n th e soul , an d work s o f art , execute d b y th e worker i n tangible materials. (I t is interesting to note that i t is the menta l images, thos e tha t ar e "no t painted, " tha t ar e considere d "real." ) Plo tinus move s easil y fro m on e typ e o f imag e t o th e other . Th e profoun d difference i n th e mod e o f existence—a n imag e i n th e min d an d a mate rial object—i s o f n o grea t significanc e i n thi s respect . H e ca n shif t fro m one kin d t o th e othe r becaus e both , th e menta l an d th e material , hav e some common characteristics . They show , or represent , idea s in a particular way . The wise men of Egypt, I think, also understood this , either by scientific knowledge or innat e knowledge , an d whe n the y wishe d t o signif y somethin g wisely , did not use the form of letters which follow the order of words and propositions and imitat e sound s an d th e enunciation s o f philosophica l statements , bu t b y drawing image s [agalmata] an d inscribin g the m i n thei r temples , one beautifu l image fo r eac h particula r thing , the y manifeste d th e non-discursivenes s o f th e intelligible world.

Resemblance 7

5

The Egyptia n sages , then , though t i n images . Plotinu s suggest s tha t thinking i n image s i s th e origina l for m o f huma n thinking . Onl y afte r humanity though t i n images , afte r w e go t t o kno w th e worl d b y intui tion, di d w e develo p discursiv e thinkin g an d speech . Continuin g th e passage just quoted, Plotinus says, Every image is a kind of knowledge and wisdom and is a subject of statements, all togethe r i n one, an d no t discours e an d deliberation . Bu t [only ] afterward s [others] discovered, starting from it in its concentrated unity, a representation in something else , alread y unfolde d an d speakin g i t discursivel y an d givin g th e reasons why things are like this.27 This passag e di d no t g o unnotice d i n late r ages . Especiall y i n th e Renaissance i t prove d a majo r sourc e o f inspiration. 28 Tha t i t shoul d have ha d suc h a ric h afterlif e i s no t surprising , fo r her e Plotinu s ad dresses a cluster of problems that many generations felt to be mysterious and alluring. Withou t attemptin g a n interpretation o f th e Plotinian text , I should lik e to enumerate, a s it were, some of th e issues raised in it that are of significanc e fo r understanding the problem of divin e images. First, Plotinus tells us what intuition is as a form of knowledge. It is knowledge "all togethe r i n one." What i s to b e known, th e objec t o f knowledge , i s grasped i n its totality; and we get to know i t directly, without having t o rely o n another , a n intermediary , process . Secondly , h e indicate s th e difference betwee n discursiv e an d intuitiv e thought . Sequenc e o r simul taneity ar e th e criterio n o f distinction . Discursiv e though t bring s th e parts o f a n ide a consecutively , on e afte r th e other , befor e ou r mind . Intuitive thought , o n th e other hand , comprehend s it s object a t once, a s we grasp a picture in a single instant . To properl y appreciat e Plotinus' s attitud e t o intuitio n a s a for m o f integrating knowledg e w e shoul d als o kee p in mind ho w easil y h e shift s from th e proces s o f intuitio n t o th e imag e see n b y th e mind' s eye . The dividing lin e betwee n th e ac t of intuitin g an d th e image intuite d i s fluid . But even more important i n our context i s the ease with which h e moves from menta l images , perceive d onl y i n introspection , t o image s carve d and painte d i n real , tangibl e materials . Thi s i s no t t o sugges t tha t i n other context s Plotinu s would no t distinguish betwee n intuitio n an d the image perceived i n one's soul, or between the mental image an d the icon produced b y th e artist . I should onl y lik e t o stres s that , i n th e contex t pertinent t o ou r question , Plotinus' s tendenc y t o fus e th e differen t com -

y6 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

ponents (th e act of intuition , the mental image , an d the material icon ) i s prevalent, and tinges his views on the subject as a whole. So fa r w e hav e referre d t o Plotinus' s view s o n th e imag e i n general , but we hav e not touche d th e specific questio n o f th e images of th e gods. Divine images , i n fact , di d no t attrac t muc h o f hi s attention , perhap s because th e image s o f th e god s wer e no t conceive d a s a definite , well defined category . However , h e occasionall y mention s them , an d hi s comment, brie f a s i t is , provides a n importan t clu e t o wha t h e thought of ou r problem . I n a short sectio n o f th e first essay o n th e Problem s o f the Sou l h e put s forward , concisel y formulated , hi s view s o n divin e images. H e begin s b y answerin g a questio n that , a s w e know, 29 ha d hardly bee n asked ; i t i s th e question , wh y d o peopl e a t al l mak e an d erect image s o f th e gods ? The reaso n i s human nature : humanity feel s a need, a craving , t o b e clos e t o th e god . Th e divin e imag e i s a mean s t o achieving this end; it makes it possible fo r us, or so we believe, to secure the presence of th e gods in our own world. The ancients well understoo d the force o f thi s desire. "An d I think," says Plotinus, "tha t the wise me n of ol d . . . made temples an d statues i n the wish tha t the gods shoul d b e present t o them." 30 H e her e continue s a though t tha t w e hav e alread y encountered i n Philo. How ca n on e mak e sur e tha t th e go d wil l indee d b e presen t i n th e image? Wha t ca n w e d o t o mak e th e go d inhabi t th e statu e w e hav e made fo r it ? Nobod y erectin g a divin e imag e ca n escap e thi s question . Plotinus's answe r is , on e ha s t o shap e a n objec t "sympathetic " t o th e gods. Le t u s first liste n t o hi s ow n formulation . Th e sage s o f ol d wh o erected th e statue s o f th e gods , h e says , continuin g th e sentenc e jus t quoted, wer e "lookin g t o th e natur e o f th e All , [an d they ] ha d i n min d that th e natur e o f th e sou l i s everywher e eas y t o attract , bu t tha t i f someone wer e t o construc t somethin g sympatheti c t o i t an d abl e t o receive part of it , it would of al l things receive soul mos t easily." "Sympathy" wa s a well-know n concep t i n th e ancien t world , an d i t was applie d i n man y fields o f investigation. 31 I t wa s particularl y th e Stoics, conceivin g th e cosmo s a s a n organis m whos e part s hav e a community o f experienc e (sympatheia), wh o wer e pron e t o adop t thi s con cept. A t th e ver y las t fring e o f Antiquity , i n th e first hal f o f th e sixt h century a.d. , Philoponu s compare d th e cosmi c forc e o f "sympathy " t o the forces tha t keep a rope together by the intertwining of th e threads of which i t consists. 32 Now, ancient , especially Stoic , cosmology should , of

Resemblance 7

7

course, not be confounded wit h certain esoteric, occult doctrines of mor e or les s magic sympathies , bu t th e notio n tha t "sympathy " bind s th e world togethe r mad e i t easier fo r man y educate d reader s an d writers t o accept th e belief s o f occul t group s a s well. Th e make r of a divine imag e faces th e particula r questio n tha t Plotinu s attempt s t o answe r i n th e section her e discussed . I t is, ho w d o w e mak e th e go d choos e a specifi c object, his statue that we have prepared? Plotinus's solution , a t leas t i n it s broa d outlines , follow s fro m th e doctrine o f sympathy . The cosmo s i s on e "sympatheti c total, " a s h e says.33 Withi n tha t totality , th e theor y o f sympath y assume s tha t lik e attracts like . A ful l identit y o f on e bein g wit h anothe r i s unattainable , and thu s similarit y become s th e foundatio n o f attraction . Everythin g i s interrelated, bu t influenc e ca n als o b e detrimental ; on e thin g ca n hurt , and eve n destroy , th e other . Individua l being s interac t no t (only ) b y reason o f thei r bein g i n contact , bu t becaus e o f thei r similarit y (homoiotes). "Wher e there is similarity betwee n a thing affected an d the thing affecting it , the affection i s not alien." 34 This general truth also holds true for the image: That which is sympathetic to it [the World Soul] is what imitates it in some way, like a mirror able to catch [th e reflection of ] a form. Yes, the nature of the All, too, made all things skilfully in imitation of the [intelligible] realities of which it had th e rationa l principle , an d whe n eac h thin g i n thi s wa y ha d becom e a rational principle in matter, shaped according to this which is before matter, it linked i t wit h tha t go d i n conformit y wit h who m i t cam e int o bein g an d t o whom the soul looked and whom it had in its making.35 The view suggested b y Plotinus can be put in simple words: the statue of th e go d i s suite d t o attract , an d mak e th e go d dwel l i n it , becaus e i t resembles the god. Plotinus's suggestio n tha t th e god' s imag e resemble s th e go d itsel f marked th e limi t o f wha t th e ambiguit y o f religiou s though t coul d sustain. Further than that a reflective theory could not go; any additional step i n the same direction woul d brin g us to a coarse belie f i n the statu e being actuall y animated . Th e perio d afte r Plotinu s sa w no t onl y th e spread o f hi s genera l ideas ; wha t hi s tex t adumbrate s concernin g th e relationship o f th e god's imag e t o th e god itsel f wa s take n u p by philosophers, writers, and scientists. Several texts, composed between the third and th e fifth centuries a.d. , testif y bot h t o th e diffusio n o f belief s i n th e resemblance o f th e god' s imag e an d th e god , an d t o th e variation s o f

78 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

which thes e idea s wer e capable . Bot h th e diffusio n o f th e belief s an d their variation s shape d th e intellectua l backgroun d o f th e grea t debate s concerning the sacred image that took plac e in the Christian world. (iii) Porphyry Plotinus , we have just seen, did not concentrate on manmade images of th e gods. Porphyry , his disciple and biographer, did. N o scholar ha s eve r claime d tha t wha t Porphyr y ha s t o sa y abou t divin e images constitute s a nove l departur e i n philosophica l thought , bu t fe w will den y that his comments ar e a significant document of an intellectual development, an d bea r ampl e testimon y t o belief s tha t wer e widel y current. Thoug h h e i s bes t know n fo r hi s preachin g o f Neoplatoni c doctrine, i t shoul d b e note d that , i n his wid e erudition , h e was familia r with th e differen t school s o f thought o f hi s time . O f contemporar y religious practice s h e ha d persona l knowledge, 36 an d h e approache d them in a spirit somewhat simila r to that of a modern scholar: he edited the text s o f Oracula r utterances , an d stresse d tha t h e di d no t interfer e with th e traditiona l versions. 37 I n hi s youth , befor e h e cam e int o th e orbit of Plotinus, Porphyry composed a treatise On Images. This juvenile work wa s lost , bu t a ne w versio n ha s bee n reconstructe d b y J . Bide z from length y quotations , incorporate d i n Eusebius' s Preparatio Evangelical* Under the influence o f Plotinia n teaching, a s modern scholars seem t o agree, Porphyry's views concerning th e gods becam e more spiritual tha n they had originally been . But the ambiguity a s to whether we can see the gods—and, b y implication , represen t the m truthfully—di d no t alto gether dissolve eve n i n his mature thought . Non e othe r tha n Augustine , who devote d severa l chapter s to Porphyr y i n his great work The City of God, clearl y saw his ambiguous position. 39 The older Porphyry preached an introverted, spiritual piety, and this led him to reject, or at least doubt the "truth " of, divin e statues . The wa y t o God , h e says i n the Letter to Marcella, writte n i n his ol d age , lead s inward s int o man' s soul ; th e cul t of statues , h e her e specificall y remarks , i s devoi d o f religiou s signifi cance.40 I n another o f hi s lat e compositions , th e Letter to the Egyptian Priest Anebo, h e argue s agains t popula r beliefs , an d agains t th e crud e and superstitiou s practice s curren t amon g th e peopl e aroun d him ; th e true concept o f Go d i s the one tha t dwells within th e human soul. 41 Ye t even th e ol d Porphyr y di d no t conceiv e o f th e god s a s totally beyon d reach, as altogether transcendent, invisible beings. He combines the view

Resemblance 7

9

of th e universe as a hierarchic ladder, a view common i n his world, with the specifi c aspec t o f visibility , an d ca n thu s as k whic h o f th e god s ar e visible an d whic h remai n invisible , an d wha t th e tw o group s ma y hav e in common. On Images convey s somethin g o f th e atmospher e o f th e intense strif e going on amon g th e great religiou s movement s o f tha t world. The mod ern studen t o f wha t remain s o f Porphyry' s juvenil e wor k feel s tha t th e problem of sacre d images was the n a topical issue . The treatise has been described a s a n apolog y o f polytheism. 42 Porphyr y accepts , a s a matte r of course , th e belie f tha t th e god s ma y appea r t o ou r eyes , an d h e naturally conclude s tha t therefor e the y ca n als o b e represente d i n im ages.43 Wha t h e mean s b y "image, " i t i s true, i s rather broad , an d thu s necessarily lack s precision . Bu t h e als o raise s som e specifi c points . I t i s of particula r interes t that , i n defending th e ritual s performed i n fron t o f divine images , h e mention s representation s o f sacre d beast s use d a s images of the divine. 44 As a rule , however , Porphyry' s tex t illustrate s rathe r th e genera l ambiguity o f th e belief s i n divin e image s tha n thei r specifi c forms . A s I have jus t noted , hi s treatis e echoe s som e o f th e well-know n debate s o n religious matter s tha t fascinate d th e intellectua l worl d a t th e en d o f th e third century . A centra l issu e i n thes e debate s wa s th e confrontatio n o f polytheism wit h th e other great religions. I n other words, Porphyry als o had t o argu e wit h th e belief s i n a n invisibl e god . (Porphyry' s symboli c interpretation o f visibl e nature as a revelation o f th e gods als o indicates, I believe, his attitude to another great subject of the time, the problem of whether Go d o r th e god s ar e altogethe r beyon d ou r perception , an d therefore als o invisible . I f visible natur e i s a revelatio n o f th e god , the n the god itself i s not altogether transcendent. ) The othe r controvers y tha t cas t it s shadow over Porphyry' s tim e an d is, I think , reflecte d i n hi s treatis e On Images a s wel l a s i n hi s othe r writings, i s no t th e struggl e betwee n th e grea t religions , bu t th e debat e with th e atheisti c skeptics . A centra l argumen t o f th e rationalist s an d skeptics, a s w e remember, 45 wa s t o poin t ou t th e strikin g dissonanc e between th e ido l a s a materia l object , an d th e go d wh o i s a spiritua l being, o r idea . Onl y fools , th e skeptic s kep t saying , ca n confoun d th e two, o r can perceive th e materia l objec t a s the imag e of a spiritual idea . In thei r foolishness , o r "ignorance " a s i t wa s frequentl y put , the y at tribute th e natur e o f a nonmateria l bein g t o a mer e piec e o f matter .

8o Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

Porphyry reverse s th e argument , an d wha t h e say s i s o f interes t t o students o f ar t in al l ages . I t is th e learne d an d enlightene d skeptics , h e says, who ar e in fac t totally ignorant . Thei r ignoranc e consist s precisel y in the conviction tha t the statue, th e carved or painted image , is nothing but a piece of matter . I n the same vein, Porphyry continues , people wh o are no t abl e rea d migh t clai m tha t a written text , a letter o r a book , i s nothing bu t a networ k o f wove n thread s o f papyrus . Wer e w e t o pu t Porphyry's though t i n moder n word s w e woul d hav e t o sa y tha t th e skeptics disregar d th e spiritua l dimensio n o f th e image, an d in s o doin g they ignore one of it s essential aspects . Porphyry, on e shoul d note , i s perhap s th e firs t thinke r wh o thu s explicitly acknowledge d a spiritua l dimensio n o f th e materia l wor k o f art. In that dimension he saw an essential par t of th e image as such. In hi s famou s work Against the Christians Porphyr y formulate s hi s views concernin g th e ambivalen t natur e o f th e image , o f it s bein g a t home in two worlds. He is trying to defend the icon against two opposit e claims. Those rendering proper worship to the gods do not believe the god to be in the wood or stone or bronze from which the image is built.. . ; for the statues and the temples were built by the ancients as reminders so that those who went there might be at leisure and be purer hereafter an d might come to think of the god; or that they might approach it and offer prayer s and supplications each asking for him what he needs. For even if someone makes a portrait of a friend, he does not believ e th e frien d himsel f t o b e i n i t no r tha t th e limb s o f hi s bod y ar e confined withi n th e parts of th e painting, bu t that the respect fo r the friend is shown through the portrait.46 Two idea s ar e her e indicated , on e o f the m manifest , th e othe r mor e implied. First , i t i s obviou s tha t th e imag e o f th e go d i s not t o b e take n as a n embodimen t o f th e god . Ther e i s a symboli c dimensio n t o th e image, howeve r on e ma y choos e t o defin e thes e terms . Th e othe r idea , implied rathe r tha n explicit , i s tha t a certai n similarit y exist s betwee n the imag e an d th e figure it depicts . To b e sure , th e limb s o f th e friend' s body ar e not confine d i n the parts of th e painting portrayin g th e friend , but on e canno t escap e th e conclusio n tha t th e painting , i n som e way , repeats the shapes of those limbs. To put it in simple words, the painting resembles th e rea l friend . I n referrin g fro m th e example , th e friend' s portrait, t o th e god' s icon , on e canno t hel p sayin g tha t th e god' s imag e

Resemblance 8

1

resembles th e god . Resemblanc e i s brough t i n b y th e bac k door , a s i t were. Resemblance i s perhap s indicated , thoug h no t clearl y articulated , i n still anothe r way . A s we hav e jus t seen , Porphyr y compare s a statue, o r a painting , wit h a writte n text; 47 bot h ar e materia l objects , bu t bot h have a "meaning. " I t is implie d tha t images , lik e written texts , mus t b e interpreted, o r "read, " a s w e say . Bu t shoul d the y b e rea d i n th e sam e way? Letters, in proper combination, conve y a meaning, bu t they do no t resemble th e meanin g the y convey . The reference s t o th e icon s portray ing th e gods , howeve r vagu e an d il l define d thes e concept s are , sugges t that th e approac h t o the m must , i n som e way , b e different . T o us e modern terms, letters are signs, but they are not icons, of ideas. Neither in On Images, a t least in what has come down to us from this work, no r i n hi s late r writing s doe s Porphyr y tak e u p thi s problem . There i s onl y on e additiona l clu e tha t migh t suggest—howeve r vaguel y —his concer n wit h a n iconi c qualit y o f th e image s o f th e gods . I n On Images h e also deals with the names of the gods. It is in keeping with the tacit assumptio n o f a resemblanc e o f th e religiou s ico n t o th e go d tha t he believe s th e etymolog y o f th e name s migh t disclos e th e mysterie s o f the gods ' nature . Etymology , a s w e remember, 48 wa s believe d t o sho w that name s hav e a n affinit y o f natur e t o wha t the y denot e becaus e the y are images o f wha t the y mean . To us e the modern ter m just mentioned , names hav e a certai n "iconic " quality . I t i s characteristi c tha t whe n Porphyry, late r i n life , turne d t o a spiritua l conceptio n o f God , h e als o explicitly rejected any "link of sympathy" between the god and its name. Calling a n individua l go d b y a specifi c name , h e say s i n th e Letter to Anebo, i s merel y a matte r o f convention. 49 Bu t whe n h e wrot e On Images h e stil l believe d i n th e abilit y o f th e etymologica l exegesi s o f a name t o revea l th e essenc e o f wha t i t names . Etymolog y ca n revea l th e nature o f thing s name d becaus e th e nam e i s "a n image " o f tha t thing . The attitud e t o language , seein g th e wor d a s emergin g "b y nature " o r established "b y convention, " i s thus , thoug h indirectl y an d vaguely , a n indication o f whethe r or not you accep t the possibility o f th e god's manmade image resembling the god itself. The vaguenes s an d ambiguit y tha t ar e so characteristi c o f Porphyry' s views o n ou r subjec t ar e only partl y explaine d b y the fragmentar y stat e in whic h mos t o f hi s writing s hav e reache d us . The studen t o f histor y

82 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

cannot hel p concludin g tha t i t was precisel y suc h ambiguity , a n attitud e that lef t crucia l issue s unexplicated, tha t bes t suited th e conceptual need s prevailing i n tha t lat e stag e o f antiqu e culture . Th e Neoplatoni c tradi tion, mor e tha n an y othe r school , continue d th e reflectio n o n sacre d images, an d di d s o i n th e spiri t o f ambiguity . I t wa s precisel y thi s tradition tha t lai d th e foundation s o f late r notion s o f similarity , includ ing some that ar e still alive in our world . (iv) lamblichus Th e traditio n o f reflection s on , an d half-mystica l con cern with , th e name s an d image s o f th e god s wa s continue d b y lambli chus, Porphyry' s pupil , wh o wa s prominen t i n paga n though t o f th e early fourt h century . I n hi s time , an d fo r generation s t o come , h e wa s admired a s a sage , a philosophe r (equa l t o Aristotl e an d Plato , if w e ar e to trus t Julia n th e Apostate), 50 an d a teacher . Som e eve n sa w hi m a s a saint, an d believe d tha t h e performe d miracles. 51 Moder n scholarshi p has sometime s use d hars h word s i n judgin g Iamblichus' s thought, 52 bu t all student s agre e tha t hi s eruditio n wa s wide , an d tha t h e wa s thor oughly acquainte d wit h th e religiou s belief s an d practice s o f hi s age. Hi s works, whatever w e may thin k o f their philosophica l o r scientifi c merits , are thu s a n importan t sourc e fo r ou r studie s o f lat e paga n view s o f th e gods an d thei r images . Most o f hi s writings ar e lost , amon g the m als o a treatise o n images . Onl y fragment s o f a refutatio n o f wha t wa s sai d i n this lost work b y lamblichu s hav e bee n preserved i n a later encyclopedi c work. 53 Bu t even i n th e fe w text s tha t hav e survived , suc h a s th e Life of Pythagoras an d Mysteries of Egypt, w e ca n se e ho w muc h h e wa s concerned wit h th e names an d image s of th e gods. Two issue s i n Iamblichus' s text s ar e o f significanc e fo r ou r problem . First i s his attitud e t o th e argument , s o ofte n discussed , tha t th e image s of th e god s ar e materia l objects . Now , i n th e earl y fourt h centur y a.d. , especially i n Iamblichus' s world , th e attitud e t o matte r wa s differen t from wha t i t ha d bee n amon g th e educate d sceptic s o f earlie r centuries . Far fro m seein g matte r a s the embodiment o f evil , lamblichus conceive d of i t as a creation o f th e great god. 54 I n enthusiastic phrase s h e therefor e praised th e us e o f differen t material s i n buildin g temple s an d i n shapin g the images of the gods. 55 That th e images of the gods are material object s does, then, not detract fro m thei r validity an d power . Image s of th e god s carved b y ordinary morta l worker s i n regula r materials , h e believes , can be filled wit h divin e power , an d perfor m miracles . Moreover , matte r i s

Resemblance 8

3

not alie n t o th e god s themselves . I n som e o f th e god s themselve s h e discovers a material nature . Iamblichus's complex system of gods (whic h is not free from internal contradictions) essentiall y consists of immateria l and of materia l gods. 56 Carving their images in materials, therefore, doe s not contradict their character. The othe r aspec t o f hi s though t tha t i s pertinen t t o ou r purpos e i s what he says about the well-known topi c of the names and images of the gods, and how they relate to each other. In Mysteries of Egypt th e reader learns tha t wha t th e image s an d name s o f th e god s hav e i n commo n i s their "symboli c resemblance " t o th e god s themselves. 57 On e may , o f course, wonde r wha t precisel y "symboli c resemblance " mean s here . Iamblichus himself , i t seems , wa s no t certain . H e di d no t clai m t o hav e any direct knowledge o f it ; we hav e to "presuppose " it, he says. H e di d not defin e resemblance , ye t i t i s likel y tha t wha t h e understoo d b y resemblance had some affinity t o what can be experienced visually. With the help of divin e names we can perceive in our souls the comprehensiv e mystical an d secret image of th e gods. 58 Statements suc h a s thi s sho w ho w deepl y ambiguit y ha d permeate d Iamblichus's thought . Ye t hi s ambiguitie s shoul d no t b e understoo d a s literary metaphor s only ; withi n hi s ambiguou s thinkin g ther e alway s remains th e belie f i n a rea l lin k betwee n th e image an d th e god . Whe n Porphyry, Iamblichus' s teacher , turne d lat e i n lif e t o a spiritual vie w o f God, an d considere d th e lin k betwee n th e go d an d it s imag e a s estab lished "b y convention" only, his pupil did not follo w him . Opposing hi s teacher's views , Iamblichu s propose d a doctrin e o f th e ico n a s a "like ness" o r a "reflection " o f th e god . The nam e o f th e go d i s it s icon , h e says. Thi s statement , i f no t understoo d a s a mere metaphor, ma y soun d odd, bu t a t leas t th e genera l directio n o f Iamblichus' s though t become s more intelligibl e whe n h e suggest s tha t th e nam e doe s no t merel y refe r to th e god fro m th e outside, a s it were; the god i s not totally beyon d it s name. On the contrary, both the name and the icon of the god are united —in a n "ineffabl e way, " a s Iamblichu s says—wit h th e go d itself . The god's image, as Iamblichus puts it, is full of divine participation. I t is this participation tha t endows th e image wit h almos t th e same power a s has the god itself. 59 This does not depend on some supernatural origi n of th e statue. The images of the gods have such miraculous power, he expressly states, whethe r the y ar e descende d fro m heave n (somethin g h e di d no t doubt) o r "made by hands."

84 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

(v) Proclus Antiqu e reflection s o n similarit y reache d a climax, an d i n a certain sens e als o cam e t o a n end , i n th e wor k o f Proclus , th e las t grea t representative o f paga n Neoplatonism . Proclu s preserved , an d trie d t o cast int o a unified system , the stored wisdo m o f th e ancient world, 60 an d here w e shoul d als o loo k fo r th e mai n reaso n fo r hi s influenc e o n late r periods. Hi s though t represents , a s E . R . Dodd s pu t it , "th e resul t o f a speculative movemen t extendin g ove r som e five centuries." 61 Proclus's wor k wa s o f trul y encyclopedi c natur e an d dimensions . Bu t he trie d t o illuminat e th e grea t variet y o f topic s b y on e centra l idea . S o far a s we know , h e did no t compos e a specia l treatis e o n sacre d images , but th e subjec t wa s no t fa r fro m hi s mind , an d h e hel d articulat e view s on it . Th e majo r source s fro m whic h w e ca n lear n hi s opinion s ar e hi s commentaries t o Plato' s Cratylus 61 an d Parmenides 63 an d hi s systemati c treatise, The Elements of Theology. 64 Similarity, i n a broa d an d genera l sense , plays a significant par t i n hi s thought. H e sa w th e worl d a s an all-embracing , unifie d syste m i n whic h everything i s interrelated , an d n o singl e thin g ca n b e isolated . I f some thing wer e no t relate d t o somethin g else , i t woul d exis t al l b y itself , without influencin g an d bein g influenced ; suc h a thin g coul d no t b e known. Thus , Proclu s says , th e god s o f Epicuru s existe d al l fo r them selves, and therefor e the y wer e not know n a t all. 65 To b e known presup poses a relatio n t o th e knower . I t i s relationship s tha t hol d th e worl d together, an d mak e i t one world . Proclus i s not conten t wit h th e abstrac t notio n o f relationship . Look ing fo r a la w tha t govern s th e whol e o f hi s universe , h e finds i t i n th e cycle o f processio n an d reversion . Similarity , likenes s (o r unlikeness) , i s the forc e tha t move s the process o f existence . I n his language , For i f th e producin g caus e bring s int o existenc e lik e thing s befor e unlike , i t is likeness (homoyotes) which generate s th e product ou t o f th e producer: fo r lik e things are made like by likeness, and not b y unlikeness. The procession accord ingly, since in declension i t preserves an identity betwix t engenderer an d engendered, an d manifest s b y derivatio n i n th e consequen t tha t characte r whic h th e other has primitively, owes to likeness its substantive existence. 66 The chai n o f being s i s also a chai n o f similarities . Sinc e Proclu s take s continuity i n th e divin e processio n a s a matte r o f course , he also takes i t for grante d tha t th e secondary ran k i s closely relate d t o the source. Wha t

Resemblance 8

5

relates the m i s likeness : "No w conjunctio n i s effected throug h likeness . Therefore ther e wil l b e likenes s betwee n th e initia l principle s o f th e lower order and the last members of th e higher." 67 As creatio n follow s similarity , s o doe s "reversion, " th e returnin g o f every single creature and object to its source, or the desire of returning . For that which revert s endeavors to be conjoined in every part with every part of its cause, and desires to have communion in it and to be bound to it. But all things ar e boun d togethe r b y likeness , a s b y unlikenes s the y ar e distinguished and severed. If , then , reversion is a communion an d conjunction, and all communion and conjunction is through likeness, it follows that all reversion must be accomplished through likeness.68 In sum , then , a s everythin g i s relate d t o it s sourc e b y mean s o f th e resemblance, s o reversio n i s th e proces s o f regainin g th e resemblanc e that ha s bee n diminished , o r partl y lost . Resemblanc e remain s th e uni versal principle . Given thi s worl d view , i t i s no t surprisin g tha t Proclu s i s s o muc h concerned with similarity . Bu t it is precisely because similarity i s applied to everything that it is less clearly define d tha n one migh t think a t a first glance. Proclu s attempt s t o outlin e wha t similarit y actuall y is , and wha t are it s majo r variations . H e discern s severa l type s o f similarity , an d h e also tries , though t o a lesser degree , t o sa y wha t resemblanc e i n genera l is. Th e tw o mai n type s o f resemblanc e tha t h e distinguishe s are , on th e one hand , th e similarit y betwee n th e superio r an d th e inferior , and , o n the other , th e similarit y betwee n tw o equals . The first type, 69 clearl y showing th e impac t o f th e hierarchic world view , i s the mode l o f causa l relationships, tha t i s o f th e proces s i n whic h everythin g i s created ; th e second type is the model fo r nonhierarchic affinities . These types , however , d o no t sa y wha t similarit y actuall y is . I n th e Commentary to Parmenides Proclu s attempt s t o explai n similarit y b y discerning three distinct aspect s of it : he calls them "union, " "identity, " and "similarity " proper. 70 Thi s distinctio n o f type s show s tha t h e con sidered similarit y i n the genera l contex t o f identit y an d otherness. Simi larity i s partia l identity , a s i t i s partia l otherness . A ful l analysi s o f similarity in general, as Proclus saw it, would go beyond the scope of the present study. I shall only mak e a brief comment on one aspect . How i s it possible for the cause, Proclus asks, to bring forth the effect , that is, to creat e something ne w that , though differen t fro m it s origin, is nevertheless intimatel y linke d wit h it ? Hi s answe r is—throug h similar -

86 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

ity. "All procession," we read in Elements of Theology, "i s accomplished through a likeness o f th e secondar y t o th e primary." 71 I t is likeness , h e goes o n t o explain , tha t generate s th e produc t ou t o f th e producer . A modern studen t of Proclus , Beierwaltes, correctly stresse d tha t here similarity acquire s a kind of existenc e o f it s own; it is not only in the caus e and in the effect; i t also exists between them. 72 The exalte d positio n o f similarity , makin g i t a governing principl e o f the universa l procession , i n a sens e als o limit s it s usefulnes s fo r ou r particular subject . Proclus' s doctrine s concernin g likeness , applie d a s they are to the whole universe, seem far removed from our specific topos, the divin e imag e "mad e b y hands. " To b e sure , on e canno t doub t tha t his idea s wer e a majo r facto r i n shapin g th e cultura l orientatio n i n which, two centuries later, the validity, or the "truth" of th e icon, to use a ter m tha t wa s s o importan t i n th e Iconoclasti c Debate , becam e a topical issue . Hi s emphasi s o n th e continuit y tha t hold s th e worl d to gether als o suggeste d a continuit y tha t bridge s th e ga p betwee n idea s and matter . Spiritua l "models, " i t followe d fro m hi s teaching , ca n b e reflected i n th e "copies " made i n visible an d tangibl e materials . H e wa s himself concerne d with thi s limite d question , an d h e use d traditiona l analogies t o explai n ho w idea s ca n act upon matter. 73 H e thu s spoke of ideas impressin g themselve s upo n matte r lik e seal s o n wax , an d o f matter behaving like a mirror reflecting ideas . In spite of thes e analogies , however, similarity , a s Proclus understoo d it, los t it s immediat e applicabilit y t o th e produc t o f th e artist' s labor . The philosophical difficultie s her e involved need not concern us. What is crucial i n ou r contex t i s tha t th e outline s o f wha t i s mean t b y likenes s begin t o fade . Coul d a n eighth-centur y Christia n teacher , educate d i n Hellenistic tradition s an d familia r with Proclus' s thought , emplo y thi s notion o f "likeness " in order to defend th e image of Chris t painted o n a piece of boar d and exhibited i n the church? One doubts it . In a sense the internal development of th e concept of resemblanc e came to an end with Proclus. There i s no denyin g that the Iconoclasti c Debate , especially th e arguments put forward b y the defenders o f icons , would b e unthinkabl e without Proclus' s heritage , an d wha t h e represents . O n th e othe r hand , however, i t i s equall y clea r tha t i n som e specifi c sense , th e Christia n apologist of th e sacred image had to begin anew.

Resemblance 8 7

NOTES 1. Institutio oratorica VIII , 6, 14-15 . 2. Cicero , De oratore III , 41 , 166 . I us e th e Englis h translatio n i n th e Loe b Classical Library . Se e Cicero, De oratore, I I (London an d Cambridge, Mass. , 1948), p. 131 . 3. Se e The Works of Philo Judaeus, IV , translate d b y C . D . Yong e (London , 1855), pp . 1 ff. Th e sentenc e quote d ma y b e foun d o n p . 2 . See also Harr y Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, I (Cambridge, Mass. , 1947) , pp . 30 0 ff. , o n Philo' s view s o f anima l worship i n Egyptia n religion . Th e literatur e o n allegor y i n genera l is , o f course, so vast and complex tha t a survey would requir e a separate volume . Of particula r valu e fo r ou r purpos e i s Jean Pepin , Mythe et allegorie: Les origines Grecques et les contestations Judeo-Chretiennes (Paris , 1958) . In dications of attitude s t o Philoni c concepts i n modern literar y theor y ma y be found i n Joe l Fineman , "Th e Structur e o f Allegorica l Desire, " i n Stephe n Greenblatt, ed. , Allegory and Representation (Baltimor e an d London , 1981) , pp. 26-60 . 4. I n th e sam e essa y o n th e Contemplative Life. Se e The Works IV , p . 3 . Se e also th e essa y On the Posterity of Cain (Works I , p . 287 ) abou t "th e godlessness of th e Egyptians" in this context. 5. Se e The Works I , p. 475. 6. On the Posterity of Cain (Works I , p . 289) . Amon g th e essentia l qualitie s that mak e Mose s th e uniqu e figure he i s i s th e intensit y o f hi s desir e t o se e God. I n Philo' s wor k o n Mose s on e finds man y expression s o f thi s view . God also gives to Moses "visibl e signs." See, e.g., Moses I , 14 ; I, 29; Works III, pp . 1 7 ff. , 5 1 ff . I t i s als o wort h mentionin g that , i n hi s view , "th e therapeutic sec t o f mankin d . .. ma y wel l ai m a t obtainin g a sigh t o f th e living God , an d ma y pas s b y th e sun. " Se e Contemplative Life, 2 ; Works

iv, PP . 3 ff.

7. Her e one shoul d perhap s als o mentio n th e significance Phil o grants to sigh t in general . See , fo r instance , wha t h e say s abou t th e powe r o f th e sens e o f sight i n hi s On Abraham, 31 ; Works II , pp. 8 0 ff . I n a singl e momen t th e eye reaches "from earth to heaven." 8. On Monarchy I . See Works HI , p. 181 . 9. On Monarchy I . See Works III , p. 180 . 10. On Monarchy I . See Works III , p. 182 . I I . Se e Philo' s On the Creation of the World XVII , an d th e Englis h versio n i n Works I , p. 14 . 12. On the Creation of the World XVIII ; Works I , p. 15 . 13. Se e M . Pohlenz , ^To prepon: Ei n Beitra g zu r Geschicht e de s griechische n Geistes," no w reprinte d i n M . Pohlenz , Kleine Schriften, I (Hildesheim , 1965), PP- 100-39 .

88 Reflections

in Classical Antiquity

14. Se e Werne r Jaeger' s work , Die Theologie der fruhen griechischen Denker, frequently mentione d in notes above. Another work by Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge , Mass. , 1961) , investigate s an other aspec t o f thi s problem. Se e also Kar l Deichgraber , Der listensinnende Gott: Vier Themen des griechischen Denkens (Gottingen , 1952) . A surve y of thi s subjec t i n Gree k thought , wit h particula r emphasi s o n Plutarc h an d Philo, is given by Oskar Dreyer, Untersuchungen zum Begriffdes Gottgeziemenden in der Antike, XXI V (Spudasmata ; Hildeshei m an d Ne w York , 1970).

15. Se e the sources analyzed b y Pohlenz in the article referred to in note 13 . 16. Se e th e material s collecte d b y Dreyer , Begriff des Gottgeziemenden, pp . 124 ff . 17. Dreyer , pp. 13 3 f . 18. Quintilian , Institutio oratorica XII , translated by J. Watson, 10 , 7 - 9 . 19. De Historia conscribenda, 27 ; an d se e J . J . Pollitt , The Ancient Views of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology (Ne w Have n an d London , i974)>PP- 172 . f. 20. Nelso n Goodman' s discussion s of similarit y ar e among the recent investigations of thi s subject that have a more or less direct bearing upon our specifi c theme. Se e especiall y hi s Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapoli s an d Cambridge, 1976) . 21. I use the Englis h translatio n b y Benjamin Jowett, edited b y R . M. Har e and D. A. Russell . 22. Fo r a brie f bu t usefu l surve y o f Plato' s fantasti c etymologies , se e Alva r Ellegard's entry , "Stud y o f Language, " in P . Wiener, ed. , Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, I I (New York , 1973) , pp. 659-73>esp. p . 662. 23. Se e th e stil l importan t wor k b y H . Steinthal , Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Romern mit besonderer Rucksicht auf die Logik (Berlin , 1863) , p. 86. 24. Se e th e interestin g excursus , "Etymolog y a s a Categor y o f Thought, " i n Ernst Rober t Curtius , European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, translated b y W. Trask (Ne w Yor k an d Evanston, 111., 1953), pp. 495-500 . 25. I n fact , Plat o stresse s th e ga p tha t wil l alway s remain . I f a go d wer e t o depict Cratylus' s "colo r an d form , a s painter s do, " but als o flexibilit y an d warmth, motion, life , an d intellect, "woul d ther e be in such an event Cratylus an d a n imag e o f Cratylus , o r tw o Cratyluses? " (432b—c) . Se e Gora n Sorbom, Mimesis and Art: Studies in the Origin and Early Development of an Aesthetic Vocabulary (Bonniers , Sweden, 1966) , pp. 10 9 ff . 26. I a m awar e o f th e philosophica l discussion s o f thes e subject s i n Plato' s thought, bu t I canno t tak e u p th e matte r here . A n interesting , thoug h perhaps one-sided , presentatio n o f Plato' s though t o n th e subjec t ma y b e found i n A . J. Festugiere , Contemplation et vie contemplative selon Platon (2nd ed., Paris, 1950) .

Resemblance 8 9 27. Se e Plotinus , The Enneads V , 8 , 5 , 19 ; V , 8 , 6 , 11 . Her e I have use d th e translation i n th e Loe b Classica l Library . Se e Plotinus , V , wit h a n Englis h translation b y A . H . Armstron g (Cambridge , Mass. , an d London , 1984) , PP- *55-57 . 28. Bes t known i s Ficino's rendering. See Ficino, In Plotinum V , viii (se e Opera, II [Basel , 1561] , p . 1768) . Se e als o Andr e Chastel , Marsile Ficin et Vart (Geneve-Lille, 1954) , pp. 72, 77. And see also Edgar Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (Ne w Haven , Conn., 1958) , pp. 16 9 ff . 29. Se e above, the introduction t o the book . 30. Enneads IV , 3, 11 , 1-14 ; se e Plotinus IV, p. 71. 31. Fro m th e moder n scholarl y literatur e I shall onl y mentio n Kar l Reinhardt , Kosmos und Sympathie: Neue Untersuchungen iiber Poseidonius (Munich , 1926), passim, esp. pp. i n ff . 32. Se e S. Sambursky, Das physikalische Weltbild der Antike (Zuric h an d Stuttgart, 1965) , p. 502 . 33. Enneads IV , 4 , 32 . "Thi s One-All , therefore , i s a sympatheti c tota l an d stands as one living being." 34. Ibid . 35. Ibid . See also Enneads IV , 3 , 3; and IV, 3 , 10 , 11 , 18. 36. Fo r Porphyry' s experienc e wit h oracles , se e Han s Lewy , Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire (Cairo, 1956) * pp. 7 ff37. A goo d surve y o f thi s aspec t o f Porphyry' s wor k an d characte r ma y b e found i n th e stil l valuabl e wor k b y Johanne s Geffcken , Der Ausgang des Griechisch-Romischen Heidentums (Heidelberg , 1920) , pp. 56-77 . 38. Se e J. Bidez , Vie de Porphyre (Gan d an d Leipzig , 1913) ; th e reconstructe d text i s printe d i n th e appendix . Fo r thi s earl y treatise , se e Fr . Bortzler , Porphyrins' Schrift von den Gotterbildern (Erlangen , 1903) . An d se e als o Vittorio Fazzo , La giustificazione delle imagini religiose della tarda Antichita al Cristianesimo, I, La Tarda Antichita (Naples , 1977) , pp. 18 1 ff . Fo r Porphyry's philosophy i n general Eduard Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 3 . Teil , 2 . Abteilung , 2 . Halft e (2n d ed., Leipzig, 1868) , pp. 568-611 , is still essential . 39. Actuall y the whole of Book Ten of the City of God i s devoted to a discussion of Porphyry' s teaching. Fo r our purpose chapter s 9 an d 1 1 of thi s book ar e of particular importance . 40. Letter to Marcella, chapte r 17 . 41. Se e esp . Zeller , Philosophie der Griechen, 3 . Teil , 2 . Abteilung , 2 . Halfte , pp. 60 0 ff . 42. Se e Bidez, Vie de Porphyre, 2 1 ff . 43. I t should b e noted that , so fa r as we can judge on th e basis of th e fragment s preserved, Porphyr y di d no t mak e th e questio n o f whethe r o r no t th e god s can be represented—the subject of a systematic investigation. The fragment s are no t sufficien t t o le t u s for m a detailed opinio n o f th e treatise' s origina l

90 Reflections

in

Classical Antiquity

form, bu t w e ca n sa y tha t ou r question—ca n th e god s b e represented? — was not at the center of hi s speculations. 44. Se e Bidez, pp. 1 ff. o f the appendix, with Porphyry's text. 45. Se e above, chapter 3. 46. I follow th e translatio n b y Pau l J. Alexander , The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford , 1958) , p . 27 . Th e classi c discussio n i s A . vo n Harnack , Porphyrins: Gegen die Christen (Abhandlunge n de r Kgl. Preussische n Aka demie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist . Klasse ; Berlin, 1916) . 47. Se e above, the section discussin g Porphry . 48. Se e above, the section on Plato's Cratylus i n the present chapter. 49. Letter to Anebo 1 , 20 . Se e Lettera ad Anebo, a cur a d i Giusepp e Faggi n (Florence, 1954) , pp. 4, 1 2 ff . 50. Se e Julian's Sevent h Oration , "T o th e Cyni c Heracleitos, " 21 7 B , C . An d see The Works of the Emperor Julian, II, with a n English translation b y W. C. Wrigh t (Loe b Classica l Library ; Londo n an d Cambridge , Mass. , 1949) , p. 105 .

51. Se e Eunapius, Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists, 45 8 ff . I use Philostratus and Eunapius: The Lives of the Sophists, wit h a n English translation b y W. C . Wrigh t (Loe b Classica l Library ; Londo n an d Cambridge , Mass. , 1968), esp. pp. 36 3 ff. , 36 9 ff . 52. Se e mainl y Johannes Geffcken , Der Ausgang des griechisch-romischen Heidentums (Heidelberg , 1920) , pp . 10 3 ff . Se e als o Zeller , Philosophic der Griechen, pp . 611-46 . 53. Se e Fazzo, La giustificazione, p . 237 . 54. Iamblichus , attracte d t o neo-Pythagorea n traditions, no t onl y wa s con cerned wit h th e symbolis m o f geometrica l forms , bu t als o wrot e a treatis e on chemistry . 55. De mysteriis Aegyptiorum V , 23. 56. De mysteriis Aegyptiorum V , 14 . 57. De mysteriis Aegyptiorum VII , 4.1 a m using the French edition, Jamblique: Les Mysteres d'Egypte (Collectio n Guillaum e Bude ; Paris , 1966) , se e esp . pp. 1 9 1 - 9 2 .

58. De mysteriis Aegyptiorum VII , 4; p. 25 5 o f th e French edition. 59. De mysteriis Aegyptiorum, p . 25 8 f . Th e historia n ma y fin d i t interestin g that thi s statemen t i s mad e i n a discussion o f th e practice s o f th e Egyptia n priests. 60. O n Proclus , se e mainl y L . J. Rosan , The Philosophy of Proclus: The Final Phase of Ancient Thought (Ne w York , 1949) ; and W. Beierwaltes, Proklos: Grundziige seiner Metaphysik (Frankfort , 1965) . 61. Se e E . R . Dodds' s introductio n t o Proclus: The Elements of Theology, translated by Dodds (2n d ed., Oxford, 1963) , p. xviii. 62. Prodis diadochi in Platonis Cratylum commentaria, ed . G . Pasqual i (Leipzig, 1908) .

Resemblance 9 1 63. Prodi Diadochi Commentarium in Platonis Parmenidem. Th e origina l edi tion wa s translate d int o Frenc h b y A . Ed . Chaigne t an d publishe d i n thre e volumes; se e Proclus le philosoph: Commentaire sur le Parmenide (Paris , 1900-1903; reprinte d Frankfurt a m Main, 1962) . 64. Se e note 60 . 65. Se e Rosan, Proclus, pp . 68 ff . fo r a n interesting discussion o f thi s example. 66. Elements of Theology, prop . 29 . I use Dodds' s translation . Se e p. 3 5 o f hi s edition. 67. Elements of Theology, prop . 147 ; pp. 12 9 ff . o f Dodds' s translation . 68. Elements of Theology, prop . 32 ; p. 37 . 69. Fo r the main discussion i n Proclus's commentar y t o Plato' s Parmenides, se e col. 911 . See also Beierwaltes, Proklos, pp . 13 2 ff . 70. Se e the Commentary to Parmenides, cols . 744-45 . 71. Elements of Theology, prop . 29 ; p. 35 o f Dodds' s edition . 72. Beierwaltes , Proklos, pp . 15 5 ff . 73. Se e hi s Commentary to Parmenides, cols . 83 9 ff . An d se e Rosan , Proclus, pp. 16 1 ff. ; an d Beierwaltes, Proklos, pp . 29 9 f .

FIVE

Early Christian Apologists

Anyone a t al l curiou s abou t ho w believer s i n a n invisibl e go d reac t t o the visible image s o f god s whe n the y ar e confronte d wit h the m wil l b e fascinated b y the first attempts o f Christianit y t o com e t o terms , withi n a conceptua l framework , wit h th e surroundin g culture . I f considered a s mere theory , th e literar y record s o f thes e attempts—normall y under taken t o defen d th e ne w religio n i n specifi c historica l conditions—wil l not b e counte d amon g th e mos t importan t o f th e document s discusse d in thi s book . The reasonin g i s no t alway s a s stric t a s a critica l reade r might wish i t to be, and the practical need s and historical constraint s are often intractable , forcin g th e writer s t o adop t compromise s that , whe n measured b y intellectua l yardstick s only , ma y no t b e satisfactory . Bu t these earl y attempt s hav e th e rar e merit of lettin g u s witness directly , a s it were, how the great question of the god's image was broached. History itself compelle d the m t o fac e th e problem. Her e the y were, rejectin g th e material image s o f a go d the y believe d t o b e invisible , an d surrounde d 95

96 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

by th e man y image s o f differen t gods . Ou r concern , a s I have alread y said, i s les s wit h ho w i n practic e the y reacte d t o thes e images . Moder n scholarly literatur e ha s deal t extensivel y wit h simila r questions , an d I have n o ne w contributio n t o offer . Wha t I should lik e t o as k is , wha t were th e reason s tha t th e earl y Christian s gav e fo r th e theoretica l posi tions they adopted ? The historia n nee d no t b e tol d tha t ancien t Christianit y i n countles s ways absorbe d th e culture , th e taste , an d th e though t o f it s time . Th e new religio n continued , sometime s only thinl y veiled , th e grea t paga n cultures it inherited. Modern scholarshi p has taught us, with great intensity an d muc h success , t o se e thi s continuity , an d thereb y ha s muc h enriched ou r vie w an d understandin g o f th e time . Ove r an d abov e th e study o f continuities , however , w e shoul d no t forge t th e realit y an d significance o f change . A t th e ris k o f statin g th e obvious , I thin k w e should b e awar e of , an d accor d prope r proportion s to , th e ne w ideas , and the ensuing conflicts. These conflicts—one sometime s feel s the need to remin d onsel f o f thi s simpl e fact—wer e rea l struggles , i n intellectua l respects a s wel l a s i n man y others . Everybod y know s tha t thi s struggl e can be observed in innumerable facets ; one of the m is the attitude t o the images o f God . I n th e followin g page s I inten d t o outlin e th e first encounter between Christia n thinkers, who rejecte d images of God , with the abundance of suc h images and the ideologies defending them. The perio d betwee n roughl y a.d . 14 0 an d 18 0 sa w th e compositio n of the treatises recording the earliest Christian attempts to come to terms with th e cultures surrounding the new religion. These ar e the writings of the so-calle d earl y Gree k apologists. 1 Readin g thes e earl y statements , one canno t hel p noting , sometime s wit h surprise , ho w grea t a signifi cance i s granted t o th e proble m o f images . Images , th e moder n studen t may feel , coul d no t hav e bee n a n issu e o f suc h vita l importanc e i n th e first centuries o f a ne w religion . An d ye t the y mus t hav e bee n a ver y disturbing facto r indee d t o preoccup y people' s attentio n t o suc h a de gree. To be sure, the tone and intensity of the discussion varie s from on e author t o th e other , an d fro m on e occasio n t o th e other , bu t on e ca n rarely find a theoretica l statemen t o f th e ne w religio n i n thos e decade s that does not include some discussion of "idols. " Aristeidis o f Athens , th e first Christia n apologis t whos e wor k ha s come dow n t o us , wrote aroun d a.d . 140. 2 The transmissio n o f hi s tex t to posterity i s in itself a n extraordinary episod e i n the history of wester n

Early Christian Apologists 9

7

culture; withou t eve n touchin g o n thi s subject , I shoul d onl y lik e t o remark tha t mos t o f i t wa s incorporate d i n Barlaam and Josaphat, a n eighth-century nove l to which we shall return in a later chapter. 3 Aristeidis raise s th e proble m o f idol s an d ido l worshi p shortl y afte r the opening paragraphs of hi s Apology. Worshippin g images i s a central criterion fo r distinguishin g betwee n pagan s an d Christians , a s the offer ing o f sacrifice s help s t o immediatel y distinguis h Jew s fro m Christians . The distinction betwee n Christian s and pagans was obviously a n important issu e i n Aristeides ' generation , an d on e i s therefor e no t surprise d that h e pay s carefu l attentio n no t onl y t o th e worshippin g o f idols , bu t also t o th e images o f th e gods themselves . H e distinguishe s betwee n th e "barbarians' " visualizatio n an d representio n o f thei r gods , an d th e Greeks'. Althoug h th e god s o f bot h barbarian s an d Greek s ar e "fals e gods," Aristeidis considers their images worthy of minut e observation. Justin Marty r wrot e hi s tw o Apologies abou t a decad e o r s o afte r Aristeidis. Justi n cam e fro m Samari a i n Palestine , bot h a mor e easter n and a mor e provincia l regio n tha n Athens , th e hom e o f Aristeides . I n these easter n province s th e image s o f th e god s ma y hav e bee n les s obtrusive an d pose d a less pressin g difficulty . Bu t Justin wa s concerne d with ritual, 4 and in this context he must have encountered the "question" of images. 5 Justin addressed his Apologies t o a gentile audience, familia r with pagan idols, and he therefore feel s th e need to discuss images. 6 The other systemati c treatis e b y Justi n Marty r tha t ha s com e dow n t o us , The Dialogue with Trypho, 7 i s a debat e wit h a representativ e o f Juda ism. I n Judaism th e image o f Go d play s no part, and here Justin Marty r does not brin g up the question o f th e divine image. The obvious conclu sion from al l this is that the problem of th e gods' images does not follo w from Justin' s theology ; i t i s force d upo n hi m b y th e cultur e surround ing him. Some tw o decade s later , Justin' s discipl e Tatian , a Syria n wh o wa s formerly a studen t o f rhetorics , addresse d himsel f t o th e heathe n i n defense o f th e Christia n religion . Idol s ar e not on e o f hi s majo r themes , but the fe w observation s h e make s o n th e subjec t ar e of interes t fo r th e historian o f culture . Hi s rejectio n o f an y allegorica l explanatio n o f th e gods8 ma y sugges t tha t hi s audience , a t leas t i n part , consiste d o f th e educated, who di d not take the stories of th e gods in a literal sense . This may als o b e supporte d b y hi s statemen t tha t th e erectin g o f statue s t o the god s i s eve n mor e stupi d tha n "th e multitud e o f philosophica l sys -

98 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

terns."9 Hi s invectiv e agains t theate r mask s i s o f particula r interes t t o the historian of images. 10 At about th e same time (accordin g to som e scholars shortl y afte r a.d . 176), a Christian writer who remains anonymous addressed an epistle to a certai n Diognetus , possibl y on e o f th e empero r Marcu s Aurelius' s tutors.11 Th e Epistle to Diognetus begin s with a lis t o f apologeti c sub jects, amon g the m th e "foll y o f idolatry " as well a s the "superstitio n o f the Jews." 12 I t i s obviou s tha t th e anonymou s autho r consider s th e attitude to divine images as a question of great significance to Christians. At the same time, around a.d. 180 , the last document to be considered here wa s composed . Athenagora s o f Athen s wrote , perhap s a t Alexan dria, th e Appeal on Behalf of the Christians. 13 Onc e agai n w e se e ho w the attitud e toward s th e image s o f th e god s become s th e criterio n fo r distinguishing betwee n pagan s an d Christians . Bu t Athenagoras , bein g an "Athenia n Christia n philosopher," 14 suggests i n his extensive discussion o f idol s som e o f th e metaphysica l perspective s o f th e god' s image . He introduces topics of speculation that were destined to become leading themes in medieval an d Renaissance thought . The document s selecte d her e for m th e cor e o f th e literatur e w e ar e used t o callin g "earl y Christia n apologies. " A s we hav e seen , the y wer e written b y author s o f differen t backgrounds , an d wer e addressed , a t least i n part , t o audience s o f divers e character . I t is remarkabl e that , i n spite o f th e varyin g conditions , wha t thes e earl y Christia n apologist s have to say about the images of th e gods is so similar, actually unified . After thi s brief presentatio n o f th e sources fro m whic h we shal l tr y to draw, w e shal l no w tur n bac k t o th e prope r them e o f thi s essay . Th e student o f certai n aspect s o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate s approache s thes e texts wit h tw o question s i n mind . Th e first is , o f course , simply , wha t was th e early Christians ' attitude t o sacre d images ? More importan t fo r the precis e subjec t o f th e presen t stud y i s th e secon d question : Wha t were the theoretical reason s that the early apologists gave to explain and support thei r attitudes ? Wha t kin d o f genera l doctrin e concernin g th e image o f Go d underlie s th e varyin g reason s the y propose ? Thoug h w e are concerne d mainl y with th e secon d question , w e shal l als o hav e t o make some comments regardin g the first one. The first question i s easily answered . Al l apologeti c document s attestin g to that first encounter of the Christians with the pagan culture surround-

Early Christian Apologists 9

9

ing the m clearl y expres s a negativ e attitud e t o th e image s o f th e gods . Though carefu l readin g may reveal some differences o f nuance , these are differences i n th e styl e o f presentation rathe r tha n i n substance . No t a single one of thes e Christian documents composed between a.d . 14 0 and 180 suggest s a devianc e fro m th e basi c attitud e o f rejection . Whateve r may hav e bee n th e motive s an d reason s fo r thi s unifor m rejection , a s expressed b y th e apologists , th e attitud e i s commo n t o al l authors , an d it cannot be doubted. The answe r i s s o clear-cu t tha t i t woul d no t see m necessar y t o con sider it further, wer e i t not fo r tw o phenomen a linke d with i t that mak e such a unanimou s rejectio n mor e problemati c tha n woul d appea r a t a first glance. The first thing that makes us wonder i s provided by history : about two generation s afte r thes e early apologists, that is, roughly i n the middle o f th e thir d century , Christia n ar t bega n t o flourish . I t was , a s one knows, an art that took ove r form s an d symbols from the surrounding pagan art , yet i t als o shape d ne w motif s an d expressed new , specifi cally Christian , ideas . Now, ho w ca n we understan d the growth o f suc h a ric h an d specifi c ar t i n vie w o f th e tota l rejectio n b y th e theoretician s immediately precedin g it? 15 I t is, of course , tru e tha t early Christia n ar t did not indulge in portraying God, but no student of i t need be told tha t it wa s religiou s i n character. 16 Now , coul d suc h a n ar t hav e grown , could th e imaginatio n tha t produced i t have developed i n a religion an d culture that uniformly rejecte d the image of God , and implicitly religiou s art i n general ? On e canno t hel p wonderin g whethe r th e rejectio n o f icons i n earl y Christianit y wa s indee d a s genera l an d consisten t a s th e apologists declare . Whateve r th e answe r (an d i t i s no t fo r u s i n th e present context t o analyze this seeming contradiction), we can be certain that in the theoretical attitude , a s articulated i n the writings of th e earl y apologists, the rejection of divin e images is complete. Another reaso n fo r a certai n perplexit y i s o f a differen t nature ; i t i s perhaps tenuous , bu t i t shoul d b e considered , a s i t ma y hel p u s defin e more precisel y th e origina l Christia n approac h t o divin e images . A s a rule, apologists , a s Rober t Gran t rightl y notes , ar e no t advocate s o f confrontation o r revolution. 17 The y wil l ten d t o interpre t thei r ow n message in terms of a general consensus, and naturally they will confron t that consensus onl y i n matters that appear to them essential. See n in this light, thei r concentratio n o n th e image s o f th e god s show s tha t the y considered this question a s one of crucia l significance .

ioo The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

The emergence o f Christia n ar t as well a s the desire, however uneasy , to remai n withi n a genera l consensu s ma y cas t som e doubt s o n th e rejection o f image s o n th e par t o f Christia n communitie s i n th e lat e second century . On e ask s whethe r th e rejectio n o f image s o f th e god s was really so complete and consistent as it appears today. Ye t in reading the text s o f th e apologist s w e d o no t fin d a single statemen t that , how ever interpreted , woul d oblig e u s t o qualif y th e conclusio n tha t th e Christians o f th e tim e rejecte d sacre d images . A t leas t o n th e leve l o f ideology, t o us e a moder n term , tha t is , o f a n attitud e take n i n ful l awareness, the Christian apologists altogethe r condemned suc h images. As I have alread y indicated , ou r mai n concer n i n thi s sectio n i s no t s o much wit h th e very rejectio n o f divin e images—as a historical fact , thi s rejection i s wel l known—tha n with th e mor e o r les s conscious motive s given fo r i t i n th e secon d century . Wha t are , i n fact , th e Christia n apologists' reason s fo r rejectin g thes e images ? Thoug h the y di d no t present thei r motive s i n systemati c fashion , i t i s no t difficul t t o mak e them out. The first and most obviou s reaso n fo r rejectin g th e image s i s that the gods the y portray , o r refe r to , ar e fals e gods . Tha t th e paga n god s ar e false god s is , o f course , on e o f th e dominan t theme s i n th e Christia n debate wit h paga n religions . I t i s stated , i n on e for m o r another , o n almost ever y pag e o f th e apologists ' writings . Christia n apologeti c liter ature, i n fact , start s wit h a rathe r detaile d presentatio n o f th e paga n gods—this i s th e majo r conten t o f Aristeides ' Apology. A s a purel y theological them e thi s i s no t a subjec t fo r th e presen t essay . W e ar e concerned wit h th e assertio n tha t paga n god s ar e fals e god s only whe n this claim in some way involves their images. The principa l for m thi s clai m take s i s th e assertio n tha t bot h th e statues an d th e gods the y portra y ar e demons. Thi s i s a common them e in Christian apologetic literature of the second and third centuries. Justin Martyr devotes a n importan t chapte r t o it . We do no t offer sacrifice s t o the image s erecte d i n temples , h e says , becaus e w e kno w tha t thes e images are "dead, and without souls. " What ar e they, then? The image s "bear th e name s an d shape s o f thos e evi l demon s tha t appeare d t o ou r sight."18 These views were formulated mos t succinctly b y a Latin author who wrote in the late second or early third century, Minucius Felix:

Early Christian Apologists 10

1

Now thes e unclea n spirits , th e demons , a s th e mag i an d philosopher s hav e shown, concea l themselve s i n statue s an d consecrate d images , an d b y thei r spiritual influence acquire the authority of a present divinity.19 In the secon d centur y th e concep t o f demon s wa s a truism. Virtuall y everyone believe d i n th e existenc e o f thes e being s an d thei r functio n a s mediators, whether , a s E . R . Dodd s pu t it , "h e calle d the m demon s o r angels o r aions o r simply 'spirits. ' " 20 In the Christia n context , th e term "demon" assume d a pejorative meaning , bringin g i t clos e t o "devil. " It may b e tru e tha t speakin g o f demon s i s actuall y a kin d o f implici t acknowledgment o f polytheism; 21 howeve r thi s ma y be , demon s popu late early Christia n imaginatio n an d doctrine. The statues of pagan god s are either their embodiment or the place they prefer to inhabit . The lin k betwee n statue s an d demons i s mad e possibl e b y the natur e of th e latter . Thi s follow s fro m th e view s th e author s o f th e apologie s express concerning the demons' nature or essence. Tatian's text is particularly importan t fo r thi s question . Lik e huma n beings , s o h e believes , demons hav e receive d a materia l constitutio n an d a material spirit. 22 I n early Christia n thought , "matter " or "material" has a pejorative ring ; it is equivalent to "darkness." This character of matter is found in demons. Indeed, demons cannot repent; "they are merely mirror images of matte r and evil." 23 Bu t thei r materia l natur e als o make s the m visible , an d therefore capabl e o f bein g depicted i n th e visua l arts. 24 T o b e sure , matter ca n als o b e thinner, a s i t were mor e spiritual . Tatia n agree s tha t demons ma y hav e a mor e spiritua l organism ; sometime s the y ar e a s i f made "of smok e an d mist." In this form mos t people will no t be able t o see them, but to those who ar e protected b y God, demons remain visible even when mad e of smok e an d mist. 25 Eve n i n this more spiritual form , the demons remain in principle capable of bein g represented. Athenagoras suggests a different reaso n why the demons are attracted to th e statues o f th e gods. I n front o f thes e statues sacrifice s ar e offered , and th e demon s wh o deligh t i n th e bloo d o f sacrifice s la p i t up . On e understands, then , wh y the y lur e believer s t o thes e statues , an d mak e them offer thei r sacrifices there. 26 We need not consider here in detail th e apologists' descriptions o f th e images o f th e pagan gods. What i s important i n our context i s that the y reject thes e image s becaus e the y depic t fals e gods , o r demons , an d tha t the lin k betwee n th e demon s an d th e image s i s wel l established . Bu t i s

102 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

this the only reason for rejecting images of th e gods? And is the rejection limited only to the gods of th e pagans? In the writings o f th e earl y Christia n apologist s ye t anothe r reaso n i s suggested fo r rejectin g th e image s o f th e gods . Thoug h tha t secon d reason cannot b e completely separate d fro m th e one jus t described, tha t is, fro m th e clai m tha t th e image s o f th e paga n god s ar e t o b e rejecte d because the gods they portray are false gods, it needs separate discussion. The second argumen t is not concerned with the specific image s of paga n gods; rather , i t pose s th e proble m o f th e ico n o f Go d i n general . An y image o f Go d i s false , s o th e ide a o f thi s secon d reaso n run s lik e this : because th e go d itsel f i s invisible , sinc e th e go d canno t b e seen , an y rendering o f i t i n visibl e for m i s boun d no t t o b e true , an d thu s t o deceive th e spectator . Her e a them e i s announce d tha t wa s t o becom e crucial i n th e criticis m o f image s a s i t emerge d i n th e cours e o f th e iconoclastic debate. The desire for a personal encounte r with God, the craving for a direct meeting with th e divine , wa s no t unknow n i n th e religiou s tensio n tha t was prevalen t i n the secon d century ; i t was no t ver y fa r from th e mind s of th e Christia n apologists . Ther e i s interestin g testimon y i n anothe r composition b y Justi n Martyr , th e Dialogue with Trypho. Her e th e author describes how h e sought in vain to learn about God from a Stoic, an Aristotelian , an d a Pythagorean , unti l h e finally attended th e lectur e of a Platonist ; th e latte r gav e hi m th e hop e o f seein g Go d fac e t o face , "for this," he continues, "is the aim of th e philosophy o f Plato." 27 The apologist s wer e als o awar e o f th e rol e th e imag e o f th e god ma y play i n seeking to attai n tha t desired meetin g with God . A n anonymou s opponent t o monotheisti c lore , quote d b y Athenagoras , declare s tha t there i s no other wa y t o ge t close t o th e gods, an d he quotes a Homeri c verse to support his claim. 28 It i s th e tragi c fat e o f man , however , tha t thi s intens e desir e t o se e God fac e t o fac e remain s unfulfilled . Amon g men , sai d th e anonymou s author o f th e Letter to Diognetus, nobod y ha s see n God . Ther e ar e indeed som e fe w t o who m th e god ha s chosen t o revea l itself ; however, adds th e author , t o the m i t reveale d itsel f throug h faith. 29 I n othe r words, th e autho r turn s th e directnes s o f visua l experienc e int o a mer e metaphor. Nobod y ha s eve r see n wha t Go d look s like , Aristeide s says , following som e New Testamen t verses, and nobody i s able to see God. 30 The ide a o f God' s bein g invisible , a s wel l a s th e though t tha t th e go d

Early Christian Apologists 10

3

selects thos e t o who m i t reveal s itself , remaine d topica l i n Christia n thought. Le t me here only ad d one brief quotatio n fro m Origen . Huma n nature, the Church Father says, "is not sufficient i n any way to seek Go d and t o find Him i n His pur e nature , unles s i t i s helped b y the Go d wh o is object of th e search. And H e i s found b y those who, afte r doin g wha t they can , admi t tha t the y nee d Him , an d show s Himsel f t o thos e t o whom H e judge s it right to appear , s o fa r a s it is possible fo r Go d t o b e known t o man and for the human soul which is still in the body to kno w God." 31 That God is invisible, then, remains the underlying idea. Here on e ma y perhap s ad d a n observatio n base d o n speculatio n rather tha n o n th e direc t explicatio n o f th e texts . B y makin g a prope r and correc t imag e of th e true god, were we abl e to produce one , an d by exhibiting i t publicly , w e woul d ac t agains t th e wil l o f God . A s w e remember, th e go d reveal s itsel f t o a chosen few , i f a t all, yet a n openl y displayed imag e would mak e its appearance availabl e to everybody, an d would thu s ac t agains t it s will. T o b e sure , this ide a i s not explicitl y se t forth i n th e writings o f th e apologists , bu t i t seems t o follo w fro m thei r way o f thought . From what has been said one could perhaps infer that the god remains invisible becaus e o f it s arbitrar y decision . Alread y i n th e earl y stag e o f the second-century apologist s another reason was suggested for rejecting the images of th e divine. I f we say that human being s are not abl e to se e God, we only outline th e limits of ou r own experience , an d say what w e can, o r cannot , perceive . I s th e god' s invisibilit y onl y a matte r o f ou r being unable t o perceive it ? The apologist s see m to hav e fel t th e need t o derive th e rejectio n o f divin e image s fro m a mor e primeva l source , an d they therefore mad e a specific statemen t abou t God's very nature. In the natur e o f th e true go d itself—thi s i s the gist of thei r reasonin g —there i s somethin g tha t make s i t impossibl e fo r i t t o b e see n an d portrayed. Go d i s without shape . We know , say s Justin, that the image s shown d o no t hav e God' s shape. 32 Aristeide s put s i t mos t clearly . Go d has n o nam e an d n o shape; 33 bot h nam e an d shap e belon g t o wha t ha s been created , no t t o th e creator . Aristeide s i s stil l mor e specific . Tha t God ha s n o shap e mean s t o hi m tha t Go d ha s n o "compositio n o f organs" and that God lacks the specificity tha t goes with shape: the god, he says, is neither male nor female, an d nothing can encompass it. 34 Without offerin g a n explici t definitio n o f form , th e apologist s enu merate th e element s o f shape ; i n additio n t o bein g visible , shap e i s

104 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

something finite, i t ha s a beginnin g an d a n end , an d i t i s compose d o f parts. Implicitl y the y accep t th e classica l concep t o f for m a s a syste m composed o f finite, measurable parts . Whether such a system is given an organic form , th e part s bein g organs , o r whethe r i t remain s mor e ab stract, it is the internal relationships—the proportions of classical thought— that determin e th e characte r o f th e whole . Ye t suc h a syste m canno t describe th e essenc e o f th e divine . Onl y th e passing , th e transient , an d the created is structured of parts. The divine is beyond structure precisely because it is beyond measurabl e relation s within itself. Whatever th e explanation , th e apologist s d o no t follo w i t up . Al l these themes appea r in their writings a s vague suggestions only . Wha t is crucial, an d wha t wa s transmitte d t o late r generations, wa s th e attemp t to derive the rejection of sacred images not only from the portrayed god s being alien , fals e gods , bu t als o fro m th e unbridgeabl e ga p betwee n God's natur e an d th e characte r o f th e image . Mos t o f th e essentia l themes o f th e critica l Christia n attitud e t o th e holy imag e ar e alread y found i n these early writings.

NOTES i. Se e now Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Phila delphia, 1988) . An old study remain s of centra l importance . See Johannes Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten (Leipzig and Berlin, 1907). 2. Se e Grant, Greek Apologists, pp. 36-39. Fo r the time of composition, see Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten, pp. 2 8 ff . A well-balance d an d detailed survey is found in Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, I (Freiburg, 1913), pp. 187—202. And see also Edgar Goodspeed, A History of Early Christian Literature, revise d an d enlarge d b y Rober t Grant (Chicago , 196 6 [originall y 1942]) , pp . 97-99 . Som e student s dat e Aristeides' composition slightl y earlier ; if i t has been presented to the emperor Hadrian, it must have been composed before a.d. 136. 3. Se e below, chapter 10, the second section. 4. Fo r a general assessment of Justin, see Grant, Greek Apologists, pp . 50-73; Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten, pp . 97-104; and mainly Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, I (Freiburg, 1913) , pp. 206-62. Justin Martyr did, in fact, play an important part in the crystallization of Christian liturgy, as has often bee n pointed out. See especially his First Apology, 61-67. Fo r an assessment, see , e.g., Han s Lietzmann, Geschichte der alien Kirche, I I (Berlin and Leipzig, 1936), pp. 121 ff., 12 6 ff.

Early Christian Apologists 10 5 5. See , e.g. , First Apology, 9 ; Second Apology, 12 ; an d Bardenhewer , Geschichte I , pp. 15 7 ff . 6. Fo r interestin g observation s o n th e possibl e impac t o f th e paga n audienc e on th e idea s an d form s o f Christia n apologists , se e Adol f vo n Harnack , Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (5t h ed., Tubingen, 1931) . 7. Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho, translate d b y A . Williams (Lon don, 1930) . 8. Fo r Tatian, see Grant, Greek Apologists, pp . 11 2 ff. , 124—32 ; Bardenhewer I, pp . 262—84 . Fo r Tatian' s rejectio n o f allegorica l explanation , se e hi s Address to the Heathen XXI , 6 . 9. Address to the Heathen XXIII , 3 - 4 . 10. Address to the Heathen XXII , 1 . 11. Fo r th e Epistle to Diognetus, it s write r an d addressee , se e Grant , Greek Apologists, pp . 178-79 ; Bardenhewer , Geschichte I , pp . 316—25 ; an d Goodspeed, A History of Early Christian Literature, pp . 105-6 . 12. Epistle to Diognetus, chapter s 2 (agains t idolatry ) an d 3 (against th e Jews). On th e Epistle an d it s author , see , i n additio n t o th e author s mentioned , Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten, pp . 41 ff. , 27 3 ff . 13. Fo r Athenagoras , se e Grant , Greek Apologists, pp . 100—11 ; Bardenhewer, Geschichte I , pp . 189-302 ; an d particularl y Geffcken' s commentar y t o Athenagoras's text in his Zwei griechische Apologeten, pp . 15 5 ff . 14. Thi s i s ho w h e wa s calle d i n a n ol d manuscript . Se e Grant , Greek Apologists, p . 100 . Geffcken , Geschichte, pp . 27 3 ff. , stresse s Athenagoras' s atti cism, and adduces many examples of styl e and metaphor . 15. Thi s question i s briefly touche d on b y Hugo Koch , Die altchristliche Bilderfrage nach den literarischen Quellen (Gottingen , 1917) , pp . 8 1 ff . An d se e also, i n general , W . Elliger , Die Stellung der alten Christen zu den Bildern in den ersten vier Jahrhunderten (Leipzig , 1930) . 16. Th e question of whethe r th e early Christian s approved of a "profane" art, a question occasionall y referre d t o i n nineteenth-centur y literature , nee d no t detain u s here . Interesting , a s a documen t o f nineteenth-centur y thought , are the observations b y J. C . W. Augusti , Beitrage zur altchristlichen Kunstgeschichte und Liturgik, I (Leipzig, 1841) , pp . 10 3 ff. ; I I (Leipzig , 1846) , pp. 8 1 ff . 17. Grant , Greek Apologists, p . 9. 18. Justi n Martyr , Apologies I , chapte r 9 . Se e The Writings of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, translate d b y M . Dods , G . Reith , an d B . P . Pratte n (Edinburgh, 1867) . 19. Octavius XXVII , 1 . See The Octavius of Minucius Felix, translated b y J. H. Freese (Londo n an d Ne w York , n . d.) , p . 77 . Th e precis e dat e o f Minuciu s Felix, an d o f th e compositio n o f Octavius, hav e no t bee n established , al though a great deal of researc h has been devoted to the subject. See Bardenhewer, Geschichte I , pp . 323-49 ; an d Goodspeed , A History of Early Christian Literature, pp . 16 6 ff .

i o 6 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

20. E . R . Dodds , Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine (Ne w York , 1970 [origina l publicatio n Cambridge , 1965]) , p. 38 . 21. Se e Dodds, Pagan and Christian, p . 117 . 22. Tatia n XII , 7. 23. Tatia n XV , 10 . Se e The Writings of Tatian and Theophilus, translate d b y B. P. Pratten, M. Dods , and T. Smith (Edinburgh , 1867) . 24. I n chapters 33-3 5 o f hi s Oration , Tatia n deride s Gree k sculpture , particu larly th e representation s o f th e gods . I n s o doing , h e howeve r provide s a n interesting lis t of commo n ritua l images . The lis t has attracted th e attentio n of student s o f ancien t art , an d severa l instructiv e studie s hav e bee n devote d to it. See, e.g., Puech , Recherches sur le Discours aux Grecs de Tatien (Paris , 1903), PP. 47 ff. 25. Tatia n XV , 8 . The y remai n visibl e becaus e the y neve r stri p themselves o f a residue o f materia l nature . Tha t demons , particularl y ba d ones , alway s remain materia l being s wa s commonl y believe d i n lat e Antiquity . Jamblic h claims tha t "matter " (hyle) an d "darkness " (als o conceive d a s materia l i n nature) ar e th e element s o f ba d demons . Se e Friedric h Cremer , Die Chaldaischen Orakel und Jamblich De Mysteriis (Meisenhei m a m Glan , 1969) , pp. 7 8 ff . 26. Athenagoras , chapte r 26 . Thes e demon s ar e mythica l being s o f venerabl e ancestry: the y ar e th e soul s o f th e biblica l giants , th e son s o f th e falle n angels and the daughters of ma n (Genesi s 6: 2 ff.) . 27. Justin , Dialogue with Trypho, 2.3-6 . Se e The Writings of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, translate d b y M . Dods , G . Reith , an d B . P . Pratte n (Edinburgh, 1867) . Th e Platoni c "conceptio n o f incorporeals, " h e her e says, "quit e overpowere d me , an d th e contemplation o f idea s furnishe d m y mind wit h wings. " Fo r som e observation s o n th e philosophica l implica tions o f Justin' s Platonism , cf . Harr y A . Wolfson , The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation (Cambridge , Mass. , 1956) , pp. 25 8 ff . 28. Athenagoras , 18 . The verse quoted is from Iliad XX, 131 . And cf. i n general J. Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten, pp . 19 6 ff . Fo r an earlier formu lation o f th e idea that the statue i s a means of approachin g God , se e above, the first section o f chapter 2. 29. Letter to Diognetus, chapte r 8 . 30. Aristeide s XIII , 3 . An d se e Joh n 1:18 : "N o ma n hat h see n Go d a t an y time"; 1 John 4:12, with the same wording; and 1 Timothy 6:16 . 31. Contra Celsum VII , 42 . I use th e Englis h translatio n b y Henr y Chadwick . See Origen, Contra Celsum (Cambridge , 198 0 [origina l editio n 1953]) , pp. 430 f . Cf . th e interestin g observation s b y R . P . Festugiere , La Revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste, IV , Le Dieu Inconnu et la Gnose (Paris , 1954) , pp . 119-23. Fo r Origen in our context, se e below, chapter 7 . 32. Justin , First Apology, chapte r 9.

Early Christian Apologists 10 7 33. I t i s wort h notin g tha t her e nam e an d shape , o r image , ar e equivalent . Se e also Justin, Second Apology, chapte r 6 , 3 . A s we hav e see n (chapte r 4 , th e section o n Plato's Cratylus), thi s ide a ha d a n importan t histor y i n ancien t Greek thought . 34. Aristeide s 1 , 5 .

SIX

Tertullian

In th e spiritua l worl d o f earl y Christianit y tw o approache s emerged , even if only vaguely, to support the rejection of images. One of them can be studied in the writings of Tertullian, the North African Churc h Father of th e early thir d century . Tertullian , a s is generally acknowledged , wa s the first grea t autho r t o presen t th e essential s o f Christia n theolog y i n the Lati n tongue . Perhap s mor e tha n an y othe r author , h e shape d th e Latin ecclesiastical language. 1 Some of the basic doctrines of the Church, such a s hereditar y sinfulness , ca n b e trace d t o hi s thought , an d th e impact i t ha d o n th e theologica l speculatio n o f late r ages. 2 H e wa s broadly educate d i n th e cultur e o f hi s time , familia r with Ciceronia n texts an d Stoi c doctrines . N o les s a witnes s tha n Eusebiu s testifie s tha t Tertullian wa s "a n expert in Roman la w an d famous o n other grounds." 3 He wa s familia r wit h man y an d differen t institution s o f th e Roma n world.4 Yet in spite of all the urbanity and sophistication, Tertullian was not a philosophically self-critical , reflectiv e thinker . He did not ask what 108

Tertullian 10

9

might be the shades o f a certain term , or how fa r his partisanship migh t be colorin g hi s judgment . Tertullian , th e churc h historia n Kar l Hol l suggests, was neithe r wha t w e woul d cal l a "scholar," nor a n "itineran t sage."5 Concretenes s is the most distinct quality of his thought and style, and it dominates his whole literary production. He always writes prompted by a specifi c condition , an d h e aim s t o provid e a n answe r t o som e specific an d pressin g question . Thi s attitude , pervadin g al l hi s writings , is also manifest i n what he has to say about the arts. Scholars hav e attempte d t o reconstruc t Tertullian' s intellectua l an d religious development , an d thu s als o establis h th e precis e date s o f hi s various treatises . A s coul d hav e bee n expected , opinion s diverge , some times o n rathe r crucia l questions . I t i s no t fo r u s her e t o g o int o thes e problems. Mos t students , however , see m t o agre e tha t mos t o f th e treatises that more or less directly bear on the arts were composed within a comparatively brie f period; they all belong to one decade. 6 That Tertullia n wrot e thes e treatise s i n shor t successio n i s no t reall y an indicatio n tha t a t thi s stag e o f hi s caree r h e wa s concerne d wit h problems o f aesthetics ; i t rathe r show s tha t a t th e tim e th e artisti c monuments wer e a challenge o f practica l urgenc y t o th e Christia n com munity, and our author felt he had to address it. These pertinent treatises are relatively short , an d for goo d reason s they are grouped amon g wha t is calle d Tertullian' s "practical " writings . Ou r autho r clearl y doe s no t aim a t clarifyin g concept s fo r clarity' s sake ; h e want s t o formulat e a n attitude tha t wil l serv e a s a guidelin e t o believers . I t i s th e practica l problems posed by the arts that he has in mind. It seems t o b e generall y agree d amon g student s o f Tertullia n tha t h e opened th e serie s o f treatise s dealin g wit h th e art s wit h hi s violen t invective agains t th e theater, On Spectacles (De spectaculis). 7 Belongin g to th e cultura l elit e o f Carthage , "th e secon d capita l o f th e Empire," he was familia r wit h th e institutio n o f th e theater , an d wa s wel l awar e o f the socia l an d psychologica l impac t o f th e performanc e o n stag e o r i n the circus. Eve n at this early period, oppositio n t o the theater was no t a new subjec t i n Christia n literature . On e generatio n befor e Tertullia n composed hi s treatise s th e Christia n apologis t Tatia n ha d attacke d th e theater.8 What Tatian attacks is the essential of art, the illusion it creates. Tatian's attack s howeve r ar e onl y part , eve n a mino r part , o f wha t h e has t o say . I t wa s Tertullia n wh o too k u p th e stag e performanc e a s a subject i n it s ow n right , o r a s a challeng e tha t ha d t o b e met . Wha t h e

n o The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

says abou t th e stage , th e pompa diaboli, wa s followe d b y Christia n teachers of man y centuries. At about th e sam e tim e (th e precise sequenc e i s disputed) ou r autho r wrote on e o f hi s treatise s agains t a heretic . Wha t i s importan t i n th e present context i s that Hermogenes , th e heretic attacked, wa s a painter. Against Hermogenes (Adversus Hermogenem) 9 therefor e als o contain s some remarks on the arts. Tertullian draw s a portrait of th e heretic, and the fac t tha t h e i s a painter play s a significant par t i n hi s hereti c physi ognomy. The nex t pertinen t treatis e was , i n al l likelihood , On the Apparel of Women (De cultu feminarum), 10 probabl y base d o n a sermon preache d in two successiv e parts . I t is a sermon agains t cosmetics , an d deals wit h women's behavior . I n fact, however , i t is directed agains t the moral an d theological implication s of destroying, or transfiguring, God' s image, the human being . I n Roma n poetry , satirica l an d otherwise , cosmetic s wa s often take n u p i n it s relationshi p t o painting ; bot h creat e a n illusio n that, even if convincing, i s bound to leave one dissatisfied. Bu t by investing this somewhat ligh t subject with th e religious fervo r of a n enthusiastic preacher , Tertullia n no t onl y change d it s character ; h e als o mad e cosmetics int o an important testimony of th e arts of illusion . Finally Tertullia n compose d On Idolatry (De idololatria) .n11 Fo r ou r subject thi s i s th e centra l text , an d w e shal l analyz e i t i n greate r detail . Here I should onl y lik e t o stres s tha t On Idolatry i s obviousl y no t a n isolated treatise ; rather , i t constitute s a clima x i n a proces s tha t laste d for almos t a decade. Her e different thread s of thought , expresse d i n th e writings mentioned, come together. Though, again, the treatise is written on a specific occasion , tryin g t o answe r specifi c questions , i t i s th e bes t formulation o f Tertullian's attitud e to the arts in general. The primar y ai m o f th e presen t study , a s I hav e alread y said , i s t o analyze the reasons the different Christian authors give for their attitudes to images. Ye t the attitudes themselves , thoug h the y have some essentia l elements in common, often diffe r considerabl y fro m each other. Even an individual author' s attitude s ar e ofte n no t sufficientl y clear . Frequentl y they requir e elucidation . Thi s i s als o tru e fo r Tertullian . Befor e w e attempt a n analysi s o f hi s motivations , i t wil l therefor e b e necessar y t o describe his opinions of th e arts. To a naiv e reader , undisturbe d b y comple x methodologies , Tertulli -

Tertullian i

n

an's attitud e t o th e visua l an d performin g art s seem s obvious : i t i s on e of utte r and total rejection . Not fo r nothing has he been denominated — with o r withou t reservation— a "Kunstfeind, " a n enem y o f th e arts. 12 His negativ e vie w o f th e art s is bes t see n i n th e fac t tha t h e treat s the m under the general headin g o f "idolatry. " Indeed, his treatise De idololatria contain s th e fulles t presentatio n o f hi s view s o f th e visua l arts . Th e argument o f thi s treatise, i t has been claimed , has no t bee n studied wit h sufficient care. 13 Thoug h thi s ma y indee d b e th e case , th e centra l idea s expounded there are clear. The opening sentences present a forced extension o f th e concep t o f idolatry . Idolatry , w e rea d a t the ver y beginning , is "the principal crime of the human race, the highest guilt charged upo n the world." Tertullian then goe s o n t o enumerat e th e majo r crime s tha t by necessit y follo w from—or , a s h e says , ar e include d in—idolatry : they ar e murder, adultery , fornication , fraud , an d a host of mino r vices. The literar y for m o f suc h a presentatio n wa s no t new . I n Hellenisti c philosophical literatur e i t wa s accepte d practic e t o describ e th e corrup tion o f societ y b y enumerating it s flourishing vices. But Tertullian coul d also hav e derive d th e devic e o f suc h listing s o f sin s an d vice s fro m n o less a sourc e tha n th e Ne w Testamen t itself : "Fo r th e tim e pas t o f ou r life ma y suffic e u s t o hav e wrough t th e wil l o f th e Gentiles , whe n w e walked i n lasciviousness , lusts , exces s o f wine , revelings , banquetings , and abominable idolatries"—t o giv e but one example ( i Pete r 4:3). 14 Some moder n student s hav e propose d a distinction betwee n Tertulli an's rejection o f idol s (whic h i s total an d unconditional) an d his attitud e to an y othe r image s th e artis t may make. 15 To m y mind , this distinctio n is har d t o maintain . Whil e i t i s true tha t Tertullia n expressl y condemn s only idols , h e neve r mention s an y othe r classe s o f images . Tha t image s other tha n idol s ar e no t explicitl y condemne d shoul d probabl y no t b e understood a s a tacit acknowledgmen t o f thei r legitimacy . Bu t there ar e also mor e outspoke n indication s o f Tertullian' s tota l rejectio n o f al l th e arts. Whe n h e say s tha t th e devi l ha s invente d th e artists , h e i s rathe r clearly definin g hi s overal l attitude . Idolatry , h e believes , ca n als o exis t without idols , an d i n fac t existe d befor e idol s wer e manufactured . "Bu t when the devil introduced int o the world artificers of statues and images, and o f ever y kin d o f likenesses, " th e worshi p o f th e fals e god s an d o f demons becam e instantl y fixated o n them. 16 An d a s i f t o mak e i t clea r that h e i s no t oppose d t o a specific ar t or t o a n individua l medium , bu t rather t o th e man-mad e image a s such , h e continues , "Thenceforwar d

i i 2 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

[after th e devil' s inventio n o f th e arts ] ever y ar t whic h i n an y wa y produces a n ido l instantl y becam e a foun t o f idolatry . Fo r i t make s n o difference whethe r a moulder cast , or a carver grave, or an embroidere r weave th e idol ; becaus e neithe r i s i t a questio n o f material , whethe r a n idol b e forme d o f gypsum , o r o f colors , o r of stone , o r o f bronze , o r of silver, o r o f thread. " Moreover , i t i s no t eve n essentia l tha t th e ido l b e cast i n huma n shape . Continuin g th e sentenc e jus t quoted , Tertullia n says, "Fo r sinc e eve n withou t a n ido l idolatr y i s committed , whe n th e idol i s there it makes n o difference o f wha t kin d i t be, of wha t material , or o f wha t shape ; les t an y shoul d thin k that only t o b e hel d a n ido l which i s consecrated i n human shape." In th e Christia n worl d o f th e thir d century , tha t is , shortl y afte r Tertullian's time , suspicio n an d disdain of th e artist were common. "N o oblations ma y be received fro m thos e who paint with colors, fro m thos e who mak e idol s o r worker s i n gold , silve r an d bronze, " say s a third century Syria c Didascalia. 17 An d i n a pseudo-Clementine Churc h order , a painte r i s pu t i n th e sam e lis t with a harlot , a brothe l keeper , a drunkard, a n actor , an d a n athlete. 18 Th e attitud e expresse d i n suc h orders mus t hav e bee n widespread; the y hardl y deriv e fro m Tertullian . But it was he who gave to the common belief s and opinions a theoretical formulation an d foundation . The sam e attitud e t o ar t an d artist s prevail s i n Tertullian' s othe r writings. Hermogenes , w e know , wa s a heretic . I n additio n t o holdin g and propagatin g fals e views , "h e exercise s th e ar t o f painting, a thin g forbidden."19 Tertullia n paint s th e portrai t o f a heretic , a portrai t i n which caricatural feature s ar e obvious. 20 Hermogenes, Tertullian says in the first chapter of th e polemical treatise , justifies hi s lusts by the biblical command of fertility, bu t when it comes to his art he despises the biblical command. H e cheats both with the pen and with the brush. Cheating by the pen , w e ar e le d t o believ e fro m th e text , follow s fro m stating , an d propagating, fals e beliefs ; cheatin g with th e brus h result s fro m th e very painting o f images . Thoug h Tertullia n doe s no t explicitl y sa y so , i t clearly follows fro m hi s text that he condemns artistic rendering as such, the ver y conjurin g u p o f convincin g illusions , an d doe s s o withou t relating it to the production of actua l idols. What i s perhap s no t explicitl y sai d i n th e polemica l treatis e Against Hermogenes i s full y state d i n De spectaculis. Her e Tertullia n clearl y condemns al l mak e believe . "An d i n regar d t o th e wearin g o f masks , I

Tertullian 11

3

ask," so he rhetorically exclaims , "is that according to the mind of God , who forbid s th e makin g o f ever y likeness , an d especiall y the n th e like ness o f ma n wh o i s Hi s ow n image ? Th e Autho r o f trut h hate s al l th e false; H e regard s a s adulter y al l tha t i s unreal." 21 Al l painting , w e cannot hel p concluding , i s fals e illusions , an d al l imag e makin g i s con demned. Let us now tur n to our proper subjec t and ask, wha t ar e the reasons fo r Tertullian's passionate condemnation of artistic images and stage performances? A carefu l reade r wil l no t fai l t o notic e tha t mor e tha n on e motive lies behind his negative attitude to the work of art . These motive s cannot alway s b e neatly distinguishe d fro m eac h other , bu t fo r th e sak e of clarit y I shall present them separately . 1. Art as a social danger. Tertullian' s primar y reaso n fo r rejectin g art , the motiv e h e mos t frequentl y mentions , i s the dangerou s an d sinfu l impact th e wor k o f ar t has o n th e individua l spectato r o r on societ y at large. The main feature i n Tertullian's approach to the work of ar t is awarenes s o f th e spectator' s reactio n t o it . Wha t matter s t o ou r author when considerin g the statue, the painting, or the performanc e is the impact on the audience. H e conceives of the work of ar t almost exclusively i n term s o f it s socia l consequence . Hardl y eve r doe s h e consider i t as detached fro m th e social context , a s an object embody ing unique and autonomous value s that are not reducible to anythin g else; he treat s work s i n th e differen t art s onl y i n term s o f wha t the y mean for , an d in , society . Here , i t shoul d b e emphasized , Tertullia n differs fro m th e mainstream o f ancien t aesthetics. Gree k an d Roma n reflection o n th e arts, it need hardly be said, was aware of th e abilit y of th e wor k o f ar t t o arous e th e spectator . Bu t thi s wa s onl y on e o f the differen t propertie s characteristi c o f th e wor k o f art . Ancien t thought develope d othe r concept s an d categorie s t o dea l wit h th e specific, uniqu e characte r o f art . Concept s suc h a s "th e imitatio n o f nature," th e creatio n o f a convincin g illusion , th e manifestatio n o f beauty, o r th e expressio n o f th e passion s ar e to o wel l know n fo r u s to presen t the m her e again . Every educated perso n i n the second an d third centurie s A.D. , on e shoul d assume , wa s familia r wit h thes e concepts. Bu t Tertullia n neve r eve n allude s t o them . Nowher e doe s he mentio n a figure's verisimilitude, th e convincin g illusio n achieve d

i i 4 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

by a painting, o r the beauty o f a statue. What he does consider , tim e and again , i s wha t th e statue , th e painting, an d th e performanc e do to people. In modern parlance we could say that for him the existence of a work o f ar t consists i n its effect o n the audience. The "being" of a work of ar t is its social impact . That Tertullian consider s th e ar t object a s the totality o f it s socia l consequences i s bes t see n i n On Idolatry. Thi s pamphlet , a s on e knows, i s a violen t denunciatio n o f statues . Bu t wha t specificall y i s wrong wit h th e statue ? Wh y actuall y i s th e carve d o r cas t imag e s o totally damnable? To Tertullian the answer seems obvious: the statue should b e condemne d becaus e i t i s a sinfu l object , an d i t i s a sinfu l object becaus e peopl e worshi p it . Wha t a statu e ma y b e i n itself , beyond it s meaning t o th e audience, doe s no t matte r at all. Nowher e do w e hav e a hin t tha t ou r autho r eve n considere d suc h a problem . The question simpl y di d not appear on his horizon. Ye t the ability t o affect th e spectator , Tertullia n seem s t o believe , i s a n essentia l char acteristic o f th e statue , an d o f ever y wor k o f art , a s such . Therefor e he no t onl y condemn s statue s tha t hav e actuall y bee n employe d i n idolatrous rituals , bu t reject s ever y statue , eve n thos e tha t hav e no t yet bee n produced . Th e reaso n i s tha t th e statue' s impac t o n societ y is boun d t o b e fatal . B y its very natur e i t i s capable o f bein g use d i n idolatrous worship , and , give n th e fallacie s o f huma n nature , i t wil l eventually promot e actua l idolatry . I n a somewha t dubiou s us e o f etymology h e explains , "Eidos, i n Greek , signifie s form; eidolon, derived diminutivel y fro m that , b y a n equivalen t proces s i n ou r lan guage, makes formling. Ever y form an d formling, therefore , claims to be called a n idol. Henc e idolatry i s 'al l attendanc e an d servic e abou t every idol. ' " 2 2 Tertullia n outline s th e cours e o f worl d history : a s a trait o f huma n nature , a s a n inbor n inclinatio n t o sin , ou r autho r would agree , idolatry goes bac k to the dawn of time; it was practiced even befor e peopl e learne d t o produce idols . But once th e image , th e artistic representation o f nature , as we would say, came into being, it instantly cam e t o serv e humanity' s idolatrou s drive : "Ever y ar t tha t in any way produce s a n idol instantl y becam e a fount o f idolatry." 23 Our desire to worship idols is not brought about by the artist's work; it is part of huma n nature . Bu t artistic activity evokes and furthers it . The artis t canno t preven t th e work h e or sh e produces fro m becom ing—almost unavoidably—th e objec t o f adoration . I t i s therefor e

Tertullian 11

5

the production o f statues—actua l o r potential idols—tha t i s prohibited. Turning to the artists Tertullian says , "You who make [images] , that the y ma y b e abl e t o b e worshipped , do worship." 24 Fo r thi s reason, h e thinks, the biblica l prohibitio n o f image s i s formulated a s a prohibition to make images. 25 No wonder , then , tha t Tertullia n devote s a considerabl e par t o f On Idolatry t o th e maker s o f images . Tha t h e s o attentivel y deal s with certai n professions , amon g the m th e carver s o f statues , clearl y indicates tha t they played a significant par t in the social realit y of th e African churc h o f hi s day . I t als o shows , however , tha t th e wor k o f art itself , th e representatio n o f realit y a s such , appear s t o hi m en dowed wit h th e potential t o mak e peopl e sin . The devi l invente d th e artist, th e make r o f images , becaus e th e devi l foresa w th e impac t th e artist's work woul d have on society . Tertullian doe s no t presen t systematically—whic h doe s no t sur prise us—th e channel s b y whic h th e work o f ar t reaches an d affect s the audience , an d thu s attain s it s ow n socia l existence . Here , a s i n other respects , w e mus t extract fro m hi s text s th e concept s an d categories h e must have employed in his thought, eve n though he did not state them expressis verbis. Tertullian seem s t o assum e tw o mai n channel s throug h whic h th e work o f ar t ca n mak e it s impac t o n th e individua l spectato r o r th e community a s a whole. On e is the well-known ide a of th e spectator' s emotional respons e t o wha t h e o r sh e sees , th e work' s abilit y t o arouse hi s o r he r passions . Tertullian' s awarenes s o f suc h a n emo tional impac t i s best seen i n his treatise o n th e theater. Th e Christia n is no t permitte d t o visi t th e theate r becaus e thi s institutio n i s s o closely relate d to certain passions: "Since, then, all passionate excite ment is forbidden to us, we are debarred from every kind of spectacle, and especiall y fro m th e circus , wher e suc h excitemen t preside s a s i n its proper element." 26 The emotiona l impact , however , i s onl y on e par t o f th e socia l existence o f a work o f art . When we carefull y conside r th e hierarch y of value s i n Tertullian' s min d w e se e tha t t o hi m emotio n i s no t th e principal aspec t i n th e socia l meanin g o f a work o f art . Mos t o f hi s attention is focused on the uses not in any way related to the passions that are made of a work of art. In modern times the emotional impac t of a painting, a statue, o r a play becam e a central par t o f it s rol e i n

n 6 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

society. I n th e earl y Christia n er a thi s wa s altogethe r different . Th e uses tha t Tertullia n actuall y envisage s ma y b e describe d a s institu tional o r ritual . Th e bes t exampl e i s o f cours e th e us e mad e o f a statue as an idol. Nowhere, it should be stressed, does Tertullian even vaguely sugges t that idolatry ha s any emotional character . The social character of th e work o f ar t may include it s emotional impact , bu t is never limited to it. 2. Images —an index of paganism. Closel y relate d t o th e reaso n fo r rejecting image s I hav e jus t outlined—seein g th e work o f ar t a s a danger to society—is anothe r one that also plays a significant par t in Tertullian's thought . Thoug h h e neve r define d it , th e ide a permeate s his writings . Th e image , th e statu e an d th e painting , an y objec t pertaining t o th e visual art s (b e it only a n artistically shape d militar y symbol)—this i s th e essenc e o f tha t secon d reason—al l thes e ar e indications an d embodiment s o f paganism . Whereve r ther e ar e im ages, there are pagan beliefs , pagan ways of living , and pagan culture in general. 27 Image s ar e a hallmar k o f paganism ; nothin g i s mor e characteristic o f paga n cultur e tha n th e us e of , an d th e attachmen t to, visua l images . Thi s descriptio n i s no t sufficient , however . Wer e we t o accep t i t w e woul d hav e t o assum e that , i n Tertullian' s view , paganism i s altogether outsid e th e images . Ye t h e thinks tha t image s are no t merel y symptom s o r illustration s o f paga n beliefs , o f paga n culture an d religion , bu t that the y partl y constitut e them . This bein g the case , th e Christian' s condemnatio n is , i n fact , prescribed . Sinc e Christians ar e calle d upo n t o sta y aloo f fro m th e paga n worl d sur rounding them , the y mus t necessaril y cu t themselve s of f fro m an y contact with images. To understan d Tertullian' s view s o f image s a s an index o f pagan ism, w e mus t recal l th e well-know n rol e o f image s i n th e officia l rituals of hi s time. It is best to turn to what he says about "the devil's pomp." I n bot h On Idolatry an d On Shows h e discusse s th e Chris tian's repudiatio n o f pompa diaboli whe n undergoin g th e ritua l o f baptism: "When entering the water, we make profession o f the Christian fait h i n the word s o f th e rule ; we bea r public testimony tha t w e have renounce d th e devil, hi s pomp, and his angels." 28 I n On Idolatry h e speaks of th e Christian cutting himself o r herself of f fro m "th e nations" in matter s o f externa l appearance. 29 Th e "devil' s pomp " is

Tertullian 11

7

part of the complex web of idolatry. "Therefor e what He was unwilling to accept , H e ha s rejected; what H e rejected, He has condemned; what He condemned, He has counted as part of the devil's pomp. . . . If yo u hav e forswor n 'th e devil' s pomp, ' kno w tha t whateve r ther e you touch i s idolatry." 30 We shal l no t discus s her e wha t pompa i n genera l mean t i n th e Roman world , no r wha t Christian s calle d pompa diaboli. Moder n scholarship ha s significantl y deepene d ou r understandin g o f thes e processions.311 should only like to note that the study of the differen t pompae o f th e Roma n worl d lead s u s bac k t o th e subjec t o f hol y images. These wer e carrie d i n many processions . Ho w fa r the Gree k pompa originall y include d th e carryin g o f images 32 i s a matte r fo r historians to decide. In Rome, however, the carrying of divine image s seems t o hav e bee n accepte d practice . The pompa circensis, a com mon typ e o f religiou s procession, 33 wa s a s a rul e conclude d b y th e bearers of the images of the gods, the climax of the whole procession . The statue s o f th e god s wer e born e b y th e leadin g me n o f th e prov ince, wh o wer e carefull y prepare d fo r thi s task . Carryin g th e god' s image wa s no t onl y a n honor ; i t wa s considere d a matte r o f divin e inspiration.34 Whatever the details in each specific case, the images of the paga n god s wer e indee d intimatel y relate d t o th e concep t o f th e pompa. Tha t thi s mos t paga n o f ritual s appeare d t o Christian s a s "devilish," as "the devil's pomp," needs no further explanation . Another contex t i n which th e close connectio n betwee n th e statu e and paga n religio n (an d a particula r typ e o f paga n procession ) i s displayed ar e th e cult s performe d i n associatio n wit h th e imperia l image. I n these politica l cult s the image an d the ritual were linke d i n many ways , i n th e proces s influencin g th e view s hel d o f both. 35 Imperial image s wer e als o specificall y carrie d i n processions . The meticulous regulation s fo r participation i n the processions are important expression s o f civi c ideology , and , a t the sam e time , document s of a religiou s attitude . Fo r th e carryin g o f th e emperors ' image s special official s wer e sometime s appointed . "Imperia l bearers " wer e chosen amon g th e youths o f som e easter n citie s o f th e Empire. 36 Fo r believers in a still imageless religion, such processions came very close to a pompa diaboli. Tertullia n ofte n evoke s th e specificall y paga n connotations o f th e imager y use d i n th e imperia l service . Ho w ca n a Christian b e a soldier , h e asks , whe n surrounde d b y visua l symbol s

n 8 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

of a distinctl y pagan-religiou s character ? Hi s importan t treatis e o n the soldier' s wreath 37 indicate s wha t h e though t o f officia l images , even if for obvious reason s he did not explicitly mentio n them. The clos e lin k betwee n th e statu e an d th e paga n god—s o close , indeed, tha t the forme r coul d almos t becom e a synonym o f th e latter —may als o explai n anothe r belie f tha t Tertullia n suggests , namely , that statues are the abode of demons. Speaking of the visual representations o f th e dea d (a n obviou s referenc e t o th e pompa funebris) Tertullian protests , "W e kno w tha t th e name s o f th e dea d ar e nothing, a s ar e thei r images ; bu t w e kno w wel l enough , too , who , whe n images ar e se t up , unde r thes e name s carr y o n thei r wicke d work , and exul t i n th e homag e rendere d t o them , an d preten d t o b e divin e —none othe r than the spirits accursed, than devils." 38 The ide a tha t demons dwel l in , or ar e attracted by , pagan statues , particularly statue s o f th e paga n gods , wa s ver y muc h i n th e ai r a t the time. Already Celsus , to mention only one of Tertullian's contemporaries, foun d i t necessar y t o debat e th e Christia n belie f tha t th e idols to whom offering s wer e made were actually demons. Origen, in his basi c wor k Contra Celsum, state s tha t "th e worshi p o f th e sup posed god s i s als o a worshi p o f demons . Fo r al l th e god s o f th e heathen are demons." 39 3. The artist—a rebel against God. Stil l another reason for condemnin g the wor k o f ar t i s tha t i t originate s in , an d testifie s to , th e ac t o f rebelling agains t God . Nowher e i n Tertullian' s writing s i s thi s ide a fully an d systematicall y stated , bu t i t i s suggeste d ofte n enoug h t o make i t possibl e fo r u s t o follo w th e argument . Th e shapin g o f a person, so that argument runs, is a function tha t rightfully belong s t o God alone . The artist , b y formin g a human imag e i n ston e o r paint , or b y impersonatin g a human bein g o n th e stage , i s competin g wit h God, i s attemptin g t o usur p God' s function . B y s o doin g th e artis t becomes—in a litera l sense—God' s adversary . Thi s Promethea n interpretation o f th e artist's act 40 bring s th e artist int o close proxim ity with the devil, God's principal antagonist . We shoul d kee p i n min d tha t Tertullia n see s th e worl d a s a stag e where God, "the Author of nature," constantly clashes with the devil, "the corrupte r o f nature. " I n th e treatise s w e hav e mentione d th e unmitigated contras t betwee n th e Author an d the corrupter i s stressed. What is "not God's must necessarily be His rival's," Tertullian says. 41

Tertullian 11

9

The duplication s o f natur e a s see n i n th e artist' s wor k d o no t origi nate in God; they are, therefore, necessaril y the devil's. In Tertullian' s thought , th e juxtapositio n o f Go d an d devi l i n human histor y become s t o a certai n exten t a juxtapositio n betwee n humanity's original stat e and its condition with the advent of culture. Tertullian's attitud e t o the idea of primitivis m i s rather complex, an d it i s no t fo r u s her e t o tak e u p thi s subject. 42 W e shoul d note , however, tha t h e consider s th e first state a s willed b y God , th e latte r as th e resul t o f corruptin g God' s work : "Ther e i s a vas t differenc e between th e corrupte d stat e an d tha t o f prima l purity , jus t becaus e there i s a vas t differenc e betwee n th e Creato r an d th e corrupter." 43 Now, ar t i s par t o f culture . The "corruption " i t bring s abou t i s clearly see n i n wilfull y changin g natur e a s Go d originall y shape d it . Every make-belie f i s corruption . Tak e th e exampl e o f th e actor . B y performing o n stage the actor tries to appear as somebody othe r than he or she really is, and is thus rebelling against God. 4. Rejecting catharsis. W e shoul d finally lik e t o mentio n ye t anothe r motive fo r rejectin g th e arts , thoug h i n man y respect s i t i s mor e problematic tha n th e reason s w e hav e discusse d s o far . Followin g Georg Lukacs , th e Marxis t criti c o f moder n literatur e an d philoso phy, w e ca n cal l thi s motiv e o f Tertullia n hi s "oppositio n t o cathar sis." 44 Thi s concep t i s les s explicitl y state d tha n others , an d Tertul lian himsel f ma y hav e bee n les s awar e o f it . Nevertheless , i t i s a n important component o f hi s attitude to the arts. Tertullian denies what we would call the independent realm of art, the mode of existenc e uniqu e to the work of art . He is of cours e full y aware o f th e powerfu l emotiona l effec t th e wor k o f ar t ha s o n it s beholder. Th e expressiv e characte r o f th e work o f art , it s magi c power t o sti r an d evok e emotions , i s mos t explicitl y discusse d i n hi s treatise o n th e theater , bu t i t als o occupie d hi s min d whe n h e wa s writing hi s othe r treatise s o n th e arts . The performanc e o n stag e i s far fro m bein g conceive d a s a mer e "play, " a performanc e lackin g full reality . O n the contrary: vividly and with a sense of great urgency Tertullian describe s th e disturbin g emotiona l effec t o f th e stag e per formance o n th e audience : "Fo r th e sho w alway s lead s t o spiritua l agitation, sinc e wher e ther e i s pleasure , ther e i s keennes s o f feelin g giving pleasur e it s zest ; an d wher e ther e i s keennes s o f feeling , ther e is rivalry giving in turn its zest to that." 45 The emotions the spectator

i2o The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

experiences i n the theater ar e real emotions. Continuin g th e sentenc e just quoted, our author says, "Then, too, where you have rivalry, you have rage , bitterness , wrath , an d grief , wit h al l th e ba d thing s tha t flow fro m them. " Because these feelings ar e real ones, people attend ing th e theater—and , b y implication , exposin g themselve s t o th e impact of an y work of art—forg o thei r power over themselves. Onc e the pla y opens , spectator s "fl y int o rages , an d passions , an d dis cords." 46 An d Tertullian o f cours e remembers : "N o on e partake s o f pleasures suc h a s thes e withou t thei r stron g excitements ; n o on e comes unde r thei r excitement s withou t thei r natura l lapses . Thes e lapses, again, create passionate desire. If there is no desire, there is no pleasure."47 Tertullian here undermines one of the basic assumptions of ancien t aesthetics, a n ide a tha t actuall y remaine d th e central thesi s i n justifi cations o f th e arts . Eve r sinc e Aristotle' s Poetics i t wa s generall y accepted tha t th e ver y ai m o f tragedy—and , b y implication , o f th e arts in general—is th e purification o f th e spectator's emotions . Tragedy, Aristotl e say s i n a famou s passage , "throug h pit y an d fea r effect[s] th e proper purgation of these emotions" (1449b). No furthe r words nee d b e wasted t o sho w ho w crucia l th e concep t o f catharsi s was t o aestheti c reflectio n i n late r periods . Now , i t i s precisel y th e stipulation tha t th e spectator' s emotion s ar e purifie d tha t Tertullia n altogether denies . Th e rag e an d discor d th e spectato r experience s when watchin g a play ar e real rag e an d discord, i n no respec t differ ing fro m th e rag e an d discor d arouse d b y an y regula r even t i n ordi nary life . A s w e condem n th e passion s i n rea l life , w e hav e t o con demn the passions arouse d b y the play. Moreover, th e emotion s produce d b y art , Tertullia n believes , ar e in a sens e eve n mor e t o b e condemne d tha n thos e experience d i n everyday life . Whil e the y ar e no t distinguishabl e fro m eac h othe r i n their destructiv e effect , i n th e violenc e t o whic h the y lead , th e pas sions provoked b y th e play are less justifiable tha n thos e experience d in nature . Th e spectator s o f th e pla y "ar e saddene d b y another' s sorrow, the y ar e gladdene d b y another' s joy . . . . Whatever the y de sire o n th e on e hand , o r detes t o n th e other , i s entirel y foreig n t o themselves. S o lov e wit h the m i s a useles s thing , an d hatre d i s un just."48 The actor's moral position i s even worse than the spectator's. The latte r ma y b e carried awa y (a s we woul d sa y today ) b y wha t h e

Tertullian 12

1

or sh e watches ; h e o r sh e lose s self-control . Th e actor—thi s seem s obvious t o Tertullian—i s consciousl y puttin g o n a n appearance . I t did no t cros s ou r author' s min d tha t th e acto r ma y experienc e som e empathy wit h th e hero h e i s representin g o n stage ; th e acto r simpl y "pretends." Referrin g t o th e variou s aspect s o f wha t th e acto r con jures u p o n stag e (bot h differen t character s an d differen t emotions) , Tertullian says , "Th e Autho r o f trut h hate s al l th e false ; H e regard s as adulter y al l tha t i s unreal . Condemning , therefore , a s H e doe s hypocrisy i n ever y form , H e neve r wil l approv e an y puttin g o n o f voice, o r sex , o r age ; H e neve r wil l approv e pretende d loves , an d wraths, and groans, and tears." 49 We need not go int o detail t o see the far-reaching consequence s o f this reasoning. Tertullian' s negatio n o f catharsi s necessaril y lead s t o querying, an d ultimatel y denying , an y particula r mod e o f existenc e that woul d b e uniquel y characteristi c o f th e wor k o f art . I f th e spectator's emotion s canno t b e purified, th e work o f ar t as suc h wil l eventually have to be rejected as a "lie." 50 How ar e w e t o plac e Tertullian' s view s o n ou r subjec t amon g th e doctrines rejectin g image s tha t wer e curren t i n hi s time ? T o determin e his specifi c locu s w e shal l hav e t o se t of f hi s doctrine s agains t tw o different, actuall y contrasting, trends of thought prevailing in late Antiquity: o n th e on e hand , w e mus t distinguis h hi s view s fro m thos e o f th e rationalistic critic s wh o hel d tha t th e belie f i n images wa s simpl y super stition; o n th e other , w e mus t demarcat e hi s attitud e fro m tha t o f thinkers wh o despaire d o f humanity' s abilit y t o portra y th e divine . Ou r comparisons, i t shoul d b e admitte d a t th e outse t o f thi s concludin g reflection, ar e often tentativ e an d hypothetical. T o som e extent they are, unfortunately, derive d fro m wha t Tertullia n di d not sa y o r eve n con sider. A n argumentutn e silentio, i t nee d hardl y b e said , i s o f dubiou s validity, an d a s a rul e on e i s happ y t o avoi d it . I n som e conditions , however, i t can brin g ou t mor e clearl y th e characte r o f a personality o r an historical phenomenon . Ancient rationalisti c criticis m o f th e popula r belie f i n images , i t wil l be remembered , presuppose d th e assumptio n tha t th e ico n itself , th e statue o r imag e o f th e god , i s nothin g bu t a piec e o f dea d matter , a n inanimate objec t deliberatel y cas t b y a perso n int o a particula r shape . To attribut e an y secre t powe r t o suc h a regula r object—s o antiqu e

122 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

rationalists thought—i s shee r superstition . I t wa s th e discrepanc y be tween th e mer e material , o n th e on e hand , an d th e irrationa l belief s i n its miraculou s power , o n th e other , tha t gav e ris e t o th e man y satirica l stories abou t th e go d wh o i s a n abod e fo r mice , th e goddes s whos e precious rob e ha s bee n stolen , o r replace d b y a cheaper one, an d a host of jokes in a similar vein. 51 Now, on e can claim that Tertullian agrees with the rationalistic critics in the final conclusion t o which thei r reflections lead—namely , th e total rejection o f th e worshippin g o f statues . Bu t whil e h e agree s wit h thei r conclusion, his reasons are altogether different . In tw o majo r respects , i t seems , Tertullian disagree s with th e ration alistic critics . First , h e disagree s i n th e vie w o f wha t a n idol' s prope r mode o f existenc e is . I n contras t t o th e critic s o f superstition , h e neve r considered th e ido l unde r th e aspec t o f it s materia l nature . O n th e contrary, as we have seen, 52 he insists that the material nature of the idol is totally irrelevan t t o th e functio n i t fulfils i n society. Wha t the apostle s of enlightene d cultur e considere d a s mer e superstition , Tertullia n per ceives a s th e idol' s tru e existence—people' s belief s i n wha t th e divin e image i s an d wha t i t can , o r cannot , do . Thi s i s no t a confusio n o f concepts, a result of taking a metaphor literally. To somebody traine d in the law , a s wa s Tertullian , i t woul d b e obviou s tha t considerin g th e social mod e o f a n idol' s existenc e i s no t th e sam e a s seein g it s materia l mode o f being . Th e proble m i s no t on e o f confusion ; i t i s rathe r a difference o f opinio n a s t o wha t th e ido l reall y is . I t i s her e tha t h e radically differ s fro m th e rationalisti c tradition . Th e socia l belief s i n what the idol i s are not external t o it; they are the idol. From this follows th e other point of disagreemen t wit h the rationalistic tradition : Tertullia n doe s no t belon g with thos e wh o ridicul e th e idol's helplessness. Onc e you conceive of th e idol a s a social, rather than as a material , object , i t cease s t o b e th e innocuou s piec e o f woo d o r stone tha t ha s b y chanc e bee n shape d int o th e imag e o f a god . I n Tertullian's view the image is not helpless; it is rather the powerful agen t of a foreig n religio n an d culture . On e i s tempte d t o sa y tha t i t wa s Tertullian who took th e image seriously. Trying t o distinguis h betwee n Tertullian' s attitude s an d thos e of — later—thinkers wh o queried , o r outrigh t denied , humanity' s abilit y t o see an d portra y th e divine , th e studen t i s i n a mor e difficul t situation . Tertullian simply di d not deal with thi s particular topic. The question of

Tertullian 12

3

what woul d b e th e statu s o f th e imag e wer e i t t o portra y th e true , i.e. , the Christian , God , simpl y neve r aros e i n Tertullian's thought . Fo r hi m the imag e i s firmly associated wit h th e foreig n god , no r doe s h e see m t o doubt tha t th e imag e i s full y valid , a t leas t i n al l thos e socia l respect s that actuall y matter . Tertullia n thu s doe s no t dea l wit h th e principl e o f God's invisibility , o r wit h humanity' s inabilit y t o perceiv e wha t i s be yond th e horizo n o f it s sensua l experience . I t wa s th e contributio n o f later ages to have placed this specific problem in the center of speculatio n on th e image of th e divine.

NOTES 1. A good summar y of the rather large and intricate literature is given by Hans Lietzmann, Geschichte der alten Kirche, II , Ecclesia catholica (Berli n and Leipzig, 1936) , pp. 222 ff. Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literature, I (Freiburg, 1913) , pp. 69 ff., call s him "creator of ecclesiastical language." 2. F . R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin (Cambridge, 1903) , pp . 328 ff. Interestin g materia l a s well a s penetratin g discussions o n our subject, an d Tertullian's par t in impressing i t upon late r Christian thought an d ritual, may now be found i n G. M. Lukken, Original Sin in the Roman Liturgy: Research into the Theology of Original Sin in the Roman Sacramentaria and the Early Baptismal Liturgy (Leiden , 1973) . 3. Eusebius , The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine II , 2.5. I use th e English translatio n b y G. A. Williamson (Pengui n Books , 1986) , p. 75. Fo r Tertullian's use of legal language , see A. Beck, Romisches Recht bei Tertullian und Cyprian (Schrifte n de r Konigsberger gelehrte n Gesellschaft , Geisteswiss. Klasse , 7. Jahr, Heft 2 ; Halle, 1930) . 4. Loren z Stager , Das Leben im romischen Afrika im Spiegel der Schriften Tertullians (Zurich , 1973) . 5. "Tertullia n al s Schriftsteller," bes t available i n Karl Holl , Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Kirchengeschichte, II I (Tubingen, 1928) , pp. 1 ff. 6. Th e most recen t proposa l fo r a chronolog y an d sequence o f Tertullian' s writings I kno w i s R . Braun , "Deus Christianorum": Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinale de Tertullien (Paris , 1962) , pp . 563-77. Thi s chro nology ha s been accepted by Jean-Claude Fredouille , Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique (Paris , 1972) , pp. 587 ff. 7. The Shows (De spectaculis), quote d i n the translation b y Rev. S. Thelwall, Ante-Nicene Fathers, HI (Michigan, 1976) , pp. 7 9 - 9 1 . 8. Se e Tatian, Oration, chapte r 22 , p. 230. And see above, chapter 5. 9. Fo r an English translation , see The Treatise against Hermogenes, translate d by J. H. Waszink, i n Ancient Christian Writers, no . 24 (New York , 1956) .

124 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

10. Quote d i n the translation b y Rev. S. Thelwall, The Ante-Nicene Fathers IV, pp. 14-2.5 . 11. Quote d i n the translation b y Rev. S. Thelwall, The Ante-Nicene Fathers III, pp. 61-77 . 12. See , e.g. , Hug o Koch , Die altchristliche Bilderfrage nach den literarischen Quellen (Gottingen , 1917) , p. 3 . Koch speaks of hi s "supposed" hostility t o the arts. 13. Se e T. D. Barnes, Tertullian (Oxford , 1971) , p. 99. 14. Se e also Revelations 22:15 . 15. Earl y Germa n researc h o f th e Church' s attitud e t o th e visual art s tended t o this view . See , e.g. , A . Knopfler , "De r angeblich e Kunsthas s de r erste n Christen," Festschrift Georg von Hertling zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (Kempten an d Munich, 1913) , pp. 41--48. 16. On Idolatry, chapte r 3 ; p. 6 2 o f th e Englis h translation . H e come s bac k t o the origin s o f th e art s i n On Shows, chapte r 10 , p . 8 4 o f th e Englis h translation. 17. Se e th e Germa n translation, b y H . Acheli s an d J . Fleming , i n Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Neu e Folge , X (Leipzig, 1904) , chapte r 18 . An d se e als o Edwy n Bevan , Holy Images: An Inquiry into Idolatry and Image-Worship in Ancient Paganism and in Christianity (London , 1940) , p. 86 . 18. Quote d afte r Bevan , Holy Images, p . 86. 19. Against Hermogenes, chapte r 1 . English translation, p. 26 . 20. Fo r such portraits i n Tertullian's writings, and fo r his origins in the rhetorical tradition of Rome , see Fredouille, Tertullien et la conversion, pp . 3 8 ff . 21. The Shows, chapte r 23 ; p. 8 9 of th e English translation . 22. On Idolatry, chapte r 3 ; p. 62 of th e English translation . 23. On Idolatry, chapte r 3 ; p . 6 2 o f th e Englis h translation . A s w e hav e jus t seen, "idol" just means any kind of form . 24. On Idolatry, chapte r 6, p. 64 of the English translation . 25. On Idolatry, chapte r 4 , p . 6 2 o f th e Englis h translation . Al l th e biblica l formulations d o indee d spea k o f th e making o f images . "Y e shall mak e yo u no idol s no r grave n image " (Leviticu s 26:1) ; "Tho u shal t no t mak e unt o thee an y grave n image , o r an y likeness " (Exodu s 20:4) ; "Tho u shal t no t make unt o the e an y grave n image , or an y likeness " (Deuteronomy 5:8) . S o far as I know, in former times this formulation ha s not led commentators t o read thes e sentence s a s directe d particularl y agains t artis t an y mor e tha n against users of suc h images. 26. On Shows, chapte r 16 ; p . 86 . A classi c earl y Christia n descriptio n o f a n audience carried away b y the passion arouse d by what it sees in the arena is found i n Augustine' s Confessions (Boo k Six , chapte r 8) . Eric h Auerbach , Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Garde n City, N.Y., 1957) , pp. 58-66 , ha s devoted a penetrating analysi s t o thi s description.

Tertullian 12 5 27. Fo r th e genera l background , cf . Pete r Brown , Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity (Berkeley , Lo s Angeles , Oxford , 1982) ; an d Sabin e G . Mac Cormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley , Lo s Angeles , London, 1981) . 28. On Shows, chapte r 4 ; p. 8 1 o f th e English translation . An d cf. als o S . R . F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cam bridge, 1984) . 29. On Idolatry, chapte r 13 ; pp . 6 8 f . o f th e Englis h translation . "Th e first point, indeed , o n whic h I shall joi n issu e i s this : whethe r a servant o f Go d ought t o shar e wit h th e ver y nation s themselve s i n matter s o f this kind , either in dress, or in food, o r in any other kind of thei r gladness." 30. On Idolatry, chapte r 18 ; p. 73 o f th e English translation . 31. A surve y o f th e differen t pompae i s give n b y F . Bome r i n Pauly-Wissowa , Realenzyklopadie der klassischen Altertumer XXI , cols. 187 8 ff. , s . v. pompa . Cf. als o Enciclopedia di arte antica VI , pp . 30 7 ff . Fo r th e pompa diaboli, see th e stud y b y J. H . Waszink , "Pompa diaboli," i n Vigiliae Christianae, I (1947), pp . 13-41 . Fo r som e broade r contexts , se e H . S . Versnel , Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development, and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden , 1970) , pp. 94 ff . 32. Se e Walte r Burkert , Greek Religion (Cambridge , Mass. , 1985) , pp . 9 9 ff . (The original editio n o f thi s work, Die griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, appeare d i n 1977 , Stuttgart) . Tha t a t leas t som e agalmata o f th e gods wer e carried seems to b e generally accepted . Cf . Loui s Robert, Opera Minora Selecta, I I (reprint Amsterdam, 1969) , p. 1009 . 33. Fo r th e pompa circensis i n Rome , cf . G . Wissowa , Religion der Romer (Handbuch de r klassischen Altertumswissenschaf t 5 , 4; Munich, 1912) , pp. 127,452. 34. Se e th e interestin g descriptio n i n Macrobius , Saturnalia I , 23 , 1 3 (Englis h translation b y P . V . Davie s [Ne w Yor k an d London , 1969] , p . 151) : "Fo r the statu e o f th e go d o f Heliopoli s i s born e i n a litter , a s the image s o f th e gods ar e carried a t the procession a t the Circensian Games , and the bearer s are generally th e leadin g me n o f th e province . Thes e men , wit h thei r head s shaved, an d purifie d b y a lon g perio d o f abstinence , g o a s th e spiri t o f th e god moves them and carry the statue not of their own will but whithersoever the god directs them." 35. Cf . Price , Rituals and Power, pp . 18 8 ff . 36. Ibid. , p . 189 , referrin g mainl y t o Robert , Opera Minora Selecta II , pp . 1275 ff .

37. De corona militis, chapter s 1 7 ff . 38. On Shows, chapte r 10 ; p. 84 of the English translation. 39. Se e Origen , Contra Celsum, VII , translate d b y Henr y Chadwic k (Cam bridge, 1980) , 69 (p . 452 of th e translation). See also VIII, 24 (pp . 469 ff.) . 40. I t i s perhap s wort h notin g tha t Tertullia n nowher e seem s t o mentio n Pro metheus. We can safely assume , however, that he was familiar not only wit h

n 6 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

the stor y itself , bu t als o wit h th e specifi c interpretation s tha t stresse d tha t hero's rebellious character. 41. On the Apparel of Women, chapte r 8 ; p. 1 7 of the English translation. 42. Se e Arthu r Lovejoy , " 'Nature' a s a Nor m i n Tertullian, " i n th e author' s Essays in the History of Ideas (Ne w York , i960) , pp. 308-38. An d see also George Boas , Essays on Primitivism and Related Ideas in the Middle Ages (Baltimore, 1948) , pp. 1 7 ff., 8 8 ff. , 123 . 43. On Shows, chapte r 2 ; p. 80 of Englis h translation . 44. Geor g Lukacs , Die Eigenart des Asthetischen, 2 . Halbban d (Luchterhand , n. d.), pp. 692 ff. , 74 8 f . 45. On Shows, chapte r 15 ; p. 86. 46. On Shows, chapte r 16 ; p. 86. 47. On Shows, chapte r 15 ; p. 86. 48. On Shows, chapte r 16 ; p. 86. 49. On Shows, chapte r 23 ; p. 89. 50. Lukacs , in th e discussion quote d abov e (se e not e 44), thinks that Tertullia n only occasionall y sink s t o th e lo w leve l o f considerin g th e art s a s a "lie. " Implicitly, I believe, thi s perspectiv e i s unavoidable i f on e denie s the particular character of the passions arouse d by the work of art. 51. Se e above, chapter 3. 52. Se e above, chapter 6.

SEVEN

Origen

An argument, som e philosophers say , may sometimes unfold i n a historical process . It s contents , it s variou s step s an d aspects , ar e brough t t o light in stages, and each stag e ma y las t a generation o r even longer. The evolution o f th e Christia n rejectio n o f image s i s a n instructive example . After Tertullia n complete d hi s work , a ne w stag e began , revealin g an other facet of th e great problem tha t engaged th e energy and thought o f so many generations. That stage is well represente d by Origen. Surviving Tertullian b y abou t thirt y years , Orige n gav e a new tur n to th e attitud e towards images . Thi s i s no t t o sugges t a direc t successio n o f though t between th e tw o theologians . Ther e i s n o nee d fo r u s t o suppos e a continuous traditio n i n orde r t o se e tha t th e questio n itself—th e poten tial of th e argument—is carrie d further b y the later thinker. Both Tertullian an d Orige n live d in Northern Africa, 1 bu t they reflec t two differen t cultures . No t onl y th e differenc e o f language , Lati n i n the West, Gree k i n th e East , separate d th e wester n province s o f Tertullia n 127

128 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

and the eastern ones of Origen; more important was the marked contrast in intellectua l orientation : Roma n la w an d th e prevailin g socia l institu tions wer e Tertullian' s centra l sourc e o f inspiration ; fo r Orige n i t wa s the venerable tradition of Greek literary culture. Eusebius, who recount s the lives of bot h teachers , praises Tertullian fo r his expertise in law, an d tells us that Origen "devote d himsel f entirel y an d with growing enthusi asm t o th e humanities , s o tha t h e acquire d considerabl e abilit y a s a literary man." 2 When w e com e t o th e specifi c subjec t o f ou r study—th e attitud e t o images—a significan t shif t i n both th e tone an d the circumstance o f th e discussion become s apparent . Origen , i t seems , i s les s concerne d wit h images than was Tertullian. He speaks of them less frequently, an d in all his hug e outpu t h e di d no t devot e a singl e treatis e t o th e subjec t o f th e arts. No t les s importan t i s th e fac t that , wheneve r h e doe s spea k o f images o r th e arts , hi s ton e betray s littl e o f th e passionat e involvemen t that is so typical of Tertullian's writings on these matters. But in addition to th e difference s i n ton e an d temperament , ther e ar e als o profoun d differences i n intellectua l context . Origen , unlik e Tertullian , doe s no t write primaril y t o solve specifi c problem s directl y pose d b y immediat e social reality ; hi s concern s ar e mor e comprehensive . Ther e ha s bee n a n interesting debate a s to whether , an d i n what sense , Orige n ca n be see n as a "systematic" thinker. 3 Whateve r th e conclusio n scholar s wil l reac h as t o Origen' s wor k i n general , ther e ca n b e littl e doub t tha t wha t h e says abou t image s i s pronounce d i n wha t on e migh t cal l a "systemati c context." Hi s severa l scattere d remark s see m t o provid e th e beginning s of a speculative Christia n attitude towards images. It is not my intention to survey the whole of Origen' s writings, even if only t o focu s i n the m o n th e proble m o f divin e images . Fo r the presen t study it will b e sufficient t o analyz e in some detail a few o f th e pertinent passages fro m hi s grea t polemica l work , Contra Celsum, 4 a s wel l a s from De principiis, whic h i s probably his main contribution to a systematic theology. A good startin g point fo r ou r investigatio n i s the religious an d political Utopia that Origen outlines, projecting onto the biblical past the wish fulfilment o f hi s presen t needs . Th e idea l societ y o f th e Hebrews , a society i n whic h religiou s demand s hav e becom e a politica l reality , ha s no roo m fo r artists . Amon g th e ancien t Hebrews , Orige n says , "non e was regarde d a s Go d othe r tha n th e suprem e God , an d non e o f thos e

Origen 12

9

who made images possessed citizenship. There were no painters or image makers in their society." 5 Reading Origen' s descriptio n o f hi s Utopia n society , on e canno t hel p being reminde d o f th e idea l poli s tha t Plat o project s ont o th e future . From th e philosopher' s imaginar y city , a s on e knows , poet s an d artist s are also excluded. "An d now," says Plato after long deliberations, "we may fairly take him [the poet] and place him by the side of the painter, for he i s lik e hi m i n tw o ways : first , inasmuc h a s hi s creation s hav e a n inferio r degree of truth—i n thi s way , I say, h e is lik e him ; and he is also lik e him in being the associate o f a n inferior par t of th e soul; and this is enough t o show that we shall b e right in refusing to admit him into a State which is to be well ordered, because he awakens and nourishes this part of the soul, and by strengthening it impairs reason."6 Plato tell s u s precisel y wh y h e wishe d t o exclud e poet s an d painter s from hi s ideal polis. Origen is perhaps less explicit, but closer inspectio n will sho w tha t th e reasons h e adduces fo r the Hebrews' exclusion o f th e image maker s fro m thei r ideal , o r holy , society , wer e i n fac t no t s o fa r removed fro m Plato's . Bot h Plat o an d Orige n assum e tha t th e artis t appeals, o r bring s th e spectator , t o wha t i s perceive d a s "low." 7 Bu t what i t i s that i s so describe d differ s i n the philosopher an d th e Churc h Father. Plat o disclose s hi s conceptua l fram e o f reference . Hi s term s ar e borrowed fro m scientifi c psychology , o r fro m philosophica l anthropol ogy. Th e imitativ e poet , lik e th e painte r wh o produce s illusionisti c pic tures, "indulges the irrational nature " of humanity . They both appeal t o an "inferio r par t o f th e soul, " instea d o f tryin g t o "pleas e o r affec t th e rational principl e i n th e soul." 8 N o wonde r tha t thei r work s hav e a n "inferior degre e o f truth, " an d tha t the y shoul d b e exclude d fro m th e community. Origen' s fram e o f referenc e i s theologica l metaphysic s rathe r than psychology . The imag e makers , w e read , ar e exclude d fro m th e biblical poli s "i n orde r tha t ther e migh t b e n o occasio n fo r th e makin g of image s whic h take s hol d o f unintelligen t me n an d drag s th e eye s o f their sou l dow n fro m Go d t o earth." 9 Her e th e "high " an d "low " ar e not layer s i n th e huma n mind , bu t rathe r symboli c strat a i n a compre hensive conceptual cosmos . The "high" is God, the "low" is earth. In a discussio n o f Origen' s attitud e t o th e visua l art s i t ma y b e o f particular interes t t o understan d i n wha t precisel y th e "low " o r terrestrial characte r o f a work o f ar t consists. Thi s i s no t a n easy questio n t o answer. Al l we kno w fro m hi s words is that the work of ar t "drags" the

130 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

spectator's ey e downwards , preventin g hi m fro m contemplatin g th e di vine b y makin g hi s eye s focu s o n wha t belong s t o th e earth . Bu t th e author doe s no t tel l u s how , i n wha t way s an d b y whic h means , th e work o f ar t contrive s t o perfor m thi s feat , no r wha t i s specificall y terrestrial i n a paintin g o r a piec e o f sculpture . Th e student , keepin g some medieva l interpretation s of ar t in mind, could perhaps assume that by "terrestrial " Orige n her e understoo d th e specifi c materia l natur e o f the wor k o f art . However , Orige n neve r refer s t o th e specifi c material s of which images are made. The failure to mention materials may, at least in some cases, indicate an underlying conception o f what actuall y make s a wor k o f art , i n particula r tha t th e materia l natur e o f th e ar t object i s of n o consequenc e fo r it s artisti c nature . T o b e sure , thi s conception , i f indeed it ever existed, remained mute . Perhaps a somewha t close r loo k a t a detail— a topo s i n ancien t literature—may hel p t o mak e mor e clea r wha t th e failur e t o mentio n materials may mean. Origen , one is not surprised to see, was acquainte d with th e literary traditions widel y curren t among th e educated i n Antiquity concerning famou s artist s and works o f art . "Some image-makers, " he says , "d o thei r wor k wit h wonderfu l success. " Amon g sculptor s h e adduces th e canoni c name s o f Phidia s an d Polycleitus , amon g painter s the no t les s canoni c name s o f Zeuxi s an d Apelles . H e eve n specificall y mentions Phidias' s famou s statu e o f Zeus. 10 I t goes withou t sayin g tha t he had not seen the famous statue, nor any other work b y Phidias or any other of th e masters he mentions. Speakin g of thes e statues an d picture s is for Origen , a s for so man y educated gentleme n i n Antiquity, par t of a literary heritage , a hallmark o f adherenc e t o a cultural tradition . Bu t he treats th e differen t component s o f thi s traditio n selectively . I t was par t and parcel o f th e ver y sam e traditio n t o spea k o f th e precious material s employed i n Phidias' s imag e o f Zeus , an d i n th e wor k o f artist s i n general. A s typica l an d influentia l a n autho r a s Quintilia n describe s Phidias, i n connectio n wit h hi s statu e o f Zeus , a s particularl y excellen t in hi s wor k i n ivory. 11 An d ye t Origen , whil e extollin g th e succes s an d skill o f th e work, doe s no t mentio n th e materials. I t is difficult t o accep t this omissio n a s simpl y a matte r o f negligenc e o r forgetfulness . Shoul d one no t rathe r infe r tha t th e materia l o f whic h a statue , o r an y othe r work o f art , is made is of limite d significance i n his thought? This might also mea n tha t materials , eve n i f precious , ar e no t th e embodimen t o f the terrestria l qualit y o f th e wor k o f art . B e that a s i t may , ther e seem s

Origen 13

1

to b e nothin g i n Origen' s text s t o support th e assumptio n tha t b y "ter restrial" he had specifically "material " in mind. What, then, is the low o r terrestrial domai n that Origen juxtaposes t o the divine? 1 venture the suggestion that what he has in mind is the realm of sensual experience as such. Regardless of whether the image perceived is a tangibl e materia l objec t o r a mer e apparitio n devoi d o f an y sub stance, onc e i t i s perceive d b y th e sense s i t i s par t o f th e terrestria l domain. Origen , t o b e sure, nowher e say s a s much, but i n followin g hi s thought on e i s tempte d t o reac h th e conclusio n I hav e jus t proposed . That h e di d no t conside r th e materia l o f whic h image s ar e made—th e marble, th e bronze , o r th e paint—a s th e qualit y attachin g the m t o th e terrestrial ma y perhap s b e understoo d mor e clearl y fro m a passag e i n which he says that "all those who look a t the evil productions of painters and sculptor s an d image-maker s si t i n darknes s an d ar e settle d i n it , since the y d o no t wis h t o loo k u p an d ascen d i n thei r min d fro m al l visible an d sensibl e thing s t o th e Creato r o f al l wh o i s Light." 12 Th e "visible an d sensible, " then, ar e lumped together . I t is the fac t tha t the y are perceive d b y th e sense s tha t i s th e criterio n o f th e imag e makers ' productions' "terrestriality. " Th e spiritualizatio n o f virtues , describin g them no t onl y a s lackin g matte r bu t als o a s remove d fro m an y kin d o f sensual experience , ma y b e understoo d a s lending additiona l suppor t t o such a reading . "Ou r altars, " says Origen , "ar e th e min d o f eac h righ teous man, " and the "tru e an d intelligible incens e wit h a sweet savour " is the prayer from a pure conscience. 13 At this stage the student cannot help asking what actually were Origen' s reasons fo r condemnin g images . T o b e sure , whe n compare d wit h Ter tullian's furiou s attack s o n carve d o r painte d figures, Origen' s ton e strikes th e reade r a s restrained , almos t calm . Ye t behin d tha t softe r manner of expressio n ther e is obviously a rejection of th e image makers' products no t less firm than Tertullian's. Why, then, does Origen cast out images? Reviewing th e fe w passage s quote d s o fa r i t would see m that , excep t for th e differenc e i n ton e an d temperament , ther e i s littl e new . Th e argument seem s t o hav e remaine d ver y muc h th e sam e a s i t wa s a generation o r tw o befor e Origen . Wha t w e hav e see n o f hi s occasiona l reflections o n images actually revolves around their social role. Draggin g down th e beholder' s min d an d attentio n fro m th e uppe r t o th e lowe r

132 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

spheres, fro m th e celestia l t o th e terrestrial—this stil l clearl y belong s t o the impac t o f image s o n th e spectator , o n wha t image s d o t o us . Lik e Tertullian, h e to o believe s tha t th e statue s o f paga n god s becom e th e abodes o f demons. 14 Ther e i s littl e doub t tha t th e comprehensiv e tradi tion tha t manifeste d itsel f i n Tertullian's violen t writing s als o form s th e broad background of Origen' s thought. That Orige n belong s t o th e sam e traditio n w e hav e alread y encoun tered in the thought o f hi s predecessors, tha t he has essentially th e sam e distrust o f image s i n general , an d o f image s o f th e divin e i n particular , should no t preven t us from seein g tha t in the history o f ou r problem h e actually represent s a ne w departure . Hi s observation s o n th e icon , fe w and general a s they are , announce a radicalization o f th e question s tha t occupied th e minds of man y theologians, an d that perhaps have not lost their urgenc y t o thi s ver y day . Th e pivota l tur n tha t make s Orige n a landmark figure in the unfoldin g o f ou r problem, a s in the histor y o f s o many aspect s o f Christia n theology , ca n b e understoo d fro m severa l points of view. Tertullian, his forerunners, and most of his contemporaries wh o indulge d i n theologica l reflectio n almos t invariabl y ha d th e representations o f pagan god s i n min d whe n the y s o violentl y repelle d divine images , o r "idols. " Th e moder n reade r o f thei r text s mus t as k what mad e the m attac k th e idol s s o fiercely: Wa s i t becaus e o f thei r claim t o b e depiction s o f th e divine , o r wa s i t rathe r becaus e the y wer e images of false gods? Ofte n eve n the most carefu l consideratio n o f earl y Christian text s doe s no t see m t o lea d t o a clear answer . Th e concep t o f the "idol," as it was used in Christian thought of th e first centuries, was a blend o f visua l representatio n an d the false god . The tw o component s of th e concept s canno t b e separate d fro m eac h other . An y Christia n rejection of idol s referred to both of them. In Origen' s doctrin e th e proble m o f picturin g th e divin e i s no t a central theme , bu t eve n i f i t i s marginal , h e pose s th e questio n i n a context differen t fro m tha t inherite d fro m forme r generations . A s a result, th e proble m become s a ne w one . I n readin g Origen' s extensiv e writings on e observe s ho w littl e attentio n h e devote s t o idol s proper , that is , to th e statue s o r icon s o f th e paga n god s (regardles s o f whethe r they ar e actuall y worshipped) . Hi s theolog y raises—probabl y fo r th e first time o n a broa d scal e i n th e Christia n tradition—th e proble m o f the ico n a s such , detache d fro m an y lin k with th e fals e god . Whe n

Origen 13

3

discussing image s o f th e divine , Orige n a s a rul e speak s o f icon s o f Christ, tha t is , o f image s o f th e true God . Whethe r thes e icon s actuall y existed i s a matte r o f speculation , a questio n fo r historian s t o debate . For our purpose , however , i t i s no t crucia l whethe r icon s wer e actuall y visible a s materia l objects , o r whethe r Orige n discusse d the m becaus e their absence wa s pointe d ou t b y th e opponents o f Christianity. 15 Wha t is crucial i s that th e claim tha t idol s portra y fals e god s ca n no longe r b e the reason fo r rejecting the image. Now tha t Christ was portrayed in the icon, on e ha d t o formulat e a n attitud e t o th e imag e itself . I f I believe i n the God represented, do I also accept his image? When Orige n speak s o f th e "image, " i t shoul d b e kep t i n mind , h e often leave s u s in doubt a s to what precisely h e means: I s he thinking of the material ico n produced b y a painter or sculptor, or is he rather using the term i n a metaphorical sense ? I n other words, ar e we movin g i n the realm of sensua l experience , o r in that of intellectua l suggestion ? Orige n was wel l awar e o f th e ambiguit y o f th e term . I n a n attemp t t o explai n how on e shoul d understan d th e apostl e Paul' s clai m tha t Chris t "i s th e image o f th e invisibl e God " (Col . 1:15 ) Orige n say s tha t h e wil l star t with wha t "accordin g t o huma n custo m on e i s use d t o cal l 'images ' [imagines]" Sometimes , h e says , a painted o r carved depictio n i s calle d image, bu t sometimes wha t i s generated i s called a n image of th e generator, i f th e resemblanc e betwee n th e two i s so obviou s tha t i t cannot b e denied.16 Whether o r no t Orige n present s a Christian versio n o f Gree k philos ophy (a s some student s clai m an d others deny), 17 al l scholars agre e that the tex t an d exposition o f th e Bible stand i n the center of hi s work. Hi s reading of the biblical metaphors in which the invisible god is personified is therefore o f obviou s significanc e fo r ou r understandin g o f hi s attitud e to images . Now , i t i s wel l know n tha t Orige n mad e us e o f th e concep t of the "spiritual meaning" of th e sacred text. "Th e Scriptures," he wrote in th e introductio n t o De principiis, "wer e compose d b y th e Spiri t o f God an d the y hav e no t onl y tha t meanin g whic h i s obvious , bu t als o another whic h i s hidde n fro m th e majorit y o f readers . Fo r the content s of Scriptur e ar e th e outwar d form s o f certai n mysterie s an d th e image s of divin e things." 18 The principle of a "spiritual meaning" that is different fro m the literal meaning of th e text i s obviously applicabl e t o the many biblica l descrip -

134 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

tions o f Go d tha t attribut e t o Go d huma n traits . Celsius , Orige n says , has no t properl y graspe d th e tru e meanin g o f th e anthropomorphi c metaphors i n the Bible: Again, perhaps because Celsius misunderstood the words "For the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things," and perhaps also because some of the uneducated have been hasty in interpreting sayings like this, and because he did not understand with what object the Bible uses the names of physical limbs in reference to the powers of God, he says "He has neither mouth nor voice."19 However thes e an d simila r passage s ma y b e interpreted , wha t the y ultimately sa y i s that ther e i s a hiatus betwee n th e bodil y metapho r an d what that metaphor attempts to describe. In thi s contex t th e biblica l them e o f humanit y bein g create d "i n th e image of God " is inescapable. I n what sens e is humanity create d "i n the image of God" ? Orige n proposes a distinction betwee n "i n the image of God" an d "Hi s image. " Lumpin g togethe r differen t part s o f Scriptur e ("in th e imag e o f God " i s take n fro m Genesi s 1:27 , "Hi s image " fro m the Epistle to the Colossians 1:15 ) h e says, Then Celsus failed to see the difference betwee n what is "in the image of God" and His image. He did not realize that the image of Go d is the firstborn o f all creation, the very Logos and truth, and, further, the very wisdom Himself, being "the image of hi s goodness," whereas ma n was mad e "in the image of God," and, furthermore, every man of whom Christ is head is God's image and glory.20 We canno t her e tak e u p the fin e point s o f Origen' s exegesi s o f Scrip ture. However , a s fa r a s ou r proble m i s concerned , th e basi c lin e o f hi s reasoning i s clear . Tha t humanit y wa s create d "i n th e imag e o f God " does not refer to the whole person, body and soul. The metaphor "in the image of God " can be related t o a specific aspec t of humanit y only , an d that aspect , i t turn s out , i s no t eve n a componen t o f a perso n i n th e regular sens e o f tha t word . Th e body , i t goes withou t saying , i s no t th e part o f th e perso n tha t i s specificall y "i n th e imag e o f God, " a s tha t would mak e Go d a simpl e bodil y creature . Bu t als o th e whol e person , composed a s he or she is of bod y and soul, cannot have been created "in the imag e o f God. " Were w e t o accep t th e whol e perso n a s created "i n the imag e o f God, " we woul d hav e t o conceiv e o f Go d a s a composit e being. "An d none of u s says that," Origen declares. The only possibilit y that remains is that what was created in the image of God and can attain perfection i s "the inward man, as we call it." 21

Origen 13

5

Whatever the implications, philosophical o r otherwise, of th e concep t of "inwar d man, " it obviously make s th e pictorial representatio n o f th e divine eve n mor e difficul t tha n i t already was. No continuit y lead s fro m the "inwar d man " t o a painte d o r carve d icon . Th e "inwar d man " cannot be seen with bodily eyes, cannot be imitated on a panel. Once we accept the existence of a n "inward man, " we als o accept that there is an unbridgeable hiatu s betwee n hi m an d anythin g tha t ca n b e represente d by painting or sculpture. Origen was not thinking of th e arts when he spoke about the "inward man" an d ma n create d "i n th e imag e o f God. " I n th e cours e o f hi s debate with Celsius, however, he actually employed examples or descriptive formula e tha t originall y ha d a special affinit y t o th e arts . "No t on e of us, " Origen stresses , "say s that God participate s i n shape an d color." 22 Here, in fact , Orige n was partl y followin g hi s opponent i n the choice o f metaphors. I t i s a venerabl e motif , goin g bac k a t leas t t o Plato , tha t spiritual being s ar e "colorless an d shapeless an d intangible." 23 The particular for m o f expressin g spiritualit y b y denyin g colo r an d shap e wa s taken over b y the Christia n tradition , an d became, as it were, a topos o f Christian imagination . Thu s Justin Martyr , tw o generations befor e Ori gen, describe d "th e originato r o f al l intellectua l things " a s "havin g n o color, n o shape , n o magnitude , o r an y othe r attribut e tha t th e ey e ca n see." 24 In looking fo r th e reason s fo r Origen' s rejectio n o f images , we arriv e at a n answe r tha t i n severa l respect s differentiate s i t fro m Tertullian's . The imag e o f th e divin e i s t o b e rejected , i t follow s fro m Origen' s thought, becaus e i t cannot , an d neve r will , b e a n adequat e reflectio n o f the original . Thi s conclusio n indicate s tha t th e intellectua l contex t o f Origen's approac h t o th e imag e i s altogethe r differen t fro m tha t o f Tertullian. I t is not th e social impac t of th e sacred image that matters t o Origen, though, as we have seen, it did play a certain, rather limited part in his considerations. He does not locate the problem of the sacred image in the field between th e ico n representin g a divine figure and the specta tor perceivin g it ; h e rathe r place s i t i n th e relationshi p betwee n th e representation t o b e seen on the icon and the divine model tha t this very icon purport s t o represent . I n othe r words , Orige n doe s no t ask , wha t does th e image d o to people? H e rathe r asks, how valid , or how "true, " a representation o f th e divine doe s th e ico n provide? The very posing o f the problem o f th e imag e a s the juxtapositio n o f a visible imag e an d a n

136 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

invisible bein g determines th e answer. Whe n the question o f th e image's validity i s presente d i n thi s form , th e answe r ca n b e only on e o f tota l rejection. Origen, i t i s wel l known , ha d a complex, intricat e mind ; contradictor y trends and concepts could coexis t in his intellectual world . The comple x nature o f hi s thinkin g ha s no t onl y give n ris e t o differen t scholarl y interpretations o f hi s teachings; it was als o reflected i n history. Student s are familiar with the great ideological an d historical struggles that, under the headin g o f "Origenism, " fo r centurie s shoo k th e foundation s o f th e Church.25 Thi s complexity , on e i s not surprise d t o find, is also reflecte d in th e fragmentar y thought s an d opinion s abou t th e image . Thoug h Origen, a s w e hav e seen , lai d th e foundation s o f wha t ma y b e calle d "metaphysical iconoclasm, " makin g a tru e imag e o f th e divin e totall y impossible, on e ca n also fin d i n his doctrine th e rudiments o f a differen t approach t o th e image . Thes e idea s an d formulation s pertainin g t o tha t other approach , i t mus t b e admitted , ar e genera l an d no t sufficientl y explicit fo r a discussion o f th e painted icon, but they must be considered in our study. Origen's doctrine of the image presupposes, as we have seen, concepts concerning bot h th e natur e o f Go d an d th e natur e o f people. 26 Thes e concepts are , indeed, clearly implie d i n the few remark s he makes abou t the icon . Th e proble m o f th e ico n arise s precisel y wher e theolog y an d anthropology meet , o r rather where the y part fro m eac h other . I n other words, th e difficultie s inheren t i n th e imag e com e t o th e for e whe n ou r awareness o f God' s bodiles s an d invisibl e natur e i s juxtaposed t o ou r knowledge o f people' s inabilit y t o perceive an d experience wha t is bodiless an d invisible . I t i s thi s juxtapositio n that , t o follo w moder n inter preters, make s Origen' s though t on e o f "th e root s o f anti-iconi c theol ogy" 2? g u t j t js tj i e v e r v s a m e awarenes s of the abyss between the divine and th e huma n tha t contain s th e rudiment s o f a differen t approac h t o the sacred icon, one that endows it with an almost messianic task. To pu t i t i n a grossly oversimplifie d way : i n that other approac h th e image i s assigned th e rol e of a "mediator" betwee n th e two worlds , th e divine an d th e human . I n th e introductio n t o th e first boo k o f De principiis, Orige n describes , i n well-know n formulae , th e emergenc e o f Christ fro m Go d th e Father . I n the sam e wa y a s the will proceed s fro m the mind , "withou t cuttin g of f par t o f th e min d an d withou t bein g

Origen 13

7

separated or severed from it, " so the Son proceeded fro m the Father. H e did s o a s His , th e Father's , image. 28 Bu t a s th e Fathe r i s b y natur e invisible, so is his Son an "invisible image." As there is nothing bodily in the Father , s o nothin g tha t coul d b e perceive d b y th e sense s ca n b e assumed to be in the Son. But it lie s i n th e ver y natur e o f th e image , Orige n seem s t o hav e felt , that i t demands t o b e seen, that it requires visibility. Takin g u p the ageold metapho r tha t Go d i s light , h e finds i t bot h supporte d an d furthe r developed i n the New Testament . The author of th e First Epistle of John (1:5) tells us that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." Origen also quotes from the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:3) where Christ is defined as "the brightnes s [splendor ] o f hi s [God's ] glory an d the express imag e of hi s person." 29 W e hav e t o understand , h e says , "th e workin g o f splendor: throug h splendo r w e gras p an d perceiv e wha t ligh t itsel f is . This splendo r present s itsel f t o th e frai l an d wea k eye s o f th e mortal s more gentl y an d mor e mildl y [tha n ligh t itself] , an d graduall y teache s and trains them to withstand th e brightness of light. " Origen himsel f seem s t o hav e fel t ho w comple x an d problemati c th e example o f splendo r is . Wha t ca n b e learne d fro m tha t sentence ? h e asks. Th e terms , an d particularl y tha t o f splendor , ar e nowhere define d in hi s writings , bu t w e ca n understan d wha t h e ha d i n min d whe n h e employed thi s example . Whil e ligh t itsel f exceed s wha t peopl e ca n per ceive b y their bodil y senses , splendo r i s what w e can see of light . Splen dor, then, is light, luminosity adjusted to the conditions of human vision, adapted to the limitations of our perceptual abilities . Another qualit y o f splendor , characteristi c o f th e wa y Orige n under stands an d use s it , i s tha t i t proceed s fro m ligh t withou t an y dramati c break, withou t a ruptur e i n th e continuit y o f being . The ide a o f th e continual emergenc e o f on e qualit y fro m another , withou t implyin g i n any way a rupture i n the fabri c o f being , wa s commo n i n Origen's tim e and culture. Thus, about a generation afte r Orige n composed De principiis, non e other than Plotinus described the emergence of the Nous fro m the On e i n precisel y th e sam e terms. 30 An d a generatio n befor e Orige n Tertullian describe d i n similar words th e emergence o f th e Son from th e Father.31 Wha t informe d al l thes e example s an d metaphor s i s the desir e to find a bridge over the abyss dividing the two worlds, the spiritual an d the material , th e invisibl e an d th e visible . Th e desir e t o create , o r dis cover, a "mediator " betwee n th e tw o differen t level s o f bein g wa s a

138 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

powerful motivatin g forc e i n second-century thought , and plays a significant par t i n th e backgroun d o f Origen' s theology. 32 Orige n himself , drawing upon the First Epistle to Timothy (2:5) , speaks of th e mediator. In this case the mediator is splendor, bridging the gap between pure light and people's abilit y t o perceive. 33 Th e splendor, however, le t us remember, i s itsel f a n image ; i t show s u s wha t th e natur e an d functio n o f th e image are . Th e apostle , sai d Origen , describe s Chris t no t onl y a s th e "splendor of hi s glory," but also as the "express image of hi s person." 34 Splendor an d imag e ar e equivalent ; th e "splendor " show s u s wha t th e "image" is meant to do.

NOTES 1. Fo r studies of th e religious and intellectual developmen t of Afric a i n early Christian times , se e mainl y W . H . C . Frend , The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford, 1952 ; reprint 1971), and Pete r Brown , Augustine of Hippo (Berkele y an d Lo s Angeles, 1967) . Both works naturally focus more on the Latin than on the Greek culture of Africa. 2. Eusebius , The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine II , 2, 15. See the English translation by G. A. Williamson (Penguin Books, 1965), pp. 241 ff . 3. Se e H. Crouzel, Origene et la philosophic (Paris , 1962), pp. 179-215, who rejects th e characterizatio n o f Orige n a s a "systematic " thinker , an d J. Danielou, Origene (Paris, 1948) , pp . 20 1 ff. , wh o stresse s th e systemati c character o f hi s thought , thoug h h e does no t us e that particular term . As Ch. von Schonborn, L'lcone du Christ: Fondements theologiques elabores entre le Ier et le lie Concile de Nicee (325-787) (Fribourg , 1976) , p. 78, note 2, correctly says, the difference in opinion is probably explicable by the different meaning given to the word "systematic." 4. Origen: Contra Celsum, translated by Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, 1980), is the text I shall use in this chapter. I shall refer to the conventional division into books and chapters of Origen's text, and shall add the page number of the translation I quote. 5. Contra Celsum II, 31; p. 207. 6. Republic , 605a, b. I am using the English translation by Benjamin Jowett. 7. I shall no t enter here into an investigation o f Origen's Platonism, a subject that has attracted a considerable amount of scholarly attention. I shall only mention th e still classi c work by Charles Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria (Oxford , 1886) . An d see also th e important discussio n i n Hal

Origen 13

9

Koch, Pronoia und Paideusis: Studien iiber Origines und sein Verhdltnis zum Platonismus (Berli n an d Leipzig , 1932 ) passim , esp . pp . 18 0 ff . I n Koch's work th e concept of th e image is hardly mentioned . 8. Republic, 60 5 a. 9. Contra Celsum IV , 31; p. 207 . 10. Contra Celsum VIII , 17 ; p. 464. 11. Institutio oratoria XII , 10 . 9. 12. Contra Celsum VI , 66; p . 38 1 o f th e English translation . 13. Contra Celsum VIII , 17 ; p. 464 o f th e English translation . 14. Contra Celsum VII , 69 ; p . 452 . A s w e hav e seen , earl y Christia n thinker s kept coming bac k to this motif; see above, chapter 6 . 15. See , fo r example , Celsus' s criticis m o f th e Christians becaus e o f thei r opposition to images. See Contra Celsum VII , 62; p. 446. 16. Origenis De principiis libri IV I , 2, 6 . 17. A s a n exampl e defendin g th e first position , se e Claud e Tresmontant , La Metaphysique du Christianisme et la naissance de la philosophie chretienne (Paris, 1961) . An d se e als o H . A . Wolfson , The Philosophy of the Church Fathers (Cambridge , Mass. , 1956) . Fo r a positio n denyin g Orige n a philo sophical system , se e Emi l Brehier , Historie de la philosophie (Paris , 1931) . For a good brie f survey , se e John Meyendorff , Byzantine Theology: Historical trends and Doctrinal Themes (Ne w York , 1983) , pp. 23 ff . 18. De principiis I , praefatio , 8 . Se e Origen on First Principles, translate d b y G. W. Butterworth (London , 1936) . 19. Contra Celsum VI , 62 ; p . 377 . Fo r Origen' s view s o f bod y an d soul , important a s a backgroun d o f ou r specifi c problem , se e Pete r Brown , The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (Ne w York , 1988) , pp. 160-7 7 (chapte r 8). 20. Contra Celsum VI , 63; p. 378 . 21. Contra Celsum, loc . cit. Moder n studies of Origen' s exegesis for m a considerable body of literature . A good selectiv e bibliograph y o f thes e studies ma y be foun d i n Marguerit e Harl , Origene et la fonction revelatrice du Verbe Incarne (Paris , 1958) , pp . 4 2 - 4 3 . H . d u Lubac , Histoire et Esprit: LTntelligence de VEcriture d'apres Origene (Paris , 1950) , i s usefu l als o fo r ou r purpose, though i t does not deal explicitly with painted images. 22. Contra Celsum VI , 64; p. 379 . 23. Phaedrus 247C . My translation . 24. Justi n Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 4 . My translation . 25. Se e th e luci d summar y i n Henr y Chadwick , Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford , 1984) , pp . 9 5 ff ; an d th e sam e author' s The Early Church (Harmondsworth , 1967) , pp . 18 4 ff . Fo r a reflectio n o f the grea t debat e i n th e Renaissance , se e Edga r Wind , "Th e Reviva l o f Origen," in D . Miner , ed. , Studies in Art and Literature for Bella da Costa Greene (Princeton , 1954) , PP - 4 I2 -~ 2 45 reprinted , wit h som e additions , i n

140 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

E. Wind , The Eloquence of Symbols: Studies in Humanist Art (Oxford , 1983), pp. 42-55 . 26. Interestin g discussion s o f Origen' s anthropolog y ma y b e foun d i n Arche e Telos: Vantropologia di Origene e di Gregorio di Nissa: Analisi storicoreligiosa, originall y a symposium , edite d b y U . Bianch i an d H . Crouze l (Milan, 1981) . Se e especiall y th e contribution s b y H . Crouzel , pp . 3 6 ff. , and Christopher Stead, pp. 17 0 ff . 27. Schonborn , Vlcone du Christ, pp . 77 ff . 28. De principiis I , 2, 6. 29. De principiis I , 2, 7. 30. The Enneads V , 6 , 1 . Se e th e Englis h translatio n b y Stephe n MacKenna , Plotinus: The Enneads (London , 1930) , pp. 37 3 ff . 31. Apologeticum, chapte r 21 . Se e The Apology of Tertullian, translate d b y W. Reev e (London , 1890) . A few sentence s bea r quotation: "Whe n a ray is projected fro m th e su n i t i s a portion o f th e whol e sun ; but the su n wil l b e in th e ra y becaus e i t i s a ra y o f th e sun ; th e substanc e o f th e su n i s no t separated bu t extended, a s light is kindled fro m light. " 32. Se e Marguerit e Harl , Origene et la fonction revelatrice du Verbe Incarne, pp. 93 ff . 33. De principiis I , 2, 7. 34. De principiis I , 2 , 8 . Orige n refers , of course , to the Epistle t o the Hebrew s 1:3.

EIGHT

Eusebius

Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea , erudite scholar, an d prolific writer , di d no t have an y particula r understandin g of , no r an y specifi c interes t in , th e visual arts . I n hi s larg e literar y heritag e ther e ar e bu t fe w passage s directly dealin g wit h images , o r wit h th e problem s the y raise : th e frag ment o f a letter , an d som e occasiona l observation s o n monument s h e saw i n the emperor's domains . Nevertheless w e mus t consider hi s though t on our subject, limited as it is, as a signpost on the road along which our problem developed . Eusebius, i t i s commo n knowledge , wa s intimatel y linke d wit h som e of th e centra l historica l development s tha t determine d no t onl y th e fat e of th e Christia n church , bu t als o tha t o f Europea n culture . H e live d through th e difficul t year s o f persecutio n i n Palestine , wher e i t wa s particularly severe , an d h e wa s closel y connecte d wit h th e empero r Constantine and the great turn in the status of the Church that is marked 141

142 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

by that emperor's name. These events that shaped his whole world surely also made some impact on hi s attitude to the holy image. Perhaps eve n mor e importan t fo r th e subjec t o f ou r stud y i s anothe r aspect o f histor y tha t form s th e backgroun d o f Eusebius' s thought ; I mean the great Arianic Debate that so profoundly impresse d itself on the internal developmen t an d concepts o f th e Christia n doctrine . I n the first half o f th e fourt h centur y th e Ariani c Disput e clearl y dominate d th e intellectual worl d o f Christianity . I t i s no t ou r tas k t o tak e u p th e theological issue s so ardently debate d in the course of tha t dispute. 1 The painted icon, it need hardly be said, was not one of the central question s agitating the minds of those taking part in the great controversy. Bu t the core issue of the Arianic Dispute must have had a crucial significanc e fo r any attemp t t o la y dow n philosophica l foundation s fo r imagery , espe cially o f th e divine . Whateve r th e specifi c notion s s o fiercely debated a t the time , whateve r th e "technical " point s o f theolog y tha t serve d a s a watershed separatin g th e rival camps—behin d al l of the m there loome d the questio n o f whethe r an d ho w th e divin e an d th e human , th e super sensual an d the material, ar e related to each other. On e version o f thos e great problem s coul d hav e bee n put—wit h only sligh t qualifications — as th e questio n o f whethe r an d ho w th e invisibl e ca n b e relate d t o th e visible. Whethe r Chris t i s eternall y coexisten t wit h Go d th e Fathe r o r whether h e i s "created, " a s th e issu e mos t frequentl y debate d i n th e Arianic Disput e wa s formulated , ma y see m rathe r remot e fro m an y consideration o f painte d icons ; i n fact , i t wa s quit e closel y connecte d with it . I f Chris t i s "created, " h e can b e portrayed , a s everythin g els e that i s created ; i f h e i s eternall y coexisten t wit h God , however , th e unbridgeable ga p separatin g u s fro m th e invisibl e make s an y visua l rendering of Chris t impossible. The early fourth centur y paid little attention t o th e painte d icon , bu t b y concentratin g o n th e ga p betwee n th e two world s i t determine d an y reflectio n o n icons . I t i s thi s debat e tha t forms the background o f Eusebius' s thought on our subject. In the unfolding of our problem Eusebius marks a new stage, a crucial turn of th e development. A s we have just noted, he said very little abou t the icon . Fro m th e fe w observation s tha t h e made , however , on e ca n infer both profound historica l change s that actually occurred i n his time, and th e revealing o f ne w dimension s o f th e problem. Thes e change s ar e indicated primaril y b y th e fac t o f hi s discussio n o f specifi c theme s ne w

Eusebius 14

3

to reflection o n the problem of th e sacred image, and by his dealing with them within new frames of reference . The first themati c change , alread y adumbrate d b y Origen , i s th e disappearance o f th e paga n ido l a s a majo r topi c o f discussion . Th e century o r s o since Tertullian , an d perhap s als o th e differenc e betwee n the western metropoli s Carthag e an d the more provincial, easter n Cesa rea, see m t o hav e deprive d th e paga n ido l o f muc h o f it s attraction , a s well a s its hold on the minds of Christia n teachers. In Eusebius's literar y legacy w e hea r ver y littl e abou t paga n idols . Wha t h e doe s sa y abou t sacred image s deal s primaril y wit h depiction s o f Christ . A s i n Origen , and perhap s t o a n eve n greate r extent , th e proble m o f th e hol y ico n i s not hidden, or deformed, b y the fact that it is the image of a "false" god. Another change is perhaps still more significant fo r the purpose of th e present study . I n hi s theologica l writing s Eusebius , lik e Orige n an d s o many othe r thinker s o f th e earl y Christia n period , employe d th e term s "image" an d "icon " i n a broad , metaphorica l sense . H e describe s th e Son as the "image of th e Father," though that "image" may well remai n invisible, an d ha s o f cours e littl e t o d o wit h a n artist' s product . I n addition t o thi s comprehensiv e an d symboli c us e o f th e term , however , Eusebius als o speak s o f image s of Chris t i n a narrow an d specifi c sense , that is, as painted icons, material pictures actually made by an artist. Hi s texts provid e som e early—perhap s th e ver y first—mentions o f specifi c artistic motif s tha t serve d t o depic t Christ , suc h a s th e Goo d Shepherd . He als o speak s o f picture s that , a s w e shal l se e shortly , mus t b e under stood as "portraits" of Christ, that is, icons in the sense we now attribut e to thi s ar t form . B y attestin g t o th e emergenc e an d crystallizatio n o f specific forms , themes , and motifs, Eusebiu s become s a n important sourc e for th e stud y o f Christia n ar t an d iconology . Ou r presen t attention , however, i s no t focuse d o n Eusebiu s a s a witnes s o f socia l realit y an d artistic creation ; wha t w e ar e her e intereste d i n i s th e ne w leve l o f theoretical understandin g of th e icon that is revealed in his doctrine. The mos t explici t an d direc t expressio n o f Eusebius' s vie w o n sacre d images is to be found i n his by now famou s lette r to Constantia Augusta , a siste r o f th e empero r Constantine . Th e lette r (whic h canno t b e accu rately dated) i s not preserved in full. What we kno w o f i t has reached us from copie s don e b y the iconoclasts o f th e eighth century , who foun d i n

144 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

Eusebius's lette r approva l o f thei r ow n views . Som e part s o f i t wer e quoted an d discusse d a t the famou s Counci l o f Nicea , an d were quote d again i n a polemical treatis e b y St . Nicephorus , devote d t o a n "ortho dox" refutation o f Eusebius' s views. In the very early eighteenth centur y the piece s wer e mad e availabl e i n print. 2 Bu t althoug h w e kno w th e letter only from the fragments tha t have survived, we are in a position t o follow th e main lines of th e author's thought . The letter originated in a situation typical of the religious (pagan ) and political culture of Antiquity, still largely alive in the eajily fourth century when it was written. Constanti a aske d the bishop of Cesare a to send her an imag e o f Christ . The wis h t o hav e th e imag e o f a god, a hero , o r a saint, an d possibl y worshi p it , wa s o f cours e commo n usag e i n Antiq uity.3 The bishop, however, bluntly rejected the noble lady's request. Hi s letter, s o fa r a s i t i s preserved , i s actuall y devote d t o settin g fort h th e reasons for this refusal. I n so doing, Eusebius presents a complete outline of th e ideolog y oppose d t o sacre d images , th e principle s o f a ful l anti iconic theology . Le t u s first rea d th e mai n part s o f th e letter , a s i t ha s survived. You also wrote to me concerning some supposed image of Christ, which image you wished m e to sen d you. No w wha t kind of thin g is this that you call the image of Christ ? I do not know what impelled you to request that an image of Our Saviour should be delineated. What sort of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true an d unalterabl e on e whic h bear s Hi s essentia l characteristics , o r th e one which He took up when He assumed the form of a servant?... Granted He has two forms, even I do not think that your request has to do with His divine form. . . . Surel y then, you are seeking His image as a servant, that of the fleshHe put on for our sake. But that, too, we have been taught, was mingled with the glory of Hi s divinity so that the mortal par t was swallowed u p by Life. Indeed, it is not surprising that after His ascent to heaven He should have appeared as such, when, while He—the God, Logos—was yet living among men, He changed the form of the servant, and indicating in advance to a chosen band of His disciples the aspec t o f Hi s Kingdom , H e showed o n th e moun t tha t natur e which surpasses the human one—when His face shone like the sun and His garments like light. Who , then , woul d b e abl e t o represen t b y mean s o f dea d color s an d inanimate delineation s [skiagraphiai] th e glistening , flashing radiance o f suc h dignity and glory, when even His superhuman disciples could not bear to behold Him i n thi s guis e an d fel l o n thei r faces , thu s admittin g tha t the y coul d no t withstand th e sight? If, therefore , Hi s incarnate for m possessed suc h power at the time, altered as it was by the divinity dwelling within Him, what need I sa y of th e tim e whe n H e pu t of f mortalit y an d washe d of f corruption , whe n H e changed the form of th e servant into the glory of the Lord God . .. ? . . . Ho w

Eusebius 14

5

can one paint an image of s o wondrous an d unattainable a form—unless, like the unbelieving pagans, one i s to represen t things that bear no possible resemblance to anything . .. ? For they, too, make such idols when they wish to mould the likeness of what they consider to be a god or, as they might say, one of the heroes or anything else of th e kind, yet are unable to approach a resemblance, and so delineate and represent some strange human shapes. Surely, even you will agree that such practices are not lawful for us. But if you mean to ask of me the image, not of Hi s form transformed into that of a God, but that of th e mortal fles h befor e it s transformation, ca n it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath?4 The main point of Eusebius' s argumen t is clear and obvious; it hardly calls fo r rephrasin g o r "explanation. " I shall, therefore , onl y indicat e a few question s that arise when the document is read in the context of ou r present investigation . Any reade r keepin g i n min d th e earlie r approache s o f Christia n au thors t o th e proble m o f th e sacre d imag e wil l note , first o f all , tha t Eusebius i s no t concerne d wit h rejectin g a n existin g image , it s us e o r misuse; rather , h e want s t o demonstrat e tha t a tru e representatio n o f God i s altogether impossible . That demonstratio n i s of a purely theoret ical, speculativ e character . Not e tha t th e biblica l prohibitio n o f image s plays onl y a mino r an d subordinat e part . Ha d Constanti a aske d fo r a n image depictin g Chris t befor e h e wa s transformed , whil e h e wa s stil l a "servant," in other words, for an image that does not attempt to portray his true, unalterabl e natur e as God—had sh e aske d fo r this, the biblica l injunction agains t th e pictoria l representatio n o f "wha t i s in the heave n or wha t i s i n th e eart h beneath " would hav e bee n applicable . Bu t sinc e she probabl y want s a n imag e o f Chris t th e Go d i t follow s fro m wha t Eusebius write s tha t th e biblica l prohibitio n nee d no t eve n b e invoked . (One note s wit h som e surpris e tha t Eusebiu s doe s no t eve n quot e th e beginning o f th e biblica l commandment , wher e th e tex t allude s t o th e idol [th e "othe r god" ] i n th e precis e sens e o f th e word. 5 S o deepl y convinced i s he of th e utter impossibility o f portrayin g the divine that he does not even pause to cite the prohibition agains t making an image of a god.) It is further remarkabl e tha t Eusebius doe s no t directly refe r to idola trous practice s a s a reaso n fo r rejectin g th e reques t fo r a n imag e o f Christ. Characteristically, h e once again puts this association i n the form of a conditioned , dependen t thought . I t i s onl y whe n on e want s t o

146 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

represent somethin g tha t doe s no t bea r an y possibl e resemblanc e t o anything, a s th e pagan s d o whe n the y rende r thei r idols , tha t on e ca n venture t o represen t th e divine . Bot h reference s t o th e grea t theme s traditionally invoke d b y earl y Christia n author s i n thi s context—th e biblical prohibitio n o f images , an d idolatrou s practices—ar e her e mar ginal. The main thrust of Eusebius' s argument is purely speculative. Eusebius take s th e sharp, unmitigated contras t betwee n th e nature of the divine, on the one hand, an d our limited abilities t o represent and to perceive, on the other, one step further. Other authors might have agreed with th e mer e principle tha t th e divine transcend s th e limit s o f wha t w e can perceive b y our senses. Eusebius seem s to have asked—even thoug h tacitly an d perhap s eve n subconsciously—wha t transcendin g th e do main o f th e visibl e specificall y means , particularl y fo r th e busines s o f representation. A s a "servant" Christ was visible , though fro m hi s outer appearance you presumably could not have guessed his divine nature. At the Transfiguration , whe n Christ' s divin e natur e wa s reveale d an d hi s body wa s "mingle d wit h th e glory o f Hi s divinity, " even "Hi s superhu man disciple s coul d no t behold " him. What, then , happened t o Christ' s regular appearance, t o hi s "huma n form" ? To describ e the fate o f Christ' s "human form " Eusebius borrow s a term fro m St . Paul. In 2 Corinthian s 5:4 w e read , "Fo r w e tha t ar e i n thi s tabernacl e d o groan , bein g bur dened: no t fo r tha t w e woul d b e unclothed , bu t clothe d upon , tha t mortality migh t b e swallowe d u p b y life. " Eusebiu s employ s th e meta phor of "swallowin g up " in order t o describ e wha t happen s t o Christ' s human form. I n the Transfiguration, an d particularly afte r th e Ascent t o Heaven, Christ' s physica l feature s hav e bee n "swallowe d up " b y "th e glory of Hi s divinity." 6 It is difficult t o say what Eusebiu s ha d in mind in thus using the term "swallowing up. " Wha t doe s on e se e whe n on e experience s a divin e revelation, tha t is , a revelatio n i n whic h th e huma n for m ha s bee n "swallowed up" ? Such a question, i t seems likely, hardly presented itsel f to hi m i n s o shar p an outline a s here indicated . Bu t it may hav e existe d somewhere a t th e bac k o f hi s mind , an d b y followin g u p hi s thought beyond wha t h e himsel f sai d on e ma y perhap s detec t it s traces . "Ho w can one paint an image of s o wondrous an d unattainable a form—if th e term 'form ' i s a t al l applicabl e t o th e divin e an d spiritua l essence, " our author rhetoricall y asks . O n th e on e hand , then , h e make s us e o f th e term "form " (morphe), an d I cannot hel p concludin g tha t what w e see ,

Eusebius 14

7

and may presumably wish to represent, is a kind of form; in other words, that th e experienc e o f revelatio n ha s som e kin d o f concret e visua l con tent. O n the other hand, that form i s "wondrous an d unattainable." 7 Against th e utte r an d uncompromisin g rejectio n o f th e divin e image , a s stated i n the lette r to Constantia , i n Eusebius's othe r writings on e occa sionally come s acros s some reference s t o well-known motif s o r works of sculpture an d painting, an d these reference s see m to imply , even thoug h they do not clearly articulate , a somewhat differen t attitud e to the image in general. Students of the arts of that period are familiar with Eusebius' s mention o f thes e motifs . Rarely , however , hav e the y devote d attentio n to the general attitud e that speaks fro m the passages. The best-know n exampl e i s Eusebius' s mentio n o f a sculptural mon ument erected in honor of on e of Christ' s miracles. The woman with th e hemorrhage (Mar k 5:25—34 ) wa s sai d t o hav e com e fro m Cesarea . I n front o f th e hous e a t th e tim e traditionall y identifie d a s he r hom e ther e stood a monumen t commemoratin g th e event . Eusebiu s describe s i t i n detail: As I have mentioned thi s city [Cesarea] , I do not think I ought to omit a story that deserves to be remembered by those who will follow us. The woman with a hemorrhage, who as we learn from the holy gospels was cured of her troubles by our Saviour, was stated to have come from here. Her house was pointed out in the city, an d a wonderful memoria l o f th e benefi t th e Saviour conferre d upo n her was still there. On a tall stone base at the gates of her house stood a bronze statue of a woman, resting on one knee and resembling a suppliant with arms outstretched. Facing this was another of the same material, an upright figureof a ma n wit h a doubl e cloa k neatl y drape d ove r hi s shoulder s an d hi s han d stretched ou t t o th e woman . Nea r hi s fee t o n th e ston e bas e gre w a n exoti c plant, which climbed up to the hem of the bronze cloak and served as a remedy of illnesses of any kind. This statue, which was said to resemble the features of Jesus, was still there in my own time, so that I saw it with my own eyes when I resided in the city. It is not at all suprising that Gentiles who long ago received such benefits from our Saviour should have expressed their gratitude thus.8 Reading thi s description , w e clearl y perceiv e Eusebiu s th e Hellenist , the schola r familia r wit h differen t aspect s o f Greco-Roma n culture . H e is acquainte d wit h th e gentiles ' custo m o f honorin g heroe s o r saint s b y erecting monument s commemoratin g thei r remarkabl e deeds . H e als o shows ho w familia r h e i s wit h th e visua l motif s o f tha t culture : th e posture of th e woman wit h th e hemorrhage remind s him of th e figure o f

148 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

the suppliant , a figure common i n th e politica l imager y o f th e imperia l period.9 S o thoroughl y Hellenisti c i s Eusebius' s outloo k i n thi s description that he does no t even hesitate to relate how th e bronze figure of th e Savior "was said to resemble the features of Jesus."10 Another descriptio n o f Christia n motif s an d work s o f ar t is foun d i n Eusebius's Life of Constantine. Ou r autho r extol s th e emperor' s rol e i n eradicating paganism, and making the Christian religion common belief . This undertakin g als o transform s th e externa l appearanc e o f th e cities . Altars of paga n god s ar e banned , a s are the idolatrou s practice s tha t g o with them. Instead of monument s to pagan idols one now see s Christian images. Ou r author make s specific mentio n o f a well i n the marketplac e of Constantinople , adorne d b y a n imag e o f th e Goo d Shepherd . Thos e familiar with Scripture, Eusebius says, are well acquainte d with what the image conveys. 11 Ther e i s als o a representatio n o f Danie l i n th e lions ' den, th e sain t goe s o n t o say ; cast i n bronze , i t is covered wit h radiant , glistening gol d plates . I n the ver y sam e brie f chapte r (hardl y mor e tha n a doze n lines ) h e als o tell s th e reader that th e emperor Constantin e ha d a cross , "th e sign o f th e sufferin g o f ou r Savior," fixed on th e ceiling of his palace ; i t wa s a preciou s cross , mad e o f jewel s an d glowin g i n different colors . In describin g thes e motif s an d monuments , Eusebiu s clearl y di d no t intend t o mak e a statemen t o f principles , lik e tha t i n hi s lette r t o th e emperor's sister . Bu t thoug h h e indee d di d no t proclai m an y o f hi s general idea s whil e evokin g th e work s o f sculptur e h e sa w i n Cesare a and Constantinople , a moder n studen t readin g hi s description s canno t help detectin g i n the m a n underlyin g attitud e t o images . An d tha t atti tude, i t seems , differ s fro m th e on e h e himsel f preache d t o Constantia . Let m e mak e a fe w brie f comment s o n wha t h e say s abou t th e publi c monuments, an d o n wha t ensue s fro m tha t differenc e betwee n th e tw o attitudes. My first commen t i s obvious . I n describin g th e monuments , mainl y works o f sculptur e representin g "holy " figures an d scenes, Eusebiu s adopts a tone very different fro m th e stern criticism that is so striking in the lette r t o th e emperor' s sister . Instea d o f scoldin g th e Christia n wh o looks fo r a n imag e o f th e Savior , h e praise s Constantin e fo r impressin g a Christia n characte r o n a bi g cit y b y displaying , i n prominen t places , Christian religiou s images . Thes e praise s ar e no t reserve d fo r th e em peror only . Eve n th e gentil e citizen s o f Cesare a wh o erecte d th e com -

Eusebius 14

9

memorative monumen t i n thei r cit y wer e expressin g thei r "gratitud e t o the Savior. " There i s n o doub t tha t Eusebiu s wa s pleased b y wha t the y were doing. H e obviously ha d no qualms about these images. The secon d commen t necessaril y assume s th e for m o f a question . After th e tense , almos t violent , rejectio n o f sacre d image s w e sa w i n Eusebius's lette r to Constantia , on e i s surprised a t the relaxed, generall y appreciative, ton e of hi s descriptions o f th e Christian monuments . Ho w are w e t o accoun t fo r thi s difference ? Doe s i t perhap s follo w fro m th e fact tha t th e publi c monument s represen t morta l figures, suc h a s th e woman wit h th e hemorrhage , o r eve n a saint , suc h a s Daniel , bu t no t God? Suc h a consideration is , of course , instantl y refute d b y th e figures representing Christ , either directly (i n the healing o f th e woman) o r in a symbolic form (a s the Good Shepherd) . The differenc e i n descriptiv e ton e an d implie d judgmen t canno t b e denied or disregarded. Moreover , i n matters as sensitive as the dogmati c problem o f image s i n th e earl y fourt h centur y eve n a barely perceptibl e difference i n attitud e mus t hav e bee n o f grea t consequence . Surel y a n explanation is called for. To account for the difference le t us assume that Eusebius, an d hi s audience , conceive d o f th e icon s her e mentione d a s two distinc t type s of images . I n other words, h e believed, we hypotheti cally suppose , tha t th e picture s o r statue s h e wa s evokin g attemp t t o represent different aspect s of their subject matter (maybe we can say that they represen t differen t "objects") , tha t the y wer e mean t t o perfor m their tas k i n differen t ways , an d tha t therefor e the y invit e differen t reactions, o r expectations , i n th e spectator s lookin g a t them. Th e docu mentary basi s for such a claim, it should be admitted at the beginning, is rather slim. We canno t prov e tha t th e early Christia n perio d wa s awar e that we have here two distinct types of images , but the contention i s one that deserves to be looked at carefully. A present-da y spectato r wil l no t find i t difficul t t o se e th e differenc e in genr e betwee n a n "icon " of Christ , a "hol y face, " an d a representa tion o f th e Goo d Shepherd , o r o f Chris t healin g th e woma n wit h th e hemorrhage. These are images that belong to different level s of meaning ; they constitut e differen t ar t forms. Th e latte r group—that is , the work s Eusebius describe d a s publi c monuments—w e woul d easil y classif y a s symbolic o r narrativ e representations . The y eithe r tel l a story , o r the y "mean" something , signif y a content . Tha t stor y o r content , i t goe s without saying , i s outsid e th e monumen t itself , eithe r a s a n even t tha t

150 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

happened i n th e past , o r a s a timeles s meanin g no t tie d t o an y specifi c present, o r age . Student s o f moder n semiotic s migh t clai m tha t thos e religious publi c monument s tha t Eusebiu s evoke d i n hi s historica l writ ings "refer " t o somethin g that , o f course , i s differen t fro m th e statue s themselves. Suc h a studen t migh t find i t consistent tha t Eusebiu s men tions, among the "monuments," a cross, "the sign of our Savior's suffer ing," that th e empero r Constantin e ha d lai d ou t i n sparklin g jewel s o n the ceiling of hi s palace.12 The cross on the ceiling reminded the emperor and hi s visitor s o f th e tru e cross , bu t i n it s preciou s material s i t surel y did not pretend to be that original cross. The othe r typ e o f imag e i s th e on e Eusebiu s ha d i n min d whe n h e composed hi s letter to Constantia . Thi s image clearly doe s no t inten d t o tell a story , no r doe s i t attemp t t o "signify " somethin g totally outsid e itself. I t obviously claim s t o sho w th e Lord' s tru e "form, " a s that for m really is, or rather was. Once again using semiotic terminology w e coul d say tha t Eusebius , t o characteriz e thi s particula r typ e o f Chris t image , thought o f wha t i n th e lat e nineteent h centur y Charle s Sander s Peirc e called "iconi c sign " o r "iconicity." 13 Fo r a reade r use d t o th e finer analytical distinction s o f moder n semioti c theory , Eusebius' s tex t ma y seem primitiv e o r eve n crude , bu t hi s basi c belie f come s clearl y t o th e fore: it is a belief in an identity of sorts between the form of the icon and God's tru e form . I t is precisel y th e belie f i n such a n identity tha t make s the painted ico n altogethe r impossible . Sinc e the for m o f th e livin g Go d is unattainable , th e ico n claimin g t o hav e tha t sam e for m canno t b e made. In sum , then , Eusebiu s presuppose s tw o differen t type s o f images . This not to say that a rigid distinction ca n be maintained betwee n them , nor that a borderline can be followed throughout al l the ramifications o f the problem . Al l w e wis h t o sa y i s tha t th e scattere d writing s o f ou r author lea d u s t o suc h a conclusion . Wer e Eusebiu s an d hi s audienc e aware o f suc h a spli t i n thei r concep t o f th e imag e o f God ? Di d the y account t o themselve s wher e thei r thought wa s takin g them , an d di d they attemp t t o appl y tha t awarenes s t o thei r specifi c concern s with sacred images ? A s I have jus t said , th e documentar y evidenc e i s slight , but som e indications o f a possibl e awarenes s ma y nevertheles s b e de tected. The questio n her e pose d ha s receive d som e attentio n fro m moder n scholars. Johannes Kollwitz , i n an interesting discussion, t o some exten t

Eusebius 15

1

dealt wit h it. 14 Kollwit z mainl y refer s t o a previous study , a n articl e b y D. Ainalov, which appeare d as early as 1902. 15 Though, in the nature of things, thes e scholar s wer e no t abl e t o reac h an y firm conclusions, thei r attempts indicate a direction tha t might be worth pursuing. The term s earl y Christia n author s frequentl y use d t o describ e sacre d pictures o r statues ma y offe r som e interestin g clues , although the y leav e many question s unanswered . A wor d o f warnin g shoul d b e give n i n advance. I n it s earl y stages , Christia n theologica l literatur e doe s no t excel b y a consisten t us e o f terms , an d eve n les s s o whe n th e subjec t described i s o f admittedl y mino r import . Th e terms , moreover , take n over mainly from the Greek philosophical tradition , often carr y in themselves variou s shades . I n spite o f thes e reservations, however , th e us e o f terms i s not a matter lacking i n significance. The very fac t tha t differen t terms wer e employe d fo r designatin g th e sam e objec t indicate s tha t different aspect s and functions o f th e holy image were clearly perceived. Except for the generic term eikon, earl y Christian thought, and particularly Eusebius , employed mainl y tw o term s (t o which a third was late r added) t o designat e hol y images . They wer e symbolon (t o which istoria was added) an d character. Thi s alternative terminology, an d particularly the fac t tha t tw o o r three differen t word s wer e use d t o describ e wha t i s seemingly the same kind of object , ha s not passed unnoticed b y students of earl y Christian art and thought. The categor y o f image s tha t g o unde r th e headin g o f "histories " (historiae), t o begi n with th e latest term, are the least problematic in our context. Wha t Eusebiu s an d his time meant b y this term ar e representations o f events , mainl y thos e relate d i n th e Ol d an d Ne w Testament . Though th e ter m ma y hav e com e int o us e later , th e typ e o f narrativ e picture, or narrative cycle relating a story in images, was part and parcel of th e ancien t legacy. 16 I t goe s withou t sayin g tha t fo r Christian s a n historical event , particularl y o f sacre d history , i s never devoi d o f mean ing; th e event , the y believed , figuratively o r symbolicall y expresse d th e eternal realitie s hidden behind it. 17 No wonder , then, that the line dividing "history" and "symbol" cannot be sharply drawn. More importan t fo r ou r presen t study , an d curren t i n th e perio d under investigation , i s th e categor y o f image s Eusebiu s himsel f calle d "symbols" (symbola). Thes e wer e no t narrativ e pictures , bu t rathe r emblematic configurations ; the y ar e focuse d o n stable , unchangin g meanings rather than on transitory events . As we know, Eusebius specif-

152 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

ically mention s tw o suc h symbola —the Goo d Shepherd , which h e know s as a publi c monument , an d Danie l i n th e lions ' den. 18 I n fact , bot h themes originat e i n storie s tol d i n th e Bible, 19 tha t is , action s o r event s that unfol d i n time . Eusebius , however , an d probabl y mos t o f hi s con temporaries, understood the pictures not as telling a story but as evoking a meaning . Eve n a brie f loo k a t th e man y representation s o f thes e particular scenes in early Christian art convinces one that this is precisely how th e tw o biblica l subject s wer e conceive d i n th e Christia n cultur e and thought of the whole period. When Eusebiu s spok e o f thes e image s a s symbola —what precisel y did h e wis h t o say ? W e d o no t hav e a n articulat e theor y o f symbolism , as embrace d b y Eusebius , tha t migh t guid e us , nor , a s alread y noted , was hi s use of term s very consistent . Nevertheless , i t may well b e worth our while to look a t what he intends when he speaks of symbol s in other contexts. A symbol, we know, is a sign, that is, something that is not the real thin g i t denotes . Orige n say s tha t whateve r happen s i n a n unex pected o r strange wa y i n Scripture i s "a sig n or a symbol" (semeion kai symbolon).20 Here , then , ther e i s n o essentia l differenc e betwee n a sign and a symbol. Th e sam e ma y b e true of Eusebius , who speak s o f "sym bol" i n a variet y o f contexts . T o giv e bu t on e example , w e celebrat e Christ's offering, he says, "by means of symbols of His Body and Blood."21 A little earlier in the same chapter he speaks of th e symbol i n a way tha t even mor e strongl y emphasize s th e distanc e betwee n th e original , th e archetype, an d th e symbo l tha t stand s fo r it . Th e Christia n shoul d no t fall bac k o n th e prophecie s tha t were mad e to th e Jews, the saint warn s true believers . Thes e prophecie s ar e only "symbol s an d likenesses , bu t do no t contai n th e trut h itself. " Sinc e th e Jew s di d no t ye t hav e th e reality o f Christ' s offering , the y "hel d fas t t o thei r symbols." 22 Here , then, "symbol " does no t signfy th e true offering; th e term clearly mark s the distance between the prophecies an d Christ's true offering . The othe r ter m employe d i s "character " (character). Ainalo v an d Kollwitz hav e convincingl y shown , I believe, tha t "character " wa s em ployed t o designate a special group of images , and as such it was almos t a technical term . The images so termed were portraitlike face s of Christ , and perhaps als o of saints . I n other words , her e the sacre d image i s no t an emblematic configuration ; i t is not determined b y an action or event, or by a different combinatio n o f feature s tha t requires that the spectato r properly "read " o r interpre t wha t h e o r sh e perceives . I n th e imag e

Eusebius 15

3

called "character " it is the fac e itsel f tha t speaks, an d it does s o directl y and immediately . Eusebiu s himself , i n th e lette r t o Constantia , use s th e term "character " t o designat e th e fac e o f Christ , an d th e translator s o f the lette r int o Lati n di d indee d pu t th e Lati n vultus fo r th e Gree k 23 prosoponP I f w e follo w thi s terminolog y w e wil l hav e t o sa y tha t i n looking a t a symbolon w e ar e face d wit h a transformatio n o f th e con tent, a translatio n o f th e origina l revelatio n int o anothe r medium . Thi s transformation mediate s betwee n th e invisible God an d the limits of ou r abilities t o perceive . Whateve r thi s transformatio n ma y consis t of , i t spares th e morta l spectato r th e direct encounte r wit h th e divine appear ance, a n encounte r th e spectato r canno t bear , or , i n som e traditions , cannot survive. The portrait of Chris t provides precisely this encounter. The ter m "character " i n itsel f i s indicativ e of , an d supports , thi s reading. "Character, " a s one knows , wa s a technical term , an d it s origin s may wel l b e sought i n som e workshops . Originall y th e ter m designate d a seal , an d late r th e meanin g wa s extende d t o includ e th e impressio n made by the seal. As the dictionary ha s it, "Character: that which i s 'cut in' or 'marked, ' the 'impress or stamp on coins , seals, etc' " In a figurative sens e "character " mean s th e mar k o r toke n impresse d o n a perso n or thing . Johanne s Kollwit z correctl y stresse s tha t th e notio n o f "char acter," i n it s origina l meaning , form s th e ver y basi s o f assuming a similarity betwee n th e ico n an d th e divin e figure i t represents. 24 Whil e this interpretatio n i s true , i t doe s no t see m t o sufficientl y defin e th e specific natur e o f th e term . Similarity , a s w e shal l hav e occasio n t o see , can hav e variou s shade s o f meaning . Wha t i s suggeste d b y th e ter m "character" a s a designatio n o f a typ e o f pictur e i s tha t th e ico n flows directly fro m th e origina l model . I n this sens e i t ha s a n affinit y t o wha t Neoplatonic thinker s meant by "emanation. " The significanc e o f th e terminologica l developmen t trace d i n the preceding pages calls for assessment, a t least in a few brie f observations . One shoul d no t entertai n to o hig h hopes , i t i s worth remindin g our selves, o f th e ligh t tha t th e articulatio n an d applicatio n o f term s ma y throw on intellectua l developments . The dates at which ou r terms began to appea r i n a more o r les s precis e sens e fo r th e designatio n o f picture s are not clearly established. I n most texts, moreover, i t is doubtful whethe r the term s historia, symbolon, an d character ar e consistentl y use d t o describe type s o f sacre d pictures . Ther e i s no way , then , t o mak e termi nology "prove " the precise stage s o f th e developmen t o f a doctrine. O n

154 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

the othe r hand , however , i t woul d obviousl y b e wron g t o loo k a t th e processes i n which term s ar e fashioned a s arbitrary an d rando m events . The articulation an d wide employment o f terms , even if not fully consistent, indicate tha t a problem i s taking shape i n public awareness , that a need is being felt to distinguish betwee n different components , layers, or aspects o f a subjec t tha t a t a n earlie r stag e wer e no t clearl y separate d from eac h other . Eusebius' s term s sho w tha t suc h a nee d wa s fel t wit h regard to images of Christ . With all our hesitations, the splitting of th e notion "icon " into differ ent type s require s u s t o reac h som e conclusions . The mos t obviou s on e is that on th e intellectua l horizo n o f earl y Christianit y image s remaine d a problem , an d tha t the y continue d t o occup y th e mind s o f Christia n thinkers an d teachers. Fro m th e apologist s i n the lat e secon d centur y t o Eusebius i n th e earl y fourth , image s wer e obviousl y fel t a s a challenge , both i n socia l an d ritua l realit y an d i n theologica l thought . Neithe r th e furious attack s o n idols , suc h a s thos e b y th e apologist s an d Tertullian, nor th e profoun d chang e tha t replace d paga n idol s b y Christia n icon s solved th e proble m o f th e image . Eve n belie f i n th e invisibilit y o f God , and therefore the utter impossibility o f portrayin g God, did not do away with th e constan t feelin g o f dange r tha t reside d i n th e icon . Th e imag e of th e God , o f th e "false " o r o f th e "true " one , continued t o exer t a dangerous fascinatio n o n people's minds. One wonders wha t mad e th e image stron g enough t o surviv e i n such an unsympathetic intellectua l atmosphere . Di d it draw its life forc e fro m the powerfu l iconi c tradition s o f Hellenisti c culture ? O r wa s i t th e powerful huma n nee d fo r a visibl e approac h t o th e hidde n Go d tha t gave th e imag e suc h strength ? Perhap s n o simpl e answe r ca n b e given , and i t is not ou r task t o speculat e abou t th e tru e yet hidden reason s fo r the image's survival. Be that as it may, in reading the Christian literatur e from Athenagora s t o Eusebiu s on e canno t questio n tha t th e imag e wa s felt as a permanent challenge . When considered i n the historical contex t of th e early fourt h century , the distinctio n betwee n tw o classe s o f pictures , th e symbola an d th e characteres, i n a sens e reflect s th e tw o grea t cultura l tradition s an d religious attitude s tha t me t an d fuse d i n Christianity . I n new , trans formed version s w e perhap s se e here , o n th e on e hand , th e Hellenisti c attitude t o th e ritua l image , and , o n th e other , th e theolog y o f a n invisible God , a theology tha t has its roots i n biblical concepts . Wa s the

Eusebius 15 5 division o f th e two classe s o f image s a n attempt to find a compromise between an anti-iconic religion and the habit of adoring images? Or did history rathe r forc e int o th e ope n th e conflict betwee n th e contrastin g tendencies within Christianity? An examination of the theory presuming two type s o f sacre d image s fo r wha t i t ma y disclos e abou t socia l an d doctrinal developments still remains to be made. For the subject of th e present study, the theory of th e sacred image, Eusebius's mos t important contribution i s the very distinction betwee n two categories of hol y pictures—symbolic image s and iconic images. It would not be easy to draw a clear dividing line between the two types of icons, as Eusebius understood them, even if the texts he left us had been more detailed an d specific tha n in fact they are . In practice, setting off symbola fro m characteres i s difficul t an d confusing , particularl y sinc e the figuresrepresented in them are often th e same. It is the same Christ who appears in the monument commemorating th e miraculous healing of th e woma n wit h th e hemorrhage , an d i n th e ico n tha t Constanti a wished to have. And yet, as we have seen, Eusebius reports on the one with appreciation, and totally rejects the other. The distinction between the two type s of religiou s image, then, rests on other foundations tha n the personage represented. The splitting of the holy icon had an important afterlife, bot h in the Church and in views on art.

NOTES 1. Th e scholarl y literature , needles s t o say , i s of somewha t fearsom e dimen sions. Fo r our purpose, see E. Boularand, Vheresie d'Arius et la "Foi" de Nicee, I (Paris, 1972). See also the article by Harry A. Wolfson, "Philosophical Implications of Arianism and Apollinarianism" (describing Arianism as a "leftist heresy" ) i n his Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays (Cam bridge, Mass., 1961), pp. 126-57.1 am not aware, however, of any detailed study of the Arianic Dispute with particular reference to the painted icon. 2. I t wa s Jean Boivi n d e Villeneuv e wh o printe d the m i n hi s editio n o f o f Nicephoros's Byzantina historia (Paris, 1702) . And see George Florovskii, Christianity and Culture, I (Belmont, Mass., 1974), pp. 107, 237 ff . 3. Se e the literature mentioned above, chapter 2 , from which I should like to repeat only S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984) , pp . 17 0 ff . Fo r the ico n i n the lif e o f a n individual, see also Peter Brown (written with Sabine MacCormack), "Artifices o f Eternity," New York Review of Books, XXII (1975), pp. 19 ff., an d

156 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

reprinted i n Peter Brown , Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity (London , 1982), pp. 207 ff . Se e also T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Oxford , 1981).

4. I use the translation b y Cyril Mango . See The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453 (Sources and Documents) (Englewoo d Cliffs , N . J. , 1972) , pp . 16-17. Th e origina l text , wit h a Lati n translation , i s bes t availabl e i n J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca, X X (Paris , 1856) , cols. 1545 ff . 5. Th e majo r formulations , a s on e knows , ar e Exodu s 20:3— 5 ("Tho u shal t not hav e othe r god s befor e me . Tho u shal t no t mak e unt o the e an y grave n image or any likenes s of an y thing that is in heaven above , or is in the earth beneath, o r tha t i s i n th e wate r unde r th e earth . Thou shal t no t bo w dow n thyself t o them , no r serv e them." ) an d Deuteronom y 5:7-8 , wit h almos t precisely the same wording. An d see above, chapter 1 . 6. Th e Vulgate , th e traditiona l Lati n translatio n o f th e Bible , use s th e ver b ahsorbeo. I n th e Lati n translatio n th e sentenc e fro m 2 Corinthian s 5: 4 reads, "Nam et qui sumus in hoc tabernaculo ingemiscimus gravati, eo quod nolumus exspoliari , se d supervestiri , u t absorbeatu r quo d mortal e es t a vita." 7. Th e concrete formulation s o f thi s problem hav e been discussed i n the literature o n th e ancien t epiphaneia. Se e th e entr y "Epiphanie " b y F . Pfiste r i n Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie der classischen Alterturnswissenschaft, Supplement 4 (1924) , cols . 277-323 ; th e entr y "Epiphanie " b y E . Pa x i n Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum, V (1962) , cols. 832-909 ; an d the interesting articl e b y H . S . Versnel , "Wha t Di d Ancien t Ma n Se e When H e Saw God ? Som e Reflection s o n Greco-Roma n Epiphany, " i n Dir k va n de r Plas, ed. , Effigies Dei: Essays on the History of Religions (Leiden , 1987) , pp. 42-55 . 8. Eusebius , The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine VII , 18 . I use the English translatio n b y G. A . Williamson (Pengui n Books, 1986) , pp. 301 ff . 9. Th e moti f o f thi s grou p i s wel l know n fro m Roma n supplicatio n coins , perhaps mos t commo n a t th e tim e o f Hadrian . See , e.g., Richar d Brilliant , Gesture and Rank in Roman Art (Ne w Haven , Conn. , 1963) , p . 135 , ills . 3.78, 3.79 . Bu t i t wa s als o know n i n Eusebius' s ow n time ; i t appear s o n a medallion representin g Constantine I . See Brilliant, p. 190 , ill. 4.72. 10. Hug o Koch , Die altchristliche Bilderfrage nach den literarischen Quellen (Gottingen, 1917) , p . 41, who define s Eusebiu s as an "outspoken enem y o f images" i n th e Constantinia n period , think s tha t Eusebius' s descriptio n o f this monumen t stresse s it s paga n connotations . I n the descriptio n Eusebiu s does indee d sa y tha t i t is th e gentile s wh o thu s expresse d thei r gratitud e t o the Savior . A simila r interpretatio n o f Eusebius' s descriptio n i s als o indi cated b y Jarosla v Pelikan , The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, 600—1700 (The Christian Tradition, II ) (Chicago, 1974) , p. 101.

Eusebius 15 7 11. Vita Constantini III , chapter 49. 12. Vita Constantini III , chapters 3 and 49. 13. Ch . S . Peirce , Collected Papers, mainl y I I (Cambridge , Mass. , 1935) , PP 227 ff . Fo r some of the complexities o f th e concept, withou t reference t o art however, se e Umbert o Eco , A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington , Ind. , 1979), PP- 19 0 ff . 14. Johanne s Kollwitz , "Zu r Fnihgeschicht e de r Bilderverehrung," i n W. Schone , J. Kollwitz, H. Campenhausen, eds., Das Gottesbild im Abendlande (Witte n and Berlin , 1959) , pp . 57-75 . Th e articl e originall y appeare d i n Romische Quartalschrift, XLVII I (1953), pp. 1 ff . 15. Th e article , dealin g wit h icon s i n Sinai , appeare d i n Russia n i n Visantiiskii Vremenik, I X (1902) , pp . 343-77 . Importan t i n ou r contex t ar e especiall y pp. 34 9 ff. , 354 . 16. Th e scholarl y literatur e o n classica l historiae i s larg e an d complex . Impor tant fo r thei r discussion s o f th e theoretica l dimension s involve d ar e Car l Robert, Bild und Lied (Berlin , 1881) ; idem , Archaologische Hermeneutik (Berlin, 1919) ; Kurt Weitzmann, Illustrations in Roll and Codex (Princeton , 1970 [originall y 1947]) ; an d recentl y Richar d Brilliant , Visual Narratives: Storytelling in Etruscan and Roman Art (Ithac a an d London, 1984) . 17. On e quotatio n wil l illustrat e thi s well-know n approach . I n Contra Celsum (II, 69 ) Orige n proclaims , "Th e trut h o f th e event s recorde d t o hav e hap pened to Jesus cannot b e fully see n in the mere text and historical narrative ; for eac h even t t o thos e wh o rea d th e Bibl e mor e intelligentl y i s clearl y a symbol a s well" (p. 11 8 of th e English translation) . 18. Se e the text quoted abov e (fo r detail s se e not e 4 ) an d the observations afte r this quotation. 19. Th e Gospel accordin g to St. John 10:7-18 ; and Daniel 6:16-24 . 20. Origen , In Joann, 13 , 60. See Migne, Patrologia Graeca XIV , col. 521 . And cf. Gerhar t Ladner , "Medieva l an d Moder n Understandin g o f Symbolism : A Comparison, " Speculum, LI V (1979) , pp . 223-56 , reprinte d i n Gerhar t B. Ladner, Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies in History and Art, I (Rome, 1983) , pp. 239-82 . 21. Demonstratio Evangelica I , 10 , 39 . I n th e Englis h translatio n b y W . J . Ferrar, The Proof of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Cesarea, I (New York , 1920) , p. 60. 22. Demonstratio Evangelica I , 10 , 37. English translation , p. 58 . 23. Se e Migne, Patrologia Graeca XX , col. 1545 . 24. J . Kollwitz, "Zu r Fruhgeschichte de r Bilderverehrung," p. 60.

NINE

Dionysius Areopagita: "Poetic" Theology

J. Some Characteristics of His Thought In the preceding sections w e have tried to follo w th e path, and mark the main stages , o f articulation s o f view s concernin g th e visibl e image s o f the invisibl e god . W e hav e witnesse d th e unfoldin g o f a paradoxica l problem, and have watched the contradictions implied in the very nature of thi s proble m becomin g explici t an d manifest . Th e dialectic s o f thi s problem com e t o a clima x an d ar e full y revealed , s o i t seems , i n th e writings o f a n autho r a s mysteriou s a s h e wa s influential , Dionysiu s Areopagita. Whenever th e questio n o f th e validit y an d "truth " o f th e hol y ico n came u p i n th e Middl e Age s o r i n th e Renaissance , probabl y n o nam e appears a s frequentl y a s that o f Dionysiu s Areopagita . Th e influenc e o f his theories , i n fact , b y fa r exceede d th e mention s o f hi s name. 1 Diony sius was considere d a n authority secon d only t o th e Bible, and the ever158

Dionysius Areopagita 15

9

recurring references , ope n o r implicit , t o wha t wa s believe d t o b e hi s doctrine ar e a weighty facto r i n the reflection o n sacre d images . Strang e as i t ma y seem , bot h partie s i n th e debat e abou t icons , th e movemen t condemning sacre d image s a s idol s an d demandin g thei r destruction, a s well a s th e movemen t defendin g the m an d preachin g thei r veneration , drew on Dionysius Areopagita, and both claimed him as their authority. This unusua l ambiguit y hold s tru e eve n fo r moder n student s an d interpreters. Thu s Joh n Meyendorff , a historia n o f Easter n orthodo x thought, believe s tha t i t wa s Dionysiu s Areopagit a wh o shape d th e iconclasts' attitude to symbol an d icon. 2 I n a review of studie s on icono clastic thought , undertake n a s recentl y a s 1980 , thi s assessmen t o f Dio nysius's influenc e i s even describe d a s "obvious." 3 Bu t another contem porary scholar , th e Russia n historia n an d studen t o f ancien t aesthetics , V. V . Byckov , sympatheticall y an d convincingl y describe s ho w th e "or thodox" part y i n th e eighth-centur y iconoclasti c disput e (tha t is , th e party that defended th e images) dre w its basic arguments i n favor o f th e holy icons from the same writings of Dionysiu s Areopagita. 4 The critica l studen t canno t hel p bein g dismayed . Ho w ca n on e ac count fo r suc h a fla t contradictio n i n th e readin g o f a well-known an d well-established text ? The conflicting interpretation s offere d throughou t the ages , w e ar e compelle d t o assume , mirro r a n intrinsi c conflic t i n Dionysius Areopagita' s though t itself—whic h ma y eve n reflec t som e immanent difficulty o f th e problems our author was dealing with. In studyin g Dionysiu s Areopagit a on e get s use d t o paradoxes . Throughout man y period s hi s writing s exercise d a profoun d influenc e on attitudes to works of art , and on aesthetic reflection i n general. It was particularly th e attitud e t o th e visua l arts , especially painting , tha t wa s determined b y Dionysian thought . Thi s i s all th e more remarkable since Dionysius Areopagit a himsel f di d no t pa y an y attentio n t o painting . Modern studie s hav e no t sufficientl y stresse d tha t i n th e whol e bod y o f writings attribute d t o ou r author , i n th e so-calle d Corpu s Areopagiti cum, we find not a single treatise that deals with art, not a single chapter devoted t o paintin g o r t o a pictur e (or , fo r tha t matter , t o a piec e o f sculpture), an d ther e i s no t a singl e extensiv e statemen t tha t ca n b e related specificall y t o a n artisti c activit y o r product . Wer e w e t o judg e only b y what i s explicitly sai d i n Dionysia n writings , we woul d hav e t o conclude tha t ou r autho r di d no t hav e an y us e fo r art . Ho w then , on e wonders, are we to explain his profound an d far-reaching impac t on th e

160 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

ways ar t was regarde d an d interpreted i n many ages ? It is obviously no t in details , i n specifi c area s o f reflectio n tha t w e ca n loo k fo r a n answe r to thes e questions . W e mus t conside r th e genera l orientatio n o f hi s thought. The pivotal them e o f Dionysia n theology , th e problem aroun d whic h the whol e o f hi s though t i s built , i s no t new ; bu t i n th e formulatio n h e gave it, it seems to hav e bee n destined t o for m th e basis of a philosophy of sacre d art . The theme , briefl y described , i s tha t o f theophan y i n ou r world, o f th e revelatio n o f Go d t o mortals . Ho w ca n Go d appea r t o humanity, an d ho w ca n God , wh o i s beyon d matter , b e reveale d i n a world o f materia l things ? Ho w ca n God , wh o i s invisibl e b y nature , b e experienced i n a world i n which everythin g is perceived b y means of th e senses? Thi s i s th e ol d questio n that , with ne w impetu s an d i n ne w formulations, lurk s i n th e backgroun d o f Dionysia n thought , an d give s his theology it s direction. Dionysius Areopagita' s guise , o r rathe r disguise , i s quit e appropriat e to th e centra l subjec t matte r o f hi s thought . W e kno w nex t t o nothin g about th e perso n wh o compose d th e writing s tha t for m th e Corpu s Areopagiticum. Ther e ar e goo d reason s t o believ e tha t h e live d i n th e early sixth century, possibly i n Syria. Students of Byzantin e culture hav e tried to identify hi m with different historica l figures, 5 but, so far as 1 ca n see, n o conclusion ha s been reached . Certai n i t is that the name used by the unknow n autho r wa s know n from , an d hallowe d by , th e Ne w Testament text . I n th e Act s o f th e Apostle s (17:22-34 ) w e rea d o f St . Paul's sermo n preache d a t Athens . I t wa s a sermo n preache d nea r a n altar inscribe d "T o th e Unknow n God " (iy:z}). 6 A t th e en d o f th e sermon "certai n me n clav e unt o him , an d believed : amon g th e whic h was Dionysiu s th e Areopagite " (17:34) . I t wa s thi s piec e o f pseudo epigraphy tha t contributed t o giving the writings of "Dionysiu s Areopa gita" a n almos t canonica l status ; bu t th e stor y i n Acts als o someho w announces one of our author's central themes , the unknown god . 2. Conflicting Themes The comprehensiv e spiritua l visio n o f Dionysiu s th e Areopagite , hi s theology an d hi s vie w o f ho w Go d an d humanit y relat e t o eac h other , are marke d b y a n intrinsi c tensio n resultin g fro m conflictin g tendencie s existing nex t t o eac h other , an d eve n interactin g i n variou s ways . An y

Dionysius Areopagita 16

1

attempt t o analyz e th e centra l problem s i n th e Dionysia n tex t wil l hav e to deal wit h this tension, and so will attempt s to understand what it was that mad e hi m s o significan t i n the theor y o f images . I shall star t with a brief an d schemati c surve y o f th e tw o tendencies , an d shal l then as k what they ma y have meant fo r thought on visual symbol s i n general an d holy icons in particular. (i) Transcendence Belie f i n th e absolut e transcendenc e o f th e divin e i s the first feature i n Dionysia n theology . Ou r unknow n author' s poin t o f departure i s a profoun d awarenes s o f th e abys s separatin g th e tw o worlds, the celestial an d the terrestrial, or the divine and the human. The notion of th e two worlds, it need hardly be said, is age-old, and it is well known tha t i t loome d larg e o n th e spiritua l horizo n o f th e earl y Chritf tian centuries . Dionysiu s Areopagita , however , endowe d thi s traditiona l notion with an intellectual and emotional urgency that was rarely matched. The divin e being , Dionysiu s teaches , canno t b e properly experience d or grasped, and therefore i t also cannot be expressed. I n putting forwar d these views , h e sometime s touche s upo n problem s tha t belon g t o th e very foundations o f visual experience and of th e visual arts. Just as the senses can neither grasp nor perceive the things of th e mind, just as representation an d shap e canno t tak e i n th e simpl e an d th e shapeless , jus t as corporeal for m canno t la y hold of th e intangible and incorporeal, b y the same standard of truth beings are surpassed by the infinity beyond being, intelligences by that oneness which is beyond intelligence.7 In view of tha t total ineffability , Dionysiu s naturally asks, "How the n can we spea k o f th e divine names ? Ho w ca n we d o this i f th e Transcendent surpasse s al l discours e an d al l knowledge . . . ? How ca n w e ente r upon thi s undertakin g i f th e Godhea d i s superio r t o bein g an d i s un speakable and unnameable?" 8 It i s statement s lik e thes e tha t mak e Dionysiu s Areopagit a a majo r figure in what is known a s "negative theology." Affirmative (katophatic) theology, w e hav e learned , states perfection s a s th e characteristic s o f God; negativ e (apophatic) theolog y denie s tha t thes e perfection s ar e characteristics o f God . An y perfection s w e know , an d ca n attribut e t o God, ar e thos e foun d i n th e create d world ; projectin g the m ont o th e divine bein g is necessarily a "clouding" of th e divine purity. God , therefore, ca n b e known onl y "throug h unknowing." 9 Th e idea occurs in the

162 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

whole bod y o f writin g that goes under Dionysius's name , but it becomes particularly obviou s i n th e Mystical Theology, a shor t treatis e (onl y a few page s long ) tha t ha d a profoun d influenc e o n Europea n thought . Here Dionysius offers a hymnic praise of apophatic theology. O f what is called the Supreme Cause he says, There is no speaking of it , nor name nor knowledge of it . Darkness and light, error and truth—it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is beyond every assertion, being the perfect and unique cause of al l things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and absolute nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial.10 Everybody wh o studies , howeve r briefly , negativ e theolog y i n th e context o f ou r presen t subject—tha t is , wha t i t ma y mea n fo r th e understanding o f th e image s o f God—wil l hav e t o conside r a n aspec t we hav e no t mentione d s o far , th e psychologica l aspect . Eve n ou r brie f and sketch y comment s wil l show , I hope , ho w crucia l thi s particula r aspect is for the doctrine of icons . In mainstrea m theolog y th e clai m t o objectiv e knowledg e prevails . The great teachers of theology referred to the sources of authority (Scripture, th e Fathers , o r th e decree s o f councils) , an d the y expounde d th e doctrines accordin g t o th e accepte d rule s o f rationa l discourse. 11 Ye t even objectiv e theology , howeve r systemati c an d full y articulate , lef t room fo r the mystery an d the ineffable. "Ever y word of Go d written fo r men accordin g t o th e presen t ag e i s a forerunne r o f th e mor e perfec t word t o b e reveale d b y hi m i n a n unwritte n wa y i n th e Spirit, " sai d Maximus Confessor, the dominant theologian of early Byzantine thought. 12 Against thi s dialecti c backgroun d o f a n objectiv e theolog y tha t i s aware of it s limitations, anothe r theology emerged . I t was a theology o f subjective knowledg e an d religiou s experience . I n th e fifth an d sixt h centuries a.d . th e theolog y o f a n intuitiv e knowledg e o f Go d reache d a climax i n the Christian East. As is well known , this was a period of hig h religious tension , an d trend s o f persona l devotion , sometime s fervent , developed here . Th e movemen t o f th e Easter n monk s wa s probabl y th e best known . I t was thes e trends , particularl y monasticism , tha t empha sized th e psychologica l aspect s o f religiou s life. 13 Th e concer n with psychological problems , with the urgency of religious experience, existed not only alongsid e systemati c theology ; i t even penetrated int o the bod y of systemati c doctrine.

Dionysius Areopagita 16

3

(ii) Hierarchy The other motif tha t forms a focus in Dionysian though t is perhaps somewha t les s traditional tha n th e concept o f God' s absolut e transcendence, thoug h i t seem s t o b e deepl y roote d i n huma n attempt s to understan d ho w Go d relate s t o th e world. I t is the idea o f hierarchy . The them e o f hierarch y t o a larg e exten t dominate s th e reflection s an d deliberations tha t mak e u p th e Dionysia n corpus . Differin g fro m th e concept o f God' s tota l transcendence , Dionysius' s fascinatio n wit h hier archy i s openl y displayed . On e o f th e mos t extensiv e treatise s i n th e corpus deals with, and bears the title, The Celestial Hierarchy. 14 Anothe r treatise, eve n slightl y longer , i s devote d t o The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.15 I t i s therefor e n o exaggeratio n t o clai m tha t hierarch y i s th e pivotal poin t o f Dionysius' s whol e system. 16 A s w e shal l shortl y se e i n some detail , h e als o playe d a n importan t par t i n developin g an d articu lating the implications of hierarch y fo r religious and cosmological thought . An important moder n philosophe r an d historian o f though t coul d clai m that i t wa s Dionysiu s Areopagit a wh o presente d th e proble m o f hier archy in all its acuteness. 17 Dionysius's consisten t an d lasting concern with hierarchy is of partic ular significance whe n w e compar e i t with th e other leading moti f i n his thought, God' s othernes s an d complet e transcendence . Th e concep t o f hierarchy is apt to emphasize gradual transition, the graded passing from one conditio n t o another . Thes e connotation s sharpl y conflic t wit h th e concept of divine transcendence, a notion suggestin g a sharp, irreparable break between the worlds. It is this collision that makes it necessary to look briefly int o the history of hierarchy concepts before the sixth century a.d . The notio n o f hierarchy , i t i s wel l known , ha s bee n employe d i n a bewildering variety of contexts , fro m the choirs of angel s to the ranks of the military. This variety of applications , however , has not obscured th e basic characteristic s o f th e notion . I n al l variations , i t seems , tw o fea tures can always b e found; they constitute the nature of the concept, and without the m w e canno t spea k o f hierarchy . On e o f th e feature s i s tha t any hierarch y mus t b e considere d a s a whole . I t i s th e sam e substance , as it were, that prevails throughout the whole system, the same authorit y that dominate s al l it s parts . A hierarchy ca n exis t onl y a s a whole. Th e individual leve l detache d fro m the whole structure does not form part of a hierarchy , a s a n individua l rung , isolate d fro m th e whole , doe s no t form par t of a ladder. I n antique sources , it is worth recalling , hierarch y

164 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

was ofte n compare d t o th e huma n body ; th e individua l limb , thes e sources say , canno t exis t fo r itself ; i t i s only withi n th e whol e organi c body that it has any distinct being. 18 Without goin g int o an y furthe r analysi s o f thi s characteristi c w e ca n say tha t i t i s precisel y becaus e o f thi s unity , o f th e interdependenc e o f the specific rungs , that hierarchy ca n serve as a mediator linkin g the top of the scale to its bottom. The othe r characteristi c featur e o f hierarch y i s mor e conspicuous . I t is th e gradatio n o f th e scale . Whil e th e unit y o f th e hierarchi c scal e i s implicit, th e gradation i s openly displayed ; it is the external hallmar k o f hierarchy. Whereve r a hierarch y i s perceived , ther e w e find a scaling , every run g is related to any other in a quantitative way , so that it can be expressed i n terms of "more " or "less." Often thi s quantitative relation ship i s cast i n spatia l terms : we spea k o f u p an d down ; a given run g in the ladder, we say, is "high" or "low." The ide a o f hierarch y wa s no t alie n t o earl y religions . Th e mos t famous exampl e is , o f course , Jacob's ladde r (Genesi s 28:12) . Homer' s golden chain, suspended fro m heaven, is another, though more problematic, illustration. 19 I n the philosophica l an d scientifi c though t o f Antiq uity on e als o finds some , rathe r rudimentary , reflection s suggestin g a "scale o f being, " particularl y a scal e o f nature. 20 Suggestion s o f hier archy ca n b e foun d i n Plato , particularl y i n th e Timaeus tha t wa s s o influential throughout th e Middl e Ages . I t i s i n thi s wor k tha t h e de scribes the return journey from the higher region of the "absolute being" to th e lowe r world . Amon g th e philosopher s o f natur e i t wa s Aristotl e who seem s to hav e perceive d a detailed scal e of perfection . Thu s amon g living creatures h e conceived o f a scale of eleve n grades , beginnin g with zoophytes a t th e botto m an d endin g with humanit y a t th e top. 21 Ye t though th e ide a o f hierarch y wa s "i n th e air, " a s i t were , i n classica l Antiquity i t did not crystallize i n a theory. It wa s only i n th e las t stage s o f th e ancien t worl d tha t a hierarchi c image o f th e worl d wa s approached . Neoplatonism , i n it s particula r orientation an d interests , showe d a tendenc y t o se e a coheren t genera l scheme o f thing s i n a descending serie s o f levels. 22 Plotinus' s concep t o f emanation, base d o n th e principl e o f th e expansivenes s an d self-tran scendence o f "th e Good, " whic h becam e th e essentia l conceptio n o f Neoplatonic cosmology, ha d an inherent affinity t o the idea of hierarchy . Plotinus himself , however , di d no t insis t o n th e hardened , stabl e form s

Dionysius Areopagita 16

5

and structur e o f eac h particula r leve l i n th e descendin g row , eac h "hy postasis," a s h e said , t o th e exten t o f impressin g upo n hi s reader s th e image an d doctrin e o f a firmly grade d scale . I n hi s mind , i t seems , emanation wa s primaril y a dynamic, ever-changin g proces s of overflow ing, not a definitively structure d scale. In the centur y tha t saw , a t it s close , th e wor k o f Dionysiu s Areopa gita, th e notio n o f hierarch y wa s a little mor e closel y intimated . Macro bius, i n th e earl y fifth century , provide d Wester n Europ e wit h a Lati n abridgment of Plotinus' s cosmology ; h e also summarized the conceptio n of—somewhat obscured—cosmi c hierarchy , a s it results from the Plotinian doctrine of emanation. It was this summary that was a major source for the Latin Middle Age's acquaintance with the Neoplatonic pictur e of the world. 23 In th e intellectua l worl d o f earl y Christianity , a s i n contemporar y pagan culture , th e ide a o f a scal e o r a ladde r wa s no t altogethe r alien , although i t di d no t crystalliz e int o a n articulat e doctrin e o f hierarchy . Clement of Alexandria , fo r example, i s aware of a hierarchy a s a "political" fact withi n th e ecclesiastical structure—th e hierarch y of bishops. 24 Clement finds authorit y fo r ecclesiastica l hierarch y i n th e choir s o f an gels, whic h h e perceive s a s cas t i n hierarchi c order . The hierarch y o f bishops i s a reflection o f th e hierarch y o f th e angels . Le o th e Great , th e dominant figure of lat e fifth-century theology, seems to have been aware of bot h th e necessity an d the dangers of hierarchy . Al l th e apostles wer e chosen, bu t eve n they , Le o th e Grea t says , receive d grac e t o differen t degrees, an d henc e the y receive d distinctio n an d authorit y t o differen t degrees; some apostles were superior to others. It is this canonical mode l that lends legitimacy t o the different rank s of th e bishops. 25 3. The Doctrine of Symbols The theme s I have outline d a s th e backgroun d an d framewor k o f Dio nysius Areopagita' s speculativ e though t are , o f course , wel l known . H e himself wa s full y awar e o f thei r traditiona l character , an d approache d them a s time-hallowe d topoi . Bu t doe s h e reall y onl y repea t wha t hi s predecessors hav e alread y said ? As happens s o often , i n taking over and further developin g traditiona l concept s an d themes , Dionysius , i n fact , gave the m a new turn , an d emphasized aspect s tha t in earlier stages ha d received les s attention . W e ca n therefor e ask , wha t i s Dionysius' s ne w

166 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

and original contributio n t o those traditional problems ? I should lik e t o concentrate o n tw o subject s only : on e i s wha t h e ha s t o sa y abou t th e nature of the symbol i n general, and , if possible, the image in particular; the other is what effect h e thought the symbol, or image, has on people. Before w e tur n to hi s doctrine o f symbols , w e mus t mentio n anothe r of th e paradoxes t o which the student o f Dionysiu s Areopagita become s accustomed. Bot h th e centra l significanc e o f th e symbo l i n Dionysius a s well a s th e influenc e thi s theor y exerte d o n medieva l an d Renaissanc e thought ar e well known. 26 I t is therefore particularl y remarkabl e that in the Corpu s Areopagiticum , a s we no w hav e it , n o detaile d an d system atic presentatio n o f Dionysius' s view s o n th e symbo l ca n b e found . I n several of hi s writings h e refers t o a treatise h e composed unde r the title "Symbolic Theology, " ye t thi s treatis e i s lost . I t i s strange , moder n scholars hav e noticed, 27 tha t o f a n autho r whos e whol e wor k i s per meated by reflections o n symbolism i t was precisely this treatise that has disappeared. Was it never actually written? One cannot help wondering. Dionysius end s hi s work The Divine Names b y saying, "S o here I finish my treatise on th e conceptual name s of God , and , with God' s guidance , I will mov e o n t o The Symbolic Theology." 1* Bu t i n on e o f th e letter s attributed t o hi m h e write s tha t h e i s actuall y sendin g "th e ful l tex t o f my Symbolic Theology" 1929 An d a t the beginnin g o f th e Mystical Theology, som e scholar s believe , w e probabl y hav e a full tabl e o f content s o f this work. 30 Whethe r Dionysius' s Symbolic Theology wa s los t o r wa s never written, the Dionysian writings , as we now hdv e them, contain n o systematic presentatio n o f hi s thought s o n symbolism , a subject o f cru cial significanc e i n hi s intellectua l world . On e ha s t o reconstruc t hi s doctrine fro m the many observations scattere d in all his extant writings. Dionysius Areopagita' s reference s t o hi s systemati c treatis e o n sym bolic theology suggest two conclusions . The first and obvious one is that he considered th e subject of symboli c theology a topical theme, of pressing importanc e t o hi s time . A secon d conclusion , les s obviou s ye t stil l likely, i s tha t i n th e literar y traditio n wit h whic h h e wa s familia r (bot h that o f th e Churc h Father s an d o f th e "pagan " authors ) h e ha d no t found a text tha t he could accep t a s the theory o f symboli c theolog y h e was looking for . Now, how did Dionysius Areopagita understand the symbol, and how does his doctrine of symbolis m pertai n to the painted icon ? Dionysius's us e o f th e ter m symbolon call s fo r som e explanation .

Dionysius Areopagita 16

7

Rene Roques stressed that the Dionysian symbolon i s not fully translate d by th e Frenc h (o r English ) "symbol." 31 Th e Gree k term , a s use d b y Dionysius, differ s bot h i n rang e o f meanin g an d i n emotiona l connota tion fro m it s meanin g i n moder n languages . I t woul d b e foolhard y t o attempt a discussion o f present-da y usage s o f th e concep t o f "symbol" ; the literatur e pertainin g t o thi s subjec t ha s reache d unmanageabl e pro portions. Nevertheless , on e canno t hel p feelin g tha t when w e nowaday s speak of "symbol " we ten d to emphasize th e gap between th e object (o r form) tha t serve s a s symbol an d the idea (o r other content ) tha t i s to b e symbolized. I n Dionysia n thought , th e symbolon, whil e neve r negatin g the differenc e betwee n symbo l an d symbolized , represent s mainl y wha t they hav e i n common . Symbolon, i n hi s view , i s no t onl y a sign, bu t i s actually the thing itself. In the contex t o f Dionysia n theolog y th e functio n o f th e symbol i s t o overcome th e contras t betwee n God' s transcendenc e an d th e hierarch y that link s Go d t o th e materia l world . Thi s en d i s achieved , o r a t leas t approached, i n a two-wa y movement : on e i s a descent , motivate d b y grace, o f Go d t o humanity ; th e othe r i s a n ascensio n o f humanit y t o God. The two processes, of God' s revelation, theophany, an d of human ity's elevation to the divine, anagoge, merg e to overcome th e contrast. I shall no w tr y t o outlin e th e tw o processes , bu t I shall d o s o wit h a specific questio n i n mind. This is , what ar e the aspects of th e Dionysia n theory of symbols that are of particula r pertinence fo r a theory of artisti c images? To be sure, these aspects are not clearly spelled out by Dionysius himself. Bu t i f w e approac h hi s writing s wit h thi s questio n i n mind , w e can gras p th e outline s o f a n answer . I n tryin g t o presen t Dionysius' s theory o f symbols with this question i n mind, one must present a picture that will differ , i f onl y slightly , fro m wha t th e historian o f theolog y wil l see in this doctrine. The idea of th e two complementary, i f opposed, processes is not new . In Neoplatonic though t the double process—the emergenc e of th e many natural being s an d appearance s fro m th e supernatura l One , an d thei r ultimate retur n t o thei r source—wa s a familia r image . I t was als o con sidered a matte r o f cours e tha t th e tw o processe s complemen t eac h other. Dionysiu s Areopagit a follow s thi s model , and , partly b y bracket ing paga n theme s wit h supportin g biblica l quotations , transform s the m into Christia n doctrines . A goo d exampl e i s th e openin g paragrap h o f The Celestial Hierarchy:

168 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

"Every goo d endowmen t an d ever y perfec t gif t i s fro m above , comin g dow n from the Father of Lights " [James 1:17] . But there is something more. Inspired by the Father, each procession of the Light spreads itself generously towards us, and, in its power to unify, i t stirs us by lifting u s up. It returns us back to the oneness an d deifyin g simplicit y o f th e Fathe r wh o gather s u s in . For , a s th e sacred word says, "from him and to him are all things [Rom. 11:36]. 32 Let us now conside r eac h o f th e processes separately , an d begi n wit h the idea of God' s revelation, of theophany . 4. God's Descent God's descen t to man , his revelation, i s the most essential proces s i n the world, an d i t i s thu s superio r t o man' s attempt s t o ris e t o th e ful l understanding o f th e divine . Eve n whe n peopl e believ e tha t the y ar e ascending t o th e divin e b y thei r ow n forces , the y are , i n a sense , th e victim o f a n illusion ; i n fact , i t i s Go d wh o i s descendin g t o them . Dionysius (thoug h i n a different context ) illustrate s this belief i n a lively image: Or picture ourselves aboard a boat. There are hawsers joining it to some rock. We take hold of them and pull on them, and it is as if we were dragging the rock to us when in fact we are hauling ourselves and our boat toward that rock.33 Perhaps no othe r theologia n ha s seen th e dialectical natur e of revela tion so sharply as did Dionysius Areopagita. The revelation of the divine is no t alie n t o God , no r i s i t somethin g tha t happen s t o God ; rather , i t follows fro m God' s ow n nature . Bu t even whe n revealin g itself , th e go d cannot annu l th e differenc e betwee n th e divin e an d th e terrestrial . T o explain ho w a revelatio n o f Go d i s possible , Dionysiu s use s a concep t from aestheti c thought ; i t i s th e concep t o f resemblance . A s w e hav e seen,34 i n late Antiquity th e concept of resemblanc e played an important part i n reflectio n o n art . Plantin g th e aestheti c concep t i n metaphysica l and theological contexts , Dionysius endows it with a new meaning . For anything to reveal God , to be the body of revelation , as it were, it has i n som e wa y t o resembl e th e divine ; bu t God , w e als o know , i s altogether differen t fro m everythin g w e ca n se e an d experience . Diony sius's way out of thi s dilemma i s his doctrine of dissimilar similarity. Scripture itself assert s that God is dissimilar and that he is not to be compared with anything, that he is different from everything and, stranger yet, that there is

Dionysius Areopagita 16

9

none a t al l lik e him . Nevertheles s word s o f thi s sor t d o no t contradic t th e similarity o f thing s t o him , fo r th e ver y sam e thing s ar e bot h simila r an d dissimilar to God.35 The concep t o f dissimila r similarit y i s one o f Dionysiu s Areopagita' s most interestin g contributions t o th e theory o f th e icon, and to aestheti c thought i n general . Thi s concep t epitomize s hi s tendenc y t o perceiv e contrasts in , an d as , th e ver y structur e o f reality . Dissimila r similarity , though the formulation strike s us as paradoxical, i s not a play on words; it i s crucia l fo r th e understandin g o f hi s though t i n general , an d fo r grasping his theory of symbol s in particular. Similarity, a s a concep t an d a s a term , wa s no t devoi d o f wha t on e might call "cultura l connotations. " In late Antiquity, the idea of similar ity wa s firmly linked wit h painte d o r carve d images , thoug h i t wa s als o used, o f course , i n muc h wide r contexts . B y Dionysius' s tim e th e term , particularly whe n use d i n th e contex t o f image s (howeve r broa d th e meaning o f th e latte r ma y hav e been) , mus t hav e evoke d th e genera l notion o f wha t woul d toda y b e calle d aesthetics . Bu t wha t Dionysiu s wished t o express by this term was not a matter of ar t theory, but one of theology. Th e crucia l statemen t abou t ho w Go d relate s t o th e worl d i s cast in the terminology o f aesthetics . Dionysius's ide a of God , and of th e urges and drives within the divine nature, woul d mak e a fascinatin g subjec t fo r analysis , bu t i t i s no t on e we ca n take u p here. For the present purpose i t will b e sufficient t o stat e —not withou t hesitation—tha t h e discern s tw o opposin g urge s roote d in the god' s nature : th e desir e t o revea l itsel f t o humanity , an d th e wis h to retreat into itself an d to cut off an y links with what is outside of itself . The principle s o f hierarch y an d transcendenc e ar e transferre d int o th e god's own nature , and are made impulses of it s being. Revelation, i t goes without saying , i s a kind of divin e communicatio n to th e world . Ancien t though t mad e popula r th e imag e o f th e go d communicating itsel f t o th e world . I n religiou s languag e thi s commu nication wa s terme d "revelation. " Implie d i s th e powerful , i f tacit , as sumption tha t God's revelation , the theophany, i s not detached fro m th e god itself . The go d reveal s itsel f b y embodying itsel f i n the appearance s it make s peopl e see . I t i s thi s assumptio n tha t grant s th e concep t o f similarity a significance tha t goes beyond mere sense perception. Now, wha t I want to suggest is that Dionysius Areopagita's use of the term "similarity " i n hi s analysi s o f theophan y implie s a positio n con -

170 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

cerning th e natur e o f wha t w e perceive . Wha t God' s revelation s mak e appear befor e ou r eye s i s no t a mere optica l illusion , a delusion o f ou r senses. Wha t w e perceiv e a s a revelatio n o f Go d doe s hav e som e rea l affinity t o the divine. Similarity, in Dionysius's usage, denotes somethin g objective, a propert y o f wha t actuall y exists , no t merel y a spectator' s impression. A thin g i s simila r t o somethin g els e becaus e i t takes par t in the nature of tha t other being. Therefore, th e more one thing partakes in another, the more similar it will b e to that thing. While theophany , God' s revelation , offer s u s a s i t were a real glanc e at God , i t ca n neve r b e complete . Wer e i t complete , nothin g o f God' s transcendence woul d b e left . The go d wh o reveal s itsel f appears , o r i s embodied, i n terrestria l thing s an d sensua l appearances , tha t is , i n ob jects and phenomena that , in themselves, remai n alien to the divine, and can neve r sho w i t fully . Howeve r genuin e th e similarit y o f th e reveale d god t o it s essenc e ma y be , a n unsurmountabl e elemen t o f othernes s remains. Similarit y t o th e divine , i t follows , i s alway s limite d an d rela tive; i t i s doome d t o remai n fragmentary , an d t o contai n it s opposite . This is the origin of "dissimila r similarity." The shapes, things, and appearances tha t are characterized b y dissimilar similarity are what Dionysius calls "symbols." It may be useful t o compare Dionysius' s view s wit h those hel d by the greatest thinke r o f Christia n Antiquity , Augustine . Augustin e precede s Dionysius b y tw o o r thre e generations, an d i n man y respect s the y ar e worlds apart ; Dionysiu s i s roote d i n Greek , Easter n traditions , Augus tine i n Latin , wester n culture . Ye t th e problem s the y face d wer e clos e enough to allow a brief comparison o f thei r views on our subject. The proble m o f sig n an d symbolis m playe d a significan t rol e i n Au gustine's thought . Alread y i n hi s early treatis e On Dialectics, writte n i n 387, when he was thirty-three years old, he discussed the subject. Almost thirty years later, in 415, i n On the Trinity, h e stated th e problem a s he saw i t i n ol d age . Bu t th e mos t specifi c presentatio n o f hi s theor y o f symbolism i s foun d i n On Christian Doctrine, writte n i n 397 , abou t halfway betwee n th e two other works. 36 What Augustin e say s abou t th e symbo l mark s a n importan t stag e i n the developmen t o f semiotics. 37 I t differs i n characte r fro m Dionysius' s statements; an d w e shal l loo k i n vai n i n th e writing s o f Dionysiu s Areopagita fo r th e analytica l distinction s characteristi c o f Augustine . I f different type s an d categorie s o f symbol s ar e a t al l t o b e foun d i n

Dionysius Areopagita 17

1

Dionysius's thought, they are veiled and hidden; the student has to bring them to light. Not les s importan t fo r ou r purpos e i s th e emotiona l attitud e t o th e symbol. Fo r Augustine , symbol s ar e instrument s tha t trigge r menta l processes; i n themselves , apar t fro m wha t the y d o o r perform , the y ar e devoid of value. Essentially h e conceives of the m as signals. That symbol s ar e essentiall y signal s w e ca n lear n fro m th e fac t tha t they remain unintelligible if we don't know their code. Knowledge of the code, however , doe s no t com e b y nature ; i t ha s t o b e acquired . Thi s i s obvious whe n w e thin k o f words , bu t i t als o hold s tru e fo r visua l experience. Pantomim e migh t appear , a t leas t a t a first glance, t o b e a domain o f natura l expression , intuitivel y graspe d b y th e spectator . Ye t even pantomime require s a convention, which the spectator has to learn. In one of Augustine' s mos t probing discussions of th e symbol h e says, If those signs which the actors make in their dances had a natural meaning and not a meaning dependent on the institution and consent of men, the public crier in early times would not have had to explain to the Carthaginian populace what the dancer wished to convey during the pantomime. Many old men still remember the custom, as we have heard them say. And they are to be believed, for even now if anyone unacquainted with such trifles go to the theater and no one else explains t o hi m wha t thes e motion s signify , h e watche s th e performanc e i n vain.38 That th e cod e alway s ha s t o b e learne d onl y show s that , i n Augus tine's thought, the symbol, or sign, is not understood as arising primarily from th e natur e o f wha t i s symbolized . T o b e sure , Augustin e doe s no t explicitly sa y so , bu t fro m th e tren d o f hi s though t i t follow s tha t th e sign, in itself, is devoid of inheren t meaning or sanctity. Dionysius Areopagita' s though t o n th e symbo l differ s fro m tha t o f Augustine. I t i s no t difficul t t o recogniz e ho w readil y Dionysiu s see s a community betwee n th e natur e o f th e symbolize d an d th e symbol . Hi s teachings o n th e sacrament s epitomiz e thi s attitude. Th e sacramen t ac tually partake s i n Christ' s nature . "I t i s whil e ther e ar e place d o n th e divine alta r th e reveren d symbol s b y whic h Chris t i s signale d an d par taken that one immediately read s out the names of th e saints." 39 Signal ing and partaking are closely relate d to each other. Another exampl e i s th e rit e o f burial . Th e "blesse d ordinance s gran t divine communion " to bot h th e soul an d the body. Fo r the soul the y d o so b y wa y o f mer e contemplation . "An d the y d o s o fo r th e body, "

172 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

Dionysius goes on to explain, "b y way of th e imagery of th e most divine ointment an d throug h th e mos t sacre d symbo l o f th e divin e commu nion." 40 Onc e agai n w e se e tha t th e symbo l o f Chris t i s not a signal; i t takes part in Christ's nature and therefore communicates sanctity . What al l thi s amount s t o i s a n emphati c feelin g o f certaint y that , i n some inexplicable way , Go d i s actually present in the symbol. B y way of hierarchy, then, God, or something of God , does actually come down t o the leve l o f huma n experience . Dionysiu s Areopagit a epitomize d thi s feeling, which , i n perhap s les s ferven t form , wa s commo n t o som e mystical trend s in his time. 5. Ascent of the Mind So fa r w e hav e bee n dealin g wit h wha t w e hav e describe d a s God' s descent to the sensually perceptible symbol , God's theophany. But God's descent to humanity, a s we have said, is only one of tw o complementar y processes linkin g th e divin e with th e human . W e no w tur n t o th e othe r process, t o humanity' s ascen t t o God , th e anagoge. I n his reflection s o n humanity's ascent , Dionysiu s touche s o n th e proble m o f ho w w e per ceive divin e symbols , an d perhap s what , i n a mor e genera l way , visua l appearances ca n d o t o us . Underlying thes e question s i s a concept, eve n if only a vague an d hazy one, of wha t we would no w cal l th e subject or, in our context , th e spectator . I t would b e bot h anachronisti c an d exag gerated were we t o sa y that Dionysius explicitl y consider s what we no w call th e spectator . Bu t i t i s tru e tha t h e devote s attentio n t o th e huma n side o f th e hierarchic ladder , t o ho w symbol s ar e perceived. Withou t i n any wa y ascribin g a psycholog y t o him , w e hav e t o sa y tha t h e her e ponders a n aspec t o f th e symbol that , a s a rule, was rathe r disregarded. In these observations one finds, I believe, an original contribution . A first indication o f th e realit y o f th e spectato r i n Dionysiu s Areopa gita's thought i s th e ide a tha t th e divin e manifestation , whateve r it s specific form , i s no t perceive d with th e sam e distinctio n an d clarit y b y everybody; differen t peopl e wil l perceiv e an d understand th e sam e symbol i n differen t degrees . Now , thi s ma y b e an obvious idea , self-eviden t on th e basi s o f everyda y experience , an d so , on e feel s certain , i t mus t have bee n t o peopl e i n lat e Antiquity . Ye t i n th e larg e bod y o f theorie s dealing with the symbol tha t Greek thought bequeathed to us, the differences i n perceptio n betwee n differen t individual s wer e simpl y no t con -

Dionysius Areopagita 17

3

sidered. That Dionysiu s Areopagit a doe s precisely thi s indicates tha t the subject, wha t w e i n our contex t ofte n cal l th e spectator , ha s becom e a n important matter to him. In severa l o f hi s writings , Dionysiu s emphasize s tha t th e abilit y t o receive revelatio n ma y diffe r fro m perso n t o person . To mak e this poin t he use s variou s simile s an d metaphors . Hi s us e o f th e traditiona l topo s of th e seal impressio n i s a good illustration . Ove r many generations, w e remember, the impression of th e seal on the wax continued to be quoted. 41 As a rule , i t serve d t o sho w th e mor e o r les s complet e identit y o f th e original an d the copy. Thoug h th e impression s ar e many, thinker s usin g this simile stressed, the form i s one and the same, and it originates in the seal itself. I n roughly th e same, though no t quite identical, sens e we als o find the topos i n Dionysius's writings. "Ther e are numerous impression s of th e sea l an d thes e al l hav e a share i n th e origina l prototype ; i t i s th e same whole sea l in each of th e impressions an d none participates in only a part." 42 An d ye t i t remain s tru e tha t ther e ar e difference s fro m on e impression t o th e other : "Mayb e someon e wil l sa y tha t th e sea l i s no t totally identica l i n all th e impressions o f it. " This is an acknowledgmen t of th e endles s variet y o f degree s i n whic h God' s revelatio n i s perceive d and understood . T o explai n th e difference s i n wha t i s perceived , i n th e seal impressions , Dionysiu s continues , "M y answe r i s tha t thi s i s no t because o f th e seal itself , whic h give s itself completel y an d identically t o each. Th e substance s whic h receiv e a shar e o f th e sea l ar e different . Hence th e impression s o f th e on e entir e identica l archetyp e ar e differ ent." 43 Thes e difference s ar e a universa l huma n condition . "Fo r th e truth i s tha t everythin g divin e an d eve n everythin g reveale d t o u s i s known only b y whatever shar e of the m is granted." 44 My ai m i n quotin g thes e reference s t o th e individual' s abilitie s an d limitations i n perceivin g divin e revelatio n wa s no t t o dea l wit h Diony sius's view of the individual; I rather wished to show that, in his thought, the perso n wh o perceive s th e revelation , wh o contemplate s th e symbol , is not merely a postulate o f abstrac t thought, a logical requirement , a s it were; tha t perso n i s a real perso n wit h individua l limitations . The spec tator is given substance an d reality. We now tur n to the spectator. The rea l huma n bein g i s no t abl e t o perceiv e th e divin e withou t th e help of protectiv e layers , and these mediate between the original an d the copy. A goo d illustratio n i s provide d b y anothe r time-honore d topos , which Dionysiu s too k over fro m Neoplatoni c literature , th e topo s o f

174 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

light an d ligh t rays . I t is no t possibl e fo r u s t o perceiv e th e divin e ligh t directly. Th e divin e ra y "ca n enlighte n u s only b y bein g upliftingl y concealed i n a variety of sacre d veils which th e Providence o f th e Father adapts t o ou r natur e a s huma n beings." 45 Tim e an d agai n h e come s back t o th e assertio n tha t th e veil s tha t cove r God' s pur e appearanc e make it possible fo r us to perceive the divine revelation. This, a s i s wel l known , wa s a commo n topo s i n th e theologica l thought o f Antiquit y an d th e Middl e Ages , familia r als o t o wid e audi ences, an d use d i n th e literatur e dealin g with differen t subjects . Th e preceding chapter s o f th e presen t boo k hav e als o show n tha t thi s wa s one o f th e mos t commonl y use d themes . Tha t th e topo s figures s o prominently i n Dionysius Areopagita' s writing s would, therefore, not be remarkable i n itself . Bu t i n usin g thi s them e ou r autho r stresse d tw o features tha t wer e rathe r neglecte d i n the though t an d writings o f othe r authors who ha d similar views an d employed th e same similes. And it is these traits, or aspects, that were most important to the further reflectio n on images. The first feature t o b e noted—and Dionysiu s Areopagit a formulate d it several times—i s tha t the veils concealing th e full, ineffabl e essenc e of God ar e themselves a gift o f God . I t is Go d who , i n hi s "lov e o f man " (philanthropia), hide s behin d th e symbols . Th e veilin g o f Go d i s " a concession t o th e nature o f ou r own mind. " To a modern reade r it may seem self-eviden t tha t th e veil s concealin g a n omnipoten t go d ar e als o God's work . Bu t earlie r thinker s wh o deal t wit h th e ide a o f veil s con cealing Go d stresse d th e ga p betwee n th e go d itsel f an d th e symbol s representing God ; the y di d no t emphasiz e i n an y wa y tha t th e symbol s are God-willed . Dionysiu s doe s precisel y this . Moreover , no t onl y doe s he present th e veil s a s followin g fro m God' s ow n intention , bu t h e als o sees them as an expression of God' s goodness an d love for humanity. For ecclesiastica l doctrine s o f icon s thi s attitud e holds , eve n i f onl y implicitly, far-reachin g consequences . I f th e painte d imag e i s taken a s a "veil," a s wa s th e cas e i n late r generations , Dionysiu s coul d b e con sidered a s providin g a justificatio n fo r it s use . Moreover , h e himsel f seems t o sanctio n suc h interpretation . I n a highly ambiguous passag e i n The Celestial Hierarchy Dionysius , o n th e on e hand , reject s image s o f specific appearance s ("W e mus t no t hav e picture s o f flamin g wheel s whirling i n th e sky") , but , o n th e other , defend s poeti c image s i n a

Dionysius Areopagita 17

5

wording tha t i s worth carefu l reading : "Th e Word of Go d make s use of poetic imagery when discussing these formless intelligences but, as I have said, it does s o no t fo r th e sak e o f art , but as a concession t o th e natur e of ou r ow n mind." 46 Th e image , then , i s no t justifie d "fo r th e sak e o f art," but i t i s defende d a s th e embodimen t o f God' s "concessio n t o th e nature of ou r own mind. " There i s still anothe r characteristic tha t Dionysius Areopagit a discov ered in the topos of the veils concealing the divine. These veils, he taught, not onl y attenuat e th e ligh t radiatin g fro m th e divin e source , thu s mak ing it perceptible to human eyes; he also ascribed to them an active role. The symbols , o r veils, incit e people t o g o beyon d mer e externa l percep tion. Her e Dionysiu s sings a palinod e t o th e paradox , especiall y whe n perceived i n visua l form . I t i s th e strikingl y incongruent , th e obviousl y inappropriate an d unsuitabl e symbols , tha t sti r ou r thought , tha t pro voke wonder, and thus make us at least attempt to lift the veil. It i s fro m thi s poin t o f view—th e abilit y o f th e symbo l t o sti r u s t o move on—tha t Dionysiu s distinguishe s betwee n tw o type s o f symbols . Sacred revelation , w e lear n fro m ou r author , work s i n tw o ways : "I t does so , firstly, by proceeding naturall y throug h sacre d images i n which like represents like, while also using formations whic h are dissimilar and even entirely inadequate an d ridiculous." 47 The first type of symbols , those in which similarit y is more dominant , contains th e grea t dange r tha t peopl e wil l tak e th e symbol s fo r th e meanings, o r ideas , o r supernatura l beings , tha t the y signify . Thu s w e may tak e literall y th e anthropomorphi c metaphors , a s the y occu r i n Scripture. Here lurks the great danger of idolatry . As modern readers we should ad d tha t a purely aestheti c approac h t o visibl e symbol s als o ha s something i n commo n wit h thi s danger . A n aestheti c approac h wil l no t distinguish betwee n wha t w e se e an d it s meaning ; i t will no t spu r u s t o go beyon d wha t w e perceive . Becaus e o f thi s dange r Dionysiu s prefer s the secon d typ e o f symbols . Le t u s liste n t o Dionysiu s himself . Th e passage is so significant tha t it warrants extensive quotation . Since [i n th e theolog y o f "Names" ] th e wa y o f negatio n seem s t o b e mor e suitable t o th e real m o f th e divin e an d sinc e positiv e affirmation s ar e always unfitting t o th e hiddennes s o f th e inexpressible, a manifestation [i n the reality perceptible b y th e senses ] throug h dissimila r shape s i s mor e correctl y t o b e applied to the invisible. So it is that scriptural writings, far from demeaning the

176 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

ranks of heaven , actuall y pa y the m hono r b y describing the m wit h dissimila r shapes s o completel y a t varianc e wit h wha t the y reall y ar e tha t w e com e t o discover ho w thes e ranks , s o fa r remove d fro m us , transcen d al l materiality . Furthermore, I doubt that anyone would refuse to acknowledge that incongruities are more suitable fo r lifting ou r minds up into the domain of th e spiritual than similarities are. High-flown shape s could well mislead someone into thinking that the heavenly being s ar e golden o r gleaming men , glamorous, wearing lustrous clothing, giving off flames which cause no harm, or that they have other similar beauties with which the Word of God has fashioned the heavenly minds. It was to avoid this kind of misunderstandin g amon g those incapable of rising above visible beauty that the pious theologians so wisely and upliftingly stooped to incongruous dissimilarities. . .. A t the same time they enabled that part of the soul whic h long s fo r th e thing s abov e actuall y t o ris e up . Indee d th e shee r crassness of the signs is a goad so that even the materially inclined cannot accept that i t coul d b e permitte d o r tru e tha t th e celestia l o r divin e sight s coul d b e conveyed by such shameful things. 48 The grea t valu e o f th e dissimila r symbol , then , i s tha t i t spur s th e spectator, tha t it goads and incites him. But what is it that the dissimilar symbol encourages ? T o answe r thi s question , Dionysius' s languag e abounds i n metaphors and images, all remarkabl y clos e to each other. It is the soul's ascent to God, what he calls anagoge. With man y variation s Dionysiu s speak s of humanity' s ascent , of Go d raising humanit y upwards , o f people' s "climbing " upwards , o f thei r being "uplifted " t o th e divine , o f bein g le d upwards , an d s o on . On e would lik e t o kno w wha t i n fac t is thi s process , fo r whic h s o man y descriptive turn s ar e used. A comprehensive discussio n o f thi s image, a s used b y Dionysiu s Areopagita , woul d b y fa r transcen d th e limit s o f th e present study ; therefor e I shall only mak e a fe w comments concernin g those aspects that have a direct relation to the problem of images . Nowhere di d Dionysiu s defin e th e process o f risin g or being uplifted , or describe i n some detai l wha t actuall y happen s whe n w e ar e raised o r uplifted. On e o f th e fe w thing s w e kno w i s tha t th e proces s ha s a direction. Bot h the term anagoge an d all the images employed t o suggest it sho w tha t th e proces s i s conceive d i n spatia l terms . Tim e an d agai n the movemen t upward s i s stressed ; th e "higher " layer s ar e thos e t o which w e ar e brought , o r wher e w e desir e t o arrive . Whateve r h e ma y have though t happen s durin g thi s ascent , i t i s obviou s tha t th e back ground an d source of hi s images i s the myth o f th e soul's journe y to th e heavens or God. The mythology o f th e Himmelsreise wa s widespread i n

Dionysius Areopagita 17

7

the centurie s o f lat e Antiquity , an d exerted a formative influenc e o n th e fantasy an d thought of th e period. 49 Like the stories about the soul's ascent to heaven in late antique pagan religions, Dionysiu s Areopagita' s ide a o f ascen t no t onl y ha s a spatia l orientation; i t als o ha s a direction o f characte r an d quality . Th e min d uplifted i s not onl y transplante d fro m on e spo t i n space to another ; it is also moved fro m one mode of bein g to another . What th e worl d t o whic h th e uplifte d sou l o r min d ar e transferre d looks like , wha t th e sou l see s i n it s flight, a s i t were—al l thi s remain s ineffable. Dionysiu s Areopagit a employ s a n abundance o f metaphor s t o adumbrate wha t canno t b e properly articulated . H e thereb y richl y illustrates th e powe r o f th e paradox. Whe n th e min d i s lifted u p to th e leve l of divin e mysteries , i t leave s behin d al l it s prio r notion s o f th e divine . Thus, whe n th e uplifte d Mose s see s th e man y lights , h e "plunge s int o the trul y mysteriou s darknes s o f unknowing." 50 Bein g uplifted , w e be come speechless. 51 A t th e en d o f hi s Mystical Theology, perhap s th e most decisiv e o f hi s writings, 52 Dionysiu s Areopagit a give s a concis e summary o f apaphati c (negative ) theolog y i n the shape o f a compresse d description o f wha t happens when we are being uplifted : Again, as we climb higher we say this. It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding.... I t is not number or order, greatness o r smallness , equalit y o r inequality , similarit y o r dissimilarity. . . . Darkness and light, error and truth—it i s none of these . It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyon d every assertion , being the perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and perfect nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial.53 It i s tempting t o speculat e wha t Dionysiu s coul d hav e ha d i n min d when h e trie d t o imagine , howeve r vaguely , wha t th e ascendin g sou l might mee t o n it s way upwards . This i s not th e place t o indulg e i n such speculation. Bu t what th e studen t o f image s mus t note , however , i s on e essential qualification : whateve r th e specifi c metaphor s Dionysiu s em ploys whe n speakin g o f tha t uppe r world , the y al l hav e i n commo n a negation o f form , a cancelin g o f distinction s an d articulation s t o b e perceived by the eye. "I f only we lacked sight," Dionysius exclaims. 54 The resul t o f anagoge, o f ascendin g an d bein g uplifted , then , i s th e negation o f visibl e form , alon g wit h th e negatio n o f al l othe r positiv e

178 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

distinctions. The term Dionysius use s is aphairesis, literall y translated a s "taking away." It is a term that was commo n mainl y i n the Aristotelia n tradition,55 but was also used by Plotinus and in the Neoplatonic school. 56 To explai n wha t h e mean s b y aphairesis, Dionysiu s employ s a simil e taken fro m th e artist's workshop. Coul d w e reac h the stage of unknow ing, "w e woul d b e lik e sculptor s wh o se t ou t t o carv e a statue . The y remove ever y obstacle t o th e pure view o f th e hidden image , an d simply by this ac t of clearin g asid e (aphairesis) they sho w u p the beaut y whic h is hidden." 57 Not e that , i n Dionysius' s usage , th e sculptor' s wor k doe s not lea d t o th e emergenc e o f a figure, bu t rathe r t o th e unveilin g o f a "beauty" that does not consist of distinct shapes. There i s stil l anothe r indicatio n tha t th e worl d int o whic h anagoge leads u s i s devoi d o f form . Dionysiu s Areopagit a stresse s th e "simple " nature of th e Transcendent. Whatever its symbols, in itself the Transcendent is "an imageless and supranatural simplicity." 58 Somewher e else he says tha t "th e beaut y o f God—s o simple , s o good , s o muc h th e sourc e of perfection—i s completel y uncontaminate d b y dissimilarity." 59 No w absolute simplicity , i t should b e kept i n mind, exclude s form . An y for m is a relationshi p betwee n parts , an d i t i s precisel y thi s tha t Dionysiu s wants to exclude fro m the divine. Yet althoug h th e mind' s ascen t eventuall y bring s i t to th e domai n i n which ther e i s n o form , th e proces s begin s wit h a shape d objec t o r appearance. I t is , a s w e know , th e imag e an d th e visio n tha t goa d th e mind t o it s flight . "Ther e i s nothin g absurd, " Dionysius says , "i n risin g up, a s we do , fro m obscur e image s t o th e single caus e of everything." 60 God i n hi s grac e mad e i t tha t "w e migh t b e uplifte d fro m thes e mos t venerable images." 61 Fo r us, he says later , it is "by way o f th e perceptible images tha t we ar e uplifted a s far as we can b e to the contemplatio n of wha t is divine." 62 Of the leaders of the ecclesiastical hierarch y he says that in "using images derived from the senses they spoke of the transcendent." They do so because "in a divine fashion it needs perceptible things to lift us up into the domain of conceptions." 63 Dionysius Areopagita goe s even further ; he explicitly attribute s to the sort o f image s w e woul d no w classif y a s work s o f ar t th e abilit y t o lif t us up . Th e Bibl e ("Th e Wor d o f God, " a s h e says ) "attribute s t o th e heavenly beings the form of bronze, of electrum, of multicolored stones." Pondering thes e descriptions , h e looks fo r symboli c meaning s hidde n i n

Dionysius Areopagita

17

9

them, an d concludes , "Indee d yo u wil l find tha t eac h for m carrie s a n uplifting explanatio n o f th e representationa l images." 6 4 The image , then , i s th e startin g poin t o f th e flight t o heaven .

NOTES 1. Scholarl y literatur e dealin g with th e various aspect s of Dionysius' s legac y i s large an d complex. A good, an d richly documented, surve y o f hi s influenc e on medieva l an d moder n thought , thoug h no t dealin g wit h th e proble m o f images, i s foun d i n th e entrie s b y Andr e Raye z an d b y Davi d Gutierre z i n Dictionnaire de spiritualite, ed . C. Baumgartner, III , cols. 287-429 . 2. Se e John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (n . p., 1975) , PP183 ff . Th e boo k i s translated fro m th e Frenc h (Le Christ dans la theologie byzantine [Paris , 1969]) . 3. Se e Han s Geor g Thummel, "De r byzantinisch e Bilderstreit : Stan d un d Perspektiven de r Forschung, " i n Johanne s Irmscher , ed. , Der byzantinische Bilderstreit: Sozialokonomische Voraussetzungen —ideologische Grundlagen—geschichtliche Wirkungen (Leipzig , 1980) , pp. 9 - 4 0, esp . p. 28 . 4. Se e V . V . Byckov , "Di e philosophisch-aesthetische n Aspekt e de s byzantin ischen Bilderstreits, " i n Irmscher , ed. , Der byzantinische Bilderstreit, pp . 58-82, esp . pp. 63 ff . 5. Th e mai n attempt s a t identificatio n ar e summarize d b y Jaroslav Pelika n i n his introduction (title d "The Odyssey of Dionysia n Spirituality") t o PseudoDionysius: The Complete Works, translate d b y Col m Luibhei d (London , 1987), PP- " ff 6. I shoul d lik e t o refe r her e t o th e importan t wor k b y Eduar d Norden , Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede (Leipzig an d Berlin , 1923) , o f whic h St . Paul' s sermo n i s the central under lying theme. 7. On Divine Names 1 , 1 ; col . 588B ; p . 4 9 o f th e Englis h translation . Th e English versio n o f th e quotation s i n th e presen t chapte r ar e take n fro m Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works. I n quotin g I shal l giv e first th e title an d chapte r o f th e specifi c Dionysia n wor k referre d to , then , afte r a semicolon, th e colum n i n J. P . Migne , Patrologia cursus completus, Series Graeca, I C (Paris , 1856) ; th e secon d number , afte r a comma, refer s t o th e section of th e text; and finally, after anothe r semicolon, the page numbe r of the English translation . 8. On Divine Names 1 , 5 ; col. 593 A f. ; p . 53. 9. On Divine Names 7 , 3 ; col. 872 A f. ; p . 109 . 10. On Mystical Theology 5 ; col. 1048 A ff. ; p . 141 . 11. Fo r the followin g section , see the exposition i n Jaroslav Pelikan , The Chris-

180 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

tian Tradition, II , The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700 ) (Chicago , 1977), PP - 30 ff . 12. Maximu s Confessor , Boo k o f Ambiguities , i n P . Migne, Patrologia Graeca XCI, col. 1252. 1 quote Pelikan's translation, Pseudo-Dionysius, p . 31. 13. Se e Kar l Holl , "Ube r da s griechisch e Monchtum, " i n th e author' s Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Kirchengeschichte, II , Der Osten (Tubingen , 1928) , pp . 270-82, esp . pp . 27 8 ff . Se e also Arthu r Voobius , History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, I I (Louvain, i960) , pp . 30 5 ff . 14. Th e origina l tex t i n Migne , Patrologia Graeca, IC , cols . 120A-340B ; th e English translatio n i n Pseudo-Dionysius, pp . 145-91 . Se e Ren e Roques , UUnivers Dionysien: Structure hierarchique du monde selon le PseudoDenys (Paris , 1983) , especially pp . 14 5 ff . 15. Origina l tex t in Migne, cols. 371B-569A ; th e English translatio n i n PseudoDionysius, pp . 195-259 . An d see Roques, UUnivers Dionysien, pp . 17 1 ff . 16. Se e Ott o Willmann , Geschichte des Idealismus, I I (Aalen , 1975) , p . 153 . The original editio n o f thi s work appeare d in 1896 . 17. Se e Ernst Cassirer , The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy (Ne w Yor k an d Evanston , 1963) , p. 9 . The origina l Germa n edition o f this wor k (Das Individuum und der Kosmos in the Philosophic der Renaissance) appeare d a s volum e X o f Studien der Bibliothek Warburg (Leipzi g and Berlin, 1927) . 18. Th e best-know n tex t i s probabl y Plato ys Republic, 43 5 ff . Se e Willmann , Geschichte des Idealismus II , p. 95. 19. Iliad, 8 , 19 . O n th e interpretations , especiall y i n lat e Antiquity , o f thi s Homeric metaphor , se e Ludwi g Edelstein , "Th e Golde n Chai n o f Homer, " in Studies in Intellectual History (Baltimore , 1953 ; reprin t Ne w York , 1968), pp . 48-66 . Se e als o Rober t Lamberton , Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London , 1989) , pp. 27 0 ff . 20. Se e Arthu r Lovejoy , The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge , Mass. , 1936 ; reprint New York , i960) , especially chapter 2. 21. Se e De generatione animalium, 732A-733B . Cf . Lovejoy , pp. 5 8 ff . 22. Man y reference s coul d b e quoted , bu t see , e.g. , Enneads IV , 8 , 6 , an d V , 2, 1 - 2 .

23. Macrobius' s summar y i s foun d i n hi s commentar y t o Cicero' s Somnium Scipionis I , 14 , 15 . See Ambrosii Theodosii Macrobii. . . Comentariorum in Somnium Scipionis, ed . Franciscu s Eysenhard t (Leipzig , 1893) . A n Englis h translation o f th e crucial passag e i s foun d i n Lovejoy' s The Great Chain of Being, p . 63. 24. Se e Stromateis VI , 13 , 107. And cf. Willmann , Idealismus II , p. 47. 25. Se e Leo' s elevent h letter . Th e Englis h translatio n o f a selectio n o f Leo' s letters (St. Leo the Great: Letters [Washington , D.C. , 1957] ) unfortunatel y omits this letter. And cf. Willmann , Idealismus II , p. 42. 26. See , e.g. , Heinric h Weisweile r S.J. , "Sakramen t al s Symbo l un d Teilhabe :

Dionysius Areopagita

18

1

Der Einflus s de s Ps.-Dionysiu s au f di e allgemein e Sakramentenlehr e Hugo s von St. Viktor," Scholastik, XXVI I (1952) , pp. 321-43 . 27. Ott o Semmelrot h S.J. , "Di e theologia symbolike de s Ps.-Dionysiu s Areopa gita," Scholastik, XXVI I (1952) , pp. 1-11 . 28. Se e Divine Names 13 , 4; col. 298A ; p. 13 1 o f th e English translation. 29. Se e Dionysius's nint h letter, 6; col. 1113B ; p. 28 8 30. Thi s is the opinion o f som e modern students . See, for instance, Semmelroth, p. 1 .

31. Ren e Roques, UUnivers Dionysien, p . 10 , note 10 . 32. The Celestial Hierarchy 1,1 ; cols . 120 B f.; p . 14 5 of th e English translation. 33. The Divine Names 3 , 1 ; col. 680C ; p. 68 o f th e English translation. 34. Se e the last section of chapte r 1 of th e present book . 35. The Divine Names 9 , 7 ; col. 916A ; p. 11 8 o f th e English translation . 36. A detailed study of th e subject is found i n the article by B. D. Jackson, "Th e Theory o f Sign s i n Sain t Augustine' s De Doctrine Christiana," Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes, X V (1969) , pp . 9-49 ; reprinte d i n R . A . Markus , ed., Augustine (Garde n City, New York , 1972) , pp. 92-147 . 37. Se e Tzvetan Todorov, Theories of the Symbol (Ithaca , N.Y., 1983) , pp. 3 6 56. Fo r th e Doctrina Christiana i n th e contex t o f Augustine' s intellectua l development, se e Pete r Brown , Augustine of Hippo (Berkele y an d Lo s An geles, 1967) , pp. 259-69 . 38. On Christian Doctrine II , xxv , 38 . I use th e Englis h translatio n b y D . W . Robertson, Jr . (Sain t Augustine , On Christian Doctrine [Indianapoli s an d New York , 1959]) ; for the passage quoted, see p. 68. 39. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3 , 3, 9; col. 437C; p. 219 . 40. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7 , 3 , 9; col. 565B ; p. 257 . 41. Se e chapters 1 and 9. 42. The Divine Names 2 , 5 ; col. 644A ; p. 62. 43. The Divine Names 2 , 6; col. 644B ; p. 63. 44. The Divine Names 2 , 7; col. 645A ; p. 63. 45. The Celestial Hierarchy 1 , 2 ; col. 121B , C; p. 146 . 46. The Celestial Hierarchy 2 , 1 ; col. 137A , B ; p. 148 . 47. The Celestial Hierarchy 2 , 3 ; col . 140B , C ; p . 149 . Th e translato r o f th e English translation here used, Colm Luibheid , stresses (p . 149 , note 20 ) tha t Dionysius doe s no t clai m tha t th e tw o type s o f image s ar e mutuall y exclu sive. O n th e contrary , Dionysiu s suggest s tha t "th e ver y sam e thing s ar e both simila r an d dissimila r t o God. " Se e Divine Names 9 , 7 ; col . 916A ; p. 118 .

48. The Celestial Hierarchy 2 , 3; col. 141A-C ; p. 150 . 49. Th e subject has been discussed in many studies. See now loan Petru Culianu, Psychanodia I: A Survey of the Evidence concerning the Ascension of the Soul and Its Relevance (Leiden , 1983) , wit h a useful bibliography . Se e als o the old study by W. Bousset, Die Himmelsreise der Seele (reprint Farmstadt, 1971; originally i n Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, I V [1901]).

182 The

Icon in Early Christian Thought

50. On Mystical Theology 1 , 3; col. 100 1 A; p. 137 . 51. Ibid . 3; col. 1033B , C; p. 139 . 52. Fo r the significance o f The Mystical Theology bot h i n the intellectual devel opment of Dionysiu s an d in the system o f hi s theology, se e Walther Volker, Kontemplation und Ekstase by Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita (Wiesbaden , 1956), pp . 218-63 ; an d Ja n Vanneste , Le Mystere de Dieu: Essai sur la structure rationelle de la doctrine mystique du Pseudo-Denys VAreopagite (Brussels, 1959) , pp. 30 ff . 53. The Mystical Theology 5 ; col. 1048A , B ; p. 141. 54. Ibid . 2; col. 1025 ; p. 138 . 55. See , fo r instance , Aristotle , Metaphysics X , 3 (1061A , B) , and On the Soul III, 7 (i n Migne , 4 3 iB) wher e th e proces s o f "takin g away " i n thinkin g i s described. 56. See , e.g. , Plotinus, The Enneads II , 4 , 4 . T o brin g a lat e example , clos e t o Dionysius's time, I shall mention Proclus' s The Elements of Theology; trans lated b y E . R . Dodd s (Oxford , 1963) , proposition s 208 , 209 ; pp . 18 2 ff . For Proclus, see above, chapter 4. 57. The Mystical Theology 2 ; col. 1025A , B; p. 138 . 58. The Divine Names 1 , 4; col. 592B ; p. 52. 59. The Celestial Hierarchy 3 , 1 ; col. 164D ; pp. 15 3 f . 60. The Divine Names 5,7 ; col . 821B ; p. 100 . 61. The Celestial Hierarchy 1 , 3; col. 121C ; p. 146 . 62. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1 , 2; col. 373 ; p. 197 . 63. The Eccelsiastical Hierarchy 1 , 5 ; cols. 376D-377A ; p. 199 . 64. The Celestial Hierarchy 15 , 7 ; 336B , C ; p . 188 . Dionysiu s ha s i n min d mainly Ezr a 1:4 , 1:7 , 1:27 , 8:2 , 40:3 ; Danie l 10:6 ; Revelation s 4:3 , 21:19-21.

TEN

In Defense of Images: John of Damascus

i. The New Stage We hav e no w reache d th e concludin g stag e o f th e stor y thi s boo k ha s undertaken t o tell . The debat e over th e imag e o f Go d an d the represen tation o f th e invisible , i t goe s withou t saying , continue d t o b e waged . The heading s changed , bu t the passion, sometime s eve n th e violence, o f the debat e remained . I n th e presen t study , however , w e hav e trie d t o examine it s developmen t onl y u p t o th e stag e when , i n th e Byzantin e world, th e questio n wa s pronounce d resolved . S o fa r w e hav e bee n watching th e unfolding o f th e different aspect s of th e argument over the question o f whethe r ther e can , o r cannot , b e a "tru e image " o f God . History, lik e a good schoolmaster , ha s transformed ever y ne w situation , every ne w socia l an d political development , int o a new question , an d t o every questio n i t ha s produce d a n answe r tha t ha s furthe r impelle d th e intellectual movement . 185

186 The

Doctrine of the Icon

A studen t wh o reenact s i n hi s min d th e developmen t o f Christia n thought o n image s fro m th e sixt h t o th e eight h century—say , fro m Dionysius Areopagit a t o Joh n o f Damascus—canno t fai l t o notic e a distinct chang e o f intellectua l atmosphere . O n th e fac e o f i t th e chang e would no t see m t o g o ver y deep . Th e theme s discusse d ar e largel y traditional, there is little difference i n terminology, an d even the internal conflicts an d paradoxe s ar e know n fro m earlie r periods. An d yet , th e attentive reade r canno t doub t tha t th e discussio n ha s entere d a ne w stage. The change s ar e mos t easil y graspe d whe n w e loo k a t th e historica l circumstances tha t forme d th e direct , immediat e backgroun d o f th e theories of icon s t o b e discussed here . Foremost amon g these condition s is wha t migh t b e calle d th e "politicization " o f th e icon , makin g i t th e centerpiece o f violen t politica l debate . T o b e sure , th e discussion s o f images that occupied th e Christian world i n earlier centuries neve r completely suppresse d th e politica l connotations . Thi s i s tru e eve n i f th e earlier debate s wer e carrie d o n i n wha t see m t o b e purel y theologica l terms. This, as is well known , change d drasticall y i n the eighth century . The Iconoclastic Debate, the major event or process in Eastern Christianity of the eighth and ninth centuries, made the icon explicitly and directly an object of political struggle , a central political symbol . It is no t fo r u s her e t o describ e th e histor y o f th e iconoclasti c move ment, o r eve n t o trac e th e theoretica l an d ideologica l debate s tha t ac companied, an d reflected th e different stage s of, thi s movement. Al l thi s has bee n don e mor e tha n once , an d w e d o no t nee d t o repea t wha t i s already wel l known . Th e on e thin g I should lik e t o remar k her e i s tha t when the image became a central political issue, the theoretical question s raised fro m tim e t o tim e i n th e cours e o f th e precedin g centurie s wer e endowed wit h a new urgency . Man y idea s an d attitude s tha t fo r centu ries were only half articulat e had to be fully crystallized ; arguments that for many generations had remained up to a point either loose reflection s or literary metaphor s no w ha d t o b e given a clear solution. I t was thes e historical condition s that gave the theories of image s a new character. The so-calle d Iconoclasti c Disput e wa s brough t t o a n end, a t least i n the Byzantin e world , b y a politica l decision . Afte r man y centurie s o f glimmering conflict , an d afte r mor e tha n a century o f ope n an d violen t struggle, the dispute over the status of th e image was concluded, and, as the no w conventional phras e ha s it , "orthodox y wa s restored. " Thi s

In Defense of Images 18

7

end, i t hardl y need s stressing , di d no t com e becaus e th e inne r logi c o f the intellectua l conflic t ha d ineluctabl y le d t o a solution . A s fa r a s th e theoretical argumen t is concerned, the "solution" was one imposed fro m the outside, an d it was n o solutio n a t all. I t was becaus e of th e outcom e of a powe r struggl e tha t th e "restoratio n o f orthodoxy " becam e th e official an d accepted doctrine . But once agai n we mus t say that, regardles s of wha t were the historical causes of, an d the social force s that brought about, the veneration o f images and their worshipping, th e victorious ideology i n fact proposed a doctrine of images , a theory concerning th e portrayal o f th e invisible. In the cours e o f th e debate , th e "orthodox " ideolog y mad e th e distinc t claim that, in a certain sense, the divine image is true or valid. Moreover, it quoted an d analyze d th e reasons that, s o i t was believed , support thi s claim. What were those reasons? And what do they mean when you take them ou t fro m thei r traditiona l contex t an d terminology an d transplan t them int o moder n concept s an d language ? Thes e ar e th e question s w e shall ask in the rest of this book . The theoretica l defens e o f images , a grea t intellectua l proces s tha t eventually triumphe d i n th e century-ol d battl e an d shape d th e spiritua l world o f Easter n Christianity , wa s no t th e wor k o f a singl e author . Many groups , even generations, of scholars , commentators, and preachers contribute d t o articulating , an d firmly establishing , th e victoriou s ideology tha t eventually le d to th e famou s veneratio n o f icon s i n Byzantium. Ther e is , however , on e figure i n tha t intellectua l proces s tha t stands out with rare distinction, an d this is John of Damascus . No othe r author ha d suc h a n impact on th e theoretical foundatio n o f th e belief i n holy image s as had John of Damascus . It will b e best, therefore, to stud y the argument s i n defens e o f sacre d image s b y concentratin g o n hi s writings. By so doing, I believe, we shall b e able to learn more about the thought o f th e defender s o f image s tha n b y surveyin g th e writing s o f many other authors. One comment , I think , shoul d b e mad e i n advance . Som e student s have tended to treat John's doctrine of icons as if it were a well-rounded, consistent syste m o f thought . Suc h a n assumption , I believe , i s no t warranted b y wha t w e actuall y rea d i n th e Orations . A carefu l readin g of wha t h e say s i n defens e o f icon s show s different , perhap s eve n con flicting, trends of thought . T o b e sure, John's practical ai m is always the same: h e want s t o defen d sacre d icons , t o justif y thei r us e an d th e

188 The

Doctrine of the Icon

worship offere d t o them . Th e reason s h e evoke d i n suppor t o f thi s position, however , ar e no t uniform . I n th e followin g discussio n I shal l not tr y t o harmoniz e th e differen t strand s i n John's thought . Th e differ ences, and eve n conflicts , i n theoretical argumentatio n ar e not less significant tha n th e practical ai m tha t inform s them . 2. John of Damascus: The Man and the Author The Three Apologies against Those Who Attack the Divine Images, 1 th e three oration s i n defens e o f th e veneratio n o f icon s tha t John o f Damas cus composed i n the early eighth century , it has been maintained , ar e th e first attemp t mad e b y a Christia n theologia n t o formulat e a coheren t theory o f images . Joh n ma y wel l b e th e first thinke r i n th e Christia n tradition t o explicitl y as k simple , naiv e questions , suc h a s wha t i s a picture, and ar e there differen t type s of image s an d wha t ar e they? 2 This is a strikin g claim . A s w e hav e seen , reflection s o n images , o n thei r power an d o n th e danger s inheren t i n them , hav e a venerabl e history , reaching bac k t o lat e Antiquity. 3 T o thi s w e shoul d ad d tha t Joh n o f Damascus di d no t se t out t o b e "original"; h e did no t wis h to go beyon d accepted doctrine . H e sa w himsel f neithe r a s a n invento r no r a s a re former; o n th e contrary , h e wishe d t o b e "orthodox, " tha t is , t o b e completely withi n th e mainstrea m o f ecclesiastica l teaching . " I shal l sa y nothing o f m y own, " h e promise s a t th e ver y beginnin g o f hi s majo r work o f systemati c theology , The Fount of Knowledge, "bu t I shall se t down thing s tha t hav e bee n sai d i n variou s place s b y wis e an d godl y men." 4 Thi s i s also hi s attitud e i n dealin g wit h images . I n the Apologies he quote s biblica l an d patristi c sources , a s wa s th e custo m o f hi s time , and h e eve n quote s in extenso length y passage s b y differen t religiou s authorities t o suppor t hi s views, a les s conventional form . I n spit e o f al l this i t remain s tru e tha t John's Oration s for m th e first Christia n treatis e devoted explicitl y an d exclusivel y t o sacre d images . The observations o n images b y th e Christia n Father s wer e alway s mad e i n discussin g som e other subject . Icon s wer e mentioned , sometime s eve n briefl y discussed , in orde r t o clarif y som e othe r argumen t o r point . Non e o f thes e earlie r remarks wa s mad e onl y fo r th e sak e o f elucidatin g wha t a n imag e is , or what its limits are. In this respect John o f Damascu s did set himself apar t from th e tradition int o which h e proposed t o merge . To inquir e int o John's motivatio n i n writing the Orations woul d see m

In Defense of Images 18

9

to as k fo r th e obvious . Th e thre e oration s wer e composed , a s ever y beginner knows , a s a statement i n defens e o f icon s i n th e ragin g Icono clastic Debate . John himsel f clearl y formulate s th e political origi n o f hi s pronouncements: " I see the Churc h which Go d founde d o n th e apostle s and prophets, he r cornerstone bein g Chris t Hi s Son , tossed o n a n angr y sea, beaten by rushing waves, shaken and troubled by the assaults of evil spirits. Impiou s me n see k t o ren d asunde r th e seamles s rob e o f Chris t and to cu t his body i n pieces." 5 The moder n studen t cannot help notin g that som e feature s i n John's characte r an d personalit y ma y hav e mad e him particularl y attune d t o takin g u p the task offere d hi m b y the politi cal struggl e o f hi s time : th e defens e o f icons—o f objects , tha t is , tha t can also be considered a s works of art . The genera l outlin e o f John' s life—base d o n a Gree k vita o f th e eleventh century , t o whic h som e newl y discovere d source s ca n no w b e added6—is wel l known . H e was bor n around a.d. 67 5 i n Damascus (th e precise date s o f bot h hi s birt h an d his deat h remai n obscure) , that is , at a time when that city had already become the seat of a khalif. As the son of a wealthy an d socially highly respectable Christia n family (whethe r or not o f Gree k descen t i s a matte r o f dispute) , John , an d hi s adoptiv e brother Cosmas , enjoye d a n excellent education , largel y thank s t o Cos mas o f Calabria , a Christia n schola r an d philosophe r who m John' s father ransome d fro m Musli m captivity . Som e moder n student s hav e pointed out John's familiarity with classical Greek literature; others have wanted u s no t t o exaggerat e tha t acquaintance : quotatio n from , an d references to , Gree k literature , d o no t necessaril y mea n tha t h e actuall y knew th e full text s fro m whic h th e quotations wer e taken. The so-calle d florilegia, tha t is , selection s fro m classica l texts , wer e i n genera l use , and the y ma y wel l accoun t fo r muc h o f John' s seemin g familiarit y with th e masterpiece s o f classica l literature. 7 Aroun d A.D . 73 0 (possibl y somewhat earlier ) Joh n lef t Damascus , abandonin g whateve r function s and socia l position s h e ma y hav e hel d there , an d joine d th e monas tery o f Ma r Sab a nea r Jerusale m ( a territor y the n als o unde r Musli m rule). H e wa s no t appointe d t o an y hig h ran k i n th e ecclesiastica l hier archy, an d scholar s ar e no w agree d tha t thi s wa s s o becaus e h e di d not wan t t o occup y an y importan t post . I t wa s mainl y her e tha t h e developed a n extensiv e literar y activity , includin g hi s participatio n i n the Iconoclasti c Controversy . H e die d probably i n the year 749 , i n Mar Saba.

190 The

Doctrine of the Icon

The intellectual personality of John of Damascus emerges clearly from his larg e an d versatil e literar y work . I t i s no t m y tas k t o presen t thi s work i n it s entirety ; I shall rathe r emphasize , b y wa y o f introduction , certain aspect s othe r tha n thos e usuall y stressed . Joh n o f Damascu s i s best known fo r his systematic theology, mainl y the Fount of Knowledge, a treatise described b y modern scholarship a s the first synthesis of Greek philosophy an d Christia n dogmatics. 8 Th e Fount of Knowledge exerte d a majo r influenc e o n systemati c theolog y i n the West. Pete r Lombard, a thinker wh o playe d a crucial rol e i n establishing wester n Scholasticism , accepted an d imitate d John's metho d o f collectin g text s an d presentin g them i n systemati c patterns , an d non e othe r tha n Thoma s Aquina s revered Joh n an d followe d hi s mode l i n th e structur e o f th e Summa theological Som e other systematic works by John of Damascus , such as the Sacra Parallela, a collection o f mor e tha n thre e hundre d quotation s from th e Bibl e an d patristi c writing s arrange d alphabeticall y (thoug h that arrangemen t ma y hav e originate d a t a late r period) , combine d ethical teaching s an d dogmati c theology . Th e grea t diffusio n o f thi s work i s suggested b y the fact that several version s of i t have come dow n to us. 10 Though systemati c theolog y wa s probabl y John o f Damascus' s mai n concern, and the major reason for his lasting influence, I should here like to emphasiz e hi s nontheoretica l works . I n hymnology, th e centra l for m of ecclesiastica l poetry , John , an d hi s adoptiv e brother , Cosmas , ar e regarded as the main representative s of wha t is called the "third period" of Byzantin e churc h poetry . Fro m th e Suidas, a Byzantine encyclopedi a composed i n th e tent h century , w e lear n tha t "th e poeti c canones o f John an d Cosma s ar e loft y beyon d comparison , an d wil l remai n s o t o the end of all days," n a vivid testimony to the high regard in which they were held. John and his brother brought the canon, a delicate but highly intricate an d artificial for m of poetry , t o perfection. 12 I n modern critica l literature i t has bee n sai d that the canon i s devoid o f emotiona l inspira tion. I t i s no t fo r m e t o questio n thi s opinio n o f exper t scholars . A s historians, however , w e shoul d kee p i n min d that a t the tim e it was th e accepted form of poetry among the educated public. Whatever the canon may lack , t o brin g i t t o a complet e developmen t surel y betray s grea t sensitivity to matters of style . Tradition ha s als o credite d Joh n o f Damascu s with th e inventio n o f the Oktoekhos (th e boo k o f eigh t tones) , containin g th e liturgica l cycl e

In Defense of Images 19

1

of eigh t week s repeate d betwee n th e secon d Sunda y afte r Pentecos t an d the following Lent . Whether he was indeed the inventor of thi s liturgical cycle (probabl y als o containing som e elements of music) , as some schol ars believe, o r whether h e only radicall y reforme d a n existing model , a s other scholar s assume, 13 ca n agai n se e hi s interes t an d creativ e activit y in established forma l patterns , his concern with style. The drama , a s w e know , wa s a rathe r undevelope d ar t for m i n Christian cultur e o f th e earl y period . Som e hesitan t attempt s mad e a t reviving thi s artisti c genr e remaine d isolate d an d withou t significan t influence. I n th e eight h century , i t seems , th e iconoclast s ma y hav e favored som e plays . I n al l thes e respect s i t i s remarkabl e tha t Joh n o f Damascus shoul d hav e composed a theater play, called Susana. The tex t itself ha s not survived, but we hav e an interesting testimony t o it : in the twelfth century , tha t is , mor e tha n fou r centurie s afte r John' s death , Eustatios, deacon of a church in Constantinople an d teacher of rhetorics , still knew the play and described it as "Euripidic." 14 Even a casua l glanc e a t th e literar y activitie s o f Joh n o f Damascu s catches stil l anothe r feature . Fo r man y centurie s i t was believe d tha t h e was th e autho r o f th e Barlaam an d Joasaph story , th e most famou s an d possibly th e artistically mos t accomplishe d spiritua l nove l o f th e Middl e Ages, a stor y tol d an d writte n al l ove r th e world , fro m th e Fa r Eas t t o North Afric a an d everywher e i n Europe . I t i s a stor y presentin g it s religious messag e throug h livel y narrativ e an d convincin g characteriza tion o f th e figures. 15 Recen t researc h ha s questione d th e authorshi p o f John o f Damascus , althoug h eve n toda y th e attributio n stil l ha s man y adherents.16 Bu t al l scholar s agre e tha t Joh n o f Damascu s wa s deepl y concerned wit h th e Barlaa m an d Joasaph story ; i f h e di d no t compose , he certainl y thoroughl y revise d it . Fo r th e purpos e o f th e presen t stud y the differenc e i s no t crucial . Again , wha t i s importan t fo r u s i s John' s profound concer n with the arts. John's concer n wit h th e arts , on e canno t hel p feeling , mad e hi m particularly suite d t o undertak e th e defens e o f images . Thoug h h e i s pleading fro m a theological poin t of view , his artistic sensitivity, an d his understanding o f ar t as such, play a n important , thoug h hidden , rol e i n his thought.

192 The

Doctrine of the Icon 3. Definition of the Image

John's discussio n o f holy icons , a s I hav e alread y said , wa s th e first attempt b y a Christian theologia n t o deal extensivel y an d systematicall y with the subject of images . As we have seen in the chapters of this book , references t o image s ar e no t rar e i n th e theologica l literature , i n th e exegeses and sermons of th e preceding centuries. But the Church Fathers did no t deal wit h th e icon a s a subject i n its own right . This ma y b e the reason tha t a certai n conceptua l equivocatio n prevaile d i n thei r treat ment o f th e subject . Unde r th e headin g o f "image, " patristi c literatur e refers t o man y theme s an d concepts , ofte n withou t distinguishin g be tween them . John o f Damascus , i t goes withou t saying , gre w ou t o f th e patristic traditio n an d was familia r with larg e parts of it s literature. But in the revered writings of the Fathers he could not have found the general structure o f a discussio n o f images , th e question s t o b e aske d an d th e themes t o b e discussed , an d th e sequenc e i n whic h the y shoul d b e treated. Ancient ("pagan" ) philosoph y als o did not provide a model tha t might have been followe d whe n defendin g th e holy icon . All thi s he had to establish fo r himself . John o f Damascus , w e shoul d neve r forget , approache d image s a s an urgent political issue , not merel y a s a theoretical subjec t to b e examined with a certain detachment. I t was the political pressure s that determined what precisel y require d clarification . Th e concret e questio n tha t stirre d people's mind s an d emotion s was , a s on e knows , th e worshippin g o f images. John's doctrine , therefore , focuse s o n tw o themes—th e image s themselves, an d the worship offere d t o them . Hi s systemati c min d lead s him t o mak e a clea r distinctio n betwee n th e tw o themes , an d t o divid e the discussio n int o tw o separat e parts , a discussio n o f image s an d a discussion o f worship. 17 Fo r ou r purpos e th e subjec t o f worshi p i s marginal, an d w e shal l disregar d it ; w e shal l concentrat e o n wha t John says about images themselves. John's doctrin e o f image s consist s o f th e discussio n o f fou r majo r topics.18 I n taking u p each o f thes e he approache s th e general subject — the holy icon—wit h a differen t questio n i n mind , focusing , a s i t were , on a differen t aspec t o f th e problem . Th e first subject i s a n attemp t t o define th e image , t o explai n wha t precisel y h e mean s b y thi s term . Th e purpose of th e holy image, the reasons for producing icons, make up the second theme. What kinds of images are there?—this question forms the

In Defense of Images 19

3

third subject . Her e John trie s t o distinguis h betwee n th e differen t type s of image s an d t o arrang e the m i n a n appropriat e order . The fourt h theme i s th e visibilit y o f spiritua l beings . A fift h topic—wh o first mad e images?—does no t contribut e muc h t o th e doctrin e o f images , an d I shall therefore no t discuss it here. Modern critic s migh t clai m tha t th e sequenc e o f thes e topics , a s John presents it, is not compelling; systematic thought migh t demand a different order. 19 Ye t i f th e sequencer s somewha t haphazard , thi s orde r o f discussion i s in itself a n interestingliistorica l testimony : i t shows tha t in the eighth century a comprehensive an d systematic treatment of th e holy image wa s a new an d unusual undertaking . Fo r our stud y i t will b e best to follo w th e order of discussio n John himself suggested . Following Joh n o f Damascu s we , then , begi n wit h th e definitio n o f the image . I t i s th e urg e o f th e systemati c thinke r tha t compel s hi m t o first define hi s subject . "Sinc e we ar e speaking o f image s an d worship, " he says i n the first Apology, "le t us analyze th e exact meanin g of each. " As I have said, we shall disregard the discussion of worship , and concentrate on th e definition o f th e image. Hi s definitio n i s remarkable bot h a s an important step in the historical developmen t of thought, and for what it actuall y says ; w e shoul d therefor e loo k a t i t i n som e detail . I n ou r context i t i s important t o remembe r that , i n definin g th e "image, " John has primarily th e actual ico n i n mind. I n the course of hi s discussion th e meaning of th e term broadens (s o as to includ e the mental imag e a s well as othe r connotations) , bu t wher e h e define s th e term , h e clearl y mean s the painted icon . An image , s o read s hi s first definition , "i s o f lik e characte r wit h it s prototype, bu t wit h a certai n difference . I t i s no t lik e th e archetyp e i n every way." 20 I t may be surprising tha t John begins his definition o f th e image b y relatin g i t t o th e prototype , bu t thi s i s how h e proceed s i n al l his discussions o f th e subject: he does not begi n by defining th e image in itself, bu t b y definin g it s relatio n wit h th e archetype . I n hi s grea t wor k of systemati c theology , The Orthodox Faith, he devotes a short chapte r to th e adoratio n o f images , an d her e h e repeat s th e essentia l ide a o f hi s definition o f a n image give n i n the first Oration. "Th e original," he says in th e comprehensiv e theologica l treatise , "i s th e thin g image d fro m which th e cop y i s made." 21 H e repeat s th e sam e formulatio n i n th e second and third Apologies. 22 Let us retur n t o th e first sentence i n th e definitio n o f th e image . "A n

194 The

Doctrine of the Icon

image," John her e says , "i s a likeness, o r a model, o r a figure of some thing, showin g i n itsel f wha t i t depicts." 23 Shor t an d seemingl y simpl e as th e sentenc e is , i t announce s tw o claims : first, tha t th e imag e i s a "likeness"; second , tha t i t "show s i n itself " wha t i t depicts . T o som e extent, these claims seem to point i n different directions . They call fo r a brief analysis of what they may imply. The first assumption John make s i n his definition i s that the imag e i s a "likeness " of something . Tha t something, whateve r it s precise nature , exists outsid e th e image , an d independentl y o f it . Th e image , o n th e other hand, is not independent of wha t it portrays. What an image is, he obviously believes , can be grasped only whe n i t is seen i n relation to the prototype. Doe s thi s imply tha t the very being , the existence an d realit y of th e imag e ar e als o derivative , an d i n a sense inferio r t o thos e o f th e prototype? John doe s no t explicitl y dea l wit h th e questio n o f ho w real , or imagined , a n imag e is . Ye t on e canno t escap e th e feelin g tha t th e reality h e attribute s t o th e imag e i s les s authenti c tha n tha t o f th e prototype. Great ancien t tradition s o f though t an d belie f ma y hav e supporte d John i n hi s belie f tha t th e imag e doe s no t hav e th e ful l realit y tha t th e model has . I n th e Platoni c tradition , a continuou s influenc e o n th e culture o f th e earl y medieva l centuries , "image " is often a synonym fo r an appearance lackin g full substanc e and reality. "By images [eikonas]," said Plat o himself, " I mean, first, shadows, an d then reflection s i n water and o n surface s o f dense , smoot h an d brigh t texture , an d everything o f that kind , i f you apprehend." 24 A passag e fro m anothe r o f Plato' s dialogues shed s furthe r light : "Obviousl y w e . . . mea n th e image s [eidola] i n water and in mirrors, and those in painting, too, and sculptures, and all the other things of th e same sort." 25 Whatever the connotations late r acquired by the concept of image , its original meanin g o f a lac k o f ful l realit y adhere d t o it . Plotinus , wh o more than any other philosopher perceive d of a gradation in the fullnes s of reality , taugh t tha t th e Intellectua l Principl e impart s "t o Sou l nearl y the authenti c reality , whil e wha t Bod y receive s i s bu t imag e an d imita tion." 26 An d Proclus , th e las t grea t representativ e o f th e Platoni c tren d in Antiquity , claime d tha t th e Sou l possesse s b y derivatio n th e irradia tions o f "intellectua l forms, " a conditio n h e understand s a s possessin g images.27 In denying ful l realit y t o th e image, John ma y also have been the heir

In Defense of Images 19

5

of Gree k reflectio n o n mimesis in art. In that tradition, which was neve r far fro m authenti c Platoni c thought , th e imag e produce d b y th e artis t was considered as an "illusion," that is, the appearance of a n object or a figure, articulate i n form an d convincing th e beholder, ye t devoid o f th e full physica l realit y o f th e prototype . Eve r since Plat o w e kno w o f th e "weakness o f th e human min d on whic h th e ar t of paintin g i n light an d shadow, th e ar t o f conjuring , an d man y othe r ingeniou s device s im pose." 28 Paintin g aim s a t producing "constan t delusions. " Looking a t a picture i s lik e dreaming . "I s no t th e dreamer , sleepin g o r waking , on e who liken s dissimila r things , wh o put s th e cop y i n plac e o f th e rea l object?" Plato rhetoricall y asks. 29 The traditio n o f ancien t ar t criticism, less give n t o abstrac t speculatio n tha n tha t of philosophy , strongl y sup ported an d popularize d th e vie w tha t th e pictur e i s a piec e o f illusion . To produc e a successfu l illusion , on e tha t wil l mislea d spectators , eve n beasts an d birds , to tak e th e imag e fo r reality—thi s becam e a standar d formula fo r praisin g th e artist' s work . Bu t thi s view , i t goe s withou t saying, implie s tha t th e pictur e lack s th e ful l realit y o f th e objec t i t depicts. The artist' s achievemen t consist s precisel y i n coverin g u p thi s deficiency i n reality . Joh n o f Damascus , familia r wit h ancien t culture , may wel l hav e bee n influence d b y th e heritag e o f ancien t ar t criticism , and ma y hav e transforme d concept s fro m th e critica l literatur e int o theological notions . Whatever his sources, by describing the image as a "likeness," that is, by seein g i t a s a "copy " an d comparin g i t wit h th e original , Joh n suggests that the image possesses less reality than that which it portrays. So fa r w e hav e commente d o n on e o f th e claim s Joh n make s i n hi s definition o f th e image . Bu t i n thi s definition , a s I have said , h e make s still anothe r claim : a n image , h e says , i s a likenes s "showin g in itself what it depicts." 30 This claim is more original than the first one: it is not derived fro m traditional teachings ; I am not aware of an y earlier formulation tha t can b e seen a s foreshadowin g it . What John her e says—tha t the imag e "show s i n itsel f wha t i t depicts"—i s therefor e mor e difficul t to interpret . I n attempting t o understan d it , we hav e t o rel y o n th e tex t alone. W e shal l no t b e abl e t o as k wha t th e notio n ma y hav e mean t i n his time and culture. That a n icon "shows " what i t depicts seems , at a first glance, to stat e the obvious. What is a picture of something, one cannot help wondering, if it does not show what it depicts? In stating the obvious, however, John

196 The

Doctrine of the Icon

is i n fac t adumbratin g a n intellectua l positio n tha t wa s no t altogethe r trite. Th e Platoni c approach , a s w e hav e seen , wa s primaril y concerne d with th e bein g o f th e image ; philosopher s belongin g t o th e Platoni c school focuse d o n th e existentia l relatio n betwee n th e ico n an d th e prototype: the picture is the image of something. I n John's second claim, the focu s o f interes t ha s shifted : her e h e doe s no t as k wha t a picture is, but rathe r wha t i t does . B y stressin g tha t th e imag e show s wha t i t depicts, he indicates that it is the icon's function , th e "showing," that he considers as the true subject of definition . Even mor e importan t i s how th e imag e show s wha t i t portrays . Th e image, Joh n o f Damascu s says , show s "i n itself " wha t i t depicts . Th e attention o f th e historia n i s instantl y awakened . Th e clai m tha t a n ico n should sho w wha t i t portray s ma y b e considere d a s self-evident . Bu t emphasizing that the showing should be done by the image "in itself" is, in fact, highly unusual. Though th e showing in itself, one could argue , is implicit i n th e ver y ide a o f th e icon , I a m no t awar e o f an y earlie r statement expressin g th e sam e demand , o r declarin g tha t th e pictur e does th e showin g "i n itself. " Fo r al l hi s professe d intentio n t o stic k t o tradition, Joh n o f Damascu s her e reveal s hi s origina l mind . Eve n hi s followers, thoug h influence d b y his doctrine, did not readily take up this particular idea. What actuall y di d Joh n o f Damascu s mea n whe n h e include d thi s qualification—that th e pictur e show s "i n itself " wha t i t portrays—i n his definition o f th e image ? Th e formulation , a s it stands, ha s a surprising, perhap s a deceivingl y modern , ring . On e hesitates , o f course , t o make John a n honorary citize n o f th e modern world , or to describe him as a forerunne r o f th e autonom y o f th e aestheti c object . O n th e othe r hand, the qualification i s so important that it requires careful attention . Two train s o f though t sugges t themselve s a s possibl y explainin g hi s intention. On e point s i n th e directio n o f th e pictur e a s a n autonomou s object. T o b e sure , i n it s emergenc e an d ver y "existence " th e pictur e i s not autonomous . Tim e an d agai n John stresses , o r take s i t fo r granted , that th e imag e reflect s a model, 31 an d tha t th e mode l tha t th e pictur e depicts precede s th e image . Bu t i n th e proces s o f ou r graspin g wha t i s represented i n th e image , th e pictur e come s t o enjo y a n autonom y o f sorts. T o understan d wha t i t show s th e spectato r doe s no t hav e t o rel y on something else; the picture shows tha t "in itself." If such an interpre-

In Defense of Images 19

7

tation i s permissible , i t woul d mea n tha t John o f Damascu s focuse s o n what we migh t nowadays cal l the spectator's aestheti c experience. Another tren d o f though t ma y mak e u s shif t fro m th e spectator' s experience t o th e natur e o f th e imag e itself . W e ca n rea d John's defini tion o f th e imag e a s referrin g t o wha t i s no w describe d a s a n "iconi c sign." 32 Suc h a sign , on e knows , ha s itsel f th e propertie s o f wha t i t designates. I f ther e i s a n inheren t affinity , a n identit y o f sorts , betwee n the representatio n an d wha t i t represents , th e imag e itsel f i s the n a presence o f wha t i s reflecte d i n it . I n this sense , th e pictur e ma y b e sai d to "sho w i n itself" what it refers to. A theologian will , o f course , shrink fro m admittin g that the icon i s in some sens e identica l wit h th e divinit y i t represents . Joh n o f Damascus , we shal l late r see, 33 i s awar e o f th e dange r inheren t i n th e perception , however vague , tha t th e ico n i s similar, o r i n som e respect s eve n identi cal, t o wha t i t represents . Blurrin g th e distinction s betwee n ico n an d prototype i s bound t o lea d to idolatry . I t is this awareness, one assumes , that make s hi m insis t o n th e differenc e betwee n ico n an d prototype . Whenever h e ha s t o sa y wha t a n imag e is , he emphasize s tha t i t "i s no t like it s archetyp e i n ever y way." 34 "Fo r the image, " we rea d in anothe r passage, "i s one thing an d the thing depicted i s another; one can alway s notice difference s betwee n them , sinc e on e i s no t th e other , an d vic e versa."35 Onc e agai n w e encounte r th e questio n tha t th e studen t o f religious image s i s so familia r with : Ho w ca n th e picture bot h "sho w i n itself" wha t i t portrays , an d ye t b e s o completel y differen t fro m it s prototype? Put in an oversimplified, perhap s crude, form, we could say that John perceives th e differenc e betwee n prototyp e an d imag e no t s o muc h i n their for m a s i n their (material ) substance . True , h e neve r say s a s muc h directly, i n explici t words , bu t th e example s h e use s t o illustrat e hi s arguments sugges t suc h a reading . On e quotatio n wil l b e sufficien t t o show this . "An image of a man," he says in his third Oration, "even if it is a likeness of hi s bodily form , cannot contain his mental powers. I t has no life; i t cannot think, o r speak, o r move." 36 Though thi s is not said of a man-made image , the work o f a n artist, it allows u s to draw a conclusion concernin g th e painte d icon . Th e artist' s produc t can , i n principle , be identica l wit h th e appearanc e o f th e livin g perso n who m i t portrays. They differ no t in shape, but in their substance.

198 The

Doctrine of the Icon

That the icon an d its prototype ma y b e close to one another , so close as to be identical i n form while being totally different i n substance—thi s is a view tha t wa s hel d i n Antiquity , an d wa s take n ove r b y th e Gree k Church Fathers. John knew (i n fact, he quoted) wha t St. Athanasius said in hi s Book against the Avians, an d i t ma y b e worthwhile t o recal l thi s well-known statement : If we use the example of th e emperor's image we will fin d thi s [th e divinity of the Son who resemble s th e Father] easier t o understand . This imag e bears his form an d appearance. Whatever the emperor looks like, that is how hi s image appears. The likenes s o f th e empero r o n th e imag e i s precisel y simila r t o the emperor's own appearance , s o that anyone who looks a t the image recognizes that it is the emperor's image; also anyone who sees the emperor first an d the image later, realizes at once whose image it is.37 Athanasius's formulation—an d w e kno w tha t i t coul d b e multiplie d by quotation s fro m othe r authors—i s o f consequenc e t o th e studen t o f aesthetics becaus e i t implies tha t for m ca n b e detached fro m th e matte r into which i t is cast or imprinted. I t can be experienced i n itself, isolate d from other , mor e substantial , component s o f a figure. I t i s suc h for m detached fro m substance , I venture t o claim , tha t th e imag e ca n "sho w in itself." In summarizing John of Damascus' s definitio n o f th e image there are, I believe, fou r point s tha t shoul d b e made. First , John see s th e imag e a s necessarily relate d t o a prototype . It s ver y essenc e i s tha t i t portray s something outsid e o f itself , th e prototype. The imag e i s "mimetic"; i t is only i n relatio n t o th e prototyp e tha t th e ico n i s a n "image. " Henc e there can b e no imag e tha t doe s no t represen t something . Secondly , th e specific relationshi p prevailin g betwee n th e imag e an d it s prototyp e i s best describe d a s similarity : th e ico n resemble s th e mode l i t portrays . John neve r say s wha t precisel y similarit y is , bu t muc h o f hi s reflectio n would sugges t tha t similarit y i s a kin d o f partia l identit y (thoug h h e refrains fro m explicitl y drawin g tha t conclusion). Thirdly, th e similarity —whatever it s precis e definition—i s locate d i n th e for m o f bot h ico n and prototype ; th e ico n resemble s th e prototyp e i n form , i n visibl e shapes only . Similarit y neve r extend s t o thei r substance . Fro m her e w e reach the fourth point, implied rather than explicitly stated, namely, that —at leas t i n ou r reflection—th e for m show n i n th e imag e ca n b e de tached fro m th e substanc e int o whic h i t i s impressed . T o spea k onc e again in modern terms: form ca n be considered fo r itself.

In Defense of Images 19

9

4. "Why Are Images Made?" (i) The Questions Joh n opens the presentation of his doctrine of image s with a definitio n o f th e icon . I t i s th e systemati c natur e o f hi s though t that make s hi m first outline , a s clearl y a s h e can , th e objec t o f hi s discussion, tha t is, to begi n with a definition. Bu t his mind, as we know , was not oriented towards mere definition. Al l his writings, even the mos t theoretical an d speculative, aim at the impact of ideas , at the effects the y attain i n th e realit y o f huma n life . I t i s no t mer e knowledg e tha t h e strives for an d that motivates him , but the urge to shape his world. Thi s also hold s tru e fo r hi s discussio n o f images . Wit h John's thir d questio n —why ar e image s made , an d wha t ar e icon s goo d for?—w e therefor e come t o th e issu e tha t actuall y concerne d him , th e significanc e o f th e icon i n ou r world . The Apologies , afte r all , wer e no t compose d a s a n academic exercise, nor were they so widely received for doctrinal reason s only. Moreover, the formulation lack s the detachment one would expec t in a purely scholarl y text ; o n th e contrary , John her e explicitl y present s a partisa n view , passionatel y defendin g th e positio n o f on e politica l group i n the debate. The merel y theoretica l questio n o f wha t a n icon is, it should b e kept in mind , received attentio n primaril y a s a consequenc e of anothe r question , namely , wha t rol e i t should play . Th e definitio n a s such seemed more marginal, whereas the purpose and i}se of icon s loom s large in the discussion, and is obviously seen as a central issue. These are also the proportions in which the different aspect s of the icon are treated by Joh n o f Damascus . Onl y tw o brie f paragraph s ar e devote d t o th e definition o f images , while th e treatment o f th e purpose an d functio n o f icons forms a large part of th e text. 38 Before w e tur n t o John's view s o f th e purpos e o f icons , however, w e should pause for a moment and consider what "purpose" in general ma y mean in this context. Showin g wha t i s the purpose of image s become s a justification o f producin g them . "Wh y are images made?"—this i s what John ask s whe n h e speak s o f th e "purpose " o f images . I n th e thir d Apology h e put s th e questio n explicitly , wherea s i n th e first i t i s mor e implicit, bu t it always form s th e background o f hi s discussion. I n fact, a large part o f wha t h e say s abou t icon s ca n b e rea d a s a n answe r t o thi s particular question. John's definitio n o f th e imag e an d hi s statemen t concernin g it s pur pose ar e quit e clos e t o eac h other . Wha t distinguishe s the m i s onl y a

200 The

Doctrine of the Icon

shift in perspective. I n the definition, a s we remember, he states what the image i s mean t t o show , namely , th e invisible ; i n th e discussio n o f th e image's purpos e h e consider s whethe r an d ho w thi s goa l i s actuall y attained. I n fact, definitio n an d purpose han g together. The definition i s cast in terms of a task t o b e fulfilled : i t is the task o f th e imag e t o sho w the invisible . The purpose i s to attai n thi s goal. Wha t i s different, I shall claim, is primarily the perspective h e has in mind. The definition focuse s on th e image itself , an d disregards wha t lie s outside it . I n discussing th e icon's purpose , th e focu s i s o n th e spectator . I n th e definitio n h e doe s not as k whether , o r not , w e ca n indee d perceiv e wha t th e imag e i s supposed t o sho w (tha t is , something o f th e invisible) ; in th e discussio n of the image's purpose, he mainly asks whether and how the icon reaches the spectator , an d wha t actua l impac t i t ha s o n hi m o r her . Usin g modern terminology—whic h was , o f course , fa r remove d fro m John' s mind an d time—w e coul d sa y tha t wha t h e say s abou t th e image' s purpose deals with the audience. Le t us now tur n to John's views.

(ii) Schemes for Vindicating Images I t wa s no t eighth-centur y icono clasm, of course , that invented the question, wha t i s an image good for ? Since the beginnings of the Christian world the purpose of art in general, and of th e visual art s in particular, had not been considered self-evident ; the pictur e an d th e statu e ha d t o b e "justified" ; i t ha d t o b e explaine d why the y shoul d b e made , o r accepted . Fo r centuries th e task remaine d important; a large part of medieva l literatur e dealing with the visual arts is devoted to vindicating a painting or a piece of sculpture. The majo r metho d employe d i n medieva l though t t o vindicat e th e picture i s to invok e it s purpose. I t is not difficul t t o se e wh y thi s shoul d have bee n so . Medieva l cultur e i n all it s variations accepte d th e truth — not articulate , ye t pervasive , an d underlyin g an y thought touchin g o n matters of aesthetics—tha t an y kind of ar t object, includin g th e picture, does no t hav e a n autonomou s value , tha t i t i s no t valuabl e i n itself . I t may b e tolerated , i t ca n eve n b e desirable , becaus e o f it s effects . Medi eval philosophical views , and value judgments, of works of art are based on th e assumption tha t the image ha s some effects o n us. The effects ar e considered important , an d i t i s they tha t ar e the reaso n fo r th e vindica tion of th e painting that brings them about. I n other words, the icon, or any othe r produc t o f artisti c skil l o r talent , i s no t vindicate d becaus e i t

In Defense of Images 20

1

embodies a valu e i n itself ; i t i s justifie d becaus e i t lead s t o effect s tha t are valuable. The nee d t o justif y th e imag e an d explai n wha t i t i s goo d for , i t should b e sai d i n parentheses , doe s no t mea n tha t medieva l audience s did no t kno w wha t aestheti c experienc e was , o r tha t spectator s i n th e Middle Ages did not enjoy the sensual beaut y of the forms and materials they could see in paintings and other art objects. Contrar y to what som e romantic scholar s woul d lik e u s t o believe , medieva l literature , bot h secular an d religious , yield s man y expression s o f shee r aestheti c deligh t and undisguised pleasur e a t the brilliance o f material s an d the quality o f workmanship.39 Th e vindicatio n o f images , needles s t o say , doe s no t take place on the level of direc t aesthetic experience; it is a philosophical reflection upo n tha t experience , an d i t is , o f course , tinge d b y th e scal e of value s underlyin g a grea t dea l o f medieva l culture . Tha t ar t wa s thought t o b e i n nee d o f vindicatio n show s onl y tha t i n th e theoretical doctrines prevailin g i n th e Christia n Middl e Ages , ar t wa s normall y understood a s lacking in autonomous value . Most o f th e medieva l vindication s o f image s an d objects , o r decora tions, produce d b y artist s fal l int o tw o groups . On e typ e see s artisti c decoration a s a result of th e desire to pay homage to the sacred object or building, o r t o attrac t attentio n t o wha t wa s deeme d importan t i n th e church building , th e liturgica l implement , o r th e sacre d book , b y richl y decorating th e respectiv e area . Thi s attitud e i s bes t articulate d i n medi eval workshop treatises . The Various Arts b y Theophilus, a well-know n twelfth-century text , i s a goo d example . Decoratin g th e hous e o f God , the artisan-autho r says , i s th e artist' s majo r task . Thi s ca n b e don e b y depicting images , suc h a s paradisia c scene s "glowin g wit h varie d flow ers, verdan t wit h herb s an d foliage , an d cherishin g wit h crown s o f varying meri t th e soul s o f th e saints." 40 Bu t the decoratio n nee d no t b e limited to figural image s or to the representation of any identifiable scen e or object. Wha t i s represented , i f anythin g a t all , i s in fact rathe r irrelevant a s fa r a s th e decorativ e effec t i s concerned . Theophilu s himsel f bears witness t o nonfigurative ornament , or the sheer beaut y of materia l in churc h decoration . H e admiringl y tell s o f work s i n "gol d an d silver , bronze, gems, wood, an d other materials." The spectator, he suggests, is overwhelmed b y wha t h e o r sh e see s i n th e church , bu t no t a singl e figure is mentioned: "Fo r the human ey e [o f th e spectator] i s not abl e t o consider, o n what first to fix its gaze; if it beholds the ceilings, they glo w

202 The

Doctrine of the Icon

like brocades ; i f i t consider s th e walls , the y ar e a kind o f paradise ; i f i t regards th e profusio n o f ligh t fro m th e windows , i t marvel s a t th e inestimable beaut y o f th e glas s an d th e infintel y ric h an d varie d works manship." Theories belongin g t o thi s typ e d o no t brin g u p th e problem s o f figural imagery , le t alon e th e specifi c question s o f th e icon . The y ar e concerned with embellishment . Another approac h t o vindicatin g image s actuall y equate s th e pictur e with figurative representation. I t is the well-known theor y that considers images a s didacti c implements . The mos t famou s formulatio n o f thi s approach i s th e classi c statemen t b y Gregor y th e Great . Thi s sixth century pop e wa s i n fac t takin g par t i n a n iconoclasti c debat e o f sort s (long befor e th e movemen t s o calle d emerge d int o th e open ) whe n h e said tha t "i t is one thin g t o venerat e a picture, an d another t o lear n th e story i t depicts. " The imag e help s th e illiterat e t o lear n th e story. I n his words, "th e picture is for simpl e me n what writing is for those who ca n read, because thos e wh o canno t rea d see an d lear n fro m th e picture th e model whic h the y shoul d follow . Thu s picture s ar e abov e al l fo r th e instruction of th e people." 41 An d "the picture is exhibited in the church, so that those who cannot read may, by looking at the walls, at least read there wha t the y ma y b e unabl e t o rea d i n books." 42 Thi s doctrin e wa s officially adopte d b y th e church . "Illiterat e me n ca n contemplat e i n th e lines o f a picture, " th e Syno d o f Arra s decide d i n 1025 , "wha t the y cannot learn by means of th e written word." 43 Vindicating th e image s becaus e the y conve y th e story—thi s doctrin e is of cours e limite d t o spectator s wh o canno t read . Fo r people wh o ca n read, the picture is altogether useless, and for them it cannot be justified. In the so-calle d Libri Carolini 44 thi s i s clearly put : "Painters, " we ther e read, "shoul d kee p aliv e th e memor y o f historica l events , bu t what ca n be bot h looke d a t an d describe d i n word s shoul d no t b e depicte d an d presented to the public by painters, but by writers." It i s no t altogethe r clea r wha t precisel y "learning " mean s here : I s it the acquiring of new information, or is it rather a kind of indoctrination ? In spite of this obscurity, the main thought of this kind of justification o f the artwor k i s obvious . Th e imag e i s vindicate d becaus e o f it s socia l o r educational function , an d thi s functio n i s restricte d t o th e illiterate . I f the spectato r i s abl e t o read , th e image—including , on e assumes , th e

In Defense of Images 20

3

sacred icon—become s superfluous . I t i s onl y logica l tha t i n thi s cas e i t should be altogether abandoned . Having briefl y outline d th e fram e o f referenc e o f John' s though t i n the history o f ideas , we no w retur n to his body of teaching . The studen t here encounter s tw o question s that , thoug h the y han g together , shoul d be treate d separately ; on e i s o f a mor e historical , th e othe r o f a mor e theoretical character . Th e first on e is , ho w doe s Joh n o f Damascus' s defense o f image s fit int o th e traditiona l schem e her e indicated ? Th e other is, what does John consider as the purpose of the icon? What is his own vindicatio n o f images ? I shal l begi n wit h th e first question , an d shall compare his attitudes to those prevailing in the thought of his time. John o f Damascu s share s wit h hi s contemporaries , an d hi s medieva l followers throughou t th e centuries, the essential poin t of departure , that is, th e belie f tha t th e valu e o f th e pictur e doe s no t li e i n itself , bu t i n what i t effects i n the beholder. I n this respect John i s very articulate an d clear. Continuing what he has said in his definition of the image, namely, that "al l image s revea l an d mak e perceptibl e thos e thing s whic h ar e hidden," h e naturall y evoke s hi s anthropology . Sinc e "ma n doe s no t have immediate knowledg e o f invisibl e things, " he says, "the image wa s devised tha t h e migh t advanc e i n knowledge." 45 I n othe r words , th e purpose of the image is to bring about something in the spectator's min d or soul, and this is the purpose of th e icon. We shal l shortl y com e bac k t o thi s genera l attitude , an d t o possibl e problems tha t ma y aris e fro m i t fo r John' s doctrine . Her e w e limi t ourselves t o asking , ho w doe s h e stan d i n relatio n t o th e specifi c argu mentations w e hav e jus t indicated ? Th e first typ e o f vindication—tha t is, using images as embellishment of sacred objects—is altogethe r absen t from John o f Damascus' s intellectua l horizon . I t may see m paradoxica l but it is true that, althoug h h e was one o f th e most influential defender s of painte d images , John doe s no t see m t o hav e know n ho w a picture i s made, an d h e apparentl y ha d n o appreciatio n fo r artisti c imaginatio n and workmanship. Althoug h h e sings an ecstatic hymn to the icon, 46 the reader notes tha t John never mention s a specific featur e o r aspect of th e icon, and he never observes the workmanship. It obviously di d not occur to him that the icon could b e seen primarily a s an embellishment. With th e secon d typ e o f justifyin g images—tha t is , employin g the m as didactic devices—he wa s definitely familiar . I n the orations in defense

204 The

Doctrine of the Icon

of image s h e refer s severa l time s t o Gregor y th e Great. 47 Thoug h h e never quote s th e pope' s famou s dictu m tha t w e hav e jus t mentioned , there i s little doub t tha t h e was familia r with i t an d accepte d th e idea i t expressed. Moreover , h e show s a significan t affinit y wit h th e author s who considere d th e pictur e a s a mean s t o affec t people . Lik e mos t thinkers of tha t ag e who claime d tha t the pictur e i s primarily a didactic instrument, John of Damascu s wa s awar e of th e icon's impac t on ritual , and, i n a more genera l way , o n wha t w e no w cal l "th e spectator. " W e shall shortly come back to this aspect of the icon's purpose and function , that is , th e "spectator. " I n the presen t stag e o f ou r study , however , w e are concerned neithe r with th e intellectua l source s of John of Damascu s nor th e tradition s familia r t o him . Instea d w e shal l concentrat e o n hi s doctrine itself , an d particularl y o n wha t single s i t ou t i n th e contex t o f medieval reflection s o n art. And I should say right at the beginning: John of Damascu s does indeed display a great deal of original thinkin g on our subject, an d thereb y h e considerabl y diverge s fro m view s hel d through out the Middle Ages. Most Christia n thinker s o f hi s worl d kep t th e effec t o f th e imag e i n mind whe n the y approache d th e definitio n o f th e icon . Th e best-know n instance is , o f course , Pop e Gregory' s famou s comparison , repeate d countless times , of image s an d script: th e image i s for the illiterate wha t the tex t i s fo r thos e abl e t o read . John, too , i s profoundl y awar e o f th e icon's effect , o f wha t i t doe s t o peopl e (henc e th e sigificanc e o f what , using a moder n term , w e hav e calle d "th e spectator") . Bu t whe n h e comes t o defin e wha t specificall y th e ico n doe s t o th e perso n lookin g a t it, h e deviates fro m opinion s an d belief s tha t wer e common i n hi s time . And a s w e shal l see , i t i s becaus e o f it s specifi c effec t tha t th e ico n i s conceived i n terms not only o f wha t i t does, bu t also of wha t i t is, of it s nature, a s i t were . T o b e sure , a certai n ambiguit y an d incongruenc e remain, but the main trend of hi s thought i s clear. (iii) John's View of the Image's Purpose S o muc h fo r th e attemp t t o place Joh n i n th e contex t o f medieva l conceptua l approache s t o th e defense o f th e image . W e ar e no w leavin g historica l questions , an d turning t o John' s ow n doctrine . Ho w doe s h e himsel f vindicat e th e image? Wha t i s th e argumen t tha t lead s hi m t o th e belie f tha t h e ca n "save" the image? Before attemptin g t o discus s John' s thought s o n th e purpos e o f th e

In Defense of Images 20

5

image I should sa y that , i n spit e o f hi s scholasti c leanings , h e doe s no t present hi s view s o n th e subjec t i n an y systemati c manner . H e ofte n drops th e treatmen t o f a proble m withou t bringin g i t t o a conclusion . Followings his thought, as it develops in the Apologies, bring s home that he i s walkin g a tortuou s road . Nevertheless , i n th e followin g page s I shall no t attemp t t o mak e i t appear simple r an d more consisten t tha n i t is. The very twists of John's thought, I believe, not only tell us something about hi s thinkin g (an d tha t o f hi s time) ; the y als o revea l som e o f th e conceptual difficultie s inheren t i n hi s enterprise , an d o f th e proble m h e is treating. In the vindicatio n o f image s John's positio n i s mor e precariou s tha n that o f hi s medieva l followers . The reaso n fo r thi s problematic positio n is tha t hi s concep t o f th e imag e i s mor e comple x an d make s mor e far reaching claim s tha n theirs . Medieva l defender s o f icons , regardles s t o which o f th e two type s they belonged , actuall y sai d precious littl e abou t what the image is. Without defining the image as such, they seem to have had actual , materia l image s i n mind , an d the y probabl y too k i t fo r granted tha t everybod y understoo d wha t the y wer e talkin g about . Tha t their though t remaine d clos e t o th e rea l object , a n actua l picture , on e even see s fro m thei r formulations . Theophilu s speak s o f th e decoratio n of th e churc h building ; Gregor y th e Great , an d hi s man y medieva l followers, sa y tha t th e "image s o n th e wall" ar e the scrip t o f th e illiter ate. Non e o f thes e formulation s indicate s a n abstrac t concep t o f th e image. John stand s ou t fro m thi s tradition : h e define s th e imag e a s such , altogether detache d fro m an y connectio n t o th e materia l conditio n o r the characte r o f th e ico n a s a n object . Moreover , a s w e hav e seen , h e assigns t o th e image th e grea t metaphysica l tas k o f makin g a bridg e between the worlds. The image, he taught, reveals to us what lies beyond the limits of ou r sensua l perception . H e expresse s th e central ide a of hi s defense of sacre d images as well a s of hi s theory of ar t when he says that "all image s revea l an d mak e perceptua l thos e thing s whic h ar e hid den." 48 Th e redeemin g powe r o f th e icon s derive s fro m th e fac t tha t "they mak e things so obviously manifest , enablin g us to perceive hidde n things." 49 Though he mainly stresses the human need for images, he also suggests tha t the y d o hav e a supernatural powe r an d ar e indeed abl e t o fulfil th e task of revelation : "Anyone would sa y that our inability immediately t o direc t our thought t o contemplatio n o f highe r things make s i t

2o6 The

Doctrine of the Icon

necessary tha t familia r everyda y medi a b e utilized t o giv e suitabl e for m to what is formless, and make visible what cannot be depicted." 50 In sum, then , John believe s tha t revealin g th e invisibl e i s the purpos e of th e hol y image , an d therefor e i t i s th e reaso n fo r th e vindicatio n o f the material , visibl e icon . Wer e i t no t fo r th e revelatio n o f th e invisible , one canno t hel p concluding , ther e woul d b e n o nee d fo r th e icon , o r cause t o vindicat e it . Now , t o sho w t o th e eye s wha t i s invisibl e b y nature, t o manifes t th e hidden—thi s i s evidentl y a paradox . Bu t pre cisely becaus e i t i s eviden t a t a first glance tha t thi s i s a contradiction , one has to show that it is possible, that the paradoxical tas k of the image can b e performed . Th e whol e defens e o f images , a s Joh n understand s them, depend s o n whethe r on e ca n sho w tha t th e divine , althoug h invisible i n itself , ca n b e seen , o r ha d bee n seen . N o wonde r tha t a considerable part of John's reflections revolve s around this point.

Theological speculation. T o gras p th e ful l significanc e o f th e contradic tion tha t i s th e ver y essenc e o f th e image , on e shoul d se e why , i n hi s view, Go d canno t b e seen , an d henc e canno t b e depicted . Tha t th e invisible, by the very fact of bein g beyond the reach of our vision, cannot be represented in a picture that appeals to the eyes is, of course, a simple truism. Ye t Joh n i s mor e specific—thoug h i n hi s text s muc h remain s implicit—in hi s explanatio n o f wh y Go d i s beyon d th e reac h o f por trayal. Th e divin e i s beyon d portraya l no t only becaus e i t i s remove d from th e reac h o f ou r sens e experience , to o fa r fo r u s to see , as it were. Were we abl e to expand our perceptual facultie s (thei r nature remainin g as i t is) , eve n int o th e infinite , w e woul d stil l no t find i t possibl e t o portray th e divine . I t is not only beyon d ou r vision; its nature lack s th e very elements tha t would mak e i t an object o f vision , an d thus portray able: "I t i s impossibl e t o portra y on e wh o i s withou t body : invisible , uncircumscribed, an d without form." 51 It i s wort h ou r whil e t o hav e a brie f loo k a t th e term s Joh n her e employs. I n par t the y ar e genera l indeed . I n th e languag e prevailin g i n the theological literatur e o f th e early Middle Ages , terms such a s "bodiless" an d "invisible" wer e use d s o frequentl y tha t the y sometime s los t precise meaning . Bu t i n addition t o suc h genera l terms , John als o use d others tha t ar e mor e specifi c an d precise , particularl y i n th e tex t o f a Church Father . God , h e says , i s "uncircumscribed " an d lack s "form. "

In Defense of Images 20

7

This i s a n exac t statement , particularl y i n th e thesauru s o f a n eighth century theologian . "Outline" and "form " ar e terms tha t denot e th e essential feature s o f the painted image. John of Damascus's statement that God is "uncircumscribed" (aperigraptos) 52 would , i n a strictl y litera l translation , mea n that Go d i s no t "marke d round , fence d in , enclosed. " The Gree k ver b here translated b y "circumscribe" was rendered in Latin by delineate. I n a precis e sens e o f th e word , Joh n o f Damascu s say s tha t Go d i s no t outlined, that is, has no contour . The othe r term , schema, translate d b y "form, " ha d a rathe r wid e range of connotations. Essentially, however, it meant "form" or "shape" in a distinct , concret e sense . I n th e artisti c workshop s o f Antiquity , schema wa s use d a s a technica l term , thoug h i t i s no t possibl e t o offe r definite proo f fo r thi s usage . Sinc e th e first centur y A.D. , on e moder n interpretation claims , the term schema referre d mainl y to a figure at rest (a Standmotiv, i n Germa n professiona l language) , whil e th e closel y re lated ter m rhythmos wa s use d primaril y t o designat e figures considere d in motion. 53 Bu t there are also reasons fo r doubtin g thi s hypothesis. 54 If it wer e correct , however , i t woul d fit i n wel l wit h Joh n o f Damascus' s use o f th e ter m schema. God , h e believes , i s a t rest , no t subjec t t o an y kind of motion. 55 Now, whateve r th e specifi c connotation s o f th e terms , wha t the y mean i n John' s us e i s tha t th e divin e canno t b e represented , no t onl y because i t is hidden o r obscured, bu t because, i n a profound an d precise sense, i t lack s th e very elemen t o f form , i t cannot b e "fence d in " within an outline. All this , th e reade r canno t hel p noting , doe s no t contribut e t o a defense o f images . Joh n wa s obviousl y awar e o f th e difficultie s jus t indicated, an d i t wa s thi s awarenes s tha t prompte d hi m t o reformulat e the problem . Hi s rhetori c convey s a sens e o f urgency . "Ho w ca n th e invisible b e depicted? " he demands . "Ho w doe s on e pictur e th e incon ceivable? Ho w ca n on e dra w wha t i s limitless , immeasurable , infinite ? How ca n a for m b e give n t o th e formless ? Ho w doe s on e pain t th e bodiless? Ho w ca n you describ e what i s a mystery?" 56 In short, it is the very embodiment of a paradox. In a simple and direct sense, John does not solve the problem. In spite of hi s rhetori c i n askin g th e questions , h e doe s no t answe r them , an d does no t show, on th e level o f philosophica l reflection , ho w th e invisibl e

2o8 The

Doctrine of the Icon

can b e represented—i n othe r words , ho w th e proble m o f th e ico n ca n be solved. What he does instea d is, first of all , to claim that in reality the problem wa s indee d solved , tha t is , tha t i n histor y God , o r angels , di d appear i n visibl e for m an d wer e see n b y people . H e the n als o refer s t o the mos t famou s appearanc e an d treat s i t a s a theological problem . W e shall follo w thes e lines of though t separately . On th e first poin t h e invoke s th e authorit y o f Scripture , th e mos t obvious procedur e i n hi s time . Th e Ol d Testamen t abound s i n storie s about me n wh o sa w Go d i n mor e o r les s bodil y forms , an d Joh n o f Damascus mention s som e o f them . Thus Ada m sa w Go d an d hear d th e sound o f God' s fee t a s Go d walke d i n Paradis e (Genesi s 3:8) ; Jaco b struggled with God , wh o evidentl y appeare d t o hi m a s a ma n (Genesi s 32:24 ff.) ; Moses saw , a s it were, the back of a man (Exodu s 33:2 4 ff.) ; and Isaia h sa w Go d a s a ma n sittin g upo n a thron e (Isaia h 6:i). 57 Al l these stories show tha t God appeared i n visible form . In usin g th e biblica l tex t John take s a furthe r step . God , h e tell s hi s readers, "will s tha t w e shoul d no t b e totall y ignoran t o f bodiles s crea tures."58 Therefor e Go d ha s permitted , a s w e lear n fro m th e Bible , th e making an d displayin g o f som e image s i n th e temple , a s th e carve d figures of th e cherubi m testify. 59 Th e cherubim , an d angel s i n general , play a versatil e rol e i n John's thought ; t o a metaphysica l aspec t o f th e angels' appearanc e w e shal l retur n a t th e en d o f thi s chapter. 60 Her e I shall only mentio n wha t John say s abou t th e carved figures of cherubi m in th e Solomoni c Temple . Go d allowe d th e cherubim , h e says , "t o b e made an d show n a s prostrate i n adoratio n befor e th e divin e throne." 61 John remember s wha t th e ancien t skeptic s sai d agains t th e adoratio n o f images, argument s probabl y take n ove r fro m som e o f th e Churc h Fa thers. Som e doubtin g mind s o f Antiquit y a s well a s the Hebre w proph ets, a s w e remember , sough t t o belittl e th e valu e o f image s b y stressin g that the y ar e man-mad e object s consistin g o f ordinary , ofte n base , ma terials.62 In the Apologies thes e arguments are very much alive, and John tries to repudiate the m by again reminding us of the cherubim figures on Solomon's throne : "Ar e they [th e figures of th e cherubim] not the handiwork o f man ? D o the y no t ow e thei r existenc e t o wha t you cal l con temptible matter? " And h e continues, "Wha t i s the meeting tent itsel f i f not a n image?" 63 Th e carve d figures of th e cherubi m i n th e Solomoni c Temple sho w tha t images , thoug h originatin g i n th e manua l work o f humble craftspeople, an d carved in ordinary materials, can carry out the

In Defense of Images 20

9

basic functio n o f th e image—the y sho w u s wha t woul d otherwis e re main invisible. John's exegesis, tinged by the urgent political issue s of hi s own day , refutes th e skeptics' arguments agains t images. Frequent a s John' s reference s t o biblica l testimonie s are , th e mai n reason fo r hi s belie f tha t image s o f th e divin e ar e indee d feasibl e i s no t one o f th e event s relate d i n Scripture ; i t i s a n argumen t o f theoretica l theology, th e centra l myster y o f Christia n religion . The Incarnatio n itself, th e fac t tha t Chris t has becom e man , an d thus ha s place d himsel f within th e reac h o f huma n experience , tha t h e coul d b e see n an d henc e also depicted—i s thi s no t a sanctio n o f images , a n indicatio n tha t th e depiction o f th e divin e i s possible ? " I boldl y dra w a n imag e o f th e invisible God, " we rea d early i n the firs t Apology , "no t a s invisible, bu t as having become visible fo r our sakes by partaking of flesh and blood." John o f Damascu s know s ho w comple x th e theological proble m is , an d he therefor e qualifie s hi s statement . " I d o no t dra w a n imag e o f th e immortal Godhead, " h e continues , "bu t I pain t th e So n o f Go d wh o became visible in the flesh, for if it is impossible to make a representation of a spirit, ho w muc h mor e impossibl e i s it to depic t Go d wh o give s lif e to this spirit?" 64 An attentiv e reader , keepin g i n min d tha t th e questio n i s whethe r a n image o f th e invisibl e Go d i s a t al l possible , doe s no t reall y kno w wha t to mak e o f thi s passage . Wha t Joh n her e say s i s ambiguous . Chris t Incarnate—that is , Chris t a s man , a s ever y othe r man—ha s o f cours e "circumscription" an d "form, " and i s thus susceptible t o depiction , jus t as ever y person , ever y natura l creatur e an d materia l objec t woul d be . But i s suc h a portraya l o f Chris t a s ma n onl y a manifestatio n o f th e invisible?65 John must have been aware of these questions. In the passage from whic h w e hav e jus t quoted, h e goes o n t o say , "Th e flesh assumed by Hi m i s mad e divin e an d endure s afte r it s assumption . Fleshl y natur e was no t los t whe n i t became par t of th e Godhead , bu t just a s the Wor d made flesh remaine d th e Word , s o als o flesh becam e th e Word , ye t remained flesh, bein g unite d t o th e perso n o f th e Word." 66 I t is "there fore," tha t is , becaus e th e Wor d ha s becom e flesh, Joh n o f Damascu s says, that he boldly draws an image of th e invisible God. In the second Apology h e comes back to the same argument. I t would be "sinful" were we t o attempt to make an image of th e invisible God. 67 "But we ar e not mistaken, " he continues , "i f w e mak e th e imag e o f th e God incarnate , who wa s see n on eart h i n the flesh, associated wit h men ,

2 i o The

Doctrine of the Icon

and in His unspeakable goodnes s assume d the nature, feeling, form , and color o f ou r flesh." An d a littl e late r h e says , "Sinc e divin e natur e ha s assumed ou r [human ] nature , w e hav e bee n give n a life-bearin g an d saving remedy , whic h ha s glorifie d ou r natur e an d le d i t t o incorrup tion." 68 In John's tim e it was not new or unusual t o invoke the Christologica l argument i n defens e o f icons . Th e topi c wa s publicl y discusse d i n th e synods tha t mak e u p th e officia l Iconoclasti c Debate . Iconoclasti c theo logians concentrate d thei r attentio n o n thi s argument , an d the y articu lated th e conceptua l difficultie s inheren t i n it . A singl e document , per haps composed i n the year of John's death, will sho w wha t the problem was, but also how clearl y iconoclastic theologian s perceived th e difficul ties of the argument. I n the Horos (definition ) adopte d b y the Council of 754, we read, After examinin g thes e matter s wit h muc h car e an d deliberatio n . . . w e hav e found that the illicit craft of the painter was injurious to the crucial doctrine of our salvation, i.e., the incarnation of Christ. . .. This ma n make s a n image an d calls i t Christ ; now th e name "Christ " means both God and man. Hence he has either included according to his vain fancy the uncircumscribable Godhea d i n th e circumscriptio n o f create d flesh, or h e has confused that unconfusable union . .. an d in so doing has applied two blasphemies to the Godhead, namely through the circumscription an d the confusion. So also he who reveres [images] is guilty of the same confusion.69 This decisio n wa s adopte d i n th e yea r o f John' s death , bu t th e idea s that shaped it were, of course , current in the preceding decades. 70 The theological discussio n itself , beyon d it s applicatio n t o th e image , is no t ou r concern. Onc e again , however , th e theologica l controvers y implies, o r eve n articulates , attitude s tha t hav e a direc t bearin g o n th e question o f th e icon' s trut h an d validity . Th e decisio n her e quote d set s forth i n a distinc t wa y th e iconoclasti c criticis m o f th e Christologica l argument a s use d i n th e defens e o f sacre d images . Wha t th e criticis m says, to put it in simple words, is that the icon portrays only one part of Christ's nature , hi s body ; th e divinit y o f Chris t remain s unportrayable , and the Incarnation does not change this state of affairs . This als o hold s tru e fo r John o f Damascus . Strippin g hi s attitud e i n the debate, particularly hi s us e of th e "Christologica l argument, " of th e theological terminology , i t become s obviou s tha t h e raise s th e questio n

In Defense of Images 21

1

of whether and how a visible form i s at all able to portray a nonmaterial meaning that in itself i s not directly present in what we see. The moder n studen t o f image s ma y b e permitted her e to outline, i n a few words, John's theoretical position . H e did not want to adopt—and , given the limitations o f hi s time an d spiritual world , h e could no t adop t —the vie w tha t th e ico n i s a mere "sign " of God , an d tha t i t i s under stood a s suc h becaus e a commo n conventio n make s thi s possible . H e also coul d no t accep t a psychologica l explanatio n o f th e lin k betwee n the visibl e ico n an d th e invisibl e bein g i t purport s t o represent . I t wa s not th e spectator' s experienc e tha t wa s hi s concern . Joh n face d th e problem o f whethe r a materia l imag e ca n actuall y portra y a n ide a o r a spiritual being , i n it s pures t form , withou t th e ai d o f "conventional " concepts or psychological explanations . On thi s leve l Joh n doe s no t giv e a clear answer ; th e myster y o f ho w an image carries an intimation o f th e invisible remains in full force . The icon in popular beliefs. S o fa r w e hav e looke d a t John' s view s concerning th e purpos e o f th e imag e a s the y appea r o n th e leve l o f abstract theological speculation . But, as I have said earlier in this section, abstract argument , conducte d o n th e intellectua l leve l o f theologica l speculation, wa s onl y on e par t of wha t h e had t o sa y o n th e subject. I n addition, John als o puts fort h hi s view s o n th e purpose o f th e imag e o n a differen t level , th e on e w e hav e terme d "popula r beliefs. " I t goe s without sayin g tha t ou r autho r nowher e distinguishe s betwee n a "theoretical" and a "popular" discussion. I t is the task of th e modern studen t to extract th e differen t approache s fro m th e sam e text . Bu t thoug h th e elements wer e no t neatl y separate d fro m eac h othe r i n John's mind , i n his tex t i t i s possibl e t o distinguis h betwee n th e differen t layer s o f thought. It is no t fo r m e her e t o attemp t a characterization o f abstrac t versu s popular thought ; al l I shall d o i s t o sugges t som e tentativ e observatio n of differen t approache s t o ou r specifi c subject , namely , th e purpos e o f the imag e i n th e realit y o f huma n life . No t surprisingly , th e cor e o f th e subject was, once again, what is the relationship between the visible icon and its invisible prototype ? Philosophically minde d theologian s understoo d thi s relationshi p a s a spiritual affinit y o r parallelism, a connection tha t cannot be perceived in our reality . Thi s attitud e tende d t o depriv e th e imag e o f an y lin k wit h

212 The

Doctrine of the Icon

the painte d icon . I n popula r belief s th e elusiv e connectio n betwee n th e prototype an d th e cop y tend s t o becom e a physica l unit y o f sorts . Underlying popula r belief s i s th e taci t assumptio n tha t ther e i s som e direct link , a s i t were , betwee n th e ico n an d it s archetype . T o b e sure , the lin k i s onl y partial , sinc e th e ico n doe s no t becom e a n embodimen t of th e invisible , bu t nevertheles s th e lin k remain s on e o f substance . Th e picture, i n a sense , become s a n extensio n o f th e bein g o r figure por trayed, a projection of th e saint depicted, perhaps even of th e divine. N o wonder, then , tha t th e go d o r th e saint portraye d ca n us e the pictur e a s a means of intervenin g in the affairs an d fate of people . An extension o f this kind well know n t o us from everyday experienc e is th e shado w on e casts . I n John's doctrin e o f image s th e cas t shado w does indee d pla y a significant role . Th e New Testamen t itsel f seeme d t o support the idea that a saint's shadow is an extension of the saint's body, and, lik e othe r extensions , carrie s a specia l power . Th e apostle s per formed miracle s wit h extension s o f thei r bodies . "Peter' s shadow , o r handkerchiefs an d apron s carrie d fro m Paul' s body , heale d th e sick an d put demon s t o flight." 71 Concentratin g o n th e shadow , Joh n speak s o f the marvelou s abilit y o f th e apostle' s shado w t o expe l demons . Christ' s servants an d friend s "hav e receive d th e powe r ove r al l demon s an d diseases," and they have the power to drive away evil spirits . They exer t this supernatura l powe r throug h thei r shadows . "Thei r shado w alon e expels demons and diseases." John follow s hi s Christia n sources ; th e stor y o f th e apostle' s healin g and miracle-workin g shado w i s o f cours e take n directl y fro m th e Ne w Testament (Act s 5:15) . Ye t he transforms th e story i n a significant way . The specifi c conclusio n tha t Joh n draw s fro m th e story—namely , tha t there i s a lin k betwee n th e shado w an d th e icon , tha t th e shado w i s a model o f wha t the icon is—is no t suggested b y the New Testamen t text. Though h e does not put it as a definition, i t is obvious that he makes the shadow cas t b y a figure, especiall y a hol y one , a legitimatio n o f th e painted icon . The interna l connectio n betwee n shado w an d icon goes s o far that he even doubts which i s closer to the original model , th e icon or the shadow: "Woul d no t a shadow b e reckoned weake r and less honorable tha n a n icon ? A n ico n i s a mor e distinc t portraya l o f th e proto type." 72 An d therefore , "Pagan s mak e image s o f demon s whic h the y address a s gods , bu t w e mak e image s o f Go d incarnate , an d o f hi s servants and friends, and with them we drive away the demonic hosts." 73

In Defense of Images 21

3

While Scripture does not suggest this link between the shadow cas t by a figure an d th e painte d icon , Joh n ma y hav e inherite d th e ide a fro m ancient, "pagan " culture . I n Gree k though t an d literatur e a n intimat e connection betwee n th e tw o wa s ofte n assumed . Plat o use d th e word s for "shadow " an d "icon, " skia an d eikon, a s synonyms. 74 Moreover , ancient lore considered the shadow w e cast as the very origin of painting and sculpture . This belie f wa s epitomize d i n the famous stor y of th e girl who, wishin g t o hol d he r departin g lover , outline d th e shado w h e cas t on th e wall , an d filled th e surfac e betwee n th e line s wit h paint . Th e image that remained behind even after the lover was gone is thus directly derived fro m hi s shadow , an d i n a n implici t sens e i t i s considere d a s replacing th e livin g figure. Ou r bes t witnes s t o thi s myt h i n Greco Roman cultur e i s Pliny, 75 wh o use s thi s stor y t o explai n th e emergenc e of th e visual arts . In slightly differen t version s th e belief wa s common i n the regiona l subculture s o f classica l Antiquity , an d i t ha s bee n show n that it can be found in primitive cultures in different part s of the world. 76 The story of th e maiden outlining the shadow o f her departing lover was well known to early Christians. In the second century A.D., Athenagoras , who wa s les s hostil e t o paga n image s tha n othe r Christia n apologists , explains how "tracin g out shadows" led to painting and relief modeling , which then were followed b y sculpture and molding. 77 For Christian authors of th e second century , however, the two storie s about th e shadow—Peter' s shado w workin g miracles , an d th e lover' s shadow bein g outline d an d thu s servin g a s th e origi n o f paintin g an d sculpture—remained altogethe r separated . Thi s seem s t o hav e change d in later centuries. In the minds of well-educate d Byzantin e theologians in the eight h an d nint h centurie s th e lin k betwee n th e shado w an d th e painted ico n appear s t o hav e bee n firmly established. No t onl y John o f Damascus combine s th e tw o stories ; s o also , shortl y afte r him , doe s Theodore o f Studio n i n hi s Refutations of the Iconcoclasts. Theodor e retains a certai n traditiona l ambivalenc e i n th e interpretatio n o f th e shadow. O n th e on e hand , th e shado w i s considered th e counterpar t o f truth and of ful l reality . "Fo r the shadow an d the truth are not the same thing," h e make s th e hereti c say. 78 But , o n th e other , th e apostle' s shadow carrie s the apostle' s powe r an d conveys t o everybody o n who m it i s cas t somethin g o f hi s sanctity . Th e Cros s "ha s suc h power, " th e defender o f icon s writes , "tha t b y it s mer e shado w i t burn s u p th e demons an d drives them fa r away fro m those who bea r its seal." 79

214 The

Doctrine of the Icon

John's intention i n linking the icon with the apostle's shadow, thoug h never explicitl y stated , i s clear : th e imag e i s considere d a s issuin g fro m the prototyp e himself , eve n i f no t directly . Ther e i s a semicorporea l continuity leadin g in an unbroken flo w fro m th e god itself t o its painted icon. Such a continuity, i f it can in any way b e accepted, is of cours e the highest legitimation o f th e icon. The painted image attests to a quasimaterial presence of th e god; it is a kind of relic. 80 On thi s leve l o f rathe r crude materialization , th e purpos e o f th e ico n differs fro m wha t i t had bee n on th e leve l o f abstrac t theologica l specu lation. No w th e imag e serve s mor e practica l purposes . "Image s ar e a source o f profit , help , an d salvatio n fo r all, " says John o f Damascu s i n the sectio n i n whic h h e explain s wh y image s ar e made. 81 Ou r autho r seems to have had in mind mainly th e warding off o f evi l spirits . Towards the en d o f th e thir d Apolog y Joh n say s onc e mor e tha t th e saints ' "shadow alon e expel s demon s an d diseases . Woul d no t a shado w b e reckoned weaker and less honorable than an icon?"82 In the commentaries t o th e quotation s fro m venerate d text s tha t h e appende d t o th e Apologies, th e florilegia, h e i s sometime s eve n mor e explicit . I n com menting o n a n earl y Christia n text , John explicitl y says , "Devil s ar e i n fear o f saints , an d fle e fro m thei r shadow . A shado w i s a n image ; therefore I make image s t o terrif y th e demons." 83 Her e John's intellec tual conscience seems to have awakened. H e continues, a s if speaking to himself, "I f yo u sa y tha t only intellectua l worshi p i s worth y o f God , then tak e awa y al l corporea l things : lights , th e fragranc e o f incense , prayer made with th e voice." Adding a n example, he comes bac k to th e the image , an d quit e specificall y t o th e relationshi p betwee n archetyp e and cop y i n th e imag e o f th e divine : "Purpl e clot h b y itsel f i s a simpl e thing, an d s o i s silk , an d a cloa k i s wove n fro m both . Bu t i f th e kin g should pu t i t on , th e cloa k receive s hono r fro m th e hono r give n t o hi m who wear s it. " Note tha t the cloak receive s honor no t becaus e i t means the king, or reminds us of the king, but rather because the king has worn it, becaus e ther e wa s som e kin d o f bodil y meetin g an d thu s a flo w o f subtle matter, as it were, from the king himself int o the cloak. The constan t interactio n betwee n conceptua l reflectio n o f a highl y intellectual characte r an d th e almos t tangibl e reificatio n o f bodiless , spiritual being s i s typica l o f John' s comple x personality . A moder n student ma y find i t difficul t t o reconcil e th e sophisticate d distinction s made i n John's theologica l view s o f th e imag e with th e crud e belief s i n

In Defense of Images 21

5

its miracle-working power . Ho w ca n a thinker, on e canno t hel p asking , who s o subtl y unveile d th e comple x dialectica l natur e o f th e imag e a s a spiritual revelatio n o f th e invisibl e als o believ e tha t th e painte d ico n drives off almos t tangibl e demons ? Thi s incongruence , a s I have said , i s a pervasiv e characteristi c o f John' s thought , an d perhap s als o o f Byz antine cultur e a s a whole. I t is foun d i n th e reflectio n o n man y themes . An analysi s o f thi s characteristi c woul d g o fa r beyon d th e scop e o f th e present study , an d her e I shall onl y sa y tha t i t impresses itsel f o n John's doctrines of why images are made. The divine image and human nature. So fa r w e hav e see n tha t Joh n considered th e purpose of th e image i n two differen t ways . First he tried to show , i n defens e o f th e painte d icon , tha t a n imag e o f th e divin e i s possible i n principle, and to do this he ultimately base d his argument o n the incarnatio n o f Christ . Secondly , h e treate d th e imag e a s a reifie d piece of sanctity , a s understood b y simple folk—something tha t emerges more o r les s directl y fro m th e hol y figure, an d i s endowe d wit h th e ability to ward off evi l spirits and disease. The studen t o f John' s though t concernin g th e purpos e an d function s of th e sacre d image ha s t o direc t attentio n t o stil l anothe r aspect . Ou r author di d no t coi n a special ter m fo r thi s aspect , a s h e di d no t fo r th e others, an d n o traditiona l labe l easil y come s t o mind ; i t ma y therefor e be best t o describ e i t in modern terms : it is an approach t o th e image in terms o f th e huma n condition . Her e John' s reflectio n revolve s aroun d the questio n o f wh y w e nee d th e icon , an d ho w w e perceiv e it . I n th e center no w stand s humanity , it s abilitie s (an d thei r limitations ) a s wel l as it s needs . I n th e metaphysical , o r theological , discussion , John natu rally doe s no t as k ho w th e imag e i s perceived . I t i s th e cosmologica l chain, to which we shall turn in the next section, that ensures the validity of th e ico n an d define s it s purpos e a s a ste p i n th e hierarch y o f being ; here the human experience i s not of crucial significance . I n the beliefs w e have calle d "popular, " humanit y an d it s natur e als o d o no t figure as a problem. Th e expellin g o f demon s i s a tangible , materia l expressio n o f what i s imagine d a s a cosmi c contest , a s i t were ; i t doe s no t tak e int o account wha t th e image a s suc h mean s t o people . Bu t John doe s touc h on the problem of wha t the image means to people, and this is an aspect we must consider, elusive as his observations ma y be. One shoul d o f cours e b e careful no t t o project moder n concept s ont o

216 The

Doctrine of the Icon

the though t o f a n earl y medieva l mind . I n defendin g icons , Joh n o f Damascus wa s no t concerne d wit h psychology , neithe r i n th e ancien t nor i n th e moder n sens e o f tha t term . H e wa s als o no t concerne d wit h "hermeneutics"; apparentl y th e ide a o f establishin g rule s fo r a correc t "reading" of th e icon di d not even cross hi s mind. Nevertheless h e takes into accoun t i n this context som e basi c problems o f huma n existenc e i n the world , an d thu s add s a significant dimensio n t o wha t h e ha s t o sa y on the purpose of images . In touchin g o n th e huma n condition , Joh n offers , eve n i f onl y a s a n implicit sketch , th e outline s o f a philosophica l anhropology , a t leas t a s far a s i t relate s t o th e purpos e an d functio n o f th e image . Ou r saint' s anthropology ha s tw o traditiona l an d well-know n assumption s tha t hav e been repeate d countles s times . On e assumptio n say s tha t we , morta l human beings , ar e no t abl e t o endur e th e unmitigate d revelatio n o f th e divine, an d ar e no t capabl e o f thinkin g withou t materia l residues . Thi s follows fro m th e basi c fac t that humanity, bein g composed o f bod y an d soul, ha s a dual nature . I t is our physical, materia l natur e tha t prevent s us from perceivin g directly th e nonmaterial, spiritua l glor y of th e divine. "Since w e ar e fashione d o f bot h sou l an d body, " ou r sain t says , "an d our soul s ar e no t nake d spirits , bu t covered , a s i t were , wit h a fleshl y veil, it is impossible fo r us to think without using physical images." 84 The other assumption i s perhaps a little less trivial; though not explicitly discussed i n early Christia n culture , it was perhaps more doubted. It says tha t matte r surroundin g humanit y an d imposin g crucia l limit s o n its natur e i s no t altogethe r opaque ; i t doe s no t plac e u s behin d a n impenetrable wal l castin g complet e darkness . Th e bodil y element s ca n be made diaphanous, at least to a certain extent. "By using bodily sight," John says , "w e reac h spiritua l contemplation." 85 Moreover , inbor n i n us is a longing fo r th e sigh t of God . Commentin g o n a text b y St. Basil, John writes, "Since I am human an d clothed with a body, I desire to see and b e presen t wit h th e saint s physically . . . . Go d accept s m y longin g for Him and for His saints." 86 The two assumption s o f John's anthropology cal l for a mediator, as it were. I t i s her e that , i n hi s view , th e imag e come s in . Th e sacre d ico n mitigates th e ful l forc e o f th e divine , a forc e w e woul d no t b e abl e t o endure. Bu t a t th e ico n o f Go d w e can look . O n th e othe r hand , th e bodily form s show n i n th e ico n ar e transparen t towards th e holy ; the y

In Defense of Images 21

7

enable u s to ge t a glimpse o f th e sacre d o r divine . The ico n suggest s th e divine without full y unveilin g it. It is interesting to compare John's definition o f the divine as proposed in th e contex t o f th e hierarch y o f being , withou t regar d t o th e huma n experience, an d th e descriptio n o f th e imag e mad e i n the contex t o f hi s anthropology. Wher e h e consider s th e hol y imag e wit h a vie w t o th e human condition , h e stresses characteristic s othe r tha n thos e h e emphasized when he was considering it as a revelation of th e divine. As seen by people, th e mos t prominen t characteristi c o f th e ico n i s tha t i t i s a mediated revelation—i t suggest s th e divin e withou t full y portrayin g it . "Visible things, " w e rea d i n th e first Apology , "ar e corporea l model s which provid e a vague understandin g o f intelligibl e things." 87 The con trast wit h th e definitio n o f th e imag e a s suc h i s striking : wher e Joh n speaks of the image as such, without looking for what it means in human experience, the icon is taken to b e "a likeness, or a model, o r a figure of something, showin g i n itsel f wha t i t depicts"; 88 ye t whe n h e consider s the icon i n the human context, al l the holy image can do is to give us "a vague understanding " o f wha t i t represents . Moreover , i n definin g th e image a s suc h John stresse s ho w clos e th e likenes s i s t o th e prototype . An imag e o f a person, s o on e feel s afte r carefull y readin g John's text , i s an almos t identica l "likenes s o f hi s [th e prototype's] bodil y form, " dif fering fro m th e prototyp e onl y i n tha t th e likenes s doe s no t contai n th e "mental power " o f th e prototyp e wh o i s portrayed. 89 Ye t whe n Joh n discusses the image of God in the human mind, as that image is perceived by our huma n eyes , th e proclamation o f nea r identity i s seriously quali fied an d tone d down . No t onl y i s ther e a differenc e i n substance , a s i t were, betwee n prototyp e an d image ; ther e i s eve n a differenc e i n form . Speaking o f th e ico n i n th e contex t o f huma n perception , Joh n stresse s the distance between the prototype and the copy. That Joh n turn s t o Scriptur e fo r quotation s tha t woul d serv e a s legitimation o f hi s views is , of course , typical o f hi s age and culture. But the specific quotatio n fro m Scripture he adduces to that end is not usual. It no t onl y legitimize s John' s views ; i t explain s a crucia l aspec t o f hi s doctrine o f images . I t becomes par t o f hi s doctrin e o f images , a s well a s being a commentar y t o a fundamenta l questio n i n tha t doctrine . H e quotes Paul' s famou s statement , "Fo r no w w e se e throug h a glass , darkly, bu t the n fac e t o face " ( I Corinthian s 13:12) . Generation s o f

2 i 8 The

Doctrine of the Icon

readers and commentators hav e understood thi s sentence a s a statement on th e huma n conditio n i n th e tw o stage s o f cosmi c history . I n th e present state , tha t is , befor e ful l redemption , w e ar e no t capabl e o f looking fac e t o fac e a t the ful l glor y o f God ; i n a future state , afte r ful l redemption will hav e freed us from the bonds of the flesh, we shall be in a condition to perceive that glory, and to see God fac e to face. 90 The reaso n fo r usin g th e dar k glas s i s no t spelle d ou t i n Paul' s text , and mos t o f th e commentator s di d no t as k thi s question ; the y focuse d on othe r aspect s o f th e famou s statement . Intuitively , however , Paul' s intention i s obvious . Fro m everyda y experienc e w e kno w tha t w e loo k at the sun through a dark glass because lookin g at the sun without som e kind of shiel d would hur t our eyes. In other words, the "dark glass" is a mediator between the overwhelming power of th e light and the frailty of our eyesight ; i t i s a protectio n o f ou r eyes . This , a s bot h everyda y experience an d th e literar y contex t o f th e sentenc e i n Paul' s lette r sug gest, is also how the apostle himself mean t it. That John shoul d hav e employe d thi s sentenc e i n his discourse i s no t surprising. Bu t hi s specifi c interpretatio n o f Paul' s metapho r i s no t tra ditional a t all , an d deserve s carefu l reading . The "dar k glass " i s th e prototype o f th e icon : "No w th e ico n i s als o a dar k glass , fashione d according t o th e limitation s o f ou r physica l nature." 91 H e come s bac k to th e sam e idea , an d thoug h h e doe s no t explicitl y quot e Paul , John' s wording remind s on e o f th e apostle' s imagery . Speakin g o f icon s o f Christ h e says , "Reverentl y w e hono r Hi s bodil y form , an d b y contem plating His bodily form , we form a notion, as far as is possible fo r us, of the glor y o f Hi s divinity." 92 S o fa r a s I am aware , John o f Damascu s i s the firs t theologia n t o formulat e thi s idea , an d i n this particula r respec t he also remained without muc h following . Seeing th e imag e a s a "dar k glass " o r a s a n "aenigmati c mirror " implies a n importan t conclusio n fo r th e icon . Thu s conceived , th e ico n provides fo r a mediate d vision , fo r a n indirec t cognitio n o f God . Wha t we could no t endure i n direct experience i s made possible b y the mediation of the image. The icon make s us experience the divine (a s far as this is possible) , and , a t th e sam e time , protect s u s fro m th e unspeakabl e results o f suc h a n encounter . I n differen t version s Joh n come s bac k t o the same theme. "Therefore, " tha t is, in view o f humanity' s limitations , "the imag e wa s devise d tha t h e migh t advanc e i n knowledge , an d tha t secret things might be revealed and made perceptible." 93

In Defense of Images 21

9

(iv) Some Implications for Art A t th e conclusio n o f thes e considera tions, some brief comment s b y a modern reade r may be in order. First, a note on th e historical context . John of Damascus , as we know, grew ou t of th e Platoni c tren d i n antiqu e speculation . Bu t wit h hi s argumen t concerning th e power o f th e imag e th e Platoni c traditio n has , at least i n this on e respect , com e ful l circle . Plat o an d man y o f hi s follower s be lieved, a s w e know , tha t th e painte d imag e ca n portra y onl y wha t i s anyhow availabl e t o th e senses . Moreover , bein g a "shadow " o f th e reality represented , th e painte d image show s less , an d doe s s o les s cor rectly, tha n wha t w e ca n observ e i n th e prototype , th e natura l objec t itself.94 Now, John of Damascu s claim s exactly th e opposite. The image, at leas t th e hol y icon , reache s farthe r tha n th e perception o f th e huma n eye in natural experience; it shows what lies beyond the realm of visual experience. All of John's efforts to sustain the validity of the sacred icon aim precisely at showing that the icon reveals more than can be seen in nature. John of Damascus , then, believes that the central functio n o f th e icon is to make us see something of the invisible, to overcome our limitations. This view necessaril y affect s wha t w e thin k o f th e scope o f painting . B y making th e visible manifestation—on e coul d eve n sa y revelation—o f the invisible the main end and purpose of th e image (an d vindicating the material, painte d ico n o n thi s ground) , John bot h expand s an d reduce s the scope of th e representative arts. The expansion i s clear. For centuries it ha d bee n take n fo r grante d (mainl y i n th e cultur e o f Antiquity ) tha t the ai m o f paintin g i s th e representatio n o f wha t ca n b e visuall y per ceived i n th e worl d aroun d us . I n definin g paintin g a s th e renderin g o f perceived nature , on e als o se t th e limit s o f th e art . I t i s onl y wha t w e actually se e tha t ca n becom e th e subjec t matte r o f painting . Bu t i f yo u believe tha t th e ico n show s wha t otherwis e cannot b e seen, yo u enlarg e the scop e o f paintin g a s compare d t o th e view s hel d earlier . A ne w dimension is now incorporated, as it were, into the domain of the image. The reductio n o f th e scop e o f paintin g tha t John' s definitio n o f th e icon involves is less obvious; he does not state it expressly, yet it follows , I believe , fro m wha t h e see s a s th e ai m o f th e ico n an d fro m th e reasoning b y whic h h e vindicate s th e image . I f th e icon' s mai n value , actually th e onl y on e h e explicitl y mention s i n th e Apologies, i s tha t i t reveals t o ou r eye s wha t otherwis e canno t b e seen , i t follow s tha t th e depiction o f th e rea l world—tha t is , the worl d an d object s w e ca n an d

220 The

Doctrine of the Icon

do experienc e directl y wit h ou r senses , withou t th e ai d of th e picture— has n o inheren t value , an d therefor e canno t b e justified . Wha t sens e would i t mak e t o portra y object s tha t w e ca n easil y loo k a t i n nature ? This kin d o f reasonin g i s adumbrate d i n som e o f Plato' s well-know n reflections o n painting . I f Plat o believe d tha t illusionisti c paintin g is , a t most, nothin g bu t a n attemp t t o produc e a doublet o f th e rea l object, 95 and hence altogethe r superfluous , John o f Damascu s follow s thi s lin e of thought, and takes it one further step. He does not even intimate mimesis as such , th e artisti c portraya l o f th e visibl e world—whic h i n classica l Greek thought wa s so commonly considere d a central valu e of th e work of art—a s a value of th e image, or a possible reaso n fo r producing it. 5. Types of Images Among John of Damascus' s mos t original contribution s t o a doctrine of icons, a s h e sa w it—an d t o a n aesthetic s o f th e visua l arts , a s w e no w understand it—wa s hi s classification o f th e type s o f images . H e himsel f seems t o hav e considere d thi s classificatio n a n importan t par t o f hi s doctrine; h e state d i t twic e i n relativ e detail , an d h e assigne d t o i t a significant par t i n hi s vie w o f ho w th e worl d i s structured. Studyin g hi s classification w e lear n wha t h e considere d t o b e th e mai n type s o f images, and what he perceived as the characteristic features of each type. The sequence of th e individual classe s indicates how, i n John's mind, the image works i n the cosmic orde r o f things . I n the present sectio n I shall first follow th e exposition give n i n the third Apology. 96 Late r I shall as k what some of John's views may mean to us today. John's classificatio n o f image s i s not base d primarily o n actua l obser vations or immediate experiences; his approach, needless to say, was not empirical. Wha t determines hi s classification is , rather, theological spec ulation. Mor e specifically , i t i s th e theologian' s awarenes s o f th e abys s between th e celestial an d the terrestrial worlds , and the intense desire t o bridge it, and to show it s continuous unity , that formed th e backgroun d and poin t o f departur e o f John' s classification . I n lat e Antiquit y th e speculative imaginatio n o f philosopher s an d religiou s visionarie s con jured u p severa l model s o f bridgin g tha t gap . The mos t famou s singl e example i s probably Emanation , th e overflowin g o f ligh t fro m it s celestial source an d eventually reachin g the darkest corners of th e earth. The idea o f hierarchy , a s w e hav e see n i n a forme r chapter , i s anothe r

In Defense of Images 22

1

model.97 Hierarch y itsel f wa s imagine d i n various similes . Amon g thes e there wa s als o th e notio n o f a serie s o f likenesses , reflection s o r mirro r images, leading fro m heave n to earth. As on e knows , th e imag e o f th e chai n o r th e ladde r leadin g fro m heaven t o eart h wa s no t limite d t o Christia n though t only ; i t wa s a common moti f i n variou s doctrine s i n lat e Antiquity. Le t u s liste n t o a classic formulation b y Macrobius: Since from the Supreme God Mind arises, and from Mind, Soul, and since this in turn creates all subsequen t thing s an d fills them al l with life , an d since this single radianc e illumine s al l an d i s reflecte d i n each, as a single fac e migh t be reflected in many mirrors placed in a series . . . And this is Homer's golden chain, which God, he says, bade hang down from heaven to earth.98 A ro w o f mirro r reflections , a descending serie s of image s i n general , is, however , a frequen t notio n i n Christia n formulations . W e ar e bes t acquainted wit h i t fro m Dionysiu s Areopagita' s influentia l doctrin e o f the hierarchy o f images. " John of Damascus , a self-confessed discipl e of Dionysius Areopagita, 100 wa s o f cours e familia r wit h th e simil e o f a chain of images , and treats it almost a s a matter of course . Between th e time of Dionysiu s Areopagit a an d John of Damascu s th e image o f th e hierarchic ladde r attaine d it s most famou s formulation . A t the tur n o f th e sixt h an d sevent h centurie s anothe r mon k o f th e sam e region, John Climacus , compose d a treatise tha t was to becom e a popular book . Joh n Climacu s wa s electe d abbo t o f th e centra l monaster y o f the Sinai Peninsula , allegedl y buil t on th e spot where Moses ascende d t o heaven. John wa s aske d b y the abbot o f a nearby monaster y "wha t lik e Moses o f ol d yo u hav e see n i n divin e visio n upo n th e mountain. " The Ladder of Divine Ascent wa s writte n i n answe r t o thi s request . Thoug h the audienc e addresse d b y John Climacu s wa s thu s monastic , th e influ ence o f th e boo k wa s soo n fel t i n Byzantin e cultur e a s a whole . I t ha s been maintaine d that , wit h th e exceptio n o f th e Bibl e an d liturgica l books, no work i n Eastern Christendom ha s been studied, copied, translated, and read aloud more often tha n The Ladder of Divine Ascent. 101 No wonder , then , tha t Joh n o f Damascu s wa s s o familia r wit h th e metaphor of th e ladder, an d used i t when h e wished t o present a picture of his system of images . We should note, however, that, while the culture of hi s time was familia r with th e idea of th e hierarchic ladder in general, even with a series of images , n o prio r attempt s see m t o hav e bee n mad e to mak e th e moti f concret e an d specific . Th e individua l type s o f image s

222 The

Doctrine of the Icon

constituting th e chai n ha d no t bee n describe d before . S o fa r a s I a m aware, w e kno w o f n o earlie r endeavor t o establis h ho w man y type s o f images there are. John of Damascus , we can safely say, converted a wellknown, but general, metaphor into a specific doctrine . John build s hi s hierarchi c syste m o f image s b y doin g thre e things . First, he establishes th e number o f imag e types . There ar e only six basi c classes o f images , an d the y mak e u p th e whol e chain . Secondly , h e describes th e specific natur e of each class. This is actually th e core of hi s doctrine. Wha t h e say s abou t th e si x type s form s th e centra l par t of hi s contribution, an d this is also where he departs from inherite d model s of thought. Finally , h e give s thi s comple x o f si x imag e classe s a definit e direction—from Go d the Father to the painted icon—thus transformin g it into a well-ordered, hierarchi c system. By giving the individual classe s ordinal numbers , h e define s th e specifi c plac e o f eac h typ e withi n th e whole system . I shall first survey th e individual classes , and then turn to some aspects of the system as a whole. The first class o f images , John o f Damascu s tell s hi s readers , i s "th e natural image." 102 Now, thi s term, "natural image," may be misleading, particularly t o a modern reade r who take s fo r granted th e connotation s certain term s hav e acquire d i n our time . The ter m John uses—"natura l image"—may ultimatel y wel l b e sough t i n th e vocabular y o f ancien t aesthetics o r ar t criticism . I n classical discussion s o f art , a s one knows , the combinatio n o f naturalnes s an d imag e wa s common ; i t ha d a n articulate meaning , an d a very broad appeal . To a Christian theologian , however, th e word s ha d anothe r meaning , on e fa r remove d fro m tha t prevalent in the language of ar t criticism. When John speaks of a "natural image, " wha t h e ha s i n min d i s no t a convincin g depictio n o f a n object i n nature. To him , th e ter m rathe r denotes a primordial relation ship, no t produce d b y an artist' s skill , bu t found a s given, as a primary, irreducible component of a n ultimate reality. The son is the image of the father—this i s the first type of image , the one h e calls "natural." By the time of John o f Damascu s th e statement tha t the son i s the image of th e father was already a time-honored dogma o f Christia n thought, possess ing a centuries-lon g history. 103 Th e dogm a i n itsel f nee d no t detai n us ; we shall loo k a t it only fo r what i t may tell u s of ho w John understand s the painted icon. John's very definitio n o f th e image , a s we hav e seen, 104 say s that an y eikon ha s bot h a certai n identit y with , a s wel l a s a certai n differenc e

In Defense of Images 22

3

from, it s prototype . Thi s genera l definitio n i s particularl y vali d fo r th e first Image . I n speakin g o f th e So n a s a n imag e o f th e Father , Joh n stresses th e identit y betwee n them . Though he , of course , als o mention s the differenc e betwee n th e two , th e reade r i s lef t wit h th e impressio n that i t i s th e identit y tha t i s mor e significant : "Th e So n i s th e natura l image of th e Father , precisely simila r t o th e Father i n every way, excep t that H e i s begotten b y the Father , who i s not begotten." 105 Now , wha t else ca n "precisel y similar " mea n bu t identity ? Thi s seem s particularl y so since th e Fathe r ha s n o visibl e shape , an d th e onl y differenc e ou r author mention s i s a differenc e i n position , a s i t were : th e on e i s th e Begetter; th e othe r i s th e Begotten . Sometime s Joh n seem s eve n mor e emphatic in emphasizing the identity between Father and Son: "The Son is th e living , essential , an d precisel y simila r Imag e o f th e invisibl e God , bearing th e entir e Fathe r withi n Himself , equa l t o Hi m i n al l things , except that He is begotten by Him, the Begetter." 106 One is, of course, aware that John here reiterates a central theologica l statement (Chris t as an image of th e Father), and is therefore no t fre e t o make an y qualification . Th e theologica l ide a o f identit y i n differenc e between th e Fathe r an d th e Son , i t i s wel l known , wa s articulate d without an y though t o n matter s o f aesthetics . Bu t when thi s theologica l statement is repeated in the context of a discussion of icons, it necessarily endows th e notio n o f "image " wit h a far-reachin g identit y wit h th e prototype. T o sa y i t once more : except fo r thei r respective statu s withi n the mutua l relationshi p (th e on e Begetter , th e othe r Begotten) , Fathe r and Son, or prototype an d image, are fully identical. We descen d on e run g i n th e ladder . Th e secon d typ e o f eikon come s civ se t o what , i n th e languag e o f psychologists , i s sometime s calle d th e 4 mental image. " But John doe s no t inten d t o outlin e an y rudimen t o f a psychology o f humanity ; th e imag e h e i s speaking abou t doe s no t dwel l in a human mind , bu t appear s i n th e min d o f God . Th e concep t o f thi s kind o f image explain s ho w Go d create d th e world ; b y implicatio n i t may also serve as a model o f ho w an y "making" or "producing" (no t to say "creating") take s place. "The secon d kin d o f image, " say s Joh n o f Damascus , "i s God' s foreknowledge o f thing s whic h hav e ye t t o happen." 107 Th e sectio n devoted t o thi s typ e o f imag e i s short , th e formulatio n ver y concise , almost fragmentary ; nevertheless , i t suggest s severa l interestin g conclu sions. Underlyin g John' s observatio n o n thi s typ e o f imag e i s th e ques -

224 The

Doctrine of the Icon

tion o f ho w th e worl d (o r an y reality ) tha t ha s no t ye t bee n create d exists. Hi s answe r is , things preexist thei r actual creatio n b y God i n the form o f image s dwelling i n the divin e mind . The proble m itsel f wa s no t new.108 Th e answer frequently give n was that the as yet uncreated world preexists i n God' s min d a s a notion , a n idea, o r a design . Now , Joh n replaces th e mor e abstrac t concept s b y th e mor e concret e "image " (eikon). Replacin g on e ter m b y another, "idea " by "icon," is not merel y a matter of terminology ; i t indicates a n important shift i n emphasis. What is suggeste d b y thi s shif t i n terminolog y i s tha t th e divin e know s th e things to be created in the future b y looking at their images that dwell in its mind . Looking—tha t is , th e visua l experienc e takin g plac e withi n God's mind—is a primary for m of knowledge . These image s i n God' s min d sugges t tha t th e bridgin g o f th e chas m between God' s uncreate d natur e an d th e natur e o f th e create d worl d takes plac e withi n th e divin e itself . Wha t John suggests , withou t explic itly sayin g so , i s that when th e world i s created, "a t the tim e whic h ha s been predetermine d b y Him, " i t i s no t th e divin e itsel f wh o i s bein g materialized, bu t the images dwelling in the divine mind . This als o helps to explain th e complex proble m o f th e transition fro m th e eternal t o the temporary. "Th e divin e natur e i s immutable, " say s Joh n i n th e sam e short paragraph ; "hi s purpos e i s withou t beginning, " i s "changeless. " On th e othe r hand , however , w e kno w tha t th e divin e pla n come s t o pass a t a certain time ; whil e God' s purpos e i s beyon d time , th e realiza tion of thi s purpose i n material reality , what i s known a s the creation o f the world, takes place in time. A third point, vaguely adumbrate d bu t deserving of attention , is what John's brie f paragrap h ma y impl y fo r th e understandin g o f th e proces s of artisti c production. John doe s no t spea k o f Go d a s a n artist, bu t thi s was a well-know n simile. 109 Th e proces s o f creatin g th e world , o r o f making a predetermine d even t happen , i s conceive d a s a projectio n o f what alread y exists , albei t i n th e for m o f a n image , i n God' s mind : "I n God's providence , thes e thing s predetermine d b y Hi m wer e character ized, depicted , an d unalterabl y fixed befor e the y eve n com e t o pass. " The proces s o f creation , o r o f materialization , canno t ad d t o o r chang e even the slightest detail; it is nothing but projecting onto the outside that which existed insid e the divine mind. The first two type s of imag e are situated within the divine; they are to be found insid e God. Fo r John of Damascus , as for other early Christia n

In Defense of Images us225 theologians, thes e were specific categorie s of th e divine, though bot h the resemblance o f th e Son to the Father and the foreknowledge o f thing s t o come ar e applicable t o a variety o f observation s i n ordinary experience . With the third type of imag e we leave the sphere of th e divine, and enter the terrestrial world . Humanity a s a n imag e o f Go d i s th e thir d typ e o f eikon. Her e th e transition fro m th e divin e t o th e terrestria l i s carrie d out . Th e concret e contents i s a highly traditiona l topos , th e biblica l versio n o f th e theme . Christian audiences , one assumes, were familiar wit h the biblical saying , "And Go d said : le t u s mak e ma n i n ou r imag e an d afte r ou r likeness " (Genesis 1:26) . Joh n obviousl y refer s t o thi s biblica l statemen t a s a n ultimate authorit y sanctionin g th e materia l imag e o f th e divine . Wha t interests hi m i n this hallowed topo s i s the basic question o f th e doctrin e of icons : "Ho w ca n wha t i s create d shar e th e natur e o f Hi m wh o i s uncreated?" I t i s th e philosophica l questio n o f ho w th e visible ca n resemble th e invisibl e tha t haunte d reflectio n o n icon s fo r man y centu ries. The wa y John put s th e questio n ma y soun d merel y rhetorical , bu t i n fact h e her e attempt s a n answer . I t i s imitation , h e claims , tha t make s possible thi s communit y o f natur e tha t w e find s o difficul t t o grasp : "How ca n wha t i s create d shar e th e natur e o f Hi m wh o i s uncreated , except b y imitation?" 110 On e could , o f course , ask , ho w ca n we imitat e something tha t i s totall y differen t fro m ourselves ? Bu t i t i s difficul t t o know wha t precisely John mean t here by "imitation." He may well hav e borrowed the term from the vocabulary o f antiqu e aesthetics with whic h he was familiar . Ye t in Greek aesthetic s an d criticism, "imitation" could mean differen t things . S o fa r a s w e ca n see , i n John' s shor t passag e "imitation" does no t refe r t o somethin g w e do , whic h woul d hav e bee n the primary meanin g of th e term in the language of ancien t art criticism. In speaking o f "imitation " he here rathe r has i n min d a certain analog y of positio n i n th e orde r o f th e worl d an d i n relatio n t o othe r creature s and objects. The fourt h typ e o f imag e i s th e mos t comple x o f al l th e types ; i t i s also the mos t equivocal an d obscure. I n the third type , wit h th e shapin g of humanit y a s a n imag e o f God , th e ste p wa s take n fro m th e divin e sphere to the terrestrial. But it was only a matter of principle; it remained abstract. Sinc e Joh n wa s her e followin g th e biblica l tex t closely , h e avoided dealin g wit h th e specifi c problem s tha t aris e wit h thi s crucia l

226 The

Doctrine of the Icon

transition fro m on e worl d t o th e other . Now , i n turnin g t o th e fourt h type of image , he faces al l these difficulties withou t being able to rel y on biblical authority . John mus t hav e fel t tha t th e fourt h typ e present s mor e difficultie s than al l th e others . The sectio n dealin g wit h thi s typ e i s th e longes t o f all, an d i t i s th e mos t involve d an d intricat e i n formulation ; moreover , at first glance at least, it is not immediately obviou s what precisely i s the subject matte r o f thi s "type. " I n th e presentation, eve n o f comple x theological thought , John o f Damascu s i s usuall y clear ; what h e say s i s easily grasped . Tha t thi s clarit y i s lackin g i n hi s presentatio n o f th e fourth type of image may have something to do with the very wide range of subjec t matte r evoked . I n fact, wha t w e hav e her e i s a sketc h o f th e overall doctrine of th e icon of the invisible. The fourt h kin d of image , so begin s the section i n the third Apology , "consists o f th e shadow s an d form s an d type s o f invisibl e an d bodiles s things which ar e described in Scripture in physical terms." 111 We do not have to discuss in detail John's semantics (e.g. , what precisely terms such as "shadow s an d form s an d types " mean). 112 Her e w e ar e concerne d with th e principl e tha t materia l object s hav e a meaning , an d shoul d b e "read." In the first Apology John refer s t o th e same proble m b y saying , "Visible things ar e corporeal models which provide a vague understanding of intangible things." 113 The formulation her e is even more sweeping than tha t i n th e thir d Apology : th e whol e worl d o f materia l bodie s becomes a collection of model s of th e invisible and intangible. Here Joh n o f Damascu s draw s fro m a grea t cultura l traditio n (per haps on e coul d cal l i t "emblematic" ) tha t wa s a significan t facto r i n shaping th e intellectua l lif e an d imagination o f Europe . The cor e of thi s tradition i s th e belie f tha t al l thing s i n thi s world , event s a s wel l a s creatures o r objects , refe r t o a hidde n realit y that , i n itself , remain s ineffable—that al l things in this world "mean" something. It was particularly i n lat e Antiquity— a perio d t o whic h Joh n wa s closel y related — that this approach t o the world acquire d central significance. 114 Alread y Philo, i n th e first centur y A.D. , suggest s tha t th e event s relate d i n th e Bible embod y a multipl e truth , a t onc e litera l an d figurative. 115 I n lat e Antiquity suc h doubl e readin g o f storie s an d objects was commo n bot h among paga n authors , mainl y Neoplatonists , an d Christia n writers , including som e o f th e central Father s of th e Church . Suffic e i t to mentio n St. Basi l (extensivel y quote d b y John o f Damascu s i n hi s Apologies) 116

In Defense of Images 22

7

who i n on e o f hi s majo r works , th e homilie s interpretin g th e creatio n (the so-called Hexamaeron)* 17 reveal s the meaning of everyda y objects. None o f th e forme r authors , however , whethe r paga n o r Christian , ever describe d natura l object s a s a for m o f image . B y conceiving o f th e multiplicity o f meaning s carrie d b y th e object s w e encounte r i n regula r experience a s a model fo r th e relationshi p betwee n prototyp e an d icon , John departed fro m tradition. The modern student, carefully readin g the concise, an d no t alway s clear , passag e o n th e fourt h type , canno t hel p asking, wh y di d Joh n o f Damascu s describ e thes e meaning-carryin g objects as "images"? In presentin g thi s view , tha t natura l object s carryin g meanin g ar e images, John' s ton e i s polemical . Bot h i n th e first an d i n th e thir d Apology h e emphasizes how dangerou s it would b e were we to reject all images. Invokin g the authority o f Gregor y th e Great he claims that "th e mind whic h i s determine d t o ignor e corporea l thing s wil l find itsel f weakened an d frustrated." 118 People , i t turn s out , nee d images ; usin g images is our way to come to terms with the invisible. It i s wort h notin g tha t onl y i n th e discussio n o f th e fourt h typ e o f image doe s Joh n spea k of , an d devot e muc h attentio n to , ho w w e perceive wha t can , an d wha t cannot , b e seen—i n othe r words , tha t h e here devote s though t an d reflectio n t o wha t w e nowaday s ar e use d t o calling "th e spectator. " John stresse s huma n limitations : "I t is impossi ble fo r u s t o thin k immateria l thing s unles s w e ca n envisio n analogou s shapes." 119 I n othe r words , i t i s we , morta l huma n beings , wh o nee d images; could w e directl y experienc e th e invisible , on e canno t hel p con cluding, ther e woul d b e n o nee d fo r images . Now , w e ar e unabl e t o perceive the invisible itself, bu t the "image" goes as far in intimating th e invisible as we are able to perceive. The othe r questio n tha t immediatel y impose s itsel f upo n u s is , wh y are these intimation s considere d a s images ? I n the regular , simpl e sens e of th e term , th e natura l creature s an d object s groupe d togethe r i n thi s fourth clas s are not icon s a t all. In what sense , then, does John conceiv e of the m a s images ? Hi s answe r is—becaus e the y sugges t b y analogy . Paraphrasing a passag e fro m th e openin g chapte r o f Dionysiu s Areo pagita's classic On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, Joh n of Damascus says that i f "th e Wor d o f God , i n providin g fo r ou r ever y need , alway s presents t o u s wha t i s intangibl e b y clothin g i t wit h form , doe s i t no t accomplish thi s b y makin g a n imag e usin g wha t i s commo n t o natur e

228 The

Doctrine of the Icon

and s o bringin g withi n ou r reac h tha t fo r whic h w e lon g bu t ar e unable to see?" 120 And to make what he means even clearer, John brings examples: "For instance, when w e speak o f th e holy and eternal Trinity , we us e th e image s o f th e sun , light , an d burnin g rays ; o r a runnin g fountain; o r an overflowing river ; or the mind, speech, and spirit withi n us; or a rose, a flower, an d a sweet fragrance." 121 In sum, then, the natural object s classified a s the fourth typ e of imag e do no t represen t th e invisibl e directly , i n a wa y tha t migh t b e calle d "physiognomic imitation. " But they d o refe r t o th e invisible , an d represent i t b y analogy . These , i t turn s out , ar e th e feature s characteristi c o f the image. The fifth typ e of image extends the idea of analogy , but transplants it, as it were, int o a different dimensio n o f being . Whil e th e fourt h clas s of image, th e "shadow s an d form s an d type s o f th e invisible " i s vali d fo r all th e materia l object s tha t fill ou r world , an d i s foun d whereve r th e human conditio n prevails , tha t is , wherever th e bodiles s canno t b e see n directly, th e fifth typ e i s limite d t o a specifi c domain , t o history , a s Christian theolog y understoo d it ; it is concerned with wha t w e ar e used to calling "prefiguration. " Prefiguration, a s i s wel l known , dominate d Christia n concept s o f history, an d particularl y th e readin g o f Scriptures , bot h o f th e Ol d an d New Testament. 122 Th e event s tha t wer e t o happe n i n th e Ne w Testa ment (a s wel l a s th e event s announce d i n th e Gospel s fo r futur e times ) are anticipated an d announced, thoug h i n veiled form , i n the Old Testament; th e Ne w Testamen t reveal s wha t wa s present , thoug h obscured , in th e Ol d Testament . T o Joh n o f Damascus , typolog y i s a matte r o f course, a truth h e does no t question : "Th e fifth kind o f imag e i s said t o prefigure wha t i s ye t t o happen , suc h a s th e burnin g bus h o r th e fleec e wet with dew, which ar e foreshadowing th e Virgin Theotokos." He is of course familia r with th e typologica l symbol s know n i n hi s time : "Th e brazen serpent typifie s th e Cross and him who heale d the evil bit e of th e serpent b y hangin g o n it . Baptisma l grac e i s signifie d b y th e clou d an d the waters of the sea." 123 All thi s was , o f course , a matte r o f commo n knowledge , an d n o student will b e surprised tha t John of Damascu s wa s intimatel y familia r both with th e principle of Christia n typolog y an d with th e main specifi c themes tha t emerged i n thi s exegetica l tradition . Wha t i s unusual, how ever, an d particularl y remarkabl e i n our context , i s that he conceives o f

In Defense of Images 22

9

the typological foreshadowin g a s a kind of image . S o far as I am aware, biblical typology , thoug h recounte d man y times , had not bee n describe d as a n image , an d ha s neve r bee n subsume d unde r th e philosophica l category o f the icon. It is not for us to attemp t here an analysis of th e precise connotation s carried b y th e exegetica l term s Joh n uses . Sometime s the y ar e ambigu ous, a s expert s hav e noted. 124 I shoul d onl y stres s tha t i n carefull y considering th e terms , especiall y thos e employe d i n explainin g ho w ty pology belong s t o th e doctrin e o f images , on e canno t hel p notin g thei r pronounced visua l nature : "Th e la w an d it s ordinance s wer e a shado w [skiagraphia] o f th e imag e tha t wa s t o come , tha t is , ou r tru e worship , which itsel f i s th e imag e o f th e goo d thing s ye t t o happen . Thes e goo d things ar e th e heavenl y Jerusale m no t fashione d wit h hands." 125 Usin g this term John says that the Old Testament is a "shadow" of the New. 126 Skiagraphia, her e translate d b y "shadow, " wa s a widel y use d term , continuously employe d fro m Plat o to Athenagoras , th e Christia n apolo gist.127 Bu t w e shoul d kee p i n min d tha t i t wa s als o a technical ter m i n both th e workshop s an d th e critica l vocabular y o f Antiquity . Whethe r or no t Joh n wishe d t o d o so , b y usin g thi s ter m h e show s tha t hi s doctrine of typology i s linked with the painter's craft . The suggestive power of individua l terms , however, cannot replace an explanation. Onc e agai n on e ask s th e crucia l question , wha t precisel y does i t mea n tha t th e typos i s a n image ? John' s languag e i s vague . Worship, h e says , "i s give n t o thos e image s whic h wer e see n b y th e prophets (fo r they saw Go d i n the images of thei r visions). These image s were of futur e things , such a s Aaron's rod, which prefigured th e mystery of th e Virgin , o r th e ja r of manna , o r th e altar . . . . Joseph wa s a figure of th e Savior . . . . Th e tabernacl e wa s a n imag e commo n t o al l th e world." 128 Or , "a n image foreshadow s somethin g tha t is yet to happen , something hidde n i n riddle s an d shadows . Fo r instance , th e ar k o f th e covenant i s a n imag e o f th e Hol y Virgi n an d Theotokos, a s ar e the ro d of Aaro n and the jar of manna." 129 Although Joh n doe s no t explicitl y sa y wh y h e consider s th e typos a n image, th e directio n o f hi s though t i s obvious . Bot h th e "type " and th e image combin e a full y visible , directl y graspable , articulat e shape , o r object, wit h a meanin g o r ide a tha t i s invisible , an d canno t b e directl y experienced. The imag e an d th e "type " indirectl y revea l th e meaning ; they plac e u s i n th e field o f tensio n betwee n wha t i s materiall y presen t

230 The

Doctrine of the Icon

and wha t ca n onl y b e understoo d o r divined . Whe n w e tak e awa y th e theological formulation , thi s turns out to be a surprisingly modern vision of th e image. It i s onl y i n th e sixth , an d last , clas s tha t w e com e t o th e prope r subject tha t wa s a t th e cente r o f th e grea t historica l debate , an d i n th e defense of which the Apologies were written, the painted icon. Even here the actua l picture , painte d o n a piec e o f board , i s mentione d onl y i n passing a t th e en d o f th e section . I n th e sixt h clas s John include s bot h texts an d materia l objects . Th e image s o f th e sixt h clas s "ar e o f tw o kinds: either the y ar e words writte n i n books, i n which cas e the writte n word i s th e image , a s whe n Go d ha d th e la w engrave d o n tablet s an d desired th e live s an d deed s o f hol y me n t o b e recorded , o r els e the y ar e material images." 130 Eve n th e materia l objects , then , ar e no t mainl y paintings; mos t o f the m ar e sacre d object s tha t d o no t depic t anything . John mention s th e ja r o f manna , Aaron' s staff , an d th e ony x stone s engraved wit h th e name s o f th e tribes , bu t ther e are , o f course , other , humbler objects . Th e painte d ico n form s par t o f th e clas s o f materia l objects. Although it has a venerable ancestry, as it were, the proper place of the painted icon is close to, or at the very bottom of, th e ladder. John als o tell s hi s reader s wh y thes e materia l object s ar e se t up . H e conceives of the m as of monument s i n the classic sense of th e term; they are meant t o remin d th e audienc e o f heroe s o r deeds . I n explaining th e reasons fo r erectin g thes e monuments , John show s ho w clos e h e stil l i s to ancien t her o worship , thoug h h e ma y hav e ha d i n min d martyr s instead o f heroes . Thes e materia l "objects " are se t u p "fo r th e remem brance o f pas t events , suc h a s miracle s an d goo d deeds , i n orde r tha t glory, hono r an d eterna l memor y ma y b e give n t o thos e wh o hav e struggled valiantly. " John conclude s thi s section , an d th e discussio n o f image type s i n general , wit h a n explici t referenc e t o th e artisti c monu ment: "Therefore w e now se t up images in remembrance of valiant men, that we ma y zealously desir e to follo w thei r example." But these image s also "assis t th e increas e o f virtue , tha t evil me n migh t b e pu t t o sham e and overthrown , an d the y benefi t generation s t o come , tha t b y gazin g upon such images we may be encouraged to flee evil and desire good." U1 Having reviewed John of Damascus' s classificatio n o f th e different kind s of images , w e shal l loo k a t this lis t as a whole, an d briefl y conside r th e principles underlyin g it . I n doing so , however, I do not follo w John, but

In Defense of Images 23

1

try t o loo k a t th e classificatio n fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f a moder n student o f th e arts . Obviousl y th e explici t theologica l implication s wil l concern u s les s tha n th e implie d idea s an d theme s tha t particularl y appeal to the present-day student . In settin g u p th e lis t o f imag e types , John's aim , a s w e hav e alread y said, wa s no t merel y t o analyz e th e natur e an d characteristic s o f eac h individual class . H e wa s no t a moder n philosopher , an d h e di d no t consider knowledg e a s such , knowledg e tha t doe s no t lea d t o som e results, a s a n en d i n itself . Hi s establishin g th e lis t o f imag e type s wa s motivated b y hi s desir e "t o save " th e icon . B y placin g th e man-mad e icon i n a cosmic chain , a chain leadin g fro m Chris t a s an imag e of Go d the Fathe r t o th e humbl e portrai t o f Chris t painte d b y a n artist , Joh n attempts t o provid e a n ultimat e legitimatio n t o th e embattle d icon . W e now ask : Ho w di d h e procee d t o achiev e thi s end ? Whateve r moder n students of art s and images may think about John's attempt, they cannot help admiring the boldness of though t involved in trying to bestow upo n the ico n suc h ultimat e legitimation . Rarel y d o w e no w encounte r suc h an explicitly metaphysica l foundatio n o f art . To derive the painted icon from th e whole cosmic chain, it is essential to sho w tha t the link s hav e a n affinity t o eac h other, tha t a n underlyin g unity prevail s i n all of them ; one coul d als o say, it has to be shown tha t they are indeed "images. " John did not explicitly formulat e thi s requirement, no r ca n on e b e sure tha t moder n criticis m coul d accep t hi s exposition a s "proof " of suc h underlyin g unity . Bu t readin g hi s text s i n th e conceptual languag e o f hi s ow n world , on e see s that , i n fact , h e consis tently tries to discover some common structure in all the types that make up hi s scale . Analyzin g thi s structure , on e als o learn s mor e abou t wha t is John' s tru e concep t o f th e image . Keepin g th e actua l ques t fo r a common structur e i n mind , I shall no w tr y t o loo k briefl y a t ho w Joh n describes the individual type s of images . One can speak o f images—thi s i s what follow s fro m John's presentation o f hi s scale—whe n ther e i s a n articulat e relationshi p betwee n tw o poles, th e on e precedin g th e other , th e on e bein g a model , th e othe r a copy. I t ma y b e wort h ou r whil e t o hav e a brie f loo k a t th e individua l image types from this particular point of view . In th e first type , th e "natura l image, " th e Fathe r precede s th e Son , and i s his model . Considerin g th e theologica l constraints , i t migh t hav e been difficult t o say that the Father precedes the Son in time. 132 But John

232 The

Doctrine of the Icon

clearly see s th e on e a s th e mode l (o r "begetter") , th e othe r a s th e something reminding one of a result (the "begotten"). In th e secon d typ e o f image , "God' s foreknowledg e o f thing s whic h have yet to happen," the time sequence i s explicit: the image dwelling in God's min d clearl y precede s it s materializatio n i n th e terrestria l world . John her e make s i t a specia l poin t t o stres s th e image' s precedenc e i n time: "Th e divin e natur e i s immutable , an d Hi s [God's ] purpos e i s without beginning . Hi s plans are made before all ages, and they come t o pass at a the time which has been predetermined fo r them." 133 But while it i s plai n tha t th e imag e precede s th e creatio n i n time , John say s littl e about th e rol e th e imag e play s i n the process o f creating . Di d th e divin e look a t the imag e i n it s min d whe n creatin g heave n an d earth? I n other words, did the image in God's min d serve as a model, o r was it rather a mere "foreknowledge, " whic h di d no t pla y an y par t i n th e makin g o f the world? The thir d typ e o f image , th e divin e creatin g humanit y i n it s ow n likeness, present s a ver y clea r case, a t leas t i n formulation . Go d th e Maker not only precedes the figure shaped in God's own likeness ; God's self-image i s obviousl y als o th e mode l Go d i s followin g i n shapin g Adam. Th e passag e raise s other , well-know n problem s (doe s Go d loo k like Adam , who m Go d shape s "i n Hi s likeness"?) , bu t i t ver y clearl y shows what John considers the structure of th e image relationship. As we hav e alread y see n earlier , th e fourt h typ e of imag e i s the mos t complex an d obscure of all; 134 this is also true with regar d to its internal structure. What John her e stresse s i s the two-dimensionality o f materia l objects: on the one hand they are tangible and visible; on the other hand, they carr y meaning s that , i n themselves , ar e intangibl e an d invisible . I n the fourt h typ e o f imag e w e have , then , a tensio n betwee n tw o poles . But i n thi s tensio n ther e i s n o earlie r o r later , n o tim e sequence . The visible object s "remin d us, " John her e says , o f th e invisibl e meanings . This may be taken to suggest that in our own experience we first encounter the objec t an d late r ar e reminde d o f th e meaning . Bu t even i f suc h a reading wer e correc t (give n th e concisenes s o f John' s formulation , w e cannot b e certain o f this) , nothing woul d follo w a s to the time sequenc e of object and meaning themselves. In John' s discussio n o f th e fourt h typ e o f imag e ther e i s als o n o intimation o f th e function s o f mode l an d copy , o f on e i n som e wa y following the other. It is interesting that here (and only here) John speaks

In Defense of Images 23

3

of "analogy, " a term h e usually avoids . Referrin g t o Dionysiu s Areopa gita Joh n say s tha t "i t i s impossibl e fo r u s t o thin k immateria l thing s unless we can envision analogou s shapes." 135 The notion of analogy , w e should kee p i n mind , doe s no t indicat e a tim e sequence , o f earlie r an d later; it also does not evoke, however slightly, the concepts of mode l an d copy. O n th e contrary , i t would see m tha t "analogy " suggest s indepen dent, perhaps even unrelated, beings or shapes that are analogous. It is finally worth notin g tha t onl y here , in the sectio n devote d t o th e fourth typ e o f image , doe s Joh n spea k o f huma n limitations , o f th e spectator's inabilit y t o se e an d experience th e purely spiritual . Thus , w e can ge t onl y a "fain t apprehensio n o f God, " "i t i s impossibl e fo r u s t o think immateria l things, " and we ar e unable "immediatel y t o direc t our thoughts t o contemplatio n o f highe r things." 136 Thi s show s agai n tha t the fourth typ e of imag e is a particular class. Coming t o the fifth type, we find again the time sequence, the pattern of earlie r an d later , a s an essential elemen t o f structure . That th e prefig uration precede s th e ful l figure i n time—that , fo r instance , th e braze n serpent come s befor e th e cross—i s expresse d i n the very ter m "prefigu ration." But does the prefiguration als o serv e as a model fo r the full an d final figure? Here John's text is ambiguous. A modern student of the arts could understand a process in which the first formulation i s only a vague beginning, an d full y develop s i n th e cours e o f time . Bu t i n othe r types , John see s th e mode l a s full y articulate , an d th e realizatio n onl y a s a faithful copy . The sixt h typ e consist s o f heterogenou s elements , words , materia l objects, an d paintings . I n al l o f them , however , th e tim e sequenc e i s clear. Th e ver y concep t o f th e imag e a s a "memorial " indicate s th e awareness of pas t events and their commemoration i n the present. But it is not clea r whether th e past here serves as a model. I n the sixth type the very concep t o f imag e i s blurred , possibl y becaus e o f th e variet y o f objects included, and hence the underlying structure is also obscured. In sum, in most types of images, though not in all, we do find the time sequence o f a n earlie r an d a late r feature . I n som e types , th e earlie r appearance is clearly the model copied i n the later. John nowhere speak s about th e proces s o f creatin g a n image , bu t followin g hi s classificatio n one canno t hel p feelin g tha t thi s proces s seem s t o hi m th e ver y field i n which image s mos t full y exist . I t i s onl y i n thi s proces s tha t "earlier " and "later," "model" and "copy" achieve their full reality .

234 The

Doctrine of the Icon

Prefiguration, a s w e hav e seen , i s als o clos e t o som e kin d o f menta l imagery, thoug h i t ma y lac k th e vagu e psychologica l connotation s car ried b y the image i n God' s mind . When w e sa y tha t Chris t is present as an image in the brazen serpent, we somehow hav e in mind a dematerialized form . Th e shap e o f th e Cross , detache d bot h fro m th e materia l foundation carryin g i t an d fro m th e subjec t (divin e o r human ) wh o experiences it , i s grante d a certai n existence . I t i s thi s "pur e form, " t o use a moder n term , tha t Joh n o f Damascu s als o classifie s unde r th e heading of "image. " It is fro m thi s poin t tha t w e reac h th e image s "mad e fo r th e remem brance o f pas t events. " I t is remarkable , however , that , whe n speakin g of th e materia l image s mad e b y people , Joh n emphasize s huma n need s and condition s rathe r tha n th e metaphysica l chai n o f beings . H e cer tainly see s th e ma n mad e ico n a s ultimatel y derive d fro m th e cosmi c ladder o f images , bu t wha t h e believe s t o b e mos t characteristi c o f i t i s its effect upo n th e spectator , evokin g th e "zealou s desire " to follo w th e admired examples . Thi s effec t o f th e man-mad e imag e o n th e huma n audience, it should b e noted, does not follow fro m the icon's metaphysi cal origin . I n th e end , th e ico n turn s ou t t o b e a specificall y huma n object. There i s anothe r poin t tha t th e moder n studen t reviewin g Joh n o f Damascus's doctrin e o f image s i s boun d t o notice : th e questio n o f ho w far th e differen t classe s o f image s ar e visible , an d wha t rol e visibilit y plays, o r doe s no t play , i n hi s classificatio n o f icons . W e hav e jus t see n that i n th e analysi s o f th e individua l classe s h e nearl y alway s refers , i n one way o r another, t o the relationship betwee n wha t comes earlier and what later , betwee n mode l an d copy . See n agains t thi s recurren t motif , it i s strikin g ho w littl e attentio n h e devote s t o th e question o f whether , or not , th e imag e ca n b e perceive d i n visua l experience . I n non e o f th e classes doe s h e explicitl y mentio n visibility . Occasionall y h e does spea k about "similarity, " bu t here , too , i t i s no t clea r jus t ho w concretel y h e understands this term. Now, doe s John not speak of visibilit y becaus e he takes it for granted that visibility i s a constitutive elemen t o f an y image , an d therefore doe s not hav e t o b e spelle d ou t separately , o r doe s h e no t devot e sufficien t attention t o it because i t is not important enoug h t o b e mentioned? I do not intend here to take up again the central question of how the invisible can b e manifeste d t o th e eye , a proble m tha t ha s concerne d u s i n th e

In Defense of Images 23

5

previous chapter s o f thi s essay . Al l I shoul d lik e t o d o i s t o fin d ou t whether visibilit y i s a facto r i n determinin g th e classification , tha t is , whether on e typ e o f imag e i s mor e visible tha n another . Whe n w e loo k again a t wha t h e say s abou t th e si x type s o f images , i t seem s tha t ou r visual experience plays no important role in his classification . It is mainl y i n th e sectio n devote d t o th e firs t typ e o f image , th e on e called "th e natura l image, " that John take s u p the problem o f visibility . We shoul d no t expec t a clear-cu t solution ; Joh n doe s no t "solve " th e problem. This section, however, shows that he was aware of the problem posed b y th e parado x mentioned . Hi s tex t ma y als o b e take n a s a n intimation, howeve r vague , tha t h e conceive d o f seein g a s a kin d o f mystical experience . The Son , h e says a t the beginnin g o f thi s section, "i s the firs t natura l and precisely simila r image of th e invisible God." 137 John must have fel t the difficulty o f makin g a visible imag e "precisel y similar " to th e invisi ble model . Thi s ma y b e th e reaso n fo r hi s callin g o n th e authorit y o f Scripture. He quotes the Gospel of John: "No man hath seen God at any time" (1:18 ) and , "No t tha t an y ma n hath see n th e Father " (6:46) . Bu t several time s i n that shor t sectio n John stresse s tha t the Son , who i s the "natural image, " is "precisely similar " to th e Father, "except tha t H e i s begotten b y the Father. " He doe s no t mentio n tha t the Son differs fro m the Fathe r i n visibility . Doe s thi s impl y tha t seein g itsel f i s a supernat ural, a kin d o f mystica l experience ? Howeve r tha t ma y be , Joh n her e does approach the problem of visibility . In the followin g section s h e occasionally touche s on visibility, but the problem neve r becomes a central issue , and it never serves as a criterion of classification . I n some case s he seem s t o hav e i n min d what w e cal l a "mental image." Without trying to enter the debate among psychologist s concerning the nature, and even the very existence, of th e mental image , we ca n sa y tha t Joh n o f Damascu s considere d th e menta l imag e a s something real , somethin g tha t ca n actuall y b e looke d at . Go d experiences his "foreknowledge o f th e things which have yet to happen"—thi s is wha t seem s t o b e suggeste d i n hi s text—b y a kin d o f introspection : the divine knows what i s to happen by looking at the images dwelling in its mind . Al l this , however , h e neve r formulate s explicitly ; thoug h i t i s convincingly sugested , it remains an intimation. In the fourt h kin d o f image , th e materia l thing s o f th e worl d o f ou r experience, th e visibilit y i s o f cours e no t doubted . However , wha t w e

2.36 The

Doctrine of the Icon

here see is merely th e material object . These visible things are "only di m lights," and the meanings to which the y refer remain unseen; the objects perceived onl y "remin d u s of God. " The sam e vaguenes s obtain s i n th e fifth type o f image . Prefiguration , th e fifth type, i s described i n terms of images, but again one wonders whether the link between past and futur e is visible. How, then , doe s th e moder n studen t summariz e John' s scal e o f im ages? Thre e points , i t seems , nee d t o b e stressed . First , John' s majo r attempt t o defen d th e ico n wa s b y showin g tha t i t i s par t o f a cosmi c chain o f images . I t wa s thi s argumen t tha t mus t hav e ha d a powerfu l appeal t o hi s audiences , an d hi s tim e i n general . Secondly , th e centra l feature o f th e imag e i s th e bipolarit y o f mode l an d copy . I t i s thi s bipolarity tha t forms th e basi c structure o f th e image, actually recurrin g in al l th e types . Finally , visibility , i n a simple , everyda y sense , play s a minor, subordinated part in the characterization of the image. As a result one ma y sa y that , whil e th e hierarchi c scal e ma y hav e ha d a powerfu l appeal t o th e imaginatio n o f hi s time , th e moder n studen t wil l expres s some doub t a s t o whethe r John o f Damascu s di d indee d finally "save " the image . Hi s classificatio n o f images , an d th e linkin g o f meanings , mental images , an d actual , painte d icon s wil l remai n a n interestin g attempt to find a philosophical justificatio n o f the picture. 6. The Visibility of Bodiless Beings After outlining i n detail th e internal hierarchic structure of al l being as a series of reflections , on e expects that John will hav e finally put to rest all doubt concernin g th e validit y o f th e sacre d image , an d particularl y concerning whethe r th e invisibl e ca n b e portrayed . I n the sketc h o f th e types o f image s a s a cosmic continuit y leadin g fro m Go d th e Son t o th e painted icon , th e reade r coul d follow , ste p b y step , th e pat h b y whic h the imag e reache s dow n fro m th e height s o f th e divin e glor y t o th e humble painte r o f th e icon . Bu t John' s min d doe s no t see m t o hav e achieved tranquility . Havin g discusse d a t som e lengt h th e individua l character an d uniqu e plac e o f eac h particula r clas s o f images , h e no w once mor e come s back , i n a short section , t o th e essentia l questio n tha t has lurke d behin d ever y sectio n o f th e Apologies. Thi s section 138 con cludes John' s discussio n o f images , thei r nature , function , an d power ; after this section th e third Apology goes on to deal with the worshipping

In Defense of Images 23

7

of icons , an d i n these late r sections th e emphasis i s naturally lai d on th e worship o f icon s rathe r tha n o n th e ico n itself . Th e fe w comment s o f which th e epilogue consist s ar e thus, a s it were, John's las t word o n th e subject. It deserves our careful attention . Concise a s the epilogue is , it evokes man y idea s and themes, some o f which ar e fa r mor e significan t i n John's spiritua l worl d tha n on e coul d guess fro m th e fe w sentence s h e her e devote s t o them . Thoug h h e ha s treated severa l o f thes e theme s elsewhere , the y appea r her e i n a ne w context, an d sometimes als o i n a more explicit articulation. I should lik e to discus s tw o o f th e theme s a s they ar e here mentioned . On e i s the ol d subject o f wha t th e imag e may , o r ma y not , represent ; the other, barel y indicated, i s rather new: i t is the questio n o f th e proper audience , or, a s we may say, who sees what. "What ma y b e depicte d b y a n image , an d wha t ma y not , an d ho w images ar e to b e made?"—so run s the title of th e epilogue, an d the titl e does indee d sugges t th e centra l topi c o f th e section . Hi s ai m i n th e epilogue is to show, perhaps in a way slightly differen t fro m what he has done s o far , tha t th e transcenden t worl d ca n indee d b e portrayed , an d that thi s possibilit y o f depictin g th e Beyon d i s founde d i n th e Weltbild of th e Bible itself. John open s th e brie f tex t b y stating tha t "physica l thing s which hav e shape, bodie s whic h ar e circumscribed , an d hav e color , ar e suitabl e subjects for image making." 139 This is, of course, an old and well-known idea, here put in an elementary form . As one knows, it was a cornerstone of th e ancien t theor y o f mimesis , an d becam e almos t a n articl e o f fait h in th e interpretation s o f classica l aesthetics . Pu t i n it s crudes t form , i t would mea n tha t onl y wha t i s visible i n natur e ca n b e rendere d i n a work o f th e visua l arts , th e implici t assumptio n bein g tha t th e pictoria l representation i s based on a n intimate affinity , perhap s even an identity, of th e shape s an d color s observe d i n th e outsid e worl d an d th e shape s and color s applie d i n th e paintin g tha t represent s a piece o f thi s world . John o f Damascus , i t i s t o b e assumed , wa s familia r wit h th e fac t tha t this opinion forme d par t of classica l culture , and he was probably awar e of th e theoretica l consequenc e i t entails. I t is worth notin g that , i n fact , John give s th e classica l doctrin e o f mimesi s a certai n interpretatio n b y stressing on e aspec t (whic h wa s no t prominen t i n th e ancien t theor y itself). Fro m hi s concis e presentatio n i t follow s tha t i n the ancien t doc trine th e visibl e wa s inseparabl y linke d t o th e materia l an d tangible .

238 The

Doctrine of the Icon

Visible i s onl y wha t ha s a body , an d consist s o f matter . Th e titl e give n to th e epilogu e make s thi s abundantl y clear . Ye t paintin g a s th e repre sentation o f wha t i s visibl e i n everyda y realit y wa s no t a subjec t tha t occupied John' s mind . I n hi s forme r discussio n o f images , th e ancien t theory o f mimesis , a s h e understoo d it , i s no t eve n mentione d a s such . As w e know , h e wa s no t conten t t o sta y withi n th e domai n o f th e material object s tha t ar e availabl e t o everyda y sight . Wha t h e i s con cerned wit h is , in a sense, th e very opposite; h e want s t o g o beyon d th e visibility o f tangibl e bodie s an d materia l objects , an d h e asks , how ca n we attai n th e visio n o f th e invisible—ho w ca n w e experienc e visually , and represent , figures or being s tha t hav e n o body , n o materia l nature , and that therefore lac k shap e an d color ? Ou r desire t o visuall y perceiv e what is beyond th e real m of "physica l objects, " as we hav e seen above, 140 results fro m ou r ver y nature ; i t belong s t o th e basi c huma n condition . Moreover, John believe s tha t thi s desir e can, at least to som e extent , b e fulfilled. Th e divine plan of creatio n assure s us of this . "God [himself], " he says , "will s tha t w e shoul d no t b e totall y ignoran t o f bodiles s crea tures."141 What al l thi s amount s t o i s tha t now , afte r presentin g th e chai n o f images a s a cosmi c structure , John broache s ane w th e ol d proble m o f justifying th e image, an d asks once mor e how i t can manifest th e invisible to th e huma n eye . Afte r th e presentatio n o f th e chai n o f images , w e are, then , bac k t o th e centra l proble m o f justifyin g th e image . Th e epilogue, however , i s no t simpl y a repetitio n o f wha t ha d bee n sai d i n the former sections of the Apologies. Joh n now approaches his task fro m a differen t angle . Concentratin g o n a singl e point , h e wishe s t o sho w that th e bodil y an d th e visibl e ar e not inseparabl y linke d t o eac h other ; they can , an d should , b e separated . I n fact , i n th e domai n o f th e tran scendent ther e ar e beings tha t ar e altogethe r immateria l an d yet visible . These bodiless beings can be visually experienced, without our having to ascribe t o the m a materia l nature . I f the y ca n b e seen , i t follows , the y can also be represented in a painted image. In John's thought , i t should b e kept in mind, the transcendent world , the domai n o f th e bodiles s an d th e invisible , i s neithe r vagu e no r il l defined; i t ha s no t th e genera l psychologica l qualit y o f blurre d outline s that, sinc e Romanticism , thi s notio n s o frequentl y carries . O n th e con trary, the transcendent world is characterized b y a clearly outlined order

In Defense of Images 23

9

that w e ca n retrace . Speakin g i n huma n term s w e coul d sa y tha t th e nature of th e transcendent world is, in a sense, "objective. " Surveying, a s i t were , th e real m o f th e transcenden t an d invisible , John divide s i t into tw o part s that differ fro m eac h other with regar d t o their ability to b e made visible. On e part is the divine itself, the divine in its true nature: "The divine nature alone can never be circumscribed an d is alway s withou t form , withou t shape , an d ca n neve r b e under stood." 142 A true picture of God, that is, a picture portraying the "divine nature" itself , i s thu s unattainable . God' s tru e nature , then , i s foreve r removed fro m huma n cognitio n an d appearance . Go d ca n b e seen , o r otherwise experienced, onl y i n a nonproper way, as we shall shortly see. In the transcendent , invisibl e worl d ther e i s stil l anothe r component , consisting o f wha t John call s "intellectua l beings. " They ar e "a n angel , or a soul, or a demon." Let u s rea d i n ful l wha t Joh n say s here ; th e passag e no t onl y show s the directio n o f hi s thought ; i t als o manifest s th e difficulties h e encoun ters. Afte r havin g sai d tha t visibl e shape s belon g t o materia l bodies , a s quoted above , he continues: Nevertheless, even if nothing physical o r fleshly may be attributed to an angel, or a soul , o r a demon , i t i s stil l possibl e t o depic t an d circumscrib e the m according to their nature. For they are intellectual beings, and are believed to be invisibly present and to operate spiritually. It is possible to make bodily representations of the m just as Moses depicted th e cherubim. Those who were worthy saw thes e images , an d behel d a bodiles s an d intellectua l sigh t mad e manifes t through physical means.143 The natur e o f th e angels , and , perhaps t o a lesser degree , tha t o f th e demons an d o f th e huma n soul , i s a subjec t tha t fascinate d medieva l thought. D o angel s have a body, however subtle an d "thin," or are they altogether bodiless ? Ca n the y b e properl y see n an d experienced ? Thes e questions wer e ofte n asked . Th e answer s given , i t goe s withou t saying , often ha d importan t implication s fo r th e understandin g an d evaluatio n of th e painted image. In John of Damascus' s time , the exploration o f th e angels' nature had not ye t reache d tha t clima x tha t s o forcefull y impresse d itsel f o n th e thought an d imagination o f late r stages. But even if we confine ourselve s to th e comparativel y earl y period s o f Christia n though t tha t precede d John's time , w e stil l fin d ampl e testimon y fo r th e concer n wit h thi s

240 The

Doctrine of the Icon

question. Some of th e Fathers seem to have believed that the angels have some kin d o f body . Justin , Clemen t o f Alexandria , Origen , an d eve n Augustine hel d thi s view , thoug h the y insiste d o n th e subtl e natur e o f this body . Othe r earl y Christia n thinkers , suc h a s Gregoriu s o f Nyssa , Eusebius, an d Joh n Chrysostomus , denie d t o th e angel s an y kin d o f body.144 The y al l see m t o hav e agreed , however , tha t angels , whethe r or no t the y hav e a body , ar e visible , a t leas t unde r certai n condi tions. It was mainl y Dionysiu s Areopagita , th e grea t theoreticia n o f angeli c hierarchies,145 wh o profoundl y impresse d upo n th e Christia n worl d th e concept o f th e bodiles s ye t visibl e angel . Dionysiu s Areopagita , a s w e have alread y noted, 146 ha d a formative influenc e o n John o f Damascus , who frequentl y quote d "th e bisho p o f Athens." 147 I t wa s i n followin g Dionysius tha t Joh n articulate d hi s ide a o f th e nonmateria l bu t visibl e angel. With regar d t o th e angels ' bodie s Joh n doe s no t see m t o b e o f on e mind; som e o f hi s statement s woul d appea r t o contradic t othe r earlie r statements. Wha t look s lik e hi s indecisio n ma y well reflec t th e opinion s of differen t schools . The angels , h e says , Go d ha s "clothe d . . . wit h forms and shapes, and used images comprehensible to our nature." Only the go d i s b y it s ver y natur e totally withou t body , "bu t a n angel , o r a soul, o r a demon , whe n compare d t o Go d (wh o alon e canno t b e com pared t o anything ) doe s hav e a body , bu t whe n thes e ar e compare d t o material bodies , they ar e bodiless." 148 What Joh n her e say s deviates , i n severa l respects , fro m som e o f th e statements h e made earlier. When h e outlined hi s comprehensive syste m consisting o f si x classe s o f images , h e suggested t o th e reade r that ther e is a n unbroke n continuit y leadin g fro m th e sublim e go d t o th e simples t of icons . Imaging , th e relationshi p betwee n mode l an d copy , i s foun d within Go d himself ; th e So n i s an imag e o f th e Father, 149 an d h e i s the anchor o f th e whol e chai n o f image s tha t dominate s th e world . I n th e epilogue, however , w e ar e told tha t Go d i s "utterly withou t form, " and is thus altogether separated from al l images. This i s no t th e plac e t o analyz e i n detai l John' s view s o f ho w Go d relates t o th e world . Her e w e ar e concerne d only with th e angels . An d though w e ar e lef t guessin g wha t John's though t o n th e specifi c natur e of th e angels ' bodies was , on e conclusio n clearl y emerges , namely , tha t angels ar e "spiritual " being s an d ye t visible . Th e lin k betwee n tangibl e

In Defense of Images 24

1

physical natur e and visibility i s broken. A being may be bodiless an d yet manifest itsel f t o our eyes. The belief i n appearances tha t are devoid of materia l substanc e i s not limited t o th e angel s i n Christia n thought . The soul , als o mentione d b y John, i s anothe r exampl e o f bodiles s appearance . Th e imag e o f th e clearly outlined , ye t nonmateria l soul , wa s no t primaril y biblical ; i t developed mainl y i n th e Gree k world . Suffic e i t t o remembe r th e Ho meric belief i n the nature of th e souls of th e dead, often calle d eidola. T o give but one example: th e psyche o f Patroclu s visit s Achilles i n a dream. When Patroclu s departs , Achille s trie s t o embrac e him , bu t Patroclus' s psyche evade s hi m an d vanishes . H e the n realize s tha t i t was a "psyche and eidolon," althoug h i t was "wondrou s lik e him." 150 The concep t o f the visible, ye t immateria l image , th e eidolon, ha d a long an d persisten t life. The specifi c natur e o f th e soul , it s being devoi d o f materia l existenc e yet capabl e o f bein g seen , ha s attracte d th e attentio n o f classica l schol ars, especiall y o f student s o f Gree k religion . The y hav e aske d whethe r this double characteristi c i s typical o f th e soul only , or whether it shares it with othe r beings, such as the dream figure. 151 Thi s question i s not fo r us t o decide . Wha t i s her e importan t i s tha t a n educate d Christia n theologian i n th e earl y eight h century , t o who m th e classica l traditio n was stil l alive , coul d i n th e "wisdo m o f th e [pagan ] ancients " a s wel l find som e support fo r hi s belie f i n th e existenc e o f bodiles s ye t visible spiritual beings . After thi s shor t glanc e a t John' s sources , le t u s com e bac k t o th e principal subject . Why , on e canno t hel p asking , i s John o f Damascu s s o interested i n angel s o r i n souls ? H e i s her e tryin g onc e agai n t o justif y the icon. What i s the significance o f thes e spiritual being s in his doctrine of sacre d images ? I t i s no t difficul t t o find th e answer . Th e "spiritua l creature"—whether angel , demon , o r soul—offer s "empirical " proof , as i t were , tha t th e imag e ca n reac h furthe r tha n th e tangible , materia l reality. I n th e ver y existenc e o f th e "spiritua l being " th e apparentl y absolute connectio n betwee n th e tangibl e an d th e visible , th e heavil y material an d th e visuall y perceptible , i s denied ; th e huma n ey e ca n perceive wha t dwell s beyon d th e limit s o f matter . Th e very existenc e o f the angel, th e demon, an d the soul constitute s a sanction o f th e spiritual image. But i s th e seein g o f a "spiritua l being " th e sam e experienc e a s th e

242 The

Doctrine of the Icon

visual perceptio n o f an y regula r object ? D o w e se e a n ange l a s we se e a table o r a pot ? I n other , an d mor e theoretical , words , i s th e visua l perception o f th e supernatura l bein g th e sam e kin d o f experienc e a s seeing i n ou r regula r world ? Joh n di d no t formulat e thes e question s explicitly, bu t the y canno t hav e bee n fa r remove d fro m hi s mind . Thi s may b e th e reaso n wh y h e asked , wh o i s th e perso n wh o perceive s th e supernatural being ? Not everybod y ca n see spiritual beings , it turns out; such perceptio n i s no t par t o f a common huma n faculty . Th e abilit y t o visually experienc e supernatura l being s i s granted onl y t o a selected fe w —to people , tha t is, who i n their nature diffe r fro m th e regula r person: "Those wh o wer e worth y sa w thes e images , an d behel d a bodiles s an d intellectual sigh t mad e manifes t throug h physica l means." 152 A s i f thi s were no t clea r enoug h Joh n stresse s tha t th e spiritua l images , a s sug gested i n th e Bible , "wer e no t see n b y everyone , no r coul d the y b e perceived wit h th e unaide d bodil y eye , bu t were see n throug h th e spiri tual sigh t o f prophet s o r other s t o who m the y wer e revealed." 153 God , who "will s tha t we shoul d no t b e totally ignoran t o f bodiles s creatures, . . . clothed them with form s an d shapes,. . . which coul d b e seen by the spiritual visio n o f th e mind." 154 These spiritual visions , it becomes clea r from th e context , ar e als o understoo d a s th e grac e grante d only t o a few . John so emphatically stresse d the fact that the prophets saw "spiritua l beings" in orde r to len d further , an d authoritative , suppor t t o th e painted icon. Bu t her e critica l readers , i n John' s tim e a s wel l a s today , canno t prevent themselve s fro m asking , doe s th e fac t tha t some selec t prophet s perceived in their visions the shape of supernatural being s have the same significance fo r th e statu s o f painte d image s tha t a regula r perception , granted to every human being , would have had? Limiting the perception of bodiles s creature s t o only a fe w prophet s an d saint s show s ho w difficult an d problematic i t is to ascribe visibility t o supernatural beings . Yet despite the vague and metaphorical formulation , John's referenc e t o the prophets' vision shoul d no t b e regarded a s a slip of th e pen; it mus t be take n a s a statemen t indicatin g a n importan t them e i n hi s thought . Two issues should be mentioned. The fact that some prophets and saints, however fe w they may have been, perceived the vision of bodiles s beings shows, a s i t were , tha t thes e being s d o indee d hav e th e abilit y o f bein g visible, o r becomin g s o i n certai n conditions . Sinc e thes e beings , mani -

In Defense of Images 24

3

fested i n th e prophets ' vision , can , i n principle , b e visible , on e ca n als o consider them as an ultimate sanction o f th e icon, an embodiment o f th e domain o f visibility . Wha t ca n b e seen , i n howeve r exceptiona l condi tions—this i s what i s implie d i n John's argument—shoul d als o b e portrayable. Th e prophet' s vision , then , provide s a n ultimat e basi s fo r th e icon. But eve n i f th e prophet's visio n i s considere d a s "seeing, " thi s raise s the othe r issue , on e that , fo r th e vindicatio n o f sacre d images , i s eve n more crucial: Ho w doe s th e "image" come fro m th e prophet's o r saint's mental ey e t o th e eye , th e hand , an d th e worksho p o f th e artis t wh o actually paints the icon? It is the old question, which so persistently kep t reemerging, o f ho w t o bridg e th e gap betwee n th e worlds. Wha t prophets perceive in their visions, we remember , i s not given to everybody; o n the contrary , i t i s precisel y tha t prophet s an d saint s perceiv e spiritua l beings i n thei r vision s tha t show s the y ar e se t apar t fro m th e res t o f humanity. Seein g th e otherwise invisibl e manifest s thei r exceptional sta tus. Ha d Joh n suggeste d tha t th e painte r als o perceive s a visio n o f spiritual beings , h e woul d hav e solve d th e problem . Bu t th e painte r would the n b e th e equa l o f th e prophe t an d saint . I t is enoug h t o eve n hint at such a reading to see immediately ho w utterl y impossibl e i t is. In the whol e tex t o f th e Apologies, Joh n doe s no t eve n onc e refe r t o th e artist wh o produce s th e icon , an d h e doe s no t sa y a singl e wor d abou t the proces s b y whic h a n ico n i s produced . I n hi s tim e an d intellectua l world i t was altogethe r unthinkabl e t o brin g the artist into an y concret e relation wit h th e prophe t o r saint , o r t o lin k i n an y wa y th e toi l o f "making" an icon with th e vision Go d granted, as a special grace, to the few hol y figures who m Go d selecte d i n th e cours e o f th e ages . On e cannot hel p concluding , therefore , tha t Joh n o f Damascu s doe s no t i n fact explain how th e image, distinctly visibl e in the prophet's vision, can reaches the picture we see in the church or even in the home. He cannot tell ho w th e "pure" forms of th e spiritual being s can reach the painter' s board . Th e continuou s chai n leadin g fro m th e pure shape s perceived b y th e prophe t t o th e actual , materia l ico n remain s obscure . With al l th e grea t suggestivenes s an d rhetorica l powe r o f John's formu lations, th e critica l reade r canno t hel p feelin g tha t th e old proble m tha t haunted th e thought o f centuries , the overcoming o f th e chasm betwee n the worlds, asserts itself agai n in the Apologies of the Divine Images.

244 The

Doctrine of

the Icon

NOTES i. Se e Joh n o f Damascus , On the Divine Images: Three Apologies against Those Who Attack the Divine Images, translated by David Anderson (Crest wood, N.Y., 1980) , the translation I shall use. It will b e quoted as Apologies with th e numbe r o f th e Oratio n i n Roman , th e numbe r o f th e chapte r i n Arabic numerals , an d th e pag e numbe r i n th e Englis h translatio n afte r a semicolon. A n earlie r translatio n b y Mar y H . Allie s (London , 1898 ) seem s to hav e appeare d i n a limitie d edition , an d wa s no t availabl e t o m e whil e writing this chapter. The original tex t of John's Orations i s best available in J. P. Migne, Patrologia cursus completes, Series Graeca, XCIV (Paris , 1856) , cols. 1231—420 .

2. Th e mos t detaile d analysi s o f John' s doctrin e o f image s i s foun d i n a dissertation b y Hieronymus Menges , Die Bilderlehre des Johannes von Damaskus (Wurzburg , 1937) . Se e als o Edwy m Bevan , Holy Images (London , 1940), pp . 128-44 . F° r t n e concep t o f imag e i n earlie r Christia n thought , see Gerhar t Ladner , "Th e Concep t o f th e Imag e i n th e Gree k Father s an d the Byzantin e Iconoclasti c Controversy, " Dumbarton Oaks Papers, VI I (1953), pp. 1-34 . Thi s important study i s reprinted i n Ladner's Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies in History and Art, I (Rome ,

i983)PP-73-m-

3. Se e above, chapters 2 and 3. 4. Ther e i s a n Englis h translatio n b y Frederi c H . Chase , Jr. : Saint John of Damascus: Writings (Washington , D.C. , 1958) . Fo r th e sentenc e quoted , see p. 10 . 5. Apologies I , 1 ; p. 13. 6. Fo r the literatur e o n John's life , se e mainl y Joseph Nasrallah , Saint Jean de Damas: Son epoque, sa vie, son oeuvre (Paris , 1950) . Diony s Stiferhofer' s introduction t o hi s Germa n translatio n o f John' s De fide orthodoxa (Des Heiligen Johannes von Damaskus genaue Darlegung des orthodoxen Glaubens [Munich, 1923] ) i s also useful fo r the saint's biography . 7. Se e especiall y Basiliu s Studer , Die theologische Arbeitsweise des Johannes von Damaskus (Ettal , 1956) , passim , esp . pp . 9 1 ff . Fo r florilegia i n Byz antine literature, see Karl Krummbacher, Die Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur von Justinian bis zum Ende des ostromischen Reiches (Handbuc h der Altertumswissenschaft IX , 1 ; Munich, 1891) , pp. 289 ff . 8. Fo r an English translation, see above, note 5 . 9. Fo r John's influenc e o n Pete r Lombard , se e E . Buytaert , "St . John Damas cene, Pete r Lombard , an d Gerlo h vo n Reichersberg, " Franciscan Studies X (1950), pp . 323—43 . Fo r Joh n a s a mode l fo r wester n Scholasticis m i n general, se e Adol f vo n Harnack , Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, II , Die Entwicklung des kirchlichen Dogmas (5t h ed., Tubingen, 1961) , pp. 50 9 ff .

In Defense of Images 24 5 For John's influence o n Thomas Aquinas, see Krummbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, pp . 174 , 206 . 10. Th e mos t detaile d an d thoroug h stud y o f th e Sacra Parallela seem s stil l t o be Kar l Holl , Die Sacra Parallela des Johannes Damascenus (Text e un d Untersuchungen, 1 ; Leipzig , 1897) , dealin g wit h authorshi p an d textua l problems. Fo r th e illuminated manuscript s o f this work , se e no w Kur t Weitzmann, The Miniatures of the Sacra Parallela, Parisinus Graecus 92 3 (Princeton, 1979) . n . Quote d afte r Krummbacher , Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, p . 321. The hymns traditionally assume d to be composed by John of Damascu s are published i n Migne, Patrologia Graeca XCVI , cols. 818-56 . 12. Se e Krummbacher , Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, p . 320 . Fo r a brief surve y o f Byzantin e hymnology , se e John Meyendorff , Byzantine Theology (Londo n and Oxford, 1974) , pp. 122-24 . 13. Krummbache r survey s th e differen t opinion s expresse d i n earlier tradition s in his discussion of John's position i n Byzantine literature. 14. Quote d afte r Krummbacher , Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, p . 297. Fo r Eustathios , i n additio n t o Krummbacher , pp . 24 2 ff. , se e A . A . Vasilev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453 (Madison , Wis. , 1976) , PP- 495-96 . 15. Fo r the Barlaam legend , it s sources and distribution, se e Hiram Per i (Pflaum) , Der Religionsdisput der Barlaam-Legende, ein Motiv abendlandischer Dichtung (Acta Salmaticensis, Filosofia s y Letras XIV , 3 ; Salamanca, 1959) . Se e also B . Studer , Die theologische Arbeitsweise des Johannes von Damaskus, pp. 2 7 ff . 16. Th e Joh n o f Ma r Sab a mentione d i n som e earl y manuscript s o t th e novel , some scholar s maintain , wa s a monk o f th e sam e nam e an d place, bu t of a generation late r tha n ou r Churc h Father . Fo r a surve y o f th e differen t opinions, see Peri (Pflaum), pp . 11-31 . 17. I n the third Apology, the most elaborate and systematic of the three, the division i s clearest: sections 16-2 6 dea l with images , sections 27-4 1 wit h wor ship. I am not aware of any earlier treatment of the subject that would clearly make this distinction, though th e problem was of cours e always present. 18. H e himsel f explain s hi s procedure. Tru e t o hi s systemati c mind , he lists th e themes; se e Apologies III , 14 ; p. 73 . Though h e take s u p th e theme s i n al l three Apologies, i t i s onl y i n th e thir d tha t h e name s them , an d treats the m in the order he announces. 19. On e coul d argu e tha t i n a strictl y systemati c presentatio n th e questio n "what can an d what canno t b e represented? " (John's fourt h theme ) shoul d be considered before we devote our attention to the different type s of image s (John's third subject). 20. Apologies I , 9; p. 1 9 of th e English translation . 21. On the Orthodox Faith, Boo k Four , chapte r 1 6 (Englis h translation , pp . 370 ff.) .

2 4 6 The

Doctrine of

the Icon

22. Apologies III , 16; pp. 73 f . 23. Apologies III , 16; p. 73. 24. Republic 510A . I t is, of course , beyon d th e scope of th e present study to g o into Plato's concept of th e image. Useful fo r our purpose is the discussion in Goran Sorbom , Mimesis and Art: Studies in the Origin and Early Development of an Aesthetic Vocabulary (Uppsala , 1966), pp . 15 2 ff . 25. Theaetetus 239D . 26. Plotinus, Enneads V , 9 , 3. 27. Se e Proclus , The Elements of Theology, edite d an d translate d b y E . R . Dodds (Oxford , 1963) , pp. 16 9 ff . (proposition s 194-95) . 28. Republic 602D . 29. Republic 476C . And cf. Sorbom , Mimesis and Art, pp . 14 1 ff . 30. Se e Apologies III , 16 ; p. 7 3 o f th e Englis h translation, wher e th e definitio n is best formulated . Th e italic s ar e mine. I n another definitio n o f th e picture (Apologies I , 9; p. 19) , the clause "in itself" is missing, but shortly thereafte r is perhaps adumbrated, even if only in a general sense . 31. Thi s o f cours e i s tru e als o wher e John stresse s tha t th e pictur e reflect s th e model only in an imperfect an d limited way. 32. Withou t going into the large literature of semiotics, I shall refe r here only t o Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington , Ind. , 1979) , pp. 19 1 ff . Interesting fo r ou r purpos e i s als o th e brie f discussio n i n Charle s Morris , Signs, Language, and Behavior (Ne w York , 1946) , pp. 19 0 ff . 33. Se e above, the section discussing John's views on "Wh y Are Images Made." 34. Apologies I , 9; p. 1 9 of th e English translation. 35. Apologies III , 16; pp. 73 ff . 36. Apologies III , 16 ; p . 74 . Interestingl y enough , th e ide a o f th e animate d statue, a subjec t John o f Damascu s mus t hav e bee n familia r wit h fro m hi s acquaintance with classical literature , is altogether excluded i n his doctrine. 37. Athanasius' s Sermo di sacris imaginibus i s reprinte d (an d bes t available ) i n Migne, Patrologia Graeca, XXVIII , col . 709 . Fo r a brie f discussion , se e Kenneth M . Setton , Christian Attitudes towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century (Ne w York , 1941) , pp . 19 8 ff . Joh n quote s th e passag e i n hi s florilegium t o the Third Oration; pp. 10 0 ff . o f the English translation. 38. Th e bes t formulatio n o f th e importanc e an d functio n o f image s i s found i n the third Apology, chapter 17 ; p. 74 of the English translation. 39. Se e th e classi c stud y b y Meye r Schapiro , "O n th e Aestheti c Attitud e i n Romanesque Art," no w easil y availabl e i n th e author' s Selected Studies, I , Romanesque Art (Ne w York , 1977) , pp . 1—27 . Se e als o th e interestin g discussion (thoug h no t directl y dealin g wit h ou r present subject ) b y Rober t Jauss i n his paper on "Di e klassisch e un d die christliche Rechtfertigun g de s Hasslichen i n mittelalterlicher Literatur, " reprinted i n the author' s Alteritat und Modernitat der mittelalterlichen Literatur (Munich , 1977) , pp . 385 — 410.

40. Se e Theophilus , The Various Arts, translate d b y C . R . Dodwel l (London ,

In Defense of Images 24 7 1961), p . 63 . Se e als o m y Theories of Art, I , From Plato to Winckelmann (New York , 1985) , pp. 74-80 . 41. Epistula ad Serenum (Monumenta Germaniae Historia), Epistulae II , pp . 270-71.1 us e the English translation i n Wladislaw Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, II , Medieval Aesthetics (Th e Hague, Warsaw, 1970) , pp. 10 4 f . 42. Epsitula ad Serenum (ibid . II, p. 195) . See Tatarkiewicz, pp. 10 4 f . 43. Se e G . D . Mansi , ed. , Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XIX (Florence , Venice, 1759-1798) , p . 454. And see Tatarkiewicz, p. 105 . 44. Th e Libri Carolini ar e reprinte d i n Migne , Patrologia Latina XCVIII ; th e passage quoted on col. 1147 . For the significance o f this work a s a source in the study o f art , see J. von Schlosser , Schriftquellen zur Kunstgeschichte der Karolingischen Kunst (Quellenschriften fur Kunstgeschichte, Ne w Series , IV; Vienna, 1892) . Fo r th e significanc e o f th e Libri Carolini i n th e histor y and theology o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate , se e Gert Haendler, Epochen Karolingischer Theologie: Eine Untersuchung uber die karolingischen Gutachten zum byzantinischen Bilderstreit (Berlin , 1958) . 45. Se e Apologies III , 17 , p . 74 . Th e fragmentar y quotation s i n thi s paragrap h derive from the short chapter of th e third Apology. 46. Apologies II , 12 ; p. 59 : "The icon i s a hymn o f triumph , a manifestation, a memorial inscribe d for those who have fought and conquered, humbling the demons an d putting them to flight. " 47. Se e Apologies I , 1 1 (p . 20); I, 1 9 (p . 27); I, 25 (p . 32); III, 21 (p . 77). 48. Se e Apologies III , 17; p. 74. 49. Apologies III , 17; p. 74 of th e English translation . 50. Apologies I , n ; p . 20 . 51. Apologies I , 7; p. 17 : "You see that He forbids the making of images because of idolatry , and that it is impossible to make an image of th e immeasurable, uncircumscribed, invisibl e God. " An d se e als o Apologies I , 15 ; p. 22:"I s i t not obviou s tha t sinc e i t i s impossibl e t o mak e a n imag e o f God , wh o i s uncircumscribed an d unable to be represented." 52. I n addition t o th e passage s quote d i n th e precedin g note , se e Apologies III , 24; p . 78 : "Th e divin e natur e alon e ca n neve r b e circumscribe d an d i s always without form, without shape, and can never be understood." 53. F . W . Schlikker , Hellenistische Vorstellungen von der Schonheit des Bauwerks nach Vitruv (Berlin , 1940) , p . 82 , drawin g a distinctio n betwee n "rhythmos" and "schema. " 54. Se e J . J . Pollitt , The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Mythology (Ne w Haven , 1974) , pp. 26 1 ff . 55. Joh n o f Damascu s stresse s th e unchanging, motionles s natur e of th e divine. See, fo r example , Apologies III , 19 : "Th e divin e natur e i s immutable," an d Apologies I , 21 : Chris t i s "th e livin g imag e o f th e invisibl e God , an d Hi s unchanging likeness. " 56. Apologies I , 8; p. 18 . The formulatio n shows , it is worth remembering , tha t our autho r ha d actua l picture s i n mind , an d doe s no t us e th e term s onl y

248 The

Doctrine of the Icon

metaphorically. Th e use s o f th e word s "draw " an d "paint " ar e obviousl y meant in a precise, concrete sense. 57. Apologies III , 26 ; pp. 8 0 f. , wher e thes e an d additiona l example s ar e mentioned. Se e als o Apologies I , 5 ; pp . 1 6 ff. , wher e Joh n show s tha t th e prohibition of image s is qualified b y the Bible itself. 58. Apologies III , 25; p. 79. 59. Se e Apologies I , 1 5 (p . 22) ; I, 2 0 (p . 27) ; II, 9 (pp . 5 6 ff.) ; II, 1 4 (p . 61); II, 22 (pp . 66 ff.) ; Ill , 2 5 (p . 79) . Fo r the image s of th e cherubim i n the Bible , see above, chapter 1 . 60. Se e the sixth section of th e present chapter. 61. Apologies I , 15 ; p. 22. 62. Se e above, chapters 1 and 3. 63. Ibid . An d se e als o Apologies II , 14 ; p . 14 , wher e th e imag e o f th e ten t i s linked wit h th e "handiwork " o f man : "Behol d th e handiwor k o f me n becoming th e likenes s o f th e cherubim! Was no t th e meeting-ten t a n imag e in ever y way? " For the symbolis m o f th e tent , se e th e stil l importan t wor k by Rober t Eisler , Weltenmantel und Himmelszelt: Religionsgeschichtliche Utitersuchungen zur Urgeschichte des antiken Weltbildes (Munich , 1910) . That th e biblica l ten t i s a centra l archetyp e fo r th e churc h buildin g i s to o well know n to require documentation. 64. Apologies I , 4; p. 16 . 65. Followin g othe r theologians , on e cannot hel p asking whether thi s depictio n is a complete—and thu s als o a true—image o f Christ . Doe s a n icon representing Chris t a s man depict the Savior's whole nature , or is it the imag e of one aspect only? 66. Apologies I , 4; p. 16 . 67. Apologies II , 5 ; pp . 5 2 ff . O n thi s subject , se e J . Meyendorff , Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood , N.Y., 1975) , pp. 115 , 124 . 68. Apologies II , n; pp . 5 8 ff . 69. Th e tex t of th e Horos i s reprinted i n Mansi , Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissitna collectio XIII , pp. 24 0 ff . I use th e Englis h translatio n b y Cyri l Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453 (Toronto , 1986) , pp. 16 5 ff . 70. I n addition t o th e literatur e liste d above , se e Erns t Kitzinger , "Th e Cul t o f Images i n th e Perio d befor e Iconoclasm, " Dumbarton Oaks Papers, VII I (i954)»PP- 85-150 . 71. Apologies I , 22; p. 31 . John here refers to what is told in Acts 5:15 . 72. Apologies II , 41; p. 89. 73. Apologies I , 24; p. 32. 74. Fo r Plato's use , see, e.g. , Republic VI , 510E ; and VII, 517D . Fo r the us e of skia i n Phil o an d especiall y i n th e Ne w Testament , se e G . Friedrich , ed. , Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VI I (Gran d Rapids , Mich. , 1971), pp. 394-98 . 75. "All , however , agre e tha t paintin g bega n wit h th e outlinin g o f a man' s

In Defense of Images 24 9 shadow." Se e Pliny' s Historia naturalis XXXV , 15 . For an Englis h version , see The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the History of Art, translate d b y Jex Blake (Chicago, 1968) . 76. Se e E . Kri s an d O . Kurz , Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist: An Historical Experiment (Ne w Haven , Conn. , 1970) . Th e origina l edition, Die Legende vom Kunstler, appeare d in Vienna, 1934 . 77. Se e Athenagoras's Apology 17.3-4 . An d see Robert M. Grant , Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia , 1988) , pp. 10 4 ff . 78. Firs t Refutation , 11 . I quot e fro m St . Theodor e th e Studite , On the Holy Icons, translate d b y Catharin a P . Rot h (Crestwood , N.Y. , 1981) ; th e sen tence quoted may be found o n p. 31. 79. Firs t Refutation , 15 ; Englis h translation , p . 35 . Fo r Theodor e o f Studion , see below, chapter 11 . 80. Fo r th e subjec t o f relics , an d th e intellectua l an d emotiona l source s o f it s emergence an d power, se e Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago , 1981) . 81. Apologies III , 17; p. 74. 82. Apologies III , 41; p. 89 . 83. I n the florilegium t o the first Apology; p. 3 6 of th e English translation . 84. Apologies III , 12; p. 72. 85. Ibid . 86. I n the florilegium t o the first Apology. Se e Apologies, p . 37 . 87. Apologies I , 16 ; p. 20 . 88. Se e above, the discussion o f John's definition o f th e image. 89. Se e Apologies III , 18 ; pp. 73 ff . 90. Thi s sentenc e has , o f course , give n ris e t o a hug e amoun t o f exegesis . I t i s not fo r me, and not in my competence, t o take up the commentaries. Let me only mentio n Norber t Hugede , La metaphore du mirroir dans les epitres de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Neuchatel , 1957) , esp. pp. 15 1 ff . 91. Apologies II , 5; p. 53. 92. Apologies III , 12; p. 72. 93. Apologies III , 17; P. 7 4 94. W e canno t g o her e int o th e problem , discusse d b y historian s o f aesthetics , of whethe r this attitud e i s characteristi c o f Plato' s view s o n ar t i n general , or i s perhap s limite d t o th e earlie r stage s o f hi s thought . Fo r th e interna l development o f Plato' s theor y o f art , se e Gora n Sdrbom , Mimesis and Art: Studies in the Origin and Early Development of an Aesthetic Vocabulary (Bonniers, Sweden , 1966) , pp . 99-175 . Ar t theories, throughout thei r lon g history, accepted this view a s "the" Platonic concept of th e image. 95. Se e mainl y Republic 598D , 602D . Onl y a god coul d coul d mak e a double t of a living being ; se e Cratylus 432B , C . An d se e W. J. Verdenius, Mimesis: Plato's Doctrine of Artistic Imitation and Its Meaning for Us (Leiden , 1949), esp. chapter 1 . 96. A n abbreviated formulatio n o f th e classification i s given in the first Apology,

250 The

Doctrine of

the Icon

sections 10-1 3 (pp . 21-2 3 o f th e Englis h translation) . A mor e detaile d and systemati c formulatio n i s foun d i n the thir d Apology , section s 18-2 3 (pp. 74-78). I shall follo w mainl y the exposition i n the third Apology. 97. Se e above , chapte r 9 , especiall y Dionysiu s Areopagita' s view s o n hier archy. 98. Ambrosii Theodosii Macrobii Commentariorum in Somnium Scipionis I , 14, 15 . I quote th e Englis h translatio n give n by Arthur Lovejoy i n his The Great Chain of Being: A Study in the History of an Idea (Ne w York , i960), p . 63. 99. Se e above, chapter 9, section 2 . 100. I n the Apologies h e naturally adopt s th e ideas of Dionysiu s Areopagita . In the florilegia h e explicitly refer s t o Dionysius' s texts . See , for instance , th e florilegium t o th e first Apology, pp . 3 4 ff . (reference s t o Dionysius' s Letters, Divine Names, an d Ecclesiastical Hierarchy); an d th e florilegium t o the third Apology, p. 91 of the English translation. 101. Th e document s relatin g t o th e writin g o f The Ladder ar e collecte d an d translated int o Englis h i n Joh n Climacus , The Ladder of Divine Ascent, translated by Archimandrite Lazaru s (Moore) , (Boston, 1978) , pp. 41-44. As is well known , John of Climacus' s wor k ha d profound influenc e o n the western Middl e Ages. To give but one example: Bernard of Clairvaux too k The Ladder a s a model fo r his influential Steps of Humility. Se e Bernard of Clairvaux, The Steps of Humility, translate d b y G . B . Burch (Cambridge , Mass., 1940) . Fo r othe r examples , se e M . Bloomfield , The Seven Deadly Sins (East Lansing, Mich., 1952) , pp. 359 ff . 102. Apologies HI , 18; pp. 74 f . An d see also I, 9; p. 19 . 103. Se e above, chapters 5-8 . 104. Se e above, chapter 10 , section 3 . 105. Apologies HI , 15; p. 75. 106. Apologies I , 9 ; p . 19 . Joh n her e allude s t o Colossian s 1:14—15 , whic h reads, "In whom w e hav e redemption throug h hi s blood, even the forgive ness o f sins ; wh o i s th e imag e o f th e invisibl e God , th e firstborn of ever y creature." 107. Apologies III , 19; pp. 75 f . 108. I t seems t o hav e bee n Phil o who , combinin g biblica l tradition s an d Gree k philosophical speculation , se t the directio n o f wester n speculatio n o n thi s problem. Se e Harr y A . Wolfson , Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy, I (Cambridge, Mass., 1947) , pp. 295-324 . 109. Moder n investigation s o f thi s compariso n usuall y concentrat e o n late r versions. See , e.g. , Milto n C . Nahm , Genius and Creativity (Baltimore , 1956). I n Antiquity , however , th e compariso n wa s a n accepte d topos . Plato's theory of the "demiurge" in the Timaeus is the classical formulatio n in Greek Antiquity. See the brief, but interesting, excursus "God as Maker" in Ernst R . Curtius , European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (Ne w York, 1953) , pp. 544-46 .

In Defense of Images 25 1 n o . Apologies III , 20; p. 76. i n . Apologies III , 20; p. 76. 112. Se e above, chapter 10 , section 5 . 113. Apologies I , 11 ; p. 20 . 114. Th e literatur e o n this subjec t i s vas t an d no t easil y surveyed . Fo r a brie f and luci d introduction , se e Georg e Boas' s introductio n t o hi s translatio n of The Hieroglyphics ofHorapollo (Ne w York , 1950) . In greater detail th e subject ha s bee n investigate d b y Han s Blumenberg , Die Lesbarkeit der Welt (Frankfurt , 1981) . The first five chapters deal mainly with the periods of importanc e fo r th e stud y o f Joh n o f Damascus . Se e als o th e concis e presentation b y Ernst R. Curtius , European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, pp . 319-2 6 ("Th e Boo k o f Nature") . 115. Se e mainly his Legum allegoria. 116. Joh n quote s St . Basi l mainl y i n th e florilegia h e add s t o eac h o f th e Apologies. See, for instance, th e extensive quotations fro m differen t work s of St . Basi l i n John' s florilegium t o th e first Apology , pp . 3 5 ff . o f th e English translation . An d se e als o th e florilegium t o th e third Apology, pp . 91 ff . 117. St . Basil' s work , Homilia in Hexaemeron, i s bes t availabl e i n Migne , Patrologia Graeca XXIX . Fo r th e surviva l o f Gree k thought , especiall y aesthetics, in this work, se e Y. Courtonne, St. Basile et VHellenisme (Paris , 1934)118. Apologies I , n (p . 20); III, 21 (p . 77). 119. Apologies III , 21; p. 76 . 120. Apologies III , 21; pp. 76 f . An d cf. Dionysiu s Areopagita's On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchies I , 2 ; p . 19 7 o f th e Englis h translation , Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, translate d b y Colm Luibhel d (London , 1987) . See also Dionysius's On the Celestial Hierarchy I , 3; p. 146 . 121. Apologies HI , 21 ; p. 77 . I n hi s On the Celestial Hierarchy (I , 3 ; p. 146) , Dionysius also mentions a combination o f light s and odors. 122. Ever y theologica l referenc e wor k has , o f course , informativ e entrie s fo r typology. Particularly usefu l i s Leonhard Goppelt, Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen (Darmstadt , 196 6 [origina l edi tion Gutersloh , 1939]) . Eric h Auerbach' s famou s essa y "Figura," dealing with the term and the concept of "typology " in medieval literatur e and art, is available , i n a n Englis h translation , i n th e author' s Scenes from the Drama of European Literature (Manchester , 1959) . 123. Apologies III , 22; p. 77. 124. Basiliu s Studer, Die theologische Arbeitsweise des Johannes von Damaskus (Ettal, 1956) , pp. 8 5 ff . 125. Apologies II , 23; p. 67 . 126. "Bu t the law was not an image, but the shadow o f a n image" (Apologies I , 15; p . 23) .

127. Th e material ha s been collected b y J. J. Pollitt, The Ancient View of Greek

252 The

Doctrine of

the Icon

Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology (Ne w Have n an d London , 1974) , pp. 247-54 128. Apologies HI , 36; p. 87 . 129. Apologies I , 12 ; pp. 20 f . 130. Apologies III , 23; pp. 77 f . 131. Al l thes e quotation s ar e fro m Apologies III , 23 ; pp . 7 7 ff . The y ar e no t quoted i n the order in which they appear in John's text. See also Apologies I, 13 ; p. 21 .

132. I t is, of course , wel l know n tha t earl y Christia n theologian s believe d tha t Christ wa s eternall y th e Father' s Son . Sonship i s no t a matter of time , bu t of position , as it were. 133. Apologies III , 19 ; pp. 75 f . 134. Se e above , chapte r 9 , especiall y th e discussio n o f Dionysiu s Areopagita' s opinions on transcendence . 135. Apologies HI , 21; p. 76. 136. Ibid . 137. Apologies HI , 18; pp. 74 f . 138. Apologies III , 24-25; pp . 78-79 . 139. Apologies HI , 24; p. 78. 140. Se e above, especially sectio n 4 of the present chapter. 141. Apologies HI , 25; p. 79. 142. Apologies HI , 24; p. 78. 143. Apologies HI , 24; p. 78. 144. Th e literatur e on angel s is , of course , ver y large , but students d o no t focu s on th e questio n tha t concern s u s here, th e visibility o f th e bodiles s angels . But se e Jea n Danielou , Les Anges et leurs mission d'apres les Peres de VEglise (Chevetogne , 1951) . A grea t dea l o f pertinen t materia l ha s bee n collected b y Deni s Petau , De angelis, easil y foun d i n Migne' s Patrologia Graeca VII. 145. I should lik e t o refe r onc e agai n t o Ren e Roques , UUnivers Dionysien: Structure hierarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys (Paris , 1983) , esp. pp. 15 4 ff . 146. Se e above, section 2 . of th e present chapter. 147. Se e particularly th e beginning of th e florilegium t o the first Apology, p . 3 4 of th e Englis h translation ; thir d Apology , 21 , pp . 7 6 ff. , o n th e relate d subject o f shadow s an d "bodiles s things" ; an d a t th e beginnin g o f th e florilegium t o the third Apology, p. 91. 148. Apologies HI , 25; p. 79. 149. Se e above, section 4 of th e present chapter. 150. Homer , The Iliad xxiii , 104-7 . Fro m th e large literature dealin g with thi s subject I shoul d lik e t o mentio n onl y Ja n Bremmer , The Early Greek Concept of the Soul (Princeton, 1987) , pp. 78 ff . 151. Th e scholarl y literatur e i s no w ver y large , an d I shall mentio n onl y som e examples. See , fo r instance , Joachim Hundt , Der Traumglaube bei Homer

In Defense of Images 25 3 (Greifswald, 1935) ; an d th e interestin g discussio n i n E . R . Dodds , The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley, Lo s Angeles , London , 1971) , chapter 4. 152. Apologies III, 24; pp. 78. 153. Apologies III, 24; p. 79. 154. Apologies III, 25; p. 79.

ELEVEN

The Icon and the Doctrine of Art: Theodore of Studion

i. The Second Cycle of the Iconoclastic Debate Around th e tur n o f th e eight h an d nint h centurie s wha t i s calle d th e Iconoclastic Debate burs t fort h again . Whateve r th e change s tha t ha d occurred i n ecclesistica l polic y an d i n th e attitude s o f th e ruler s i n preceding decades , whateve r th e final "truth " proclaimed b y on e part y or the other , th e ico n di d no t ceas e t o b e a problem. Th e victor y o f th e orthodox part y ma y hav e suppresse d fo r a while explici t expression s o f iconoclasm, but , a t leas t i n intellectua l respects , question s concernin g the icon' s validit y an d trut h remaine d alive , an d continued t o agitat e people's minds. Shortly after the death of John of Damascus a new series of upheaval s se t in , an d wha t i s know n a s th e secon d perio d o f th e Iconoclastic Debate began , causing a great deal o f violenc e bot h agains t works o f ar t an d agains t thei r defenders . I n no w turnin g t o thi s lat e stage w e shall , onc e again , no t concer n ourselve s with th e socia l force s *54

The Icon and the Doctrine 25

5

or with th e politica l struggles ; a s before , w e shal l limi t ou r attentio n t o the philosophica l problem s pose d b y th e icon s o f God . Eve n i n thi s limited domain , th e secon d perio d o f th e grea t debat e produce d impor tant statements that are worthy o f th e student's attention . John of Damascus' s contributio n t o solving the problem pose d by the image o f th e divine , significan t a s i t was, remaine d i n a sense inconclu sive. No intellectua l solution , however consistent , an d convincing, coul d have ha d a conclusiv e effec t o n a grea t historica l movemen t tha t dre w its forc e fro m man y an d variou s sources , mos t o f the m no t intellectua l in nature. Bu t as we hav e jus t seen, even i n the domain o f mer e intellectual reflection John's doctrine did not solve the problems he confronted. 1 What he said about icon s called fo r continuation an d completion. Whe n the debat e flared u p again, 2 th e ne w phas e o f politica l an d socia l up heaval necessaril y als o brough t int o ne w focu s th e theoretica l issue s o f the movement , an d th e ideologica l attitude s o f th e differen t partie s involved. It goes without saying that the essential theme of the Iconoclastic Debate did not change, but the second cycle, which took place mainly in th e earl y decade s o f th e nint h century , ha d it s ow n emphase s an d versions of th e general theme. 3 Students o f th e Byzantin e worl d hav e ofte n stresse d th e ominou s conditions tha t forme d th e backgroun d o f th e secon d phas e o f th e Iconoclastic Debate . B y th e latte r par t o f th e eight h centur y Isla m wa s solidly entrenched in countries and regions that were once essential part s of th e Christia n domain , an d th e growin g powe r o f Isla m wa s castin g dark shadows o n what remaine d of th e Christian world of th e East. The three apostoli c patriarchates—Jerusalem , Alexandria , an d Antioch — were no w i n th e hand s o f th e "infidels. " T o th e nort h o f th e Byzantin e empire, th e Bulgarians , thei r rulin g clas s stil l firmly clingin g t o paga n beliefs, were perceived a s an aggressive, violent power, a threat loomin g on th e horizon . I n the west i t was th e risin g Carolingia n powe r that , i n political a s well a s in cultural respects , was t o overshado w th e world o f Eastern Christianity , an d t o shap e th e histor y o f Europ e fo r man y gen erations t o come . The shadow s coverin g th e Byzantin e worl d wer e re flected, s o historian s believe , i n th e interna l strife s an d conflict s tha t shook th e Easter n Empir e i n th e lat e eight h centur y an d durin g larg e stretches o f th e nint h century . Th e iconoclasti c them e wa s th e centra l ideological issu e around which most of the internal struggles crystallized. The centra l them e o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate , th e cor e o f wha t w e

256 The

Doctrine of the Icon

have calle d "ideologica l issues, " di d not , then , chang e radicall y i n th e course o f th e las t phase , bu t th e theologian s ha d t o adjus t t o shiftin g political an d ideological conditions . The attitude prevailin g i n Byzantine culture wa s conservative , an d peopl e wer e alway s appealin g t o th e au thority o f tradition . Almos t an y Byzantin e autho r woul d hav e agree d with Theodor e o f Studion , th e subjec t o f th e presen t chapte r i n ou r study, that "to confirm wha t has been said we would d o best to suppor t the statement with patristic testimony." 4 Bu t as happens in every culture that intend s t o stic k t o tradition , i t is , knowingl y o r not , periodicall y forced t o defin e ane w th e problem s an d t o justif y agai n th e seemingl y traditional attitudes . I n th e debat e abou t icons , th e mos t importan t conceptual development s characteristi c of th e late eighth and early ninth centuries converge d aroun d tw o themes . On e o f the m i s bes t describe d by th e questio n o f wha t precisel y th e worshi p o f icon s is . Analyse s o f ritual an d liturg y wer e formulated , subtle r tha n thos e offere d i n earlie r stages o f th e debate . Question s suc h as , wha t precisel y i s worship , an d how ca n i t b e distinguishe d fro m othe r form s o f adoratio n an d venera tion? were passionately discussed . The literature that emerged from these debates i s a lastin g contributio n t o ecclesiastica l thought . Th e othe r theme i s tha t o f th e ico n itself , o n whic h w e shal l concentrate . What , then, wer e th e specifi c question s concernin g th e icon , th e particula r variations o f th e theme , raise d i n th e secon d phas e o f th e debate , an d what were the answers given, particularly b y the defenders of icons ? In th e secon d cycl e o f th e Iconoclasti c Debat e Theodor e o f Studio n was the principal spokesman of the defenders of images. His personality, as i t come s dow n t o u s throug h th e ages , wa s probabl y no t a s multifa ceted o r fascinatin g a s that o f hi s great predecessor, John o f Damascus , though the y d o resembl e eac h othe r i n some respects . Lik e John, Theodore wa s als o deepl y involve d i n the struggle s o f hi s time . However , h e did no t liv e i n a distant countr y rule d b y Islam . Caugh t u p i n the fierce struggle between ecclesiastica l claim s and royal rule , he and his disciples had to endure several period s of persecutio n an d exile. He spent most of his lif e i n monasteries , partl y a s abbot , first in th e monaster y o f Sacca dion (Bithynia ) an d later in the monastery of Studios, in Constantinople . Modern student s se e Theodore' s mai n meri t i n hi s havin g bee n on e o f the major reformers o f th e monastic movemen t i n Eastern Christianity. 5 The "Studit e Rule " is probably th e work o f hi s disciples, bu t the principles the y reflec t ar e thos e tha t Theodor e introduce d an d supported .

The Icon and the Doctrine 25

7

Theodore himsel f compose d th e instruction s t o monk s tha t ar e no w assembled i n tw o collections , th e "small " an d th e "large " Cathecheses. Among th e principle s upo n whic h h e buil t hi s concep t o f monasticism , liturgy playe d a n importan t part . We shoul d recal l tha t i n cultures suc h as th e Byzantine , ritua l i n general , an d perhap s liturg y i n particular , were th e are a i n which mos t artisti c activities , th e drive s an d desire s t o create a rich , forma l expressio n fo r a variet y o f idea s an d emotions , found thei r place. 6 Theodore' s connection s wit h th e art s and his impac t on activities in which the aesthetic dimension i s predominant were diversified an d ha d a wid e range . H e an d hi s disciple s ar e credite d wit h introducing th e minuscul e hand , th e scrip t tha t fo r centurie s wa s gener ally use d i n copyin g Gree k texts . A centra l contributio n t o th e artisti c sphere in his culture, especially in liturgy, was his work in hymnography. The hymn s h e wrot e fo r th e Len t seaso n mad e a particularl y dee p impression.7 Theodore's majo r contributio n t o theology , th e defens e o f hol y im ages, i s also linked with thi s profound, i f only implicit , concer n with th e arts. I t goe s withou t sayin g tha t h e di d no t approac h icon s fro m w e might now cal l a n "aesthetic" point of view ; his explicit subjec t remain s theology. Ye t behin d hi s theologica l treatmen t o f image s on e senses , I believe, ho w perceptiv e h e was t o aestheti c values . Theodore's doctrina l defense o f hol y image s i s foun d i n th e thre e Refutation s o f th e icono clasts, the so-called Antirrhetici* 2. Theodore's Concepts and Terms The manne r i n whic h Theodor e o f Studio n present s hi s though t o n images indicates something of th e problems he faced, and of th e intellectual situatio n tha t wa s hi s startin g point . I t als o reflects , I believe , something o f th e dilemm a inbuil t i n our problem, a t least a s it was see n in th e earl y nint h century . The Refutations , especiall y th e secon d an d third, ar e compose d i n a for m tha t recall s scholasti c discourse ; i t i s th e form o f a well-ordered , formalize d argumen t i n whic h th e position s taken b y the sides are fully presented . Theodore juxtapose s questio n an d answer, contentio n an d criticism, th e iconoclast's—or, a s he puts it, the heretic's—statement an d th e orthodo x repl y o r counterstatement . Thi s manner of presentation doe s indee d anticipat e th e type o f discours e bes t known fro m western Scholasticism .

258 The

Doctrine of the Icon

Theodore o f Studion' s scholasti c presentatio n indicate s a n overal l tendency o f Byzantin e though t tha t wa s increasin g i n strength . A s w e have note d above , John o f Damascu s alread y show s a leaning toward s systematic ordering and formulation tha t made him one of St. Thomas's models.9 Theodore' s thought doe s no t hav e th e rang e characteristi c o f John of Damascus, and he also does not have the same intention to build a comprehensiv e system . Bu t a modern studen t wh o compare s th e writings on images by these two author s cannot help noting that the formal izing tendenc y ha d increase d i n th e text s o f th e late r writer . I n Theo dore's Refutation s on e sense s somethin g o f a legal wa y o f thinkin g an d arguing. Whateve r th e reaso n fo r thi s development , i n Theodor e o f Studion, probably more than in John of Damascus, the scholastic presentation is not only a matter of literar y form; it is a mode of thought . The scholastic for m o f presentatio n ma y have had a subtle, yet significant, impac t o n th e idea s presented, an d on wha t was emphasized. Th e desire fo r clarit y an d consistenc y ma y hav e deflecte d attentio n fro m nuances and transitions i n the positions adopte d b y the different parties , and, instead , helpe d t o cas t th e view s discussed , especiall y thos e o f th e opponents, int o hardene d molds . Suc h sharpl y articulated , immovabl e types ma y mak e th e opponents , particularl y th e iconoclast s (who m Theodore alway s call s "heretics") , appea r mor e consisten t tha n the y were in reality. The desire to mak e the opinions appea r clear and consistent i n themselves, does no t seem, however, t o have obscured fro m Theodore's min d the fact tha t the holy imag e itsel f is , in fact, a complex an d multifacete d object. Thi s on e learn s fro m hi s attempt s t o refin e th e categorie s fo r discussing th e natur e o f th e image . I t is particularly th e terminolog y h e uses that bears important testimony t o this awareness. The rang e of Theodore' s terminology , whic h i s wider tha n tha t use d by previous generations, indicates that he did distinguish shades or facets in th e concep t o f th e image . Hi s vocabular y contain s mor e tha n on e generic ter m tha t doe s not , however , cal l t o min d an y particula r aspec t or quality of th e icon. The term he most commonly use d to designate the holy imag e is, of course "icon" (eikon). Anothe r term, best translated by "likeness" (homoioma), almos t equall y broa d i n meaning , i s almos t a s frequent. Thes e tw o term s ar e generic , an d thei r validit y i s wide . I n addition, however, Theodore also uses some other terms that in the great debate wer e les s commo n a s designation s o f th e holy image . Wa s thei r

The Icon and the Doctrine 25

9

meaning mor e limited ? Wer e the y intende d t o evok e particula r aspect s of th e image ? The answe r i s no t easil y given . Th e moder n translato r treats the m a s " a serie s o f approximat e synonyms." 10 Som e o f thes e terms ar e borrowe d fro m th e vocabular y o f ancien t Gree k philosophy ; others hav e perhap s a less elevate d origin . I shal l briefl y revie w ou r author's major terms. Sometimes Theodore use s the term eidos t o designate th e holy image . No othe r ter m ha s a s venerabl e a history a s eidos; i t was tim e honore d even befor e i t was canonize d b y Plato . Theodor e use s i t i n th e sens e o f visible "appearance, " an d since the term i s derived fro m th e root "see, " he i s faithfu l t o it s origina l meaning . I t kep t thi s meaning , whic h i t already ha d i n Homer , i n th e literar y tradition. 11 Th e moder n studen t should remembe r tha t i n Theodore' s usage , nothin g o f a subjectiv e nature i s intended . Eidos i s no t a n "idea " i n th e artist' s imagination , a stage i n th e evolvin g icon , somethin g initia l an d unfinished , a s i t were . On th e contrary , wit h thi s term , a s wit h th e others , h e describe s th e completed image , visibl e i n al l it s parts , thoug h i t ma y b e th e imag e residing in our mind. Another traditiona l ter m ou r autho r use s t o describ e th e imag e i s typos. Now , usuall y translate d a s " a blow " o r "th e mar k o f a blow, " the ter m ha s give n ris e t o a n interestin g an d illuminatin g discussio n among modern scholars. 12 As we hav e seen i n the former chapter , typos was alread y employe d b y Joh n o f Damascu s t o describ e a clas s o f images.13 Bu t the meaning attache d t o th e term is altogether differen t i n the texts by John an d by Theodore. To John of Damascu s thi s word ha s the sens e o f a genera l Christia n symbolism . I n hi s usage , "type " i s th e technical ter m tha t designate s th e hidde n relationshi p betwee n th e Ol d and th e Ne w Testament . Theodore' s usag e i s altogethe r different ; h e does no t eve n sugges t thi s particula r aspec t tha t John ha d i n mind . H e employs th e ter m t o describ e th e imag e a s such, b e i t a material image , an ico n painte d o n a piece o f board , o r a n imag e dwellin g i n th e mind , but on e tha t w e se e clearly . Wha t h e ma y hav e bee n emphasizin g b y using this particular term is the close dependence o f th e image—painte d or imagined—o n th e metaphysica l original , th e clos e affinit y o f imag e to prototype, like the impression of a seal to the seal itself. Still anothe r ter m that Theodore employe d t o indicate the holy imag e is morphe, an d he did s o perhaps mor e frequentl y tha n other author s of his time . Morphe i s no w commonl y translate d b y "form, " bu t "form, "

i6o The

Doctrine of the Icon

as has correctly bee n pointed out, 14 i s an ambiguous concept . The Latin forma replace d tw o Gree k terms , eidos an d morphe. Eidos perhap s emphasized th e aspec t o f orderin g th e part s o f a structure , tha t is , o f proportion an d symmetry , an d therefore coul d als o mor e easily b e use d in an abstract sense (althoug h the root of th e word, as I have just said, is "see"). Scholar s ar e no t altogethe r agree d a s t o wha t i s stresse d b y th e term morphe i n classical Greek . Som e believe tha t it is "applied primar ily t o visibl e forms," 15 whil e other s thin k tha t i t carried , eve n i f only vaguely, th e connotatio n o f comprehensiveness , o f "comprehensiv e form " or th e "for m o f th e whole." 16 I t i s no t fo r m e t o decid e whic h o f th e readings i s the mor e accurat e one . Fo r our purpose i t is sufficient t o say that, i n eithe r case, th e ter m morphe evoke d th e sens e o f a visuall y perceptible presence. We ar e no t surprise d t o com e acros s th e ter m schema i n Theodore' s discussion o f images . A s w e hav e see n i n th e previou s chapter , John o f Damascus, o n who m Theodor e s o heavil y relied , als o use d thi s ter m t o designate a n image. 17 I n briefly commentin g o n John's us e of th e term, I have already sai d that schema probabl y originate d i n a domain differen t from th e lofty region s of philosophical speculation ; in the early stages of its history i t may have had some perceptible link s with workshop vocabulary, an d a t leas t t o som e people' s mind s i t ma y hav e suggeste d a compositional devic e or pattern. Finally, Theodor e refer s t o th e imag e b y th e wor d character. Thi s term, perhap s eve n mor e tha n schema, a t leas t i n it s initia l stages , definitely ha d a material connotation. As one knows, character originally meant a "seal, " or rathe r th e "imprin t o f a seal." What i t immediatel y called t o min d wa s therefor e th e sea l itsel f o r it s impression—bot h material, tangibl e objects—an d perhap s als o th e proces s o f imprintin g the sea l o n th e wax . I n th e contex t o f th e Iconoclasti c Debat e th e sea l and its impression acquire d a clear metaphorical meaning , intelligibl e t o every reade r o r listener . Wha t i t indicate d wa s tha t th e impressio n reproduces exactl y th e configuratio n o f th e sea l itself . I n othe r words , the us e of thi s term i n our context showe d th e belie f tha t the icon i s (o r at least , ca n be ) a faithfu l renderin g o f th e prototype . Theodor e o f Studion himsel f make s this clear, 'i s no t every imag e a kind of sea l an d impression bearin g i n itself th e proper appearanc e o f tha t after whic h i t is named?" he rhetorically asks. 18 We shall com e bac k t o thi s statemen t in a different context . Her e i t shoul d onl y b e considere d a s a confirma -

The Icon and the Doctrine 26

1

tion o f th e meanin g th e ter m character bore ; i t i s th e meanin g o f th e image as a true and faithful depictio n o f th e prototype. Without tryin g t o investigat e Theodor e o f Studion' s vocabular y ( a task tha t woul d g o beyon d m y competence) , on e ca n understan d th e problem tha t thi s ric h vocabular y poses . Th e differen t term s use d t o describe the same object, eve n if no t use d consistently, poin t to differen t aspects o f th e image ; the y attest , a s I have alread y said , to ou r author' s sense of th e icon's complexity . There i s a tensio n betwee n th e attemp t t o gras p everythin g i n clea r and consistent categories , o n th e one hand , an d the sens e of th e object' s complexity, o n th e other . Thi s tensio n mark s Theodore' s intellectua l position i n general , an d wha t he , an d othe r defender s o f images , sai d about the holy icon.

3. Trends and Themes in the Second Cycle Having briefl y indicate d som e feature s o f Theodore' s personality , I should also mention some of th e intellectual conditions in which our author had to make his contribution t o justification an d defense o f th e holy icons . The secon d phas e o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate , on e ma y say , ha s a character o f it s own. T o b e sure, conflicting tendencie s an d a somewha t fluid, frequently changing terminology ma y account for a certain conceptual haz e tha t make s i t difficul t fo r th e moder n studen t t o se e clearl y what i t wa s tha t characterize d th e lat e phas e o f tha t grea t historica l altercation, th e Iconoclasti c Debate . Moreover , i n th e secon d stag e o f the debat e neithe r th e essentia l theologica l proble m no r th e basi c atti tudes adopte d b y th e partie s diffe r radicall y fro m thos e w e encountere d in the earlier stages . There i s indeed a significant continuity , bot h i n the core proble m an d i n th e principa l attitudes , throughou t th e histor y o f iconoclasm an d the struggles against it. Historians hav e noted, however , certain difference s betwee n th e earlier and the later stages of th e debate. The difference s note d ar e bot h o f tone— a mor e restraine d styl e o f disputation i n th e late r stage—an d o f emphasis—stressin g certai n theme s in the traditional subjec t matter that in the earlier phases remained mor e in the background. 19 Som e problem s even seem to be new. Onc e agai n I shall disregar d th e man y issues , events, an d opinions tha t are importan t for politica l an d othe r reasons ; I shall concentrat e onl y o n th e subject s

262 The

Doctrine of the Icon

that may shed some light on such views on holy images as are of interes t to the present investigation. The difference i n tone, to begin with this point, is best seen in the fact that i n th e second stag e o f th e debate th e iconoclast s di d not accus e th e defenders o f icon s o f engagin g i n simpl e idolatry . "W e refrai n fro m speaking of image s as idols," the Council o f 81 5 decreed , "because there are degrees of evil." 20 It was probably only in the lower strata of society, in popula r propaganda , tha t th e worshipper s o f icon s wer e accuse d o f crude idolatry . Th e literar y arguments , thos e tha t hav e com e dow n t o us, wer e carrie d o n b y mor e educate d people , som e o f a highl y elitis t culture. A s a rule , th e writte n argument s wer e mor e sophisticate d an d intellectual tha n thos e o f th e earlie r stages . Th e greate r refinemen t an d sophistication ha d a n obviou s impac t o n th e specifi c content s o f th e debate, o n wha t precisel y wa s discussed . I t is no t surprisin g tha t prob lems an d aspect s o f th e traditiona l subjec t matte r tha t remaine d les s articulated i n the earlier stages of th e debate now becam e manifest . The subjects that during the second period of th e Iconoclastic Debate dominated th e controversie s ove r th e statu s o f icon s wer e mainl y tha t cluster of opinion s and beliefs that go under the label of the "Christological argument. " Concentratio n o n thi s argumen t ha d man y results ; on e of them was a transformation o f th e very concept of the holy image. In the lat e eight h an d earl y nint h centurie s th e Christologica l theme , and particularl y it s implication s fo r th e visua l renderin g o f th e sacred , stand ou t with clarit y an d distinction . Th e argumen t itself , o f course , i s not new . Throughou t th e age s th e imag e o f Chris t wa s discusse d a s a problem o f dogmati c theology . Sinc e th e beginnin g o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate, thi s particula r "argument " agitate d th e mind s o f believers , bu t it was mainly in the later stages of the movement that it became a matter of passionat e dispute . Althoug h th e them e i s old , whe n w e loo k a t th e conclusions arrive d a t i n th e secon d stag e o f th e grea t controvers y w e find new an d significan t development s tha t ar e o f interes t eve n fo r th e modern student of art. During th e first perio d o f th e grea t debate , th e ful l weigh t o f th e Christological argumen t was felt only at the end, when it was considered a final justificatio n o f images. 21 I n the secon d phas e o f th e controvers y the Christologica l argumen t wa s brough t u p righ t fro m th e beginning , and it soon becam e the central them e of al l theoretical deliberations . Put in its crudes t form , th e argument i s simple enough : since Chris t becam e

The Icon and the Doctrine 26

3

a man , h e ca n b e portraye d a s an y othe r man . I t was wit h a discussio n of thi s argumen t tha t th e secon d stag e o f th e controvers y began . T o outline th e well-known history , w e mus t g o bac k t o the yea r o f John o f Damascus's death . I n 75 4 th e empero r Constantin e V , Copronymus , convened a church council with the aim of confirming a new iconoclasti c policy. Th e empero r himsel f addresse d th e council. 22 I n th e domai n o f theory, or theology, on e o f hi s aims was t o sho w tha t the Christologica l argument cannot serve as a justification o f holy images. On the contrary, a prope r understandin g o f Christolog y show s tha t a tru e portrai t o f Christ is altogether impossible, and that all icons are therefore deceptive . The moder n studen t o f th e arts , alway s concerne d wit h th e questio n of whethe r th e invisibl e ca n b e represente d i n painting , wil l find th e conclusions accepte d b y th e council , a s wel l a s th e fragment s o f th e emperor's address , interesting . "Sata n seduce d th e peopl e t o worshi p creatures [man-mad e idols ] instead of th e Creator," so begins the Council's "definition " (horos). 23 Afte r condemnin g "th e unlawfu l craf t o f painters," whic h "b y th e deceitfu l operatio n o f colo r draw s awa y th e human min d fro m th e servic e whic h i s sublim e an d befit s th e Divinity , to th e bas e an d materia l servic e o f creatures, " th e member s o f th e council turne d to what wa s fo r them th e central question , namely , wha t does a proper understanding of Christ' s nature really imply for assessin g the icon' s truth ? They wer e agree d tha t al l th e Father s believe d an d th e ecumenical council s confirme d wa s that , i n the well-known formulatio n of Chalcedo n (451) , Chris t wa s "i n tw o nature s withou t confusion , without change , withou t division , withou t separation." 24 Student s o f ecclesiastical histor y hav e show n that , particularl y i n th e cours e o f th e earlier centuries , th e Chalcedo n formul a wa s understoo d i n differen t ways, an d thu s gav e ris e t o variou s "heretic " readings. 25 N o wonder , then, tha t th e iconoclasti c Counci l o f 75 4 proceede d t o giv e wha t it s members though t wa s th e correc t interpretatio n o f tha t famou s formu lation. It i s wort h ou r whil e t o carefull y rea d a t leas t part s o f th e decisio n adopted. Afte r reiteratin g th e basi c assumptio n tha t th e tw o nature s o f Christ must not be confused, th e decision reads, What, then , i s th e senseles s concei t o f th e painte r o f foolishnes s who , ou t o f wanton greediness, for profit practices what should not be practiced, namely the depicting, with profane hands, of those things which are believed with the heart and confesse d wit h th e mouth ? Suc h a perso n mad e a n imag e an d calle d i t

264 The

Doctrine of the Icon

"Christ." The name of Christ means God and Man. Hence, it is a picture of God and Man , an d consequentl y i n renderin g th e create d flesh he foolishl y als o depicted th e Godhea d tha t canno t b e represented , an d h e therefor e confuse d what shoul d no t b e confused . H e thu s committe d a double blasphemy : onc e because he wished to represent the divine, and secondly because he confused the divine with the human.26 The purely theological problem s do not concern us here. I should only like t o sa y that , followin g thi s controvers y with th e min d o f a moder n student wh o wishe s t o understan d th e riddl e an d limitation s o f mimeti c art, one clearl y sense s tha t wha t wer e bein g debate d i n the council, an d decreed i n th e horos, wer e no t only issue s o f dogmati c theology . I f w e disregard th e theological vocabulary , an d extract th e questio n discusse d from th e doctrina l framewor k withi n whic h i t wa s treated , i t i s no t difficult t o see that, whatever else may have been involved in the dispute, implicitly i t dealt with th e subject of th e power o f image s an d its limits, and with the question of wha t an icon's "truth" actually means. Leaving aside fo r a moment th e historical framewor k o f ou r discussion, I should like t o sa y tha t w e ma y perhap s believ e tha t w e understan d ho w th e human figure, tha t is , a materia l an d circumscribe d body , ca n b e ren dered i n a picture, bu t the iconoclasts , a s stated i n the horos her e under discussion, asked , ho w ca n th e divine nature , tha t is , a natur e tha t i s neither materia l no r circumscribed, b e represented? T o a certain extent , this question applie s to a wide domain of th e mimetic arts. Almost every true wor k o f ar t attempts , i n on e wa y o r another , t o represen t bot h bodily, materia l an d intangible , spiritua l natur e (an d a modern studen t can see "divine" nature as belonging to the intangible and spiritual). The council itsel f wa s not concerned wit h problem s of aesthetics , but behin d its argument s ther e i s mor e tha n jus t th e questio n o f th e powe r an d limits of th e icon. Students of ar t here discover a cardinal questio n fro m their own province . The horos o f th e Counci l o f 75 4 ma y perhap s no t b e considere d a document o f Theodore' s immediat e environment . Simpl e chronologica l reasons woul d see m t o spea k agains t it : he was bor n five years after th e emperor Constantin e V convened th e council . Nevertheless , I believe, i t is appropriate to see the iconoclastic decision of Hierer a as an important —perhaps eve n a central—documen t o f th e overal l intellectua l condi tions Theodore encountered . Th e lon g reig n o f Constantin e V lasted til l 775. Th e emperor' s "radica l theology" 27 wa s a legac y tha t wa s no t

The Icon and the Doctrine 26

5

easily overcome i n the last part of th e eighth century. The questions tha t prevailed i n th e theoretica l reflection s o f severa l decade s wer e thos e inspired by Constantine V . The iconoclasti c legacy , a s formulate d b y th e Counci l o f 75 4 an d supported b y man y late r statements, consiste d no t only o f explici t state ments, bu t als o o f half-articulat e suggestions . T o on e o f thos e vaguel y hinted theme s o f reflectio n w e mus t her e direc t ou r attention . W e mus t remember tha t th e iconoclasti c attitud e toward s ar t wa s no t altogethe r negative. Th e ecclesiasti c an d politica l leadershi p di d no t rejec t ar t a s such; i t wa s th e validit y o f onl y on e specifi c branc h o f ar t tha t wa s questioned, o r outrigh t denied : th e divin e image . Whil e th e iconoclast s rejected th e image s o f Christ , th e Virgin , an d th e saints , an d though t that pictoria l depiction s o f event s narrate d i n th e Gospel s shoul d b e excluded, the y readil y admitted , defended , an d eve n activel y advance d the decoratio n o f churc h an d palac e (an d perhap s als o privat e houses ) with pictorial rendering s of secula r themes. Many writings, collected and studied b y moder n scholars, 28 attes t t o th e fac t tha t th e iconoclast s favored secula r decoration , ofte n (i f w e ar e t o believ e th e texts ) eve n replacing holy icon s and sacred scenes by such worldly depictions . Afte r the Counci l o f 754 , say s a tex t writte n i n 806 , "whereve r ther e wer e venerable image s o f Chris t o r th e Mothe r o f Go d o r th e saints , thes e were consigned t o the flames o r were gouged out or smeared over. If, o n the other hand, there were pictures of trees and birds and senseless beasts and, in particular, satanic horse-races , hunts, theatrical an d hippodrom e scenes, these were preserved with honor and given greater lustre." 29 The same tex t say s late r tha t Constantin e V "converte d th e churc h int o a storehouse o f frui t an d a n aviary: fo r h e covered i t with mosaic s [repre senting] trees and all kinds of bird s and beasts, and certain swirls of ivy leaves, [enclosing ] cranes , crow s an d peacocks." 30 A late r text , writte n in the tenth centur y a t the behest of Constantin e VII , relates that durin g iconoclastic rul e "hol y picture s wer e take n dow n i n al l churches , whil e in their stead beast s an d birds were set up and depicted, thus evidencin g his [th e iconoclast's] beastly an d servile mentality." 31 These text s d o no t explicitl y refe r t o "religiou s art " or "secula r art. " These term s were no t employed, eithe r by iconoclasts o r by iconophiles . In the theological, theoretica l disput e betwee n th e two parties , however, this conceptual distinctio n was clearly foreshadowed. 32 I n earlier periods we ofte n find th e encounte r betwee n th e representatio n o f paga n an d

266 The

Doctrine of the Icon

Christian themes . I n Byzantiu m o f th e sixt h an d sevent h centurie s w e have man y legend s tellin g o f th e image s o f mythologica l figures bein g replaced b y th e image s o f Christia n saints. 33 Bu t thes e legend s refe r t o the art of tw o religions ; eighth-century Byzantine s coul d perceiv e of th e image o f Aphrodit e a s pagan an d demonic , bu t the y di d no t perceiv e i t as "secular. " I t wa s th e secon d phas e o f th e Iconoclasti c Debat e tha t introduced th e concept, thoug h no t th e term, of a secular art , that is, of an art that is not religious at all, that (if I may use the term) is religiously neutral. Th e distinctio n betwee n religiou s an d secula r ar t wa s on e tha t no later discussion o f icon s could ignore. It is still very much with us. 4. Theodore's Reply to Iconoclastic Arguments These, then , wer e th e problem s tha t Theodor e o f Studio n ha d t o face . How di d h e answe r th e question s raised , an d ho w di d h e dea l with th e arguments presented? Before w e embar k o n a n analysi s o f Theodore' s views , w e shoul d outline th e precis e them e o f hi s thought . A s h e neve r referre d t o a distinction betwee n religiou s an d secula r art , hi s onl y them e i s th e im ages of Chris t and, to a much lesse r degree, of th e Virgin and the saints. The same attitude we hav e already foun d i n John of Damascus, 34 bu t in Theodore's writing s i t i s mor e clearl y visible . Lik e Joh n o f Damascus , Theodore o f Studio n deal s wit h question s tha t n o studen t o f ar t woul d even think of , suc h as , what is the proper definition o f worship , what do the different categorie s of veneration, adoration, and worship mean, and for whom , fo r whic h saints , i s eac h categor y appropriate? 35 Wher e h e treats th e hol y imag e a s such , th e Christologica l argumen t form s th e center of hi s reflections. T o show tha t the pictorial renderin g of Chris t is in principl e impossible , an d tha t therefor e th e ico n i s misleadin g an d sinful, th e iconoclasts, a s we remember, presented the defenders o f icon s with th e well-know n theologica l dilemma : Christ , accordin g t o th e ac cepted doctrine , ha s tw o separat e natures , a divine an d a human. Bot h natures ar e essentia l t o Chris t th e incarnat e god , bu t the y mus t no t b e confounded, s o that they become one single nature; they ought to remain distinct fro m eac h other . Applie d t o th e questio n o f painte d icon s thi s means tha t on e o f Christ' s natures , th e bodil y one , ca n b e portrayed , while th e other , th e divine , i s altogethe r beyon d th e reac h o f portrayal .

The Icon and the Doctrine 26

7

Now, i f yo u assum e tha t i n Chris t th e divin e natur e wa s completel y melted wit h th e human , bodil y nature , s o tha t th e portraya l o f Christ' s bodily shap e als o full y reflect s hi s divin e essence , yo u migh t conclud e that a prope r portraya l o f th e redeeme r i s indee d feasible . Suc h a n assumption, however, would involve a grave heresy, known as the heresy of Monophysitism . Shoul d you, on th e other hand, assume that the ico n portrays onl y Christ' s human nature , yo u woul d no t only invalidat e th e icon as a full an d appropriate portraya l o f Christ , but would, moreover , be committin g anothe r heresy , tha t o f separatin g th e Savior' s tw o na tures, a heres y know n a s Nestorianism . I n eithe r case , th e iconoclasti c party concludes, a pictorial renderin g of Chris t is unacceptable fo r theological reasons . Theodore of Studion did not explicitly quote this dilemma,36 but from his argumentatio n i t follow s tha t t o th e dilemm a presente d b y the icon oclasts h e replie d wit h a dilemm a o f hi s own . I f w e clai m tha t Chris t cannot be portrayed because he is not like every other human being, that is, h e lacks a full-fledged huma n nature , we ar e guilty of anothe r heres y that playe d a significan t par t i n earl y Christia n thought , th e heres y o f Docetism.37 Docetism , t o pu t i t briefly , hel d tha t Chris t neve r cease d being God ; h e assume d huma n shap e onl y i n appearanc e (hi s sufferin g therefore bein g illusionary) . Shoul d we, o n th e other hand , assum e tha t Christ canno t b e depicte d becaus e i n hi s perso n th e tw o nature s full y merged, s o that actuall y onl y one natur e obtained, w e would b e back a t the heresy of monophysitism. The claim that Christ cannot be portrayed, it turns out, i s not les s heretical tha n th e clai m t o th e contrary, namely , that a portrayal of hi m is totally beyon d our powers. His confrontin g th e theologica l dilemm a o f th e opponen t part y wit h a counterdilemma o f hi s own migh t creat e the mistake n impressio n tha t Theodore of Studio n was a thinker who replace d fundamenta l problem s of religiou s realit y wit h technica l distinction s o r contradictions . Thi s i s not so . H e sa w th e contradiction s i n religiou s realit y itself , and , i n fact , he wa s aware , a s wer e fe w theologian s o f hi s time , o f th e fragilit y an d precarious stat e of ou r beliefs, an d of th e dialectical, paradoxica l natur e of centra l dogmas , includin g th e belie f tha t Chris t ca n b e portrayed . Describing ho w "becaus e o f Hi s [God's ] grea t Goodnes s on e o f th e Trinity ha s entere d huma n natur e an d becom e lik e us, " he say s o f th e Incarnate Christ,

268 The

Doctrine of the Icon

There is a mixture of the immiscible, a compound of the uncombinable; that is, of th e uncircumscribabl e wit h th e circumscribed , o f th e boundles s wit h th e bounded, of the limitless with the limited, of the formless with the well-formed.38 And h e conclude s thi s sentenc e with th e statement , "whic h i s indee d paradoxical."39 It is precisely the paradoxical natur e of the Incarnation that Theodore of Studion makes into the very foundation o f the holy image. Continuin g the sentence just quoted, he says, For this reaso n [tha t is, because of th e paradoxical mixtur e of th e immiscible] Christ is depicted in images, and the invisible is seen. He who in His own divinity is incircumscribable accept s th e circumscription natura l t o His body . Bot h natures ar e reveale d b y th e fact s fo r wha t the y are : otherwise on e o r th e other nature would falsify what it is. 5. Different Concepts of the Image So fa r I have trie d t o indicat e th e theologica l basi s o f Theodore' s doc trine o f th e icon ; w e no w tur n t o wha t h e say s o f th e hol y ico n itself . Theodore's theor y o f th e image , a s w e hav e note d severa l times , i s altogether embedde d withi n th e mol d o f traditiona l reflection s o n th e subject. I shall attemp t t o sho w that , i n fact , ne w idea s ar e foun d i n his text, an d that , a t leas t i n som e o f hi s conclusions , h e mad e manifes t what ha d bee n hidde n o r dorman t i n th e traditiona l reflection s o n th e subject. Tw o o f th e theme s tha t he , lik e s o man y othe r theologians , intensively discussed , ar e o f specia l significanc e fo r ou r study . On e o f these concerns the relationship betwee n th e image and its prototype; the other i s th e final definitio n o f th e image . I shall briefl y analyz e eac h o f these separately. Theodore of Studion , it has been said, 40 perhaps more than any other theologian o f hi s time , wholeheartedl y accepte d th e view s concernin g the relationship betwee n prototype and image that were common durin g late Antiquity an d the early Middle Ages in the Greek East. These belief s and concept s h e applie d t o Christia n theologica l thought . T o properl y understand th e significanc e o f wha t Theodor e her e did, w e shoul d kee p in mind i n what specifi c sens e thes e concepts wer e applied. I n the Greek schools o f th e Easter n provinces , lon g afte r the y ha d becom e Christian , it wa s commo n t o spea k abou t th e "original " an d th e "copy. " Thes e notions belon g t o th e cor e o f th e Platoni c heritag e tha t exerte d suc h a

The Icon and the Doctrine 26

9

powerful an d formativ e influenc e o n th e intellectua l lif e o f man y centu ries. The connotation s thes e terms carried there differed, however , fro m those the y ma y hav e nowadays . I n modern thinkin g abou t origina l an d copy i t i s take n fo r grante d tha t the y relat e t o eac h othe r i n a rathe r loose way. There is no necessity fo r the copy to follow fro m the original. This was no t so in the theological though t o f th e period we here have in mind. Betwee n origina l an d copy, i t was generall y accepted , a necessary relationship prevails. This belief ha d a particular bearing on the problem of th e icon . I t wa s perhap s no t a matte r o f chanc e tha t thi s proble m became s o prominen t an d manifes t i n th e cours e o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate, an d tha t th e defender s o f icon s particularl y ha d recours e t o it . There i s a n interestin g developmen t i n th e view s o n thi s particula r question that pertains to our subject. While the general theme of origina l and cop y i s b y fa r to o larg e fo r u s t o review , w e ma y mak e som e observations o n one specific aspec t of it . John o f Damascu s believed , o f course , tha t ther e i s a n intimat e con nection betwee n th e origina l an d th e copy , betwee n th e prototyp e an d the copy . Readin g hi s texts , however , on e canno t hel p feelin g ho w h e hesitates t o stat e plainly tha t the copy i s necessary fo r the prototype, or , in other words, that without having a copy, or rather producing one, the prototype canno t b e wha t i t is . Wha t h e doe s i s t o emphasiz e tha t prototype an d imag e ar e linke d i n a dialectical manner : they are , at th e same time, both identical with , and different from , each other. 41 In th e particula r subjec t o f th e relationshi p betwee n origina l an d copy, Theodore of Studio n takes an additional step ; it is one that proved to b e o f grea t consequenc e fo r th e reflectio n o n images . H e explicitl y states tha t th e imag e necessaril y follow s fro m th e prototype . H e come s back t o thi s subjec t severa l times , especiall y i n the thir d Refutation , th e most systemati c o f th e three . "Th e prototyp e an d th e imag e belon g t o the category of relate d things," we here read. 42 Lest his statement no t be fully understood , h e emphasizes tha t "the prototype an d the image hav e their being, a s it were, in each other." 43 S o basic is this interdependenc e that th e on e exist s for th e other : "Fo r th e archetyp e th e imag e an d th e image fo r th e archetyp e exists , appears , an d is venerated." 44 Moreover , it i s eve n essentia l fo r th e image , tha t is , fo r th e copy , t o b e a materia l object. T o a n iconoclast' s objectio n Theodor e make s th e orthodo x an swer: "However , i t i s no t admissibl e t o cal l somethin g a prototype i f i t does not have its image transferred int o some material." 45

270 The

Doctrine of the Icon

Theodore's vie w tha t the imag e follows fro m th e prototyp e i s clearl y seen i n th e exampl e h e bring s t o explai n th e process : i t i s th e bod y casting a shadow. I n metaphors th e shadow ca n have the connotation o f lacking in full reality . So, for instance , h e protests that "the shadow an d the trut h ar e no t th e sam e thing." 46 Usually , however , th e "shadow " evokes th e clos e connection , th e inseparabl e link , wit h th e bod y castin g it. "I f th e shado w canno t b e separate d fro m th e body , bu t alway s subsists along with it, even if it does not appear, in the same way Christ's own imag e canno t b e separate d fro m Him, " he say s a t th e ver y en d o f his Refutations. 47 Wha t he goes on sayin g clearly suggest s his belief tha t the shado w someho w dwell s i n the body , an d i t is th e bod y that , unde r certain conditions, casts it upon the outside world. I t is precisely becaus e the shado w follow s fro m th e hol y bod y tha t i t ca n wor k miracles . Therefore Theodor e credit s th e shadow o f th e cross with th e abilit y "t o burn up demons." 48 To understan d ho w th e genera l principl e o f a necessar y relationshi p between th e origina l an d th e cop y applie s t o ou r subject, th e holy icon , we no w hav e t o tur n to th e othe r them e o f specia l significance , namely , to th e questio n o f wha t precisel y Theodor e understoo d b y "image. " Here, I believe , a n origina l contributio n t o aestheti c though t ma y b e found. Modern historica l researc h has treated the views on what an icon is tha t prevaile d i n th e centurie s o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate a s i f the y were altogethe r independen t o f th e differen t camp s an d th e differen t stages o f th e debate . Twentieth-centur y student s wh o investigate d th e early Christia n an d Byzantin e approache s t o ou r subject , th e image , were, o f course , awar e o f th e difference s i n attitude ; the y examine d rejection an d acceptance of icon s in great, and often illuminating , detail . At the same time, however, the y treated th e very definition o f th e image as i f i t di d no t chang e accordin g t o th e partie s i n th e dispute , an d th e stage of th e debate . Bu t was thi s really the case? Did , in fact , al l camps, the iconoclasts a s well a s the defenders o f images , have exactly th e same concept o f wha t th e imag e is? 49 T o b e sure, i n it s essentia l feature s th e concept o f th e imag e wa s indee d remarkabl y stabl e an d unified . Never theless, the historian ca n note, I think, tha t the opposing camp s differe d from eac h other not only i n how the y appreciated th e image, but also in what they emphasized i n the underlying common definition , a definitio n they inherite d fro m ancien t philosophy . A s a resul t o f suc h varyin g emphases, certain diverging shades of meanin g appeared i n the commo n

The Icon and the Doctrine 27

1

concept. Moreover , a s time passed an d the debate unfolded , som e inter nal development becam e manifest i n the concept of the image itself. This specific subject , o f shift s an d change s i n th e concep t o f th e image , i s worth carefu l examination . I do no t inten d t o presen t suc h a n examina tion here; that would require a study of it s own. Sinc e I am not aware of any othe r preliminar y studies , I can onl y offe r som e impressions . I shall indicate, in bare outline, what seem to me the characteristic trends in the concept of the image of both the iconoclasts and the defenders of images. It goes without saying that such a coarse map disregards the finer shades, and projects contrasts that are sharper and more distinctly outlined tha n a complex realit y would warrant . The iconoclast s neve r see m t o hav e describe d i n detai l wha t the y understood b y "image. " T o b e sure , thei r text s wer e destroyed , o r otherwise perished , an d wha t w e kno w o f thei r though t w e deriv e mainl y from th e writings o f thei r opponents. Ye t i n spite of th e distortions tha t are a necessar y resul t o f suc h a stat e o f affairs , w e ar e fairl y wel l informed abou t th e mai n line s o f thei r though t wit h regar d t o thi s specific subject . They tended to understand the image, the representatio n or portrayal o f a prototype, a s some kind of replic a of th e original. Thi s is perhaps bes t see n b y analyzin g thei r view s o f wha t a "true" image is. The criterio n fo r th e "truth " o f a n imag e i s tota l correspondence : th e true imag e correspond s t o it s prototyp e i n a s man y aspect s a s possible , ideally, i n al l aspects . Th e ver y fac t tha t th e ico n i s a materia l objec t seemed t o the m t o detrac t sufficientl y fro m th e image' s trut h t o cance l its validity . "I t i s a degradation, " Theodor e make s th e hereti c (i.e. , th e iconoclast) say , "and a humiliation, to depict Christ in material representation." 50 Materialit y itsel f i s a n obstacl e t o truthfulness . Toward s th e end o f th e thir d Refutatio n ou r autho r provide s a kin d o f summar y o f the iconoclasts ' argument : "I f ever y thin g which i s mad e i n the likenes s of somethin g els e inevitabl y fall s shor t o f equalit y wit h it s prototype , then obviousl y Chris t i s no t th e sam e a s Hi s portrait." 51 S o fa r a s w e can see , full correspondenc e betwee n imag e an d prototyp e i s th e onl y criterion tha t validate s a n imag e a s "true. " Since suc h a full correspon dence can never be achieved, a really true image is altogether impossible . The very foundatio n o f th e iconoclastic attitud e i s the view of th e imag e as a total an d precise representation o f th e original. One effec t o f thi s attitud e i s actuall y t o den y i n principl e th e ver y existence of th e image. I f you mak e complete, total correspondence wit h

272 The

Doctrine of the Icon

the prototyp e th e onl y criterio n fo r truth , th e concep t o f "image " tha t will obtain will of necessity be abstract, lacking any character of its own, any specific structur e tha t will se t it apart from wha t i t portrays. Trying to reconstruc t wha t th e iconoclast s picture d i n thei r mind s whe n the y spoke abou t images , thi s i s indee d th e impressio n on e receives . Fo r th e image as such there was in fact little room in their system of thought . Turning t o th e defender s o f icon s w e find a muc h riche r an d mor e dynamic concep t o f th e image . I should repea t tha t her e w e hav e wha t the defender s o f image s themselve s wrote , whil e with regar d t o th e iconoclasts w e hav e t o judg e o n th e basi s o f wha t thei r opponent s tel l us. In spite of this circumstance, we can be certain that even in the eighth and nint h centurie s th e iconodules ' concep t o f th e imag e wa s mor e complex than that of the iconoclasts. Problems for which the iconoclasts had n o roo m an d n o us e ar e ampl y develope d i n th e doctrine s o f th e iconodules, an d attrac t thei r mai n attention . Tw o o f thes e problems — interrelated, but not identical—are of particular significance fo r a theory of th e artistic image, and I shall briefly outlin e what they say. A central problem face d b y the defenders of icons was how t o explain that a n imag e i s bot h identica l (a t least , i n som e respects ) wit h th e prototype i t portrays, an d a t the sam e tim e altogethe r differen t fro m it . In other words, they had to explain ho w th e image captures th e essenc e of wha t i t depicts, an d yet ha s a character o f it s own. This problem di d of cours e no t exis t fo r th e iconoclasts ; t o admi t th e essentia l differenc e between prototyp e an d image to them meant to rejec t the validity o f th e latter altogether . B y insistin g tha t th e imag e ha s t o fully correspon d t o what it represents, they did not leave room fo r the image's ambivalence . To the defenders o f icon s it became a major task to show how the image can b e bot h truthfu l to , an d ye t differen t from , th e original . Non e o f them believed , i t goes withou t saying , tha t th e ico n the y wer e worshipping wa s indeed , i n a simpl e sense , identica l wit h Christ . O n th e othe r hand, the y coul d no t accep t (t o us e moder n terms ) tha t th e ico n wa s nothing but a mere arbitrary sign, a sign that could easily be replaced by a different one . The task the y set themselves was t o show that , notwith standing th e essentia l differenc e betwee n ico n an d prototype , th e tw o have some real elements in common. Reading th e principa l systemati c defense s o f image s i n th e Easter n church, one i s struck b y how muc h attention was devoted to this particular aspect. Time and again the major systematic theologians come back

The Icon and the Doctrine 27

3

to this theme. A few quotation s will illustrat e this trend. "An image is of like characte r wit h it s prototype , bu t wit h a certain difference . I t is no t like it s archetyp e i n ever y way, " sai d John o f Damascus. 52 Theodor e o f Studion, concludin g th e Byzantin e cycl e o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate , i s even mor e concerne d wit h th e dialectica l tensio n tha t i s s o crucia l i n defining th e image. Defending hi s views against iconoclast attac k he says that "Chris t i s on e thin g an d hi s imag e i s anothe r thin g b y nature , although they have an identity." 53 And a little later, trying to understand more precisely what i t means to say that the icon i s holy, he says, "Thus if on e say s tha t divinit y i s i n th e icon , h e woul d no t b e wron g . . . divinity i s no t presen t i n the m b y a unio n o f natures , fo r the y ar e no t deified flesh, but by a relative participation." 54 The image , then , b y it s ver y natur e i s a dialectical object . Explorin g that natur e force d th e defender s o f icon s t o mak e distinctions , o r t o articulate objectiv e differences . First , the y ha d t o distinguis h betwee n different type s of images, and then, even more important, between differ ent component s o f th e imag e a s such . Unlik e th e iconoclasts , the y di d not se e th e "image " as one unifor m whole , lackin g i n internal structur e and separations. The y wer e als o awar e tha t i n the minds of reader s an d listeners th e notion o f "image " carried different connotations . Thus on e has t o kee p apar t th e image a s a metapho r (suc h a s humanit y a s th e image of God ) fro m th e concrete menta l image s an d material object s w e describe b y thi s term . Eve n withi n th e limite d domai n o f concrete , objective image s the y mad e distinction s tha t ar e a significan t contribu tion t o th e understandin g o f art , an d anticipat e moder n ideas . I shal l briefly discus s two o f th e ideas thus suggested. The first distinction i s that between what we would now cal l "menta l image," what we see, or believe we see, in introspection, and the material icon, that is, the picture painted with colors on board. The mental image, as w e her e inten d it , i s no t a n abstrac t figure of speech ; i t i s a concret e appearance that has traceable shapes and specific colors, and is sensually perceived. The onl y differenc e betwee n th e menta l imag e an d the mate rial ico n i s that th e forme r exist s onl y i n ou r mind , whil e th e latte r ha s an "independent" existence i n the outside world. 55 The concer n wit h th e menta l imag e i s a characteristi c featur e o f th e intellectual worl d i n whic h th e Iconoclasti c Debat e too k place ; i t i s particularly prominen t i n th e though t o f th e defender s o f icons . Bot h John of Damascus and Theodore of Studion deal with it. John of Damas-

274 The

Doctrine of the Icon

cus places menta l image s i n the divinity itself . I n God, he says, there are "images an d models o f Hi s act s ye t t o come. " I n makin g thes e act s happen i n th e actua l world—thi s i s what follow s fro m wha t h e says — God i s lookin g a t th e imag e i n hi s mind , "jus t a s a man wh o wishe s t o build a hous e woul d first writ e ou t a pla n an d wor k accordin g t o it s prescriptions."56 Theodor e o f Studio n link s th e menta l imag e wit h th e painted icon ; it is the model w e follow i n making an actual picture. "We are taugh t t o draw, " h e says , "no t onl y fro m wha t come s int o ou r perception b y touc h an d sight , bu t als o whateve r i s comprehende d i n thought b y menta l contemplation." 57 An d i n th e ver y las t sentenc e o f his Refutation s h e speak s o f depictin g Chris t wh o "i s see n mentall y while [physically ] absent. " Woul d w e no t d o this , "eve n th e menta l vision would b e lost." 58 Two point s shoul d her e b e stressed : first, th e materia l natur e o f th e painted ico n i s acknowledge d a s a pertinent dimension , a s a realizatio n that remain s withi n th e scop e o f th e image , an d i s no t a degradation ; secondly, by making the transition from the mental image to the material icon appea r smoot h an d withou t difficulties , th e iconodul e theologian s strongly sugges t tha t th e rea l "medium " of th e imag e (t o us e a moder n term onc e again) , it s distinguishin g mark , i s th e traceabl e shap e an d discernable color . I n other words, i t is form a s such tha t constitutes th e eikon, an d tha t for m i s presen t bot h i n th e menta l imag e an d i n th e painted icon. The othe r distinctio n mad e b y th e theologian s wh o defende d th e icons, an d particularly b y Theodore o f Studion , i s even mor e significan t for th e study of art . I t is less clearly formulate d tha n th e forme r distinc tion, tha t betwee n th e menta l imag e an d th e painte d icon , an d t o sho w it as clearly as possible I shall put it briefly i n present-day words. It is the separation o f "pur e form " fro m an y individua l realizatio n i n a concret e work or vision. To see this idea clearly we must go back fo r a moment. It wa s i n th e cours e o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate , a s I hav e alread y said,59 that the simple question of wha t an image is was explicitly asked . John of Damascu s wa s th e first to put the matter in this straightforwar d way. A generatio n o r tw o later , Theodor e o f Studio n wen t on e ste p further an d raise d th e questio n o f whic h component s o f th e image , whether see n wit h th e mind' s ey e o r painte d with materials , ar e thos e that perform th e central functio n o f imaging . A moder n reade r canno t hel p bein g surprise d t o lear n tha t orthodo x

The Icon and the Doctrine 27

5

theologians aroun d A.D . 800 , defendin g th e statu s o f hol y images , tha t is, picture s execute d i n visible shape s an d tangible materials , came clos e to distinguishin g betwee n th e wor k o f ar t a s a materia l objec t an d th e form tha t i s cast into it . Their argument s an d reflections reache d a stage that mad e i t feasibl e fo r the m t o see , a t leas t i n principle , tha t i n a painted ico n o r in a vision see n with th e mind' s ey e there is, in additio n to th e specifi c line s an d color s perceived , a shap e that , i n itself , ha s a n "ideal" existence only . Tha t shape , or pure form, ca n be materialized i n different painte d o r carved icons, or in various menta l images ; it has the innate abilit y t o appea r distinctl y i n al l thes e realizations . Theodor e o f Studion di d no t se t fort h thes e idea s explicitly , and , i t goe s withou t saying, he did not dra w fro m the m th e conclusion s a modern studen t o f aesthetics would draw . To understan d hi s thought we shall hav e to loo k carefully a t what the examples he uses may tell us. The theoretica l defender s o f icons , an d quit e particularl y Theodore , were fascinate d wit h th e proces s o f impressin g a sea l o n wax . Qu a material objects , i n thei r physica l substance , th e tw o objects , th e sea l and the wax, ar e obviously differen t fro m each other. And yet the image is transferre d wit h grea t precisio n fro m on e objec t t o th e other . Wha t Theodore primaril y learne d fro m thi s exampl e i s tha t tw o object s ma y be altogethe r differen t i n thei r substance , an d stil l hav e som e kin d o f identity. Now , wha t i s i t tha t i s transferre d fro m th e sea l t o th e wax , from on e objec t t o th e other ? Obviousl y i t i s nothing material . Wha t i s transferred i s nothin g bu t form , th e configuratio n i n th e image . The example hint s tha t for m a s such , o r whateve r els e w e shal l nam e it , i s isolated, i s considere d i n itself . "I s no t ever y imag e a kin d o f sea l an d impression bearin g i n itsel f th e prope r appearanc e o f tha t whic h i s named?" h e rhetoricall y asks. 60 Eve n whe n Theodor e applie s th e ex ample o f th e sea l impressio n t o th e specifi c subjec t o f th e veneratio n o f icons, th e ide a o f th e pur e for m i s preserved . Toward s th e en d o f th e third Refutatio n w e read , "I t i s no t th e essenc e [ousia] o f th e imag e which w e venerate , bu t th e for m [character] o f th e prototyp e whic h i s stamped upo n it . . . . Neithe r i s i t th e materia l whic h i s venerated . . . . But i f th e image i s venerated , i t ha s on e veneratio n wit h th e prototype , just a s the y hav e th e sam e likeness." 61 Wha t her e emerge s ma y b e somewhat haz y i n formulation , bu t the idea i s clear: form , th e bearer of the likeness , i s ideall y detache d fro m th e individua l appearances , an d i s considered a s something in itself.

276 The

Doctrine of the Icon

The existenc e o f pur e form , detache d fro m an y specifi c matte r an d therefore transferabl e t o differen t material s wa s suggeste d i n a wide spread topos, common bot h i n Antiquity an d in early Byzantine theoretical literature , th e emperor' s image . A s w e know , th e fac t tha t th e emperor's image, cas t in different materials , still retain s an identity wit h the on e livin g emperor , fascinate d bot h paga n philosopher s an d Chris tian theologians. 62 The defender s o f icon s quoted , tim e an d again , St . Basil's statement t o the effect tha t the statue of th e emperor, calle d "th e emperor," preserve s a n identit y o f sort s i n it s variou s casts. 63 I t i s thi s identity tha t i s calle d "th e emperor, " an d tha t identit y i s on e an d th e same form . Th e topo s o f th e emperor' s imag e is , o f course , applie d t o Christ an d th e icon s representin g him . Ther e ar e man y representation s of Christ , Theodore of Studio n says, but "there is only one Christ." And he concludes , "Th e us e o f a n identica l nam e bring s togethe r th e man y representations into one form [character]" 64 Most surprisin g i s Theodore' s explici t statemen t tha t eve n whe n th e various individua l appearance s o f a form ar e not identica l i n detail , th e pure for m continue s t o exis t a s suc h an d i s recognizabl e i n it s identity . This w e lear n fro m wha t h e say s abou t th e cross , a them e discusse d several time s i n hi s Refutations . Th e recognizabl e identit y o f th e cros s does no t depen d o n th e man y materia l object s tha t depic t i t (on e coul d add, no r does i t depend o n th e many crosses imagined) . The forma l an d material details can vary, and yet the basic form remains. It is worth our while t o rea d attentivel y on e passag e statin g thi s idea . Speakin g o f th e relation of crosses to the "life-giving," original cross , Theodore says, In thi s cas e als o th e depictio n doe s no t hav e exactl y th e sam e for m a s th e archetype, in length or width or any other relationship, because it is represented differently. Crosse s can be seen small and large, wider and narrower, with blunt or shar p ends , wit h o r withou t inscription.. . . Nevertheless , i n spit e o f suc h great differences , ther e is one veneratio n o f th e symbol an d the prototype; so evidently the same likeness is recognized in both.65 One cannot hel p concluding tha t the general shap e of th e cross exists as a pure form, detache d fro m al l specific crosse s in hard materials or in the mind , an d i t i s thi s idea l cros s tha t lend s identit y t o th e individua l objects and images.

The Icon and the Doctrine 27

7

6. The Icon and the Theory of Art Not man y word s nee d b e waste d t o prov e tha t Theodor e o f Studio n di d not conside r th e picture, or the work o f ar t i n general, as an end i n itself. He di d no t eve n se e hymn s a s justifie d i n themselve s b y som e intrinsic , autonomous value . No r di d h e inten d t o compos e a philosophica l doc trine o f th e imag e a s such , detache d fro m it s use s i n th e servic e o f th e church, tha t is , a n aesthetic s o f th e visua l arts . Thi s doe s no t mean , however, that his mind was not concerned wit h certai n problems relatin g to a theor y o f art . Carefu l readin g o f hi s Refutation s doe s indee d revea l the vagu e outline s o f a doctrin e o f art , o r a t leas t som e component s o f such a doctrine . These individua l component s wer e no t ne w i n hi s time , but th e fac t tha t h e relate d the m t o eac h othe r i s a remarkabl e phenom enon o f th e histor y o f idea s i n th e earl y nint h century . I t demonstrate s that th e argumen t i n defens e o f images , regardles s o f th e specifi c moti vation o f thos e wh o undertoo k th e defense , le d the m t o a t leas t adum brate som e outline s o f a philosoph y o f art . Fo r th e studen t o f aestheti c reflection i t migh t b e interestin g t o thro w som e ligh t o n thes e hidde n outlines. That on e canno t expec t anythin g resemblin g a ful l syste m i s of course obvious t o every reade r o f Theodore' s texts . (i) The Sense of Sight Wer e w e t o attemp t a reconstructio n o f Theo dore's aesthetics of th e image (i f I am permitted t o use such a pretentiou s term) w e shoul d begi n wit h a statemen t that , i n th e historica l contex t i n which i t wa s made , ma y b e unexpected : h e emphasize s th e intrinsi c value an d significanc e o f th e sens e o f sight , an d rank s i t abov e al l othe r senses. In words tha t remin d u s of Leonardo' s famou s eulog y o f th e eye, Theodore claim s tha t th e sens e o f sigh t precede s al l th e othe r senses . Like Leonardo he compares sight with hearing. "Sight precedes hearing, " he asserts. 66 What doe s such a precedence mean ? Amon g the senses sight not onl y ha s precedenc e i n importanc e an d value ; i t precedes th e other s also i n time . W e see first an d onl y afte r tha t d o w e hear ; moreover , in som e wa y tha t remain s mysterious , sigh t i s th e origi n o f th e othe r sense perceptions , especiall y o f hearing . Th e passage , th e first sent ence o f whic h I hav e jus t quoted , reads , "Sigh t precede s hearin g bot h in th e locatio n o f it s organ s an d i n th e perceptio n b y th e senses . For on e first see s somethin g an d the n transmit s th e sigh t t o th e sens e o f hearing."

278 The

Doctrine of the Icon

The belie f i n th e superio r valu e o f sight , i t shoul d b e noted , i s o f course a traditiona l theme . I t goe s bac k t o th e famou s openin g para graph o f Aristotle' s Metaphysics. Th e senses , w e ther e learn , "are love d for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight . . . . The reason is that this , mos t o f al l th e senses , make s u s kno w an d bring s man y differences betwee n things." 67 I n Byzantin e though t o f th e tim e th e superiority o f sigh t over al l othe r senses seem s t o hav e bee n accepte d i n perhaps a small, bu t highl y educated , circle . John o f Damascu s alread y declared seein g t o b e the first of th e senses. 68 I n the second phas e o f th e Iconoclastic Debat e th e assumptio n tha t sigh t i s superio r t o th e othe r senses continued t o b e held , an d seem s t o hav e bee n accepte d b y th e leading thinker s o f th e defender s o f icons . W e hav e th e importan t testi mony o f Theodore' s contemporary , Nicephorus , th e patriarc h o f Con stantinople, wh o wa s on e o f th e theoretica l defender s o f image s i n hi s time. In his Refutations o f th e iconoclasts h e also elevates sight above all other senses. At the beginning of his third Refutation h e praises sight for leading u s directly t o wha t w e experience . Sigh t i s therefore mor e effec tive than hearing. Bein g able today to see the life-giving tre e of th e cross makes u p fo r th e fatefu l "seeing " of th e tre e of th e knowledg e o f goo d and evil i n Paradise. 69 I t was, however , Theodor e o f Studio n who mad e the priority of sigh t a matter of theologica l doctrine . Theodore wa s no t a Leonardo; to prov e th e superiorit y o f sigh t ove r the other senses, he does no t loo k a t nature but invokes the authority o f the Bible . Isaia h first sa w th e Lor d sittin g o n th e thron e o f glory , an d only the n did he hear the six-winged seraphi m praising him (Isaia h 6:1) . Ezekiel (1:10 ) als o begin s b y recordin g a visual experience : h e see s th e chariot o f God . Th e Ne w Testament , too , testifie s t o th e precedenc e o f sight: th e disciple s first saw th e Lord , an d only late r di d the y writ e ou t the message. 70 (Incidentally , i t i s wort h notin g tha t withou t hesitatio n Theodore derives the written word from the spoken one, and thus relates it to th e sense of hearing. ) Howeve r fa r you go bac k i n history, yo u wil l always find that the sense of sigh t is superior to all the others. The sense of sight , Theodor e conclude s (perhap s no t altogethe r consistently) , wil l also last longer than that of hearing : 'i t i s undoubtedly necessar y tha t if the sigh t o f Chris t i s removed , th e writte n wor d abou t hi m mus t b e removed first." 71 The student of medieval theology , awar e of the dignity and symboli c connotation s carrie d b y ke y concepts , an d eve n terms , knows ho w far-reachin g Theodore' s formulatio n is . I t implies th e supe -

The Icon and the Doctrine 27

9

riority o f visio n ove r th e word . The centra l significanc e o f "Word " (logos) i n Christia n though t nee d hardl y b e stressed . T o clai m tha t the sens e o f sigh t wil l prevai l afte r th e wor d ha s disappeare d i s there fore a matter of grea t consequence. Theodore o f Studio n must have considered th e priorit y o f sigh t a matte r o f crucia l significanc e t o mak e those statements . Sigh t i s s o crucia l t o hi s min d because , a s w e shal l immediately see , i t i s th e basi s o f hi s defens e o f th e positio n o f th e icon. The concern with sight naturally leads to the question of th e object of sight, t o wha t can , o r cannot , b e seen . I t i s a questio n Theodor e coul d not avoid , a topo s tha t iconoclasti c literatur e di d no t ceas e t o discuss . Theodore treat s i t b y connectin g i t with th e grea t philosophical alterca tion of th e universal an d the individual. The general philosophical prob lem o f th e universa l an d th e individual , s o crucia l i n medieva l thought , is not our concern here . We are interested only i n what the evoking of i t in our debate may indicate about the concept of th e image. The universal an d the individual ar e grasped i n different ways : "Generalities ar e see n wit h th e min d an d thought ; particula r individual s ar e seen with th e eyes, which loo k a t perceptible things." 72 Now, i n "seein g with th e min d an d thought, " th e ver b "seeing " is employed metaphori cally; in "seeing with the eyes," it is meant literally. The object of regular sight i s th e individua l objec t o r body . Imaging , i t follow s fro m Theo dore's distinction , i s inseparabl y linke d wit h th e individua l body . I t i s the individua l trait , th e featur e tha t set s one apar t fro m th e general an d universal, that make it possible fo r us to depict somebody. Christ , Theodore says , i s n o exceptio n i n thi s respect : "I t i s no t becaus e h e i s ma n simply (alon g wit h bein g God ) tha t H e i s abl e t o b e portrayed ; bu t because He is differentiated fro m all others of th e same species." 73 Another component o f a n art theory i s the articulation o f som e of th e formal element s w e emplo y whe n shapin g a work o f art . Fo r Theodor e this means , o f course , th e shapin g o f a n icon . I t i s mainl y tw o notion s that ar e thu s discussed , eithe r openl y o r implicitly—circumscriptio n (perigraphe) an d "place " (topos). Both , a s we shal l immediatel y see , are derived from the Aristotelian influenc e tha t was fel t in the ninth century. (ii) Circumscription Circumscriptio n i s centra l amon g wha t w e her e call "formal " elements , an d i t i s als o th e concep t mos t seriousl y ques tioned an d analyze d i n th e secon d phas e o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate . I n

i 8 o The

Doctrine of the Icon

his Physics, Aristotl e speaks of "th e boundary of th e containing bod y a t which it is in contact with the contained body." 74 Aristotle did not write on paintin g an d thu s w e d o no t kno w wha t term s h e woul d hav e employed fo r contour , th e lin e tha t delimit s a figure painte d i n a pic ture.75 I n th e cours e o f time , however , th e ter m becam e synonymou s with "outline," and thus also with "circumscription" in the more limited and technical meanin g it had in the ninth century. To barel y suggest the historical contex t we should also remember that in the eighth century an Aristotelian reviva l bega n in Byzantine thought and letters, and that it is none other than John of Damascu s wh o i s considered a leading figure in initiating that movement. 76 It would b e a fascinating tas k t o trac e th e histor y o f tha t concep t o f "boundary," "outline, " an d "circumscription " throug h th e centurie s between Aristotle and John of Damascus. This cannot be attempted here. All I woul d poin t ou t i n th e presen t contex t i s tha t i n th e Byzantin e literature dealin g wit h th e icon , bot h tha t compose d b y th e iconoclast s and that composed b y the iconodules, b y the breakers of image s an d by their defenders , i t was take n fo r grante d tha t ther e i s a n identit y (o r a t least a close affinity) betwee n the "boundary" of th e body in nature and the "outline " draw n b y th e painte r o n hi s panel . S o fa r a s I know, n o Byzantine author explicitly dealt with this particular subject (and considering th e Byzantin e attitud e t o art , thi s seem s perfectl y natural) . More over, n o Byzantin e scientis t o r theologia n seem s t o hav e aske d wha t precisely "boundary" means. It is, therefore, not surprising that a certain vagueness obtains in the definitions o f th e concepts. But it is no exaggeration t o sa y tha t th e notion s o f "boundary " an d "outline " (a s her e described) were used interchangeably. I t was taken for granted that what was calle d "circumscription " (perigraphe) i s a propert y commo n t o bodies i n natur e an d figures painted i n pictures. On e canno t hel p infer ring tha t circumscriptio n thu s becam e th e ver y foundatio n o f pictoria l depiction. That circumscription wa s considere d th e very basi s and condition fo r pictorial representation is frequently state d in the documents of the great debate. Time and again it was stressed that only the circumscribed object or figure can be depicted. It is sufficient t o recall tha t John of Damascus , to mentio n onl y on e representativ e example , say s tha t "physica l thing s which hav e shape, bodie s which ar e circumscribed [perigraphen somati~ ken], an d hav e color , ar e suitabl e subject s fo r image-making." 77 Th e

The Icon and the Doctrine 28

1

divine itself , h e say s elsewhere , i s "uncircumscribe d [aperigraptou] an d unable t o b e represented." 78 I n th e earl y nint h century , however , a serious attemp t wa s mad e t o distinguis h betwee n circumscriptio n i n nature an d circumscriptio n i n art . S o fa r a s I know , thi s i s th e onl y attempt of it s kind in Byzantine thought , an d in western thought as well not many parallels can be listed. Between 81 8 an d 820 , Nicephorus , th e patriarc h o f Constantinople , completed his three Refutations of the iconoclasts (the beginning of thes e treatises goes bac k t o dispute s earlie r in the century). I n the Refutation s he severa l time s discusse d th e concep t o f "circumscription, " an d at tempted t o distinguis h betwee n circumscriptio n i n natur e an d i n paint ing, keepin g th e tw o concept s apart . H e als o use d differen t term s fo r them: circumscriptio n i n natur e h e calle d b y th e traditiona l ter m perigraphe, whil e fo r representatio n i n paintin g h e use d th e ter m graphe (which ca n als o mea n paintin g i n general) . Thi s distinction , i t seem s t o be agree d b y scholars, 79 wa s Nicephorus' s ow n contributio n t o th e theory o f images . Thoug h i t doe s no t see m t o hav e mad e a n impac t o n further thought on the subject, it deserves the attention of th e student of aesthetic thought . The context of Nicephorus's discussio n of circumscription i s the iconoclasts' belie f (probabl y wit h particula r referenc e t o th e declaratio n b y the emperor Constantine V, Copronymus) accordin g to which a n image, to b e true , ough t t o hav e a n identit y wit h th e prototype . Tha t woul d necessarily lea d t o th e conclusio n tha t a painting , havin g th e sam e circumscription a s th e rea l Christ , capture s Chris t himself , an d i n th e end, a t leas t t o les s refine d minds , is he . T o preven t thi s confusio n Nicephorus analyze s "circumscription. " Circumscription i n nature (perigraphe) i s produced b y place, time, etc. A portrait painter, on the other hand, doe s no t enclos e th e perso n portrayed ; th e perso n nee d no t eve n be present. While circumscription enclose s the person by space and time, pictorial representation is achieved by colors and pebbles (mosaic stones).80 A painting , therefore , i s related t o it s prototype , bu t i t i s no t identical with it . I n other words , th e tw o domains , natur e an d art , are relate d t o each other , bu t eac h o f the m ha s a structur e o f it s own . Nicephoru s approaches thi s stat e o f affair s fro m th e theologian's poin t o f view , bu t he i s quit e explicit: "An d t o su m up, " he say s i n the second Refutation , "neither doe s pictorial representatio n circumscrib e th e ma n even i f he is capable o f circumscription , no r doe s circumscriptio n represen t hi m pic -

282 The

Doctrine of the Icon

torially even if he is capable of pictorial representation , for each one will have it s ow n functio n [logos]."* 1 A t leas t implicitl y Nicephoru s ac knowledges ar t as a domain o f it s own. Theodore of Studio n perceives the difference betwee n circumscriptio n and pictoria l representatio n fro m nature , bu t h e doe s no t separat e th e one fro m th e other. Circumscriptio n i n the realit y aroun d u s and i n the icon w e ar e lookin g a t i s essentiall y th e same . Carryin g o n th e disput e against th e iconoclasti c heretics , h e says , 'i f ever y imag e i s a n image o f form, shape , o r appearanc e an d color , an d i f Chris t ha s al l these , . . . then H e i s portraye d i n jus t suc h a circumscriptio n i n Hi s likeness." 82 He i s awar e tha t "ther e ar e many kind s o f circumscription—inclusion , quantity, quality , position , places , times , shapes, bodies—al l o f whic h are denied i n the case of God , fo r divinit y ha s non e o f these . But Christ incarnate i s reveale d withi n thes e limitations." 83 Agai n on e conclude s that most, thoug h no t all, of thes e "kind s of circumscription " are foun d both i n natur e an d i n art . Theodor e i s close r t o Joh n o f Damascu s i n believing that the difference betwee n prototype an d icon consist s mainl y in their material nature ; the form, o r the "circumscription, " is the sam e in both. The icon "i s perhaps wood, or paint, or gold, or silver, or some of th e variou s material s whic h ar e mentioned . Bu t whe n on e consider s the likenes s t o th e original b y mean s of representation , i t is both Chris t and the image of Christ." 84 (iii) Place Th e concep t o f "place " (topos) play s a n interestin g an d ambiguous part in Theodore of Studion's submerged concept of the icon, and the art that produces icons. Topos is, of course, a notion well know n in Gree k philosoph y an d physica l science , especiall y i n th e Aristotelia n tradition.85 Aristotle , moder n student s believe , construct s "place " b y combining element s of geometr y an d matter. 86 Theodore's discussio n o f "place" i s par t o f th e Aristotelia n heritag e tha t i s o f importanc e i n hi s thought an d i n tha t o f hi s time . I n wha t h e say s abou t "place " i n th e Refutations ther e i s perhap s a departure fro m wha t th e school s taught , and it may well b e related to specific problems of painting . In Theodore's Refutation s th e notio n o f "place " lacks the philosophical distinctio n an d rigo r i t ha s i n th e philosopher' s work , bu t i t ha s a certain ambiguit y that , i n moder n terms , ma y perhap s b e calle d "cre ative." On the one hand, "place" has a scientific meaning : every person, object, or event exists, or takes place, i n a certain place an d time. When

The Icon and the Doctrine 28

3

you recor d precisely wher e an d when the body exists, or the event takes place, yo u actuall y defin e thei r natur e an d reality . Thi s i s als o tru e fo r the incarnat e Christ . Whe n w e sa y tha t Chris t wa s circumscribe d b y place, this means that he was in Nazareth o r in Jerusalem.87 In Theodore's writings , however , "place " ma y als o mea n somethin g different fro m th e real, materia l surrounding , fro m th e landscape o r the urban environment . Plac e itself , devoi d o f wha t occupie s it , ha s a n existence; it is circumscribed as a "place": "Not only the body is circumscribed, but also the place which i t contains. Onl y that which i s withou t any locatio n i s uncircumscribable , a s i t i s limitless." 88 I n thi s sense , location ha s littl e t o d o wit h place s i n the rea l world , wit h Nazaret h o r Jerusalem; i t i s the structur e o f th e spatia l extension , an d a s such i t has directions an d characteristics . Aristotle , on e shoul d remember , her e spok e of u p an d dow n a s characteristic s o f "place. " I t i s i n thi s sens e tha t Theodore believe s the body i s "bounded b y a place." 89 Now th e question, interestin g in the context o f ou r present investiga tion, arises : I s suc h a "place " als o th e spo t o n th e painting surface , o n the two-dimensional , spatia l extensio n o f th e picture ? N o positiv e an swer ca n b e given , fo r Theodor e simpl y mad e n o statemen t o n suc h a topic. Al l w e ca n d o i s t o tr y t o infe r fro m th e context s o f hi s few , scattered remarks . Bu t on e suspect s tha t h e woul d hav e accepte d tha t the spot s i n th e paintin g surfac e d o hav e a character o f thei r own . The "center" o f a painting' s surfac e migh t b e suc h a place . Thu s i n th e Refutations Theodor e describe s a pictur e i n a church , o r rathe r quote s the descriptio n b y th e seventh-centur y bisho p an d autho r Sophronius . There he saw " a great and marvelous icon, with the Lord Christ painted in colo r i n th e center ; o n th e lef t Christ' s mothe r . . . an d o n th e righ t John th e Baptizer." 90 Thes e spatia l relation s canno t b e understoo d a s relations o f tridimensiona l figures locate d i n a n empt y space , extendin g into depth ; they ar e rather relation s betwee n differen t spots , topoi, o n a flat surface . Th e spot , o r area , tha t Theodor e mentions , th e "center, " itself ha s a distinct character, resulting from what i s seen to its right and left. I t i s becaus e o f th e characte r o f th e empt y "place " itsel f tha t th e topos ca n fulfi l a functio n i n painting . Thoug h thi s reflectio n i s admit tedly hypothetical , i t wel l agrees , I believe, wit h Theodore' s min d an d with his intellectual world . The moder n student , carefull y readin g th e Refutations , canno t hel p being surprise d t o com e acros s a definition tha t i s a rudiment of Euclid -

284 The

Doctrine of the Icon

ian geometry. I n the midst of discussin g the circumscribability o f Christ , Theodore, th e earl y ninth-centur y theologia n defendin g th e worshi p o f icons, writes, " A line is a length with n o width, bounde d b y two points, from whic h a drawing begins . A figure is that whic h consist s o f a t leas t three lines. From it begins a body, which is formed fro m different figures and i s bounde d b y a place." 91 Th e ar t historia n remember s tha t i n fifteenth-century Florenc e Leon e Battist a Alberti , th e founde r o f th e Renaissance theor y o f art , bega n hi s boo k On Painting with severa l definitions take n fro m Euclidia n geometry . Albert i wishe d t o mak e th e art of paintin g a scientific enterprise , an d therefore derive d hi s concept s from th e ultimat e authorit y i n rational science , Euclidian geometry . Bu t what makes a Byzantine theologian refe r to this source? Theodore's shor t passag e raise s severa l questions , suc h a s wha t wa s the nature of his sources, and whether or not there were earlier instances of employing Euclidian definitions i n the treatment of theologica l topics . These questions nee d not detain u s here. What we are concerned with in the presen t contex t i s only wha t Theodore' s Euclidia n referenc e ma y indicate. Here , I think, tw o feature s shoul d b e mentioned . Th e first i s rather obvious. The line, which our author describes by using the Euclidian definition, i s obviously par t of th e pictorial representatio n o f Christ . Since i n th e sentence s befor e an d afte r th e shor t passag e quote d Theo dore speaks of th e circumscription o f th e incarnate Christ , he here again shows tha t he perceives a continuous transitio n fro m th e "boundary" in real nature to the "line" in the painted icon. The second point is perhaps less obvious, bu t mor e significan t fo r ou r topic . Th e primar y contex t o f the line is the surface. The drawing begins from "lines " rather than fro m "boundaries." Th e thre e lines , whateve r thei r precis e meaning , d o no t represent thre e dimensions . Theodor e i s her e thinkin g o f a flat , two dimensional surface , o n whic h alon e "lines " hav e a meanin g an d ca n appear to the eye. The flatness thu s vaguely intimated further supports, I believe, th e interpretatio n o f "place " as a spot o n a flat surface. Take n together al l thi s suggests, if I am not mistaken , tha t in Theodore's min d the characteristics o f actua l ico n painting are somehow present. We may therefore conclud e that, however veiled, Theodore's theology of the icon does no t remai n altogethe r abstract ; i t someho w lead s t o th e painte d image itself.

The Icon and the Doctrine 28 5

NOTES 1. Se e above, the last section of chapte r 10 . 2. Fo r th e so-calle d secon d cycl e o f th e Iconcoclasti c Debate , se e th e concis e survey i n A . A . Vasiliev , History of the Byzantine Empire: 324-1453 , I (Madison, Milwaukee , an d London, 1952) , pp. 283-90 . Fo r the survival o f the iconoclasti c attitud e muc h ca n b e learne d fro m Geor g Ostrogorsky , Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreits (Breslau , 1929 ; re print Amsterdam , 1964) , esp . pp . 4 6 ff . Fo r anothe r religiou s context , th e so-called Paulicians , see L. W. Barnard, The Graeco-Roman and the Oriental Background of the Iconoclastic Controversy (Leiden , 1974) , pp. 10 4 ff . 3. Fo r concis e survey s o f th e ideologica l issue s characteristi c o f th e secon d cycle o f th e Iconoclasti c Debate , se e Edwar d J . Martin , A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy (London , 1930) , pp . 184-9 7 (Chapte r 10 : "Th e Theology of the Second Iconoclasti c Period"); and Hans Georg Beck, Kirche und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaften, 12 . Abteilun g 2 . Teil , 1 . Ban d (Munich , 1959) , pp . 303-6. 4. Theodor e th e Studite , On The Holy Images, translate d b y Catharin e P . Roth, I I (Crestwood, N.Y. , 1981) , 18 . Fo r furthe r bibliographica l informa tion, see below, note 8 . 5. Al l historie s o f th e Iconoclasti c Debat e discuss , t o som e extent , hi s work s and activities , bu t I am no t awar e of an y moder n monograp h o n Theodor e of Studion . See , however , Alic e Gardner , Theodore of Studium: His Life and Times (London, 1905); and the concise presentation by John Meyendorf f, Byzantine Theology (Ne w York , 1983) , pp . 4 6 ff . Erns t Benz , The Eastern Orthodox Curch: Its Thought and Life (Garde n City , N.Y. , 1963) , p . 91 , describes him as "a key figure in the history of Orthodo x monasticism. " 6. Theodor e assume d fou r basi c principle s o f monasti c life : obedienc e t o th e abbot, constant work, persona l poverty , and an intensive liturgical life. 7. I n the earl y nint h century , th e monaster y o f Studio n wa s th e very cente r o f ecclesiastical poetry ; these were the years in which Theodore wa s the abbo t of th e monastery . Se e Kar l Krummbacher , Die Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich , 1891) , p. 322 . 8. Th e Gree k tex t o f th e Refutation s i s foun d i n volum e I C o f J . P . Migne , Patrologia cursus completus, Series Graeca (Paris , 1856) . Recentl y a n En glish translatio n ha s appeared, which I am using in the present chapter. See St. Theodor e th e Studite , On The Holy Icons, translate d b y Catharin e P . Roth (Crestwood , N.Y., 1981) . 9. Se e above, chapter 10 , sections 1 , 2. 10. Se e Catharin e Roth' s introductio n t o he r translatio n (se e above , not e 8) , especially p . 15 . Theodore's terminolog y fo r the ritua l (o r general religious )

286 The

Doctrine of

the Icon

response to icons, she thinks, is consistent, especially th e distinction betwee n latreia (worship ) an d proskynesis (veneratio n i n general). I I . Th e literatur e o n eidos, "idea, " i s immense , eve n onl y wit h regar d t o im agery, an d ther e i s n o sens e i n tryin g t o revie w it . Fo r a concise revie w o f the principa l philosophica l meanings , se e F . E . Peters, Greek Philosophical Terms: A Philosophical Lexicon (Ne w York , 1967) , s.v. "eidos, " with selec t references. Pertinen t to what thi s concept mean t to reflection o n art , though only i n a genera l way , i s th e classi c stud y b y Erwi n Panofsky , Idea: A Concept in Art Theory (Ne w York , 196 8 [origina l Germa n edition, Leipzig , 19*4])12. A goo d surve y o f th e disput e amon g moder n scholars , mainl y philologist s and archeologists, concernin g th e meanin g of typos i n ancient Greek though t and languag e i s give n b y J . J . Pollitt , The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology (Ne w Have n an d London , 1974) , pp . 284-93. Fo r th e meanin g o f th e ter m typos i n Christia n symbolism , se e above, note 120 . 13. Se e above, chapter 10 , section 5 . 14. Se e th e entr y b y W . Tatarkiewicz , "For m i n th e Histor y o f Aesthetics, " in Philip Wiener, ed., Dictionary of the History of Ideas, I I (New York , 1973) , pp. 216-25 . 15. Ibid. , p. 216 . 16. Se e Plato's Meno 79D . I use the translation b y W. K . C Guthrie (Harmond sworth, 1972) . 17. Se e above, chapter 10 , section 3 . 18. On the Holy Icons I , 9; p. 2 9 of the English translation. 19. Rathe r tha n adducin g man y historians , I shall mentio n onl y Beck , Kirche und theologische Literatur, p . 303. 20. Se e Cyri l Mango , The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1435 (Toronto , 1986), pp . 16 8 ff. , fo r a n Englis h translatio n o f th e pertinen t passages . Se e Martin, A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy, p . 184 . Se e als o th e general treatmen t b y P . J . Alexander , "Th e Iconoclasti c Counci l o f St . Sophia (815 ) an d It s Definition," Dumbarton Oaks Papers VI I (1953) , pp . 37-66. 21. Se e chapter 1 0 passim, particularly section s 1 , 3, and 6. 22. Hi s addres s ha s bee n reconstructe d i n part , an d thoroughl y discussed , b y Georg Ostrogorsky , Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreits (Breslau, 1929 ; reprin t Amsterdam , 1964) , pp . 7-45 . Ostrogorsk y recon structed the address from quotation s foun d i n Nicephorus's Refutation . Th e latter has come down t o us in its entirety. 23. A detaile d summar y o f th e decisio n ma y b e foun d i n C . J . vo n Hefele , Conciliengeschichte, II I (Freiburg, 1877) , pp. 410 ff . Ther e is also an English translation o f Hefele' s work . 24. Fo r som e o f th e source s o f thi s famou s definition , se e above , chapter s 9 and 10 .

The Icon and the Doctrine 28 7 25. Fo r a reading that can be of interes t als o fo r th e student of art , see Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Doctrine, II , The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (Chicago , i977) > P- 9*26. Th e tex t o f th e horos i s translated int o Englis h i n Stephen Gero , Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V (Louvain, 1977) , pp. 68-94 , and discusse d o n pp . 9 5 ff . Fo r a Germa n translatio n o f th e passag e her e quoted, see Hefele, Conciliengeschichte III , p. 413. 2.7. Thi s i s ho w Stephe n Ger o calle d th e emperor' s spiritua l legacy . Se e Gero' s Byzantine Iconoclasm, pp . 143-51 . 2.8. Se e especiall y Andr e Grabar , VIconoclasme Byzantin: Dossier archeologique (Paris , 1957) , pp. 143-45 , fo r a list of pertainin g documents. 2.9. Vita S. Stephani iunioris, col . 1113 . I a m usin g th e Englis h translatio n i n Cyril Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire: 312-1453 (Toronto , 1986) , p. 152 .

30. Vita S. Stephani, col . 1120 ; Mango, pp. 152-53 . 31. Theophanes Continuatus, p . 100 ; Mango, p. 159 . 32. Thi s wa s briefl y note d b y Loui s Brehier , La Querelle des images (VIH-IXe Siecles) (Paris, 1904 ; reprinted New York , 1969) , pp. 45 ff . 33. See , fo r instance , th e text s collecte d b y Cyri l Mang o i n hi s The Art of the Byzantine Empire, pp . 11 3 ff . 34. Se e above, chapter 10 , sections 4 and 6 . 35. Se e On the Holy Icons, I , 13-1 4 (pp . 3 3 ff.) ; 1 9 (pp . 3 8 ff.) ; II , 12-1 5 (4 9 ff.); 27-4 0 (pp . 59-69) ; III , 3 (pp . 102-8) . Thes e passage s ar e devote d specifically t o veneration ; i n othe r part s o f th e Refutation s th e questio n often come s up , without lengthy discussion bein g devoted to it. 36. Bu t he clearly summarizes it at the beginning of th e first Refutation (I , 3, 4). See On the Holy Icons, pp . 2 1 ff . 37. Fo r th e philosophica l basi s o f earl y Christia n heresies , se e Harr y A . Wolf son, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, I , Faith, Trinity, Incarnation (Cambridge, Mass., 1956) , pp. 57 5 ff. ; fo r Docetism, see pp. 58 7 ff . 38. On the Holy Icons, p . 21. 39. I n th e origina l Theodor e use s th e ter m paradoxon. Se e Migne , Patrologia Graeca IC , col. 33 2 A. 40. Kar l Schwarzlose , Der Bilderstreit: Ein Kampf der griechischen Kirche um ihre Eigenart und Freiheit (Gotha , 1890 ; reprin t Amsterdam , 1970) , pp . 180 ff . 41. See , fo r instance , wha t h e say s i n th e thir d Apology , chapte r 16 ; On the Divine Images, pp . 73 ff . 42. On the Holy Icons, p . n o . 43. On the Holy Icons, p . n o 44. On the Holy Icons, p . 112 . 45. On the Holy Icons, p . 112 . 46. On the Holy Icons, p . 31. 47. On the Holy Icons, p. 113 . And see also the discussion by Schwarzlose, p. 181.

288 The

Doctrine of

the Icon

48. On the Holy Icons, p . 35. 49. O n thi s subject , se e Geor g Ladner' s importan t study , "Th e Concep t o f th e Image i n th e Gree k Father s an d th e Byzantin e Iconoclasti c Controversy, " Dumbarton Oaks Papers VI I (1953), pp . 1-34 ; reprinte d in Georg Ladner, Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies in History and Art (Rome, 1983) , pp . 73-111 . I shall refe r t o thi s stud y i n th e latte r edition . Ladner, too , emphasize s th e commo n element s i n th e differen t version s o f defining the image rather than the diverging features . 50. On the Holy Icons, p. 26 . 51. On the Holy Icons, p . 102 . 52. On the Divine Images I , 9; p. 1 9 of th e English translation. 53. On the Holy Icons, p . 31. 54. On the Holy Icons, p . 33. 5$. S o fa r as I know, w e hav e n o investigatio n o f th e psychological doctrin e o f the Churc h Fathers , especiall y i n th e Gree k East , tha t woul d discus s thi s problem. I n defining th e menta l imag e an d i n makin g som e generalization s as t o it s emergence an d meanin g i n th e writing s o f th e earl y Father s o f th e Church, I hav e thu s t o rel y o n impressions , whic h certainl y shoul d b e amplified, an d are in need of verification . 56. On the Divine Images I , 19 ; pp. 1 9 ff . o f th e English translation . A similar passage occurs in John's Third Oration (HI , 19; pp. 75 ff.) . 57. On the Holy Icons I, 10 ; p. 31 of th e English translation. 58. On the Holy Icons III, D, 13 ; p. 11 4 of the English translation. 59. Se e above, chapter 10 , section 3 . 60. On the Holy Icons I , 9; p. 28. 61. On the Holy Icons III , C 2; p. 103 . 62. I should lik e to mention agai n the recent study b y S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge , 1984) , esp . pp. 17 0 ff . An d se e als o th e stil l interestin g wot k b y Kennet h M . Setton , Christian Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century (Ne w York , 1941), esp. pp. 19 6 ff . 63. Se e John of Damascus, On the Divine Images I, 21; p. 29. And see Theodore of Studion, On the Holy Images I , 9 (p. 28); II, n (pp . 48 ff.) . 64. On the Holy Icons I, 9; p. 29 . The italics are mine. 65. On the Holy Icons III , C 5; p. 104 . 66. On the Holy Icons III , A 2; p. 78. 67. Aristotle , Metaphysics I , 1 ; 98 0 a 2 4 ff . I use th e translatio n b y McKeo n (New York , 1941) . 68. I n hi s De fide orthodoxa, 1 8 (Migne , Patrologia Graeca XCIV , col . 933