Tempted to Touch: Tactility, Ritual, and Mediation in Byzantine Visuality

T h e M e d i e v a l A c a d e m y o f A m e r i c a

Everyone interested in the Middle Ages is invited to join the Medieval Academy of America

MEMbEr bEnEfitsbullensp Speculumensp the internationally acclaimed journal of medieval studies

bullensp PublicationenspDiscounts Members receive a 30 discount on the publications of the University of Chicago Press Members may subscribe at a discount to the online International Medieval Bibliogra-phy Iter and ACLs Humanities E-book with its collection of over 3300 monographs

bullensp JSTORenspDiscount Members may receive a 50 discount on JPAss ( JstOrrsquos individual access plan)

bullensp AnnualenspMeetingenspthe Academyrsquos annual meeting is a major international conference of medieval stud-ies held each spring Members receive the call for papers and a discount on registration

bullensp MedievalenspAcademyenspNews the monthly digital newsletter of the MAA with announcements of inter-est to medievalists and feature stories on the activities of the MAA and its members

bullensp MedievalenspAcademyenspBlog the MAA blog reports activities of interest to medievalists including con-ferences calls for papers fellowships prizes job openings exhibitions lectures summer programs workshops and symposia

bullensp MemberenspDirectory An international directory of the Academyrsquos members with profiles is available online to all MAA members

bullensp MedievalenspDigitalenspResources the MAA is developing a database of vetted digital resources

bullensp Awards three awards are presented annually for outstanding work published in a medieval field the Haskins Medal for a distinguished book the John nicholas brown Prize for a distinguished first book or monograph the Van Courtlandt Elliott Prize for a distinguished first article

bullensp SupportenspforenspJuniorenspandenspUnaffiliatedenspScholars the Olivia remie Constable Awards support research by junior adjunct and independent scholars for members who hold doctorates but are not in full-time faculty positions travel Grants provide support to present work at conferences

bullensp BookenspSubventions the Academyrsquos book subvention program provides up to $2500 to university or other non-profit scholarly presses to help support the publication of first books by Academy members

bullensp GraduateenspStudents Academy support now tops $100000 per year to learn more about dissertation grants and fellowship opportunities visit the MAA website wwwMedievalAcademyorg

bullensp CentersenspandenspRegionalenspAssociations the Committee on Centers and regional Associations (CArA) serves as a forum for medievalists concerned with teaching administering centers and programs and organizing meetings

MEMbEr CAtEGOriEsbullensp ActiveenspMemberensp$100ndash175ensp(dependingensponenspsalaryensplevel)

bullensp ContributingenspMemberensp$150ndash225ensp(dependingensponenspsalaryensplevel) Payment of this rate makes possible reduced rates for student unemployed and retired members

bullensp SustainingenspMemberensp$200ndash275ensp(dependingensponenspsalaryensplevel) Established members of the profession who support the work of the Academy $50 of this rate is treated as a gift

bullensp RetiredenspMemberensp$60 Members who elect to pay reduced dues after retirement Honorary life mem-bership dues-free may be requested by members of 35-years standing who are emeriti or retired

bullensp IndependentenspScholarenspUnemployedensporenspPart-TimeenspEmployedenspMemberensp$60 reduced rate for indepen-dent scholars and partially or unemployed members

bullensp Studentensp$30 reduced rate for students

bullensp JointenspMemberensp$40ensp($25enspforenspstudents) surcharge for an additional member at a single residence both members retain separate memberships with full privileges but share one copy of Speculum

ToenspjoinensptheenspMAAensporenspforenspmembershipenspdetailsenspseeenspourenspwebsiteenspwwwenspMedievalAcademyorg

TheenspMedievalenspAcademyenspofenspAmerica17 Dunster street suite 202 Cambridge MA 02138 617-491-1622

S P E C U L U MA J o u r n a l o f M e d i e v a l S t u d i e s

J U L Y 2 0 1 6

SP

EC

UL

UM

Vol 91 N

o 3J

UL

Y 2

01

6

This content downloaded from 128195068230 on June 15 2016 143340 PMAll use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (httpwwwjournalsuchicagoedut-and-c)

Tempted to Touch Tactility Ritual and Mediation in Byzantine Visuality

By Ro land Betancour t

While acknowledging Byzantiumrsquos possession of competing antique and postanshytique theories of vision Byzantine historians have often favored a theory in which sight has the ability to physically touch the image as if kissing and embracing its surface an idea developed in primary sources through metaphors and literary tropes This is a model of extramission a theory of sight wherein the eyes emit rays that graze the body of the object and return to the viewer for the enabling of perception thus making vision a species of touch and an active rather than passhysive manner of engaging with visual culture It has often been taken for granted that Byzantium favored the theory of extramission despite the preservation of other classical theories according to which sight emerges from the emission of rays from both viewer and object from the emission of images from objects themshyselves or from various permutations of both Weaving together metaphor science and philosophy haptic extramission has projected itself as an allshyencompassing theory of visual perception wherein viewer and object are not distinct entities but linked as one through the intimate tactility of sight

Elsewhere I have surveyed ancient and lateshyantique sources on perception to argue that the modern understanding of the language of touch emerges from a conflation of the sensory and perceptual processes as a result of which the haptic language of cognition has been ascribed to visual sensation There I have likewise suggested that despite a wide variety of visual theories that rely on models of inshytromission (wherein the eye receives emissions coming from the object of vision) extramission and variants thereof the one thing these various theories relied on was the fact that sight could not be thought of as a form of touch1 This article seeks to contextualize these findings by considering the ritual practices of icon and relic veneration as well as the levels of mediation enabled by this synesthetic language in Byzantine sources

The goal of this article is twofold On the one hand it provides readers with a careful analysis of the language of early Christian and Byzantine writers on vision and its relationship to touch culled from a variety of areas putting religious thinkshyers in dialogue with classical and lateshyantique perceptual theorists In seeking to address the problem of Byzantine visuality an expansive and nonhomogenous category this article focuses specifically on the key authors of the iconoclastic period John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite alongside the church fathers to consider the role of tactility and sight in relation to the practices of veneration of icons relics and the Eucharist On the other hand the essay investigates how and why the historiographic predilection for the theory of haptic sight developed

1 See Roland Betancourt ldquoWhy Sight Is Not Touch Reconsidering the Tactility of Vision in Byzanshytiumrdquo Dumbarton Oaks Papers 70 (forthcoming)

Speculum 913 (July 2016) Copyright 2016 by the Medieval Academy of America DOI 101086686939 0038shy713420169103shy0003$1000


Tempted to Touch 661

Speculum 913 (July 2016)

in artshyhistorical writing since the midshy1990s to the present By considering the influential arguments for the image in the ldquoera before artrdquo as one bereft of mediashytion in exchange for presence I argue that modern scholarsrsquo theory of Byzantine haptic sight strove to instill in the Byzantine viewer a striking alterity to our own modern understanding of optics and the image alike The conceit here is that neither the Byzantine history of vision nor its modern historiography can be conshysidered in isolation for they are one and the same since the articulation of the Byzantinesrsquo visuality has always been construed in accordance with the ontology ascribed to their images and the assumed agency of their viewers

The Art Historiansrsquo Gaze the Byzantinesrsquo Visuality

In 2000 Robert S Nelsonrsquos groundbreaking essay ldquoTo Say and to See Ekphrashysis and Vision in Byzantiumrdquo raised the theory of haptic extramission to a privshyileged position in the history of Byzantine art and culture2 When Nelson favored extramission he was not merely favoring a possibility afforded by the archive but also favoring a visuality appropriate to contemporary ontologies of the imshyage at the time of his essayrsquos publication3 This leads us to consider then the historiographic causes and effects that a specific structuring of visuality has had on the ontology of the image and vice versa In 1999 for example the historian of modern art Rosalind Krauss delivered her landmark lecture later published as ldquoA Voyage on the North Seardquo Art in the Age of the Post-Medium Condition a book that attempted to rehabilitate the faltering notion of medium specificity in art history4 In this volume Krauss worked against the midshycentury critic Clemshyent Greenbergrsquos idea that modern art thrived on tactics of medium specificity and medium reflexivity which stressed the flatness of the paintedshypicture plane and the opticality alone of the visual arts5 Krauss moves beyond the Greenbergian reduction of medium to the mere physical material support of the work of art (ie paint on canvas) in order to consider the concept of a medium as a condition of possibility the system of rules guidelines and training that enables the artistic production of form to become perceptible as such As Krauss suggests medieval guilds enabled specific mediums to emerge through the specialization of skills rather than specialization in a material support itself even if at times such skill sets coincided or clustered around similar materials Yet Krauss expands this furshy

2 Robert S Nelson ldquoTo Say and to See Ekphrasis and Vision in Byzantiumrdquo Visuality before and beyond the Renaissance Seeing as Others Saw ed Robert Nelson (Cambridge UK 2000) 143 ndash 68

3 See for example the focus on touching given in an essay by James Hall and others in a volume devoted to the question of presence which emerged from a conference held in 2000 by the Associashytion of Art Historians at the University of Edinburgh James Hall ldquoDesire and Disgust Touching Artworks from 1500 to 1800rdquo in Presence The Inherence of the Prototype within Images and Other Objects ed Rupert Shepherd and Robert Maniura (Burlington VT 2006) 145ndash 60

4 Rosalind Krauss ldquoA Voyage on the North Seardquo Art in the Age of the Post-Medium Condition (London UK 2000) See also Rosalind Krauss Under Blue Cup (Cambridge MA 2011)

5 See Caroline Jones Eyesight Alone Clement Greenbergrsquos Modernism and the Bureaucratization of the Senses (Chicago 2006) See also Clement Greenberg ldquoTowards a Newer Laocoonrdquo The Col-lected Essays and Criticism vol 1 ed John OrsquoBrien (Chicago 1988) 23ndash37


662 Tempted to Touch


ther to consider how the definition of medium has been expanded to encompass a variety of different structures and concepts that have enabled individual artists to pursue and produce their own artistic projects For example Krauss argues that for Ed Ruscha the medium is the automobile In his artistrsquos book Every Building on the Sunset Strip (Los Angeles 1966) the automobile operates as the generashytive condition of possibility that enables the work of art to emerge Thus Ruscharsquos medium is not the camera or even the artistrsquos book but rather the generative condition that makes it all possible the car that drove him down the Sunset Strip and delineated the projectrsquos unfolding By reformulating the medium as an episteshymological field for the generation of art Krauss urged the field to consider what other strategies and systems of artistic production and reception could be said to enable the articulation of the artwork implicitly the artwork both postshy and preshymodern This coincided in medieval art history however with an inverse trajecshytory as an opposition to the ldquoera of artrdquo through the work of Hans Belting took hold in the early to midshy1990s There the icon came to mirror desires for the startling alterity of the premodern image as the bearer of unmediated presence

For Hans Belting the end of the cult image and the rise of the era of art ocshycurred precisely when the image lost its utilitarian power and gained a medium6 He describes the emergence of art following the Protestant Reformation in the following terms ldquoThe image henceforth produced according to the rules of art and deciphered in terms of them presents itself to the beholder as an object of reflection Form and content renounce their unmediated meaning in favor of the mediated meaning of aesthetic experience and concealed argumentationrdquo7

Therefore Beltingrsquos premodern (cult) image is the image that renounces the onshytic status of the medium one that is made fully manifest through reshypresentation rather than representation The loss of unmediated presence and the rise of an admiration for the formal elements of images are evident in the discourses of the iconomachy of the eighth and ninth centuries in Byzantium In a special volshyume of Gesta in 1995 devoted (implicitly) to a consideration of Beltingrsquos thesis Charles Barber precisely argued that Byzantium approximated a notion of art in this period His article tellingly entitled ldquoFrom Image into Art Art after Byzanshytine Iconoclasmrdquo faithfully follows Beltingrsquos thesis in its reading of the iconophile writings of Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople Barber demonstrates that within the ldquoera before artrdquo there are pockets of resistance that counter Beltingrsquos monolithic and teleological narrative Nikephoros viewed the icon as a work of art because it was in Barberrsquos own words ldquono longer an image that can be conshysidered as the one it reshypresentsrdquo8 Over the course of iconoclasm ideas shifted in Byzantine thought so that notions of presence were rejected in exchange for what Barber calls a ldquoformalist readingrdquo one focused on the relationship between the

6 See Roland Betancourt ldquoMedieval Art after Duchamp Hans Beltingrsquos Likeness and Presence at 25rdquo Gesta 551 (2016) 5ndash17

7 Hans Belting Likeness and Presence A History of the Image before the Era of Art (Chicago 1994) 16

8 Charles Barber ldquoFrom Image into Art Art after Byzantine Iconoclasmrdquo Gesta 341 (1995) 5ndash10 esp 7




icon and its archetypemdashthat is focused on a semiotic theory concerned with the relationship between signifier signified and referent With this argument Barber cleverly circumvented Beltingrsquos thesis on Beltingrsquos own terms For it is precisely the acquisition of a state of mediation that rends art from the cult image While Krauss and Belting follow different trajectories both understood that what was currently at stake with the artwork was the issue of its medium and that meshydiumrsquos mediation Therefore one can argue that the privileging of extramission in the medieval field at large emerged primarily from a historiographic desire to see the premodern Byzantine image as a site of full and unmediated presence in the wake of Beltingrsquos influential argument where the unmediated contact with the imagersquos signifiedmdashor rather in this context the referent itselfmdashwas reified into the medieval imagersquos visuality

In an attempt to distance artshyhistorical discourse from patterns of artistic inshytention and focus on reception theory the haptic visuality of the Byzantine icon enabled a tacit suppression collapse and erasure of the medium in keeping with current historiographic trendsmdashthat is the rise of visual studies in its various culshytural and physiological permutations and the broader moves from epistemology in the 1980s and toward phenomenology in the early 1990s The production and enforcement of a haptic theory of extramission however also enabled a broader philosophical synthesis between the utility of the cult image and the gaze of the viewer uniting into one force both the era of artrsquos spectatorship and the cult imshyagersquos numinous presence

It is unsurprising then that many of the texts marshaled in defense of haptic extramission come from around the iconoclastic period when a clarification of the ontology of the image and its perception was being theorized and clarified Observing the importance of the iconomachy on visuality Nelson offers two quotes from John of Damascus as crucial evidence for the commonality of tactile extramission in posticonoclastic culture As he writes

During and after Iconoclasm many arguments in support of religious images assumed extramission Visual theory provided a seemingly natural or scientific defense of the sense of sight and the concomitant legitimacy of the object seen that is the icon For example John of Damascus takes for granted that his audience shares the notion of extramission when he asks about an icon ldquoShall I not embrace (περιπτύξομαι) with my eyes and lips that which is a wonder to the angels rdquo And again when he advocates regarding icons that we should ldquoKiss (ἀσπάζεσθι) [sic ] them with the eyes the lips the heartrdquo9

However Nelsonrsquos turn to John of Damascus speaks just as much to the period of Nelsonrsquos writing as it does about Byzantine visuality The focus on the writings of John of Damascus bears witness to a very particular moment given that the article does not address at all the equally important work of Theodore the Studite and the patriarch Nikephoros which in the past fifteen years have gained popushylarity over that of John of Damascusrsquos image theory For instance it should not be overlooked that Nikephoros was an Aristotelian and used Aristotelian physics to support his image theorymdasha point that challenges rather than supports the claim

9 Nelson ldquoTo Say and to Seerdquo 153




for haptic extramissionrsquos prevalence in Byzantium10 Aristotle was not only close to the intromissionist camp but also a staunch proponent of the mediation of the transparent (τό διαφανές) between seer and object Likewise Theodore the Studite is careful to deploy sight and touch together throughout his treatises on icons but without confusion so as to stress the intertwined (but not confused) haptic and optic practices of veneration

Looking closely at two representative excerpts from John of Damascusrsquos treashytises on icons we find that in Nelsonrsquos citation the translation has rendered a meaning quite distinct from that found in the original text The imperative that one should ldquokiss them with the eyes the lips the heartrdquo appears four times in Johnrsquos textmdashtwice in Treatise 210 and repeated in 39 The full passage in which they appear reads as follows

But since everything said about them is true and the purpose is the glory of God and of the saints glorified by him and our salvation and the overthrow and disgrace of the devil and his demons all these we venerate and embrace and kiss with eyes and lips and cleave to in the heart likewise the whole of the Old and New Testaments and the words of the holy and select Fathers but the shameful and filthy and unclean writing of the accursed Manichees and Greeks and of the rest of the heresies we spit out and reject as containing lies and emptiness devised for the glory of the devil and his demons and their delight even though they contain the name of God So also in the matter of images it is necessary to search out the truth and the purpose of those who make them and if they turn out to be true and upright promoting the glory of God and his saints and inspiring virtue and driving away vice and leading to the salvation of souls then to accept and honor them as images and copies and likenesses and books for the illiterate and to venerate and kiss them with eyes and lips and cleave to them in the heart as a likeness of God incarnate or of his Mother or of saints who shared in the sufferings and the glory of Christ and were conquerors who overthrew the devil and the demons and their error but if anyone dare to make an image of the immaterial and incorporeal and invisible and formless and colorless divinity we reject them as false11

10 Ibid 15411 Ἀλλrsquo ὅμως ἐπειδὴ πάντα τὰ περὶ αὐτῶν λεγόμενα ἀληθῆ εἰσι καὶ ὁ σκοπὸς πρὸς δόξαν θεοῦ ἐστι καὶ

τῶν ὑπrsquo αὐτοῦ δοξαζομένων ἁγίων καὶ σωτηρίαν ἡμῶν καὶ καθαίρεσιν καὶ αἰσχύνην τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῶν δαιμόνων αὐτοῦ προσκυνοῦμεν καὶ περιπτυσσόμεθα καὶ καταφιλοῦμεν καὶ ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ χείλεσι καὶ καρδίᾳ ἀσπαζόμεθα ὁμοίως καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν παλαιὰν καὶ καινὴν διαθήκην τούς τε λόγους τῶν ἁγίων καὶ ἐκκρίτων πατέρων τὴν δὲ αἰσχρὰν καὶ μυσαρὰν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον γραφὴν τῶν καταράτων Μανιχαίων τε καὶ Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν αἱρέσεων ὡς ψευδῆ καὶ μάταια περιέχουσαν καὶ πρὸς δόξαν τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῶν δαιμόνων αὐτοῦ καὶ χαρὰν αὐτῶν ἐφευρεθεῖσαν ἀποπτύομεν καὶ ἀποβαλλόμεθα καίτοι γε καὶ ὄνομα θεοῦ περιέχουσαν Οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ πράγματι τῶν εἰκόνων χρὴ ἐρευνᾶν τήν τε ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὸν σκοπὸν τῶν ποιούντων καί εἰ μὲν ἀληθὴς καὶ ὀρθὸς καὶ πρὸς δόξαν θεοῦ καὶ τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ καὶ πρὸς ζῆλον ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀποφυγὴν κακίας καὶ σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν γίνονται ἀποδέχεσθαι καὶ τιμᾶν ὡς εἰκόνας καὶ μιμήματα καὶ ὁμοιώματα καὶ βίβλους τῶν ἀγραμμάτων καὶ προσκυνεῖν καὶ καταφιλεῖν καὶ ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ χείλεσι καὶ καρδίᾳ ἀσπάζεσθαι ὡς σεσαρκωμένου θεοῦ ὁμοίωμα ἢ τῆς τούτου μητρὸς ἢ τῶν ἁγίων τῶν κοινωνῶν τῶν παθημάτων καὶ τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ νικητῶν καὶ καθαιρετῶν τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῶν δαιμόνων καὶ τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν εἰ δὲ θεότητος τῆς ἀύλου καὶ ἀσωμάτου καὶ ἀοράτου καὶ ἀσχηματίστου καὶ ἀχρωματίστου εἰκόνα τις τολμήσει ποιῆσαι ὡς ψευδῆ ἀποβαλλόμεθα John of Damascus Orationes de imaginibus tres 210 (cf 39) ed P Bonifatius Kotter Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos vol 3 (Berlin 1975) 98ndash100 Modishyfied translation from John of Damascus Three Treatises on the Divine Images trans Andrew Louth (Crestwood NY 2003) 66ndash67 (29) cf 90ndash91 (39)




Nelson cropped his quotation from the second appearance of the phrase in the passage which translates as ldquoand to venerate (προσκυνεῖν) and kiss (καταφιλεῖν) them with eyes and lips and cleave (ἀσπάζεσθαι) to them in the heartrdquo Here it becomes immediately evident that this excerpt renders incorrectly the term ldquoto cleaverdquo or ldquoto greetrdquo (ἀσπάζεσθαι) as ldquoto kissrdquo which is otherwise a possible and also the modern Greek meaning of the word However here ldquoto kissrdquo is denoted by καταφιλεῖν properly On the other hand the term ἀσπάζεσθαι goes with ldquoin the heartrdquo (καρδίᾳ) Thus this should not be translated merely as ldquokissrdquo since it would be redundant to express the act of kissing in the same sentence with two different terms without having nuanced differences Dropping the καταφιλεῖν in the translation and cropping the quote simply as ldquoKiss them with the eyes the lips the heartrdquo alters and obscures John of Damascusrsquos use of parallelism ldquovenershyate with the eyesrdquo ldquokiss with the lipsrdquo and ldquocleave to in the heartrdquo This simplification causes the statement to read as a list of organs (ie the eyes the lips the heart) responsible for ldquokissingrdquo the object rather than as a diagrammatic representation of the process of veneration that the original text addresses Thereshyfore one comes to realize that John of Damascusrsquos characterization of the imagersquos veneration is not as strange as Nelson sought lacking its enchanting alterity

John of Damascus is indeed sketching out a diagram of the iconrsquos visuality here but it is not one oriented around haptic sight or even sight alone Instead it enumerates sight alongside other kinesthetic haptic and psychological steps in the practice of veneration as the process of proskynesis entails The first iterashytion of the phrase in the passage reads ldquoAll these we venerate (προσκυνοῦμεν) and embrace (περιπτυσσόμεθα) and kiss (καταφιλοῦμεν) with eyes and lips and cleave to in our hearts rdquo Here John of Damascus describes a gesture recognizable to those familiar with contemporary Orthodox practices of greeting an icon on an icon stand or screen in which the faithful approach the icon gazing at it embrace it and kiss it Rather than a direct oneshytoshyone parallelism between veneration and sight kissing and touching what John of Damascus is actually portraying is the approach toward an icon in the psychic disposition of the viewer This is both a somatic and cognitive practice as the reference to the ldquoeyes and lipsrdquo makes clear As both the phrases conclude though this process is undertaken and results in cleaving to that image in onersquos heartmdasha reference that speaks to the resulting imshypression of the iconrsquos image in the heart for future emulation As we can see here as well the paralleling of verbs suggests that καταφιλεῖν complements ἀσπάζεσθαι thus playing with the literal kissing of the icon and the spiritual cognitive kissshying with the heart This concept emerges from Byzantine perceptual theory and is echoed by various sources ranging from the ninth to fourteenth century12 As Michael Psellos discusses in his commentary on Aristotlersquos On Sense and Sensible Objects based on the popular commentary by Alexander of Aphrodisias the heart is the center of perception and linked to the organs of perception through the conshyduits of the body which pass on to the necessary parts the forms of the things seen13

12 See Betancourt ldquoWhy Sight Is Not Touchrdquo 13 On the relation between Michael Psellosrsquos theories on sensual perception and his image theory

see Charles Barber Contesting the Logic of Painting Art and Understanding in Eleventh-Century Byzantium (Leiden 2007) 61ndash98




Thus to speak of cleaving or clinging to the icon with onersquos heart alludes to the impression it makes upon the soul by visualizing in the mind and storing in the memory the image that the icon depicts In this interpretation the process that John of Damascus articulates is not strictly either scientific or religious but both Yet it is also not merely a metaphor instead it speaks to the proper psychososhymatic entanglement through which image veneration operates

It is possible to sketch out a coherent system within the treatises on the deshyfense of icons by the Damascene regarding this interlacing of sight touch and psychic disposition Elsewhere for example John of Damascus writes ldquoMany times I have seen those who long for someone when they have seen his garment greet it with their eyes and lips (ἀσπασαμένους τὸ ἱμάτιον ὀφθαλμοῖς τε καὶ χείλεσι) as if it were the one longed for himselfrdquo14 Staged here as a broader process of greeting the eyes and lips work in tandem to allude to this process of coming upon an object with an affective psychosomatic response that deploys both sight and touch in its desire for the presence of that person who is inherently absent Here this process of desiring the absent not only is in accord with his own image theory but likewise places touching and seeing alongside a process of greeting (ἀσπασαμένους) Thus it is not possible to read these two terms as speaking to a theory of vision alone but rather to a holistic process of ldquogreetingrdquo an image in the mind and heart

This separation stresses the importance of both touching and seeing in Byzanshytine ritual practices around icons a juxtaposition that is brought out in the careshyful language of Theodore the Studite Theodore like John of Damascus often deploys the senses in unison in order to articulate the paired perception of the icon through sight and touch given that each is particular to itself As Theodore writes in one instance ldquoWhen He became flesh and entered into circumscription the uncircumscribable one was seen and the intangible and invisible one became subject to bodily sight and touch (θέᾳ καὶ ἁφῇ σωματοειδεῖ)rdquo15 Here touch and sight speak to the circumscribable nature of Christ who condescended to become visible and tangible The language of sight and touch reappears throughshyout his treatises on icons precisely to stress the perceptible physicality of the incarnate Christ justifying his circumscribability in colors16 Furthermore the pairing also emerges in the treatment of ritual objects in the Old Testament in passages describing objects that were regulated through prohibitions regarding people looking at (προσβλέπειν) and touching (προσάπτεσθαι) them17 Hence this

14 Εἶδον πολλάκις ποθοῦντας ἱμάτιον τοῦ ποθουμένου θεασαμένους ὡς αὐτὸν τὸν ποθούμενον ἀσπασαμένους τὸ ἱμάτιον ὀφθαλμοῖς τε καὶ χείλεσι John of Damascus Orationes de imaginibus tres 310 ed Kotter 102 John of Damascus Three Treatises 92

15 ὡς ἐπειδὴ σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ εἴσω περιγραφῆς ὤφθη ὁ ἀπερίγραπτος καὶ θέᾳ καὶ ἁφῇ ὑποπίπτωκε σωματοειδεῖ ὁ ἀναφής τε καὶ ἀθέατος (PG 99356A) Translated in Theodore the Studite On Holy Icons trans Catharine P Roth (Crestwood NY 1981) 46 (25)

16 For example see Theodore the Studite On Holy Icons 22 23 31 33 46 72 78 79 81 83 94 (13 14 110 112 25 246 31 34 312 315 316 346)

17 Τοσούτου δεῖ τὸ καταπέτασμα ἢ τὸ ἱλαστήριον ἢ τὴν κιβωτὸν ἢ τὰ Χερουβὶμ ἢ προσβλέπειν εἶναι παντὸς ἢ προσάπτεσθαι Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὸ μὴ θεμιτὸν ἢ προσβλέπειν ἢ προσάπτεσθαι τῶν προειρημένων ἁγίων ἢ μόνον τοῦ ἱερέως πολὺ τὸ ἀνῳκισμένον κατὰ τιμὴν ὑποφαίνει ὁ λόγος (PG 99377AndashC) See Theodore the Studite On Holy Icons 65ndash66 (237ndash38)




language speaks to a clear separation of touch and sight in Theodorersquos thinking while nevertheless indicating that the two are necessarily deployed in unison for the perceptibility of Christ and the use of ritual objects alike

Theodore also eloquently demonstrates to his reader that the dynamics of sight and tactility are not relegated only to physical sensation but also apply to the mental acts of contemplation and intellection As he writes

Generalities are seen with the mind and thought (νοῦς καὶ διάνοια) particular individushyals are seen with the eyes which look at perceptible things If therefore Christ assumed our nature in general not contemplated (θεωρουμένην) in an individual manner He can be contemplated only by the mind and touched only by thought (θεωρητὸς καὶ διανοίᾳ

ψηλαφητός) But He says to Thomas ldquoBecause you have seen me you have believed blessed are those who have not seen and yet believerdquo And He also says ldquoPut your finshyger here and see my hands and put out your hand and place it in my siderdquo thus He associates perceptible things with perceptible things So Christ is perceptible tangible and visible with bodily eyes and therefore He is circumscribed18

Here we see Theodore clarifying Christrsquos comprehensibility through perception versus mental contemplation Rhetorically the passage demonstrates the lanshyguage of tangibility and visibility operating both physically and mentally alludshying not only to a physical tangibility but also to that of the mind as it grasps and understands concepts In Photiosrsquos Homily 17 where he discusses the operation of sight and hearing he likewise uses a similar technical language of grasping and drawing near to characterize the cognitive acts of mental perception with words such as πρόληψις κατάληψις ἀντιλαμβάνειν and εἵ λκυσε that suggest forms of apprehension and comprehension19 This language of tactility in terms of cogshynition is seen consistently throughout texts on cognition and memory since the lateshyantique period20 We can therefore understand why in John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite sight and touch are deployed in careful conjunction with one another to indicate acts of both visual and physical veneration since each sense contributes a sensation proper to itself21

18 Οἷς μὲν τὰ καθόλου ὁρᾶται νοῦς καὶ διάνοιαmiddot οἷς δὲ τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα ὀφθαλμοὶ οἱ τὰ αἰσθητὰ βλέποντες Εἰ οὖν τὴν καθόλου ἡμῶν φῦσιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἀνέλαβε μὴ ἐν ἀτόμῳ δὲ θεωρουμένην νῷ μόνῳ ἐστὶ θεωρητὸς καὶ διανοίᾳ ψηλαφητός Ἀλλὰ μήν φησι πρὸς τὸν Θωμᾶν Ὅτι ἑώρακάς με πεπίστευκαςmiddot μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες Καὶ αὖθιςmiddot Φέρε τὸν δάκτυλόν σου ὧδε καὶ ἴδε τὰς χεῖράς μου καὶ φέρε τὴν χεῖρά σου καὶ βάλε εἰς τὴν πλευράν μουmiddot αἰσθητοῖς αἰσθητὰ παραβαλών Αἰσθητὸς ἄρα ὁ Χριστὸς ψηλαφητὸς καὶ σωματικοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ὁρατὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο περιγραπτός (PG 99397A) Theodore the Studite On Holy Icons 83 (316)

19 Photios ΟΜΙΛΙΑΙ 230520ndash3053 ed Basileiou Laourda (Thessaloniki 1959) 170ndash71 20 See for example Peter Lautner ldquoMental Images in Porphyryrsquos Commentary on Ptolemyrsquos Har-

monicsrdquo Apeiron 482 (2015) 220ndash50 For the medieval West see Mary Carruthers The Craft of Thought Meditation Rhetoric and the Making of Images 400ndash1200 (Cambridge UK 1998)

21 Comparatively we may consider John of Damascusrsquos entry on the senses in his Expositio fidei There John describes sight as the first sense composed of the nerves of the brain and the eyes and whose primary perception is color But along with color sight can also perceive things like size and form locality the intervening space number motion texture and the composition of things Later he discusses touch stating its commonality to all living things and whose nerves come from the brain and permeate the entirety of the body This permeation means that even the other sense organs also have a sense of touch themselves After discussing the things that touch can sense as he has done with all the organs John of Damascus then states that several of these things are ldquocommon to sight and




John of Damascus clarifies the role of the senses in what is perhaps Johnrsquos most nuanced reflection on the procedural unfolding of veneration In the third treatise John writes

And just as when his brothers sold Joseph and Jacob received from them the bloodshystained coat of many colors he kissed the garment with tears and set this to his own eyes (κατεφίλησε πάντως τὸν χιτῶνα μετὰ δακρύων καὶ τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς τοῖς ἰδίοις τοῦτον

ἔθηκεν) not mourning the garment but through it thinking to kiss (νομίζων καταφιλεῖν) Joseph and hold him in his arms (ἐν χερσὶν αὐτὸν κατέχειν) so also the children of the Christians when they physically embrace (κατασπαζόμενοι τῇ σαρκὶ) the icon [of Christ] or an apostle or a martyr reckon that they honor Christ himself or the martyr spiritually (τῇ ψυχῇ νομίζομεν ἀσπάζεσθαι)22

John eloquently recounts how the garment is ldquokissedrdquo (κατεφίλησε) with tears and eyes yet this observation is careful not elide touch and sight the garment is kissed ldquowith tearsrdquo (μετὰ δακρύων) tears here in the plural genitive going with μετὰ whereas the act of seeing is depicted by the act of putting the garment up to the eyes in the indirect object dative (τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς τοῖς ἰδίοις τοῦτον ἔθηκεν) Yet as John continues the garment itself is not that which is receiving these actions but rather the absent person that is being represented in the mind so as to make one thinkmdashldquothrough itrdquo (διrsquo αὐτοῦ)mdashthat one is kissing him (νομίζων καταφιλεῖν) and holding him in onersquos arms (ἐν χερσὶν αὐτὸν κατέχειν) This phrase is deployed precisely as a justification for the icon which like the cloak is not itself the object of devotion but rather leads cognition towards the absent one What this implies is that even if one were capable of kissing the icon with the eyes one would not have any greater contact with the divine given that the icon is merely the manishyfestation of something that is absentmdasha site of desire that only the imagination of the mind can mediate alongside sight As Charles Barber eloquently cautions us in the closing chapter of his volume on iconoclasm and Byzantine image theory ldquowe should not conceive the icon as a selfshyeffacing doorway that opens upon another place but rather as a signpost whose insistent presence directs us elsewhererdquo23 The likeness in the icon leads and directs one toward the divine yet it is the earthly matter of the physical icon whose presence confronts viewers as they

touchrdquo (Κοινὰ δὲ ἁφῆς καὶ ὄψεως) but ldquoit is by sight rather than touch that these things [ie nearness of a body and number] are perceivedrdquo (Τούτων δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἁφῆς ἡ ὅρασις ἀντιλαμβάνεται) John of Damascus offers no indication that sight operates as a form of touch He only speaks to their overlapshyping commonalitiesmdashas he also does with taste and touch smell and hearing Hence it is possible glean an understanding as he says in the last sentence of the entry that perceptibles appear to the senses proper to themselves (ἰδίοις αἰσθητοῖς) Thus his statements are likewise in teaching with the lateshyantique and patristic sources which while using analogies and comparisons between the senses nevertheless do not confuse their operation See John of Damascus Expositio fidei 218 in P B Kotshyter Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos vol 2 (Berlin 1973) 32

22 Καὶ ὥσπερ Ἰακὼβ δεξάμενος παρὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τὸν χιτῶνα τὸν ποικίλον ᾑμαγμένον ὅτε ἐπίπρασαν τὸν Ἰωσήφ κατεφίλησε πάντως τὸν χιτῶνα μετὰ δακρύων καὶ τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς τοῖς ἰδίοις τοῦτον ἔθηκεν οὐ τὸ ἱμάτιον θρηνῶν ἀλλὰ διrsquo αὐτοῦ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ νομίζων καταφιλεῖν καὶ ἐν χερσὶν αὐτὸν κατέχειν οὕτω καὶ χριστιανῶν παῖδες εἰκόνα ltΧριστοῦgt ἢ ἀποστόλου ἢ μάρτυρος κατασπαζόμενοι τῇ σαρκὶ τῇ ψυχῇ νομίζομεν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον τὸν Χριστὸν ἢ τὸν μάρτυρα αὐτοῦ ἀσπάζεσθαι John of Damascus Orationes de imaginibus tres 179ndash80 (387) John of Damascus Three Treatises 132ndash33 (387)

23 Charles Barber Figure and Likeness On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm (Princeton 2002) 137




attempt to commune with the divine This point is driven home in the subsequent line in Johnrsquos text where he strives to further clarify by juxtaposing the physical embrace (κατασπαζόμενοι τῇ σαρκί) of an icon with the spiritual embrace that worshyshipers reckon they are doing (τῇ ψυχῇ νομίζομεν ἀσπάζεσθαι)mdashthe emphatic prefix καταshy stressing here the physicality of the greeting just as in καταφιλεῖν it transforms the abstract verb ldquoto loverdquo (φιλεῖν) into the concrete verb ldquoto kissrdquo Thus the somatic embrace characterized through the term κατασπαζόμενοι is conshytrasted with psychic embrace of ἀσπάζεσθαι as we have seen in the first passage

The juxtaposition of these two homologous words with the same root should lead one to reconsider then the rendering of hapticshyseeming terms such as to embrace (ἀσπάζεσθαι) or to enfold (περιπτύσσω) in the work of John of Damascus The double operation of ἀσπάζεσθαι stresses that the word does not simply serve as analogy or metaphor but rather has a technical weight to it that grapples with and encompasses precisely the complex and nuanced mediation of the icon in terms of human cognition and the operation of the imagination The need to embrace the icon physically and spiritually emerges because the icon is a meshydium for the representation of the person not a reshypresentation of that person In fact John of Damascus makes this evident in his florilegium where he recounts a passage from the Vita of John Chrysostom where it is written that ldquo[John] had a depiction of the same apostle Paul in an icon in a place where he used to rest And when he had finished his epistles he would gaze (ἐνητένιζεν) at it and attend to him (προσεῖχεν) as if he were alive and bless him (μακαρίζων) and bring the whole of his thoughts to him imagining that he was speaking with him in his contemplationrdquo24 Through this citation John of Damascus explains the very process that he has sketched out in the passages cited above whereby the practices of gazing (ἐνητένιζεν) embracing (προσεῖχεν) and blessing (μακαρίζων) are choreographed as distinct acts leading to the cognitive emplacement of the person into the icon so as to imagine (φανταζόμενος) that one is conversing with the person depicted there Rather than construct the icon as a site of presence or aesthetic fulfillment this passage describes the worshipper engaging in a psychoshyspiritual game of procedural and affective entanglement with the icon just as Jacob reacted when he received Josephrsquos garment Not only does this passage help to clarify John of Damascusrsquos perceptual theory but as a fragment in the florileshygiummdashoriginating from a seventhshycentury Life of John Chrysostom by George bishop of Alexandria based on the earlier version by Palladius a disciple of John Chrysostommdashthe excerpt also indicates that the process detailed by John of Dashymascus is not an idiosyncratic conception of icon veneration

Thus in the other passage in this text where such parallelism between sight and touch is constructed we come across the formula that should now be familiar ldquoShall I not depict (γράψω) in words and in colors the martyrdom of the marshytyrs and embrace with eyes and lips (ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ χείλεσι περιπτύξομαι) lsquowhat is

24 Ἦν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐκτύπωμα τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου ἔχων ἐν εἰκόνι ἔνθα ἀνεπαύετο διὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀσθένειαν βραχύ τιmiddot ἦν γὰρ πολυάγρυπνος ὑπὲρ φύσιν Καὶ ἡνίκα διήρχετο τὰς ἐπιστολὰς αὐτοῦ ἐνητένιζεν αὐτῇ καὶ ὡς ἐπὶ ζῶντος αὐτοῦ οὕτω προσεῖχεν αὐτῷ μακαρίζων αὐτόν καὶ ὅλον αὑτοῦ τὸν λογισμὸν πρὸς αὐτὸν εἶχε φανταζόμενος καὶ διὰ τῆς θεωρίας αὐτῷ ὁμιλῶν John of Damascus Orationes de imaginibus tres 161ndash62 (161) John of Damascus Three Treatises 55 (161 257 354)




wonderful to angels and the whole creation painful to the devil and fearful to demonsrsquo25 as the same beacon of the church saidrdquo26 This passage is not to be read as an argument for the unification of sight and touch but rather as a proceshydural indication of the phenomenological practice of approaching the icon first contemplating it intently and taking grasp of it in the mind and then kissing its material surface with the lips while thinking in the mind and spirit to kiss what is being represented there in material form Furthermore here the lips participate not merely in the act of kissing but also in the act of speaking going along with ldquoin words and in colorsrdquo to suggest another dimension of sensory deployment What such passages bring to bear on the scholarly conversation concerning senshysual knowledge and worship in Byzantium is therefore not to provide proof of a concept of the elision of the different senses such as sight and touch but rather the opposite their heightened specificity as inexorably unique mediums of venshyeration that must be deployed in tandem alongside one another without mixing or confusion

The Tactility of Veneration

This misleadingly synesthetic style of writing in which sight and touch would seem to be confused evidences an effort to describe the periphery of kinesthetic actions that complemented ocular worship that is popular among preiconoclastic writers as well A rhetorical language analogous to that of John of Damascus can be found in the fourthshycentury mystagogical homilies of Cyril of Jerusalem in which at first glance it would seem that Cyril as well subscribed to a haptic version of sight In Homily 5 Cyril writes on the Eucharistic sacrament describshying the proper mental and physical disposition of those approaching the rite of Communion There he carefully describes the kinesthetic properties of the rite such as placement of the hands position of the arms and bowing of the head Yet he also describes the necessary sensual and psychic outlook of the communicants who must elevate their sensesmdashas the sursum corda in the preanaphoral rites suggests27mdashso as to not taste mere bread and wine but their antitypes the body and blood of Christ Enigmatically he describes the way in which one should cup the hands when approaching the bread respond ldquoamenrdquo upon receiving it and then he instructs that one ldquowith care sanctify the eyes with the touch of the sacred body and partake taking care not to lose any of itrdquo28 Cyrilrsquos statement in this shorthand description could easily appear to entail a haptic theory of sight

25 Cf Basil of Caesarea Homily on Gordius the Martyr (PG 31501B) 26 Οὐ γράψω καὶ λόγῳ καὶ χρώμασι τὸ τῶν μαρτύρων μαρτύριον καὶ ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ χείλεσι περιπτύξομαι

ldquoτὸ θαυμαστὸν καὶ ἀγγέλοις καὶ πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει ὀδυνηρὸν δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ φοβερὸν δαίμοσινrdquo ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ φωστὴρ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἔφησεν John of Damascus Orationes de imaginibus tres 152 (147) John of Damascus Three Treatises 46 (147 243)

27 See Robert F Taft ldquoThe Dialogue before the Anaphora in the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy II The Sursum Cordardquo Orientalia Christiana Periodica 54 (1988) 47ndash77

28 Μετrsquo ἀσφαλείας οὖν ἁγιάσας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῇ ἐπαφῇ τοῦ ἁγίου σώματος μεταλάμβανε προσέχων μὴ παραπολέσῃς τι ἐκ τούτου Cyril of Jerusalem Cateacutechegraveses mystagogiques ed Pierre Paris 2nd ed (Paris 1988) 170ndash72 (521)




according to which the eyes are hallowed by the assumed visual touch (τῇ ἐπαφῇ) of the bread in their hands After all to modern readers it would seem awkward that one would press the bread upon the eyes and the statementrsquos lack of a clarishyfying preposition before τῇ ἐπαφῇ leaves ample room for confusion Thus with haptic extramission in mind it would seem only natural to ascribe to Cyril such a theory of vision

However just as in the case of John of Damascus this reading is clarified later in the text In reality the text evidences a detailed description of the gestures and practices of early Byzantine forms of veneration in regard to the Eucharistic gifts In the following paragraph dedicated to the communion of the wine from the chalice Cyril commands ldquoWhile it is still moist upon the lips touch it with the fingers and sanctify the eyes forehead and other organs of senserdquo29 Here Cyril commands that one literally touch the eyes with the wine left upon the lips with onersquos hands leading one to reread his earlier command following the comshymunion of the bread as an indication that one should touch the bread to the or shygans of sight and so sanctify the eyes as wellmdashan enigmatic statement whose in shydications seemed odd in isolation

There is a pronounced concern with sensual experience within Cyrilrsquos catechetshyical homilies but it is not one reliant upon any union or confusion of vision and touch This anointing of the sensual organs serves to elevate the senses above the earthly realities or as Cyril exhorts the congregants before Communion to ldquonot entrust judgment to your bodily palate but to undoubting faithrdquo30 Thus it folshylows that Cyril uses the noun and participle forms of the verb ἐπαφίημι to describe a literal touching of the Eucharistic gifts with the sense organs Cyril speaks to the clear differences between senses by urging the participant to touch each of the sense organs separately understanding that if perception is to be elevated toward the celestial realities of the Divine Liturgy all perception must be consecrated in this manner Hence he asks that one touch the organs of sight (the eyes) and touch (the forehead) with the wineshymoistened fingers the wine having already touched the organ of taste in the mouth and he thus leaves only the nose and ears as the ldquoother organs of senserdquo This act of touching entailed by ἐπαφίημι has nothing to do with perception itself but rather with the ritual act of consecration through contact as descriptions of the handling of relics attest For if the needs of conshysecration could be satisfied by tasting touching seeing hearing or smelling the wine then the mere act of having the wine upon the fingers would have satisfied touch and the forehead would not need to be consecrated with the bread in the hands In Chrismation as Cyril recounts the priest applies a special ointment or perfumed oil to the body ldquoupon the forehead and upon the other organs of senserdquo (ἐπὶ μετώπου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σου χρίεται αἰσθητηρίων) that is the eyes nostrils mouth ears and other similar parts31 As Georgia Frank suggests Cyrilrsquos ritual imperatives deploy this logic of Chrismation so as to awaken the spiritual senses

29 Ἔτι δὲ τῆς νοτίδος ἐνούσης τοῖς χείλεσι χερσὶν ἐπαφώμενος καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ μέτωπον καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἁγίαζε αἰσθητήρια Cyril of Jerusalem Cateacutechegraveses mystagogiques 172 (522)

30 Μὴ τῷ λάρυγγι τῷ σωματικῷ ἐπιτρέπητε τὸ κριτικόν ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀνενδοιάστῳ πίστει Cyril of Jerusalem Cateacutechegraveses mystagogiques 170 (520)

31 Cyril of Jerusalem Cateacutechegraveses mystagogiques 124 (33)




through their earthly counterparts in the rite of initiation32 Cyrilrsquos homily alerts us to how such synesthetic descriptions of sensual experience are often deployed by these writers to convey the practical realities of worship through sensual pracshytices which precisely play out the logic of sensual perception itself

Consider for example the similar language and rhetoric used to describe early pilgrimsrsquo interactions with relics which likewise betray what appears on the surshyface to be a confusion of touch and sight Gregory of Nyssa in his Homily on Saint Theodore writes

Taking delight in the seeing of such works of art that can be observed one longs for the rest in particular to approach the tomb trusting that touching (ἐπαφὴν) it results in sanctification and blessing For as if it is the same body still alive and flourishing those beholding it embrace it with the eyes the mouth the ears And when they have approached it with all the senses they pour tears out over it from piety and emotion33

Gregory of Nyssarsquos homily aptly allows us to subvert the given understanding of these synesthetic constructions that rhetorically seem to suggest an elision beshytween sight touch and the other senses Here the phrase ldquothose beholding it embrace it with the eyes the mouth the earsrdquo (οἱ βλέποντες κατασπάζονται τοῖς

ὀφθαλμοῖς τῷ στόματι ταῖς ἀκοαῖς) features a strikingly similar syntax to John of Damascusrsquos misleading ldquoto venerate and kiss them with eyes and lips and cleave to them in the heartrdquo (προσκυνοῦμεν καὶ περιπτυσσόμεθα καὶ καταφιλοῦμεν καὶ

ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ χείλεσι καὶ καρδίᾳ ἀσπαζόμεθα) Gregory even deploys the similarly emphatic ldquoembracerdquo (κατασπάζονται)mdashas did John of Damascusmdashto stress the ldquophysical embracerdquo (κατασπαζόμενοι τῇ σαρκὶ) of the devotional object Yet if we were to read this sentence as indicating a haptic visuality we would not only have to justify an elision between sight and touch to make this sentence work but also a confusion between sight touch taste and hearing Gregoryrsquos statement allows us little room for misinterpretation given that the acting subjects are specifically described as ldquoviewersrdquo (οἱ βλέποντες) yet they are said to embrace the object with their eyes mouth and earsmdashor more precisely ldquosense of hearingrdquo (ταῖς ἀκοαῖς)

This may be corroborated further by the fourthshycentury text of Egeriarsquos pilshygrimage to the Holy Land which describes these practices once again for us but this time in Latin a fact that allows for a useful comparison across linguistic boundaries In recounting the practice of pilgrims venerating the relics of the True Cross on Good Friday at the Holy Sepulcher Egeria writes ldquoThus all the people go past one by one They stoop down touch the holy Wood first with

32 Georgia Frank ldquolsquoTaste and Seersquo The Eucharist and the Eyes of the Faith in the Fourth Centuryrdquo Church History 704 (December 2001) 619ndash43 esp 625

33 Καὶ τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς οὕτω φιλοτεχνήμασιν ἐνευπαθήσας τὴν ὄψιν ἐπιθυμεῖ λοιπὸν καὶ αὐτῇ πλησιάσαι τῇ θήκῃmiddot ἁγιασμὸν καὶ εὐλογίαν τὴν ἐπαφὴν εἶναι πιστεύων Εἰ δὲ καὶ κόνιν τις δοίη φέρειν τὴν ἐπικειμένην τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς ἀναπαύσεως δῶρον ὁ χοῦς λαμβάνεται καὶ ὡς κειμήλιον ἡ γῆ θησαυρίζεται Τὸ γὰρ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λειψάνου προσάψασθαι εἴ ποτέ τις ἐπιτυχία τοιαύτη παράσχοι τὴν ἐξουσίαν ὅπως ἐστὶ πολυπόθητον καὶ εὐχῆς τῆς ἀνωτάτω τὸ δῶρον ἴσασιν οἱ πεπειραμένοι καὶ τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπιθυμίας ἐμφορηθέντες Ὡς σῶμα γὰρ αὐτὸ ζῶν καὶ ἀνθοῦν οἱ βλέποντες κατασπάζονται τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς τῷ στόματι ταῖς ἀκοαῖς πάσαις προσάγοντες ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν εἶτα τὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας καὶ τὸ τοῦ πάθους ἐπιχέοντες δάκρυον (PG 46740) Gregory of Nyssa De sancto Theodoro in J Leemans et al ldquoLet Us Die That We May Liverdquo Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor Palestine and Syria (London 2003) 85




their forehead and then with their eyes and then kiss it but no one puts out their hand to touch itrdquo34 Thus again we can observe the indication of a ritual practice of veneration in which viewers literally touch the True Cross with their forehead eyes and lips This must be understood here to be an act of touching the relic to their sensory organs a procedure that ismdashas shown abovemdashin keeping with the local and contemporary practices of Chrismation where the worshiper starts with the forehead standing in for the sense of touch and then moves on through the other bodily senses Thus in the context of Gregory and Cyrilrsquos homilies we can come to understand that what we have at work in these lateshyantique and early Byzantine writers is a careful detailing of the forms of ritual practice that surround the veneration of holy objects ranging from icons relics and even the Eucharist

Such ritual practices of worship and veneration combine with synesthetic stateshyments that often transgress the boundaries of traditional sensual experience35 Their appearances suggest suspensions of the norm states of heightened percepshytual attention and action When speaking on the Eucharist for example John Chrysostom familiarly states

When you see the Lord sacrificed and laid upon the altar and the priest standing and praying over the victim and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood can you then think that you are still among men and standing upon the earth Are you not on the contrary straightway translated to Heaven and casting out every carnal thought from the soul do you not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things which are in Heaven Oh What a marvel What love of God to man The one seated above with the father at that time is held by all hands and gives himself to those desiring to clasp (περιπτύξασθαι) and embrace (περιλαβεῖν) him but this they all do through the eyes36

This language of clasping (περιπτύξασθαι) and embracing (περιλαβεῖν) certainly resonates with the structure and language of John of Damascus when he asks that we ldquoembrace [the icon] with eyes and lipsrdquo (ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ χείλεσι περιπτύξομαι) This haptic language describing ritual behaviors appears in close proximity to descriptions of noetic forms of ocular veneration in which the imagination is deployed so as to partake in the divine realities that are inaccessible to our bodily

34 ldquoAc sic ergo omnis populus transit unus et unus toti acclinantes se primum de fronte sic de oculis tangentes crucem et titulum et sic osculantes crucem pertranseunt manum autem nemo mittit ad tangendumrdquo Egeria Itinerarium et Alia Geographica Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 175 (Turnhout 1965) 81 Translated in John Wilkinson Egeriarsquos Travels to the Holy Land 2nd ed (Jeshyrusalem 1981) 137 (373)

35 On synesthetic language in antiquity see Shane Butler and Alex Purves eds Synaesthesia and the Ancient Senses (London 2014)

36 Ὅταν γὰρ ἴδῃς τὸν Κύριον τεθυμένον καὶ κείμενον καὶ τὸν ἱερέα ἐφεστῶτα τῷ θύματι καὶ ἐπευχόμενον καὶ πάντας ἐκείνῳ τῷ τιμίῳ φοινισσομένους αἵματι ἆρα ἔτι μετὰ ἀνθρώπων εἶναι νομίζεις καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἑστάναι ἀλλrsquo οὐκ εὐθέως ἐπὶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς μετανίστασαι καὶ πᾶσαν σαρκικὴν διάνοιαν ἐκβάλλων γυμνῇ τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ τῷ νῷ καθαρῷ περιβλέπεις τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς Ὢ τοῦ θαύματοςmiddot ὢ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίας Ὁ μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἄνω καθήμενος κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην ταῖς ἁπάντων κατέχεται χερσὶ καὶ δίδωσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς βουλομένοις περιπτύξασθαι καὶ περιλαβεῖν ποιοῦσι δὲ τοῦτο πάντες διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τότε John Chrysostom Sur le sacerdoce ed A M Malingrey (Paris 1980) 144 (34) Translation modified from John Chrysostom ldquoOn the Priesthoodrdquo trans W R W Stephens in Philip Schaff ed Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1st ser (Buffalo 1889) 46ndash 47




senses Here while the hand may grasp and embrace the Eucharistic body only the mindrsquos eye can see the realities of that body whose outward form remains unaffected despite its consecration into the Body of Christ37 Hence as the hand embraces the Body of Christ he is perceptible to the eyes through speculation and imagination alone The emphatic language of grasping here is being used precisely to articulate that the action of observing Christ in the Eucharist can only happen by the visualshycognitive contemplation of the heavenly realities occurring alongside the earthly and perceptible things Thus in these sources the pairing of tactility and sight symbolizes the interchange between a desire to touch that which is visible in the icon and a desire to see what is tactilely present in the Eushycharist This synesthetic language which seeks to reshymediate sensory experiences grapples with the conditions of possibility for the perception of the divine manishyfesting sensation as the medium of perception as well as elucidating and reflecting on the sensesrsquo own degrees of mediation

Medium and Mediation a Byzantine Historiography

As Suzanne Conklin Akbari states in her magisterial analysis of optical theory and medieval allegory ldquoMedieval optical theory poses similar questions censhytered on the role of the mediator whether the species or the diaphanous medium The same questions persist does the mediator provide access to knowledge or does the imperfection of its transmission make it a barrier to clear and perfect knowledgerdquo38 Akbarirsquos volume alerts us to the importance of understanding the medium of sight as a critical space for investigation in regard to its role in producshying levels and orders of representation Her observations confront the fact that how one defines the medium alters how communication is structured but also that the medium itself alters to what extent we can understand levels of actualshyity and presence in the form being communicated by said medium As Liz James noted regarding the crucial impact of the theory of haptic sight in Byzantine studshyies ldquoOnce sight is conceived as tangible then onersquos view of the world changes One touches the world grasps it carries it back to the mind Touching an icon becomes a form of seeing and vice versardquo39 In establishing a medium for sight we are then not simply constructing a site of transparent transmission but rather a condition of possibility for representation that consequently comes to determine the limits and boundaries of that representation Hence while the medium being discussed here is sensory and perceptual it is consequently also artistic given that the bounds of perception will delimit the reach of artistic mediums be they the written word or the painted image

In attempting to articulate a theoretical understanding of the artistic medium in the premodern world John Guillory struggled precisely with the problem of selecting a term for this concept which in the premodern world may not have had

37 See Aden Kumler ldquoThe Multiplication of the Species Eucharistic Morphology in the Middle Agesrdquo RES Anthropology and Aesthetics 5960 (2011) 179ndash91

38 Suzanne Conklin Akbari Seeing through the Veil Optical Theory and Medieval Allegory (Toshyronto 2004) 44

39 Liz James ldquoSenses and Sensibility in Byzantiumrdquo Art History 274 (2004) 522ndash37 esp 528




a clearshycut articulated language to encompass its definitions or effects He obshyserves for example that there is no Greek term for ldquomediumrdquo in Aristotlersquos Poet-ics even though there is an articulation of the various arts occurring ldquoin different thingsrdquo (τῷ ἐν ἑτέροις μιμεῖσθαι)40 In Aristotlersquos texts on perception however the notion of the medium is expressed with an articulated and coherent term used uniformly throughout the text and readily translatable into English as ldquothe meshydiumrdquo (τὸ μεταξύ)mdashliterally translated as a middle an inshybetween or an interval difference This μεταξύ or μέσος is understood as the interval through which sight perception comes about as when Gregory of Nazianzus states that sight cannot unite with visible objects without the medium of light and air (ἐν μέσῳ φωτὸς καὶ ἀέρος)41 When used as a substantive noun the term comes to articulate a notion of mediation that is constructed as the intervallic space between perception and its perceptible In touchrsquos dissolution of the interval the medium collapses both as a physical and cognitive space of separation The Aristotelian medium of the transparent which transmits form from the object to the eye through the impresshysions and conductions of colors upon this receptive body consequently shares in the properties of the artistic medium as a condition of possibility for the perceptishybility of the image Consider that Aristotlersquos transparent mediates the perceptible manifestation of form and also is the interval of signification as a form of differshyence and deferral Neither the term μεταξύ nor its logical implications could be said by any means to be limited to the perceptual theory of Aristotle Instead this problem of the middle and its mediation was pervasive in the thinking of antique and lateshyantique theories of perception which sought precisely to mediate the sensesrsquo levels of mediation depending on the intellectual work they sought to undertake

John Philoponus a committed intromissionist and others saw the eye as beshying affected by the things seen yet attempted to stress the immediacy of percepshytion as a way of collapsing and negating the mediating action of the intervening medium42 Despite this desire to see the immediacy of perception John nevershytheless deploys his language cautiously clarifying for instance the language of tactility as being specific to cognition whereas the sense organ itself is merely passively affected In his commentary on Aristotle for instance he writes ldquoAs a sense it grasps and cognizes them whereas as a natural body it is materially affected by themrdquo43 Here John clearly draws a distinction between perception (αἴσθησις) and the material sensual organ (φυσικὸν σῶμα) utilizing this technical cognitive language of grasping to capture these active perceptual processes and juxtapose them against the passive sensual reception of information by the organs

40 John Guillory ldquoGenesis of the Media Conceptrdquo Critical Inquiry 36 (Winter 2010) 321ndash62 esp 322ndash33 Cf Aristotle Ars Poetica ed R Kassel (Oxford 1966) 8 (1447a)

41 ἢ τοῖς ὁρατοῖς πλησιάσαι τὴν ὄψιν δίχα τοῦ ἐν μέσῳ φωτὸς καὶ ἀέρος Gregory of Nazianzus Die fuumlnf theologischen Reden ed J Barbel (Duumlsseldorf 1963) Orat 2812

42 See Jean Christensen De Groot ldquoPhiloponus on De Anima II5 Physics III3 and the Propagashytion of Lightrdquo Phronesis 282 (1983) 177ndash96 On his theory of vision see Leslie MacCoull ldquoNotes on Philoponusrsquo Theory of Visionrdquo Byzantion 672 (1997) 558ndash62

43 ὡς μὲν αἴσθησις ἀντιλαμβάνεται αὐτῶν καὶ γινώσκει αὐτά ὡς μέντοι φυσικὸν σῶμα πάσχει ὑλικῶς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν John Philoponus In Aristotelis de anima libros commentaria ed M Hayduck (Berlin 1897) 433 (211)




of sensation Therefore beyond deploying levels of mediation within specific rheshytorical contexts authors and commentators also used such synesthetic language to distinguish between different states and stages in the perceptual process The result is that even a passive intromissionist could then go on to emphasize cognishytion as actively invested a process wherein sensual data comes in with immeshydiacy as if unmediated yet then must be visualized by the mind For example we find telling variations within the works of figures like Plotinus and Porphyry as these authors attempted to grapple with their own theories of sensation and perception and in different contexts44

Throughout antique lateshyantique and Byzantine texts one can witness the theoretical confusion that came of using haptic metaphors in constructing an intellectual history of vision Writers such as Aristotle Galen and Ptolemy ofshyten attempted to grapple with the pitfalls of this metaphorical language making sure to qualify the explanatory comparisons between all the senses that might be gleaned from earlier sourcesmdasha process of clarification that becomes crucial in the work of lateshyantique and medieval commentators The popularity of comshymentaries on Aristotle on sensual perception speaks to the fact that as A Mark Smith has argued Aristotle was seen more as an explicator than a polemicist in his own right45 Thus even for an understanding of Plato thinkers would often start with Aristotle as a means of better accessing Platonic learning and its intelshylectual legacy Hence the popular Byzantine sources on vision were often the commentaries on Aristotle written by figures such as Plotinus John Philoponus Themistius and Alexander of Aphrodisias

In a similar vein Galen attempted to work his way around the problem of the medium in vision by developing a theory of the quasishyhaptic power of the optishycal pneuma which extends forth from the eye and fuses with the object Galen explicitly criticized the conception of mediation expressed by the walkingshystick metaphor in the Stoicsrsquo theory which likened sight to touch However Galen clarified that since touch cannot transmit color size and position this metaphor is wholly in error writing

The nerve itself is a part of the brain like a branch or offshoot of a tree and the member to which the part is attached receives the power from the part into the whole of itself and thus becomes capable of discerning the things that touch it Something similar hapshypens also in the case of the air that surrounds us When it has been illuminated by the sun it is already an instrument of vision of the same description as the pneuma arriving from the brain but until it is illuminated it does not turn into a sympathetic instrument in accordance with the change effected by the outflow of the pneuma into it The Stoics then must not say that we see by means of the surrounding air as with a walking stick46

44 See Miira Tuominen ldquoOn Activity and Passivity in Perception Aristotle Philoponus and PseudoshySimpliciusrdquo in Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy ed J F Silva and M Yrjoumlnsuuri (London 2014) 55ndash78 See also A Mark Smith From Sight to Light The Passage from Ancient to Modern Optics (Chicago 2014) esp 130ndash50 On Plotinus see Gordon H Clark ldquoPlotinusrsquo Theory of Sensationrdquo Philosophical Review 514 (1942) 357ndash82

45 Smith From Sight to Light 130ndash3446 αὐτό τε γὰρ τὸ νεῦρον ἐγκεφάλου μέρος ἐστὶν οἷόνπερ ἀκρεμὼν ἢ βλάστημα δένδρου τό τε μέλος

εἰς ὃ τὸ μέρος ἐμφύεται τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ δεχόμενον εἰς ὅλον ἑαυτὸ διαγνωστικὸν γίνεται τῶν ψαυόντων αὐτοῦ παραπλήσιον οὖν τι κἀπὶ τοῦ περιέχοντος ἡμᾶς ἀέρος γίγνεται πεφωτισμένος γὰρ ὑφrsquo ἡλίου τοιοῦτόν




For Galen the walkingshystick analogy makes the metaphor of touch too literal for comfort potentially suggesting that sight is simply a species of touch at a disshytance And in this regard the optical pneuma would then be nothing more than a conduit through which pressures are sent back to the body This is a fallacy for Galen given that touch cannot grasp a colored body Hence while Galen fully submitted to the concept of the medium in this regard he actively tried to reason his way past it to produce a theory that posited this ldquomiddlerdquo (μέσου) as a sensory extension of the body akin to the nerve conduits attempting to approximate a form of unmediated mediation for sight Galenrsquos revisions of classical and Stoic theories of vision appear to be consistent with the aesthetic goals of his conshytemporaries who while acknowledging the necessity of mediation attempted to forge rhetorical and structural models of representation outside the bounds of a medium condition

This very brief historiography of the intertwined histories of representation and sensual mediation has attempted to demonstrate how the rhetoric of sightrsquos mediation directly informed and was informed by contemporary theories of repshyresentation and that representationrsquos own contingent mediation

As Stratis Papaioannoursquos study of the term ἐνάργεια demonstrates the use of this term in rhetoric and theories of representation denotes ldquothe selfshyevidence of truth beyond mediationrdquo in the tradition of Stoic and lateshyantique articulations47 Papaioannou demonstrates that this is attested in the works of many significant writers and theologians such as Philo of Alexandria Basil of Caesarea Gregory of Nyssa and Proclus Maximos the Confessor for example uses the term to describe ldquothe true and active presencerdquo of the divinity (ἐναργῆ τε καὶ ἐνεργὸν παρουσίαν) in his Mystagogia48 In this text on the liturgy where Christ is indeed made present in ldquotruth and activityrdquo this statement is correctly metaphysical exceeding the bounds of an aesthetic rhetorical theory since the Eucharist alone offers a form of presence (not possible by the icon) given its consubstantial nashyture with the body of Christ in essence but not form But as Papaioannou goes on to demonstrate in the posticonoclastic period there is a shift in emphasis onto the inability of signification to enable full presence49 Thus we may see Galenrsquos theory of extramission as a model of and model for the lateshyantique desire for a notion of reshypresentation where discourse and images could lead to vivid nearly

ἐστιν ἤδη [τὸ] τῆς ὄψεως ὄργανον οἷον τὸ παραγιγνόμενον ἐξ ἐγκεφάλου πνεῦμα πρὶν φωτισθῆναι δέ κατὰ τὴν ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος εἰς αὐτὸν ἐκ [τῆς] βολῆς ἐναποτελουμένην ἀλλοίωσιν ὁμοιοπαθὲς ὄργανον οὐ γίγνεται μὴ τοίνυν ὡς διὰ βακτηρίας τοῦ πέριξ ἀέρος ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς οἱ Στωϊκοὶ λεγέτωσαν Galen On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato ed and trans Phillip de Lacy 2nd ed vol 2 (Berlin 2005) 474ndash75 (7719ndash20)

47 Stratis Papaioannou ldquoByzantine Enargeia and Theories of Representationrdquo Byzantinoslavica 3 (2011) 48ndash60 esp 52 For the use of the term in antiquity and late antiquity see Ruth Webb Ekph-rasis Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice (Burlington VT 2009) 87ndash130

48 Maximos the Confessor Mystagogia Greek text in Maximos the Confessor La mistagogia ed altri scritti ed R Cantarella (Florence 1931) 735ndash36 Translated in Maximus the Confessor The Church the Liturgy and the Soul of Man The ldquoMystagogiardquo of St Maximus the Confessor trans Dom Julian Stead (Still River MA 1982)

49 See also Charles Barber Figure and Likeness On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm (Princeton 2002)




unmediated realitiesmdashyet one that nevertheless repeatedly comes to terms with this impossibility By the middle Byzantine period a definitive shift had occurred that should be attributed to the lessons of the iconomachies and their cultivation of a robustly nuanced semiotic program

In the middle of the ninth century John bishop of Sardis attests to a move away from a desire for unmediated presence in his commentary on Aphthoniosrsquos Rhetorical Exercises a widely used and popular compendium of GrecoshyRoman rhetorical theory John writes ldquoFor even if speech were ten thousand times vivid it would be impossible for it to bring in front of onersquos sight lsquothe thing shownrsquo namely the thing itselfrdquo50 Elsewhere Papaioannou has characterized this emshyphasis on mediated presence and the impossibility of actual presence reflected in various aspects of middle Byzantine thinking and literature as attested for exshyample in the epistolary tradition51 Thus I argue that what can be surmised from the lateshyantique and Byzantine history of the term ἐνάργεια is precisely the deep cultural shift that occurred throughout the earlier centuries of the Byzanshytine Empire where the challenges of the iconoclastic debates forced an articulashytion and enforcement of a robust theory of mediation which seems to endure well into the fourteenth century at least The circulation of a wealth of classhysical and philosophical treatises and commentaries in Byzantium led to lively conflicts and disagreements and that being the case it is patently impossible to prescribe any monolithic theory of vision for an empire spanning diverse spaces and approximately a thousand years As may be witnessed in the writshyings of Galen in late antiquity and in the work of Michael Psellos in the eleventh century the interrelation between the ontology of vision and the image may be located in the epistemological question of how we come to know the presence of the image or indeed any kind of representation

The pervasiveness and complexity of this debate about the interrelation of the ontology of representation its medium and its visuality is intricately attested in a passing comment made in the closing paragraph of Nicholas and Theodore of Andidarsquos late eleventhshycentury Protheoria In the Protheoria the Andidan aushythors liken the liturgical commentaryrsquos function in helping the clergy understand the divine mysteries to the actions of tourists who wish to perceive the extraorshydinary and unseeable beauty of a city and thus acquire a guide so that he might lead them around by the hand as if they were on a tower and looking down upon the majesty of the city from a window In the authorsrsquo words

He who obtains these things [regarding the Divine Liturgy] should not expect to comshyplete all the narratives of the august mysteries with things said in this [commentary] But he must imagine that to obtain any kind of knowledge [of the liturgy] is like wanting

50 κἂν γὰρ μυριάκις ἐναργὴς εἴη ὁ λόγος ἀδύνατον αὐτὸ κατrsquo ὄψιν ἀγαγεῖν ldquoτὸ δηλούμενονrdquo ἤτοι ἐκφραζόμενον John of Sardeis Commentarium in Aphthonii progymnasmata in Anonymi et Stephani in artem rhetoricam commentaria ed H Rabe (Berlin 1896) 21622ndash24

51 See S Papaioannou ldquoDer Glasort des Textes Selbstheit und Ontotypologie im byzantinischen Briefschreiben (10 und 11 Jh)rdquo Wiener Byzantinistik und Neograumlzistik Beitraumlge zum Symposion Vierzig Jahre Institut fuumlr Byzantinistik und Neograumlzistik der Universitaumlt Wien Im Gedenken an Her-bert Hunger (Wien 4ndash7 Dezember 2002) ed W Houmlrandner J Koder and M Stassinopoulou (Vienna 2004) 324ndash36




to see the extraordinary and unseeable beauty of a city In which case one obtains a guide by which one is led by the hand so that as if looking through a window one may be able to look down upon the radiance and splendor of the rays being sent out from that place (ἐκπεμπομένων ἀκτίνων) [but] not the nature (φύσιν) itself of the good things stored there below52

In this text the Andidan authors notably place emphasis on the agency of the things at a distance as the origin of the rays of vision rather than allowing any tactile agency to be projected onto the viewer This passivity is surprising given that the activity of extramission is an aspect that has played crucially in extrashymissionrsquos historiographic popularization promoted as a visuality that heightens and exploits the involved processes of image veneration in the Byzantine world In this passing allusion to sight though it is the wondrous mysteries of the city (serving as an analogy for the mysteries of the Divine Liturgy) that possess the agency while the viewer is merely a receptacle for their sensations This viewer is not wholly passive though for he or she has taken the step of acquiring a guide in order to gaze upon this city The liturgical commentary is an effort to compreshyhend and contemplate but it alone cannot be said to encompass the full realities of those mysteries or how they are revealed to the viewer The agency of these latter matters must be left in the realm of the divine Looking at an icon or the liturgy one is initiated through onersquos somatic and kinesthetic participation in the rites and customs of worship but one cannot be hubristically ascribed the agency of the perception that is imparted upon one by the divine Even as an active parshyticipant in the rite or as one who interacts with the icon the worshipper is nevshyertheless a mere mortal who strives for access to the divinely concealed mysteries which the divine alone chooses to disclose Thus vision in the Andidan commenshytary neatly entwines the ontology of vision with the ontology of the sacred image

In his descriptions of the Chora monastery the learned fourteenthshycentury scholar and statesman Theodore Metochites similarly conveys a sense of divinely enacted intromissive agency in his ecstatic characterization of the churchrsquos orshynamentation and mosaics53 Metochites describes these as ldquodazzling the eyes as with brilliant firerdquo (ἐπαστράπτοντ᾽ ὄμματ᾽ ἠύτε λαμπετόοντι [sic] πυρί) and ldquosendshying forth a kind of enchanting glow unto the eyesrdquo (τιν᾽ ὄσσοισι χαρίεσσαν αἴγλαν ἱέντα δήν)54 Likewise the image of Christ ldquosends forth grace and great ineffable wonderrdquo (χάριν ἠδέ τε θώμυμα μάλ᾽ ἄρρητον πολλὸν ἱεῖσαν αὐτόθεν)55 and the

52 ὁ δέ γε τούτοις ἐντυγχάνων μήπω πάσης ἐξηγήσεως τῶν σεπτῶν μυστηρίων ἐν τούτοις τελεῖσθαι νομίσῃ ἀλλὰ τοιούτῳ τινὶ οἰέσθω ἐντετυχηκέναι ὡς ἐάν τις τῶν ποθούντων ἰδεῖν κάλλη πόλεως ὑπερφυῆ καὶ ἀθέατα τύχοι τινὸς ὁδηγοῦντος ὑφrsquo οὗ χειραγωγούμενος ὡς διά τινος θυρίδος ἰσχύσει κατιδεῖν τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπεμπομένων ἀκτίνων αἴγλην τε καὶ λαμπρότητα οὐ μὴ αὐτὴν τὴν φύσιν τῶν ἔνδον ἀποκειμένων ἀγαθῶν (PG 140468BndashC)

53 Jeffrey Michael Featherstone ldquoMetochitesrsquos Poems and the Chorardquo in The Kariye Camii Recon-sidered ed Holger A Klein Robert G Ousterhout and Brigitte Pitarakis (Istanbul 2011) 213ndash37 esp 218ndash19 See also Ihor Ševčenko ldquoTheodore Metochites the Chora and the Intellectual Trends of His Timerdquo in The Kariye Djami vol 4 ed Paul A Underwood (Princeton 1975) 17ndash92

54 Theodore Metochites Poem 11041ndash 44 in M Treu Dichtungen des Gross-Logotheten Theodo-ros Metochites (Potsdam 1895) 29 trans J M Featherstone ldquoMetochitesrsquos Poemsrdquo 218

55 Theodore Metochites Poem 2168ndash69 in Treu Dichtungen 42 trans Featherstone ldquoMetoshychitesrsquos Poemsrdquo 219




liturgical vessels ldquosend forth an allshyradiant beauty and gracerdquo (ἃ πάντα πρὶν ἐμ᾽ εὖ κἄπειτ᾽ ἐμέγ᾽ αὖθις)56 This is striking language according to which the eyes are merely directed at objects which emit their qualities toward the eyes Unlike the Andidan authors Metochites conveys an impression of fiery effluxes being sent forth from the things seen in a kind of Platonic extramission where ocular fire fuses with objective fire to enable sight Thus it is the religious objects here that are given precedent in the agency of sight where the human viewer can do nothing more than direct the eyes to the image but it is the image that sparks the condition for sight

Oftentimes in such ekphrastic descriptions of religious spaces authors choose to stress the intromissive aspects of sight in order to emphasize that the percepshytion of such heavenly forms exceeds mortal agency and onersquos own perceptual initiative because one is forcefully assaulted by the variegated sights and multishytude of details In his ninthshycentury ekphrasis of the Pharos chapel for example Patriarch Photios describes the intricacy of the pavement stating ldquoDemocritus would have said I think on seeing the minute work of the pavement and taking it as a piece of evidence that his atoms were close to being discovered here actually impinging on the sight (ὑπrsquo ὄψιν πιπτούσας)rdquo57 Soon after this description Photios draws attention to this very problem when he goes on to say ldquoSo full of wonder is everything In one respect only do I consider the architect of the church to have erred namely that having gathered into one and the same spot all kinds of beauty he does not allow the spectator to enjoy the sight in its purity since the latter is carried and pulled away from one thing by another and is unable to satiate himself with the spectacle as much as he may desirerdquo58 In its spectacle the chapel denies spectators the ability to properly and purely enjoy the sights all around since their senses are constantly being jostled in various directions and thus they may not satiate themselves with the meditative or long contemplation that is desired Thus despite his eloquent articulation of Platonic extramission in his Homily 17 on the image of the Virgin and Child in the apse of Hagia Sophia here Photios presents a visuality that is resolutely oriented toward the agency of things in the world and their effects upon sight rather than the viewerrsquos own disciplined control and agency in vision Thus like Nicholas and Theodore of Andida Theodore Metochites and Photios in their ekphrases choose to articulate sight through the emanations coming from the objects rather than the viewer in order to characterize forms of wondrous seeing in which the things seen take precedent over the viewer

56 Theodore Metochites Poem 1166 in Treu Dichtungen 5 trans Featherstone ldquoMetochitesrsquos Poemsrdquo 219

57 Δημόκριτος εἶπεν ἄν οἶμαι τὴν τοῦ ἐδάφους λεπτουργίαν ἐνιδὼν καὶ ταύτῃ τεκμηρίῳ χρώμενος μὴ ἂν πόρρω εἶναι τοῦ μὴ οὐχὶ καὶ τὰς ἀτόμους αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑπrsquo ὄψιν πιπτούσας ἀνευρῆσθαι Photios Homily X 24339ndash 4342 ed Laourda 102 trans Cyril Mango The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Con-stantinople (Cambridge MA 1958) 187

58 Οὕτω πάντα πεπλήρωται θαύματος Ἑνὶ δέ μοι δοκεῖ μόνον ὁ τοῦ τεμένους ἀρχιτέκτων διημαρτηκέναι ὅτι περ εἰς ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν χῶρον ἅμα πάντα συλλέξας τὰ κάλλη οὐκ ἐᾷ τὸν θεατὴν καθαρῶς ἐντρυφῆσαι τῷ θεάματι ἄλλων ἀπrsquo ἄλλων ἐφελκόντων τε καὶ μετασπώντων καὶ μὴ παραχωρούντων ὅσον τις ἐθέλει τοῦ ὁρωμένου κορέννυσθαι Photios Homily X 2434 ed Laourda 102 trans Mango 187




In fact Theodore Metochites and his contemporaries believed in iterations of sight that often adhered most closely to the Platonic model of unification and that stressed the medium as either a site of fiery fusion or as Galenic pneuma As Boumlrje Bydeacuten has eloquently demonstrated Palaiologan intellectuals including Nikephshyoros Blemmydes Theodore Doukas Laskaris Nikephoros Choumnos and Theoshydore Metochites all had subtle variations in their theories on sight yet they all struggled in their attempts to unify the Platonic and Aristotelian models often reshysorting to Galen as an intermediary for thinking through potential unifications59 Nikephoros Gregoras who favored a resolutely Aristotelian model despite being one of the most vocal critics of Aristotle was the one notable exception in the period60 We find Metochitesrsquo most eloquent articulation of sight in an account of gazing up at the night sky in the Semeioseis Gnomikai where he writes

And consequently turning their eyes upwards in this way and perceiving the heavenly bodies human beings clearly employ this service of the sense with utmost joy And we all gaze with sweet desire at the heavenly arrangements and the ringshydancers of the stars and the charms that radiate from there especially when we are able to employ [the sense] unobstructedly during the night and without any misty or murky obstacle and to send up (ἀναπέμπειν) the rays issuing from the eyes against those [rays] which are carried from above toward us (ἀντιπέμπειν ταῖς φερομέναις ἄνωθεν ἐς ἡμᾶς) from the luminescence and the radiance of the stars and the heavenly bodies61

While his language in the Chora poems alluded to an intromissive theory of vishysion Metochites clearly follows an extramissionist model in his scientific work Here Metochites clearly explicates the process whereby rays are sent up and from (ἀναπέμπειν and ἀντιπέμπειν) the eyes and the celestial bodies alike from a distance allowing us to comprehend that for him sight emerged from a fusion of internal and external rays in some capacity and in keeping with the majority of his learned contemporaries Thus contrasting his ekphrastic poems on the Chora with his theory of sight we can grasp how Byzantine writers would often choose to stress either the emissions from the objects or the emissions from the eyes depending on the agency and rhetorical force that they wished to impart either to the things seen or the seer respectively despite adhering to a model of united rays in keeping with Plato as in the case of Metochites

Compare this to Nicholas Cabasilasrsquos own allusion to vision in his fourteenthshycentury liturgical commentary where he attempts to convey Christrsquos intercessory role in section 44 of his treatise tellingly titled ldquoOn the Mediation of Christrdquo (Περὶ

59 Boumlrje Bydeacuten Theodore Metochitesrsquo ldquoStoicheiosis Astronomikerdquo and the Study of Natural Phi-losophy and Mathematics in Early Palaiologan Byzantium (Goumlteborg 2003) 199ndash210

60 Ibid 208ndash961 καὶ τοίνυν ἀνατεινόμενος οὕτω δὴ τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἄνθρωπος ἄνω καὶ τῶν οὐρανίων ἐφαπτόμενος

μάλιστα δῆλός ἐστιν ἥδιστα τῇ τοιαύτῃ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἐνεργείᾳ χρώμενος καὶ προσορῶμεν γε ἅπαντες ποθοῦντες ἐν τέρψει τοὺς οὐρανίους κόσμους καὶ τὰς τῶν ἄστρων χορείας καὶ τὰς ἀστραπτούσας ἐκεῖθεν χάριτας καὶ μάλιστ᾽ ἔχοντες ταῖς νυξὶν ἀπροσκόπτως χρῆσθαι καὶ δίχα παντὸς ἀχλυώδους καὶ ζοφώδους ἐπιτειχίσματος τὰς ἐκ τῶν ὀμμάτων ἀναπέμπειν ἀκτῖνας καὶ ἀντιπέμπειν ταῖς φερομέναις ἄνωθεν ἐς ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῆς τῶν οὐρανίων αἴγλης τε καὶ λαμπρότητος Theodore Metochites Semeioseis Gnomikai 42 trans Bydeacuten Theodore Metochitesrsquo ldquoStoicheiosisrdquo 205 text in G Muumlller and T Kiessling Miscellanea philosophica et historica (Leipzig 1821) 267




τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ μεσιτείας) There Nicholas carefully details how Christ serves an intermediary role on our behalf yet Christ does not merely intercede through words and pleas but through actions themselves Christ is able to undertake this Nicholas writes because ldquohe unites (συνάπτειν) us to himself and makes us each sharers through himrdquo62 He goes on to elaborate on this matter through an analogy to sight writing ldquoAnd just as lightmdashin itself allowing sight to those who seemdashif it fails them then seeing also fails thus continual union (συνουσίαν) with Christ is necessary for the soul if it is to live fully and be at rest For neither is it possible for the eye to see without light nor is it possible for the soul to have true life and peace without Christ because he is the only one who reconciles us with God the one who creates this peace without which we would be Godrsquos enemies without hope of partaking in his good thingsrdquo63

Here Nicholas parallels the union with Christ to the eyersquos union with light echoing the language used by Byzantine intellectuals to describe the process of Platonic extramission64 Just as one partakes in sight by virtue of the union of exshyternal and internal rays one partakes in the goodness of Christ through a similar union Nicholas Cabasilasrsquos text is difficult to comprehend given that the author does not provide us with any indication of how the rays going out or coming in operate in his discussion of sight in fact he leaves out wholly the language of ldquoraysrdquo (ἀκτῖνες) that we saw in the Andidan commentary and in the majority of the texts discussed thus far Furthermore it is somewhat uncertain as to whether he subscribes to extramission or to intromission given that the substitution of rays with light strikes the modern reader as natural and expected language for deshyscribing our own intromissive understanding of sight as a perception of reflected light Such theories had been popularized in the Islamic world since the eleventh century beginning with the writings of Ibn alshyHaytham and Ibn Sīnā and thus it might well be possible to characterize Nicholas Cabasilasrsquos own views as equivashylent to theories that seem all too familiar to our presentshyday eye Yet Nicholasrsquos text does speak a great deal and quite eloquently about his theory of sight obliquely through the language used to categorize Christ in this analogy Such language deshyscribing the union of rays does not manifest itself in Islamic Byzantine teachings concerning intromission yet it does occur prominently in contemporary articulashytions of Platonic extramission In these descriptions fiery rays are said to fuse in the intermediate air just as in Nicholasrsquos text Christ is said to be the mediator for the fusion of the heavenly God and terrestrial souls

62 Τὸ συνάπτειν ἑαυτῷ καὶ διrsquo ἑαυτοῦ τῶν οἰκείων μεταδιδόναι χαρίτων κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ἑκάστου καὶ τὸ τῆς καθάρσεως μέτρον Nicholas Cabasilas Explication de la divine liturgie Sources Chreacutetiennes 4 bis (Paris 1967) 252 (44) Translated in Nicholas Cabasilas Commentary on the Divine Liturgy trans J M Hussey and P A McNulty (Crestwood NY 1960) 100

63 Καὶ καθάπερ τὸ φῶς διrsquo ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ὁρᾶν τοῖς ὁρῶσι παρέχον οἷς ἂν ἐπιλίποι καὶ τὸ ὁρᾶν ἐπιλείπει Οὕτω καὶ τὴν μετὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ συνουσίαν ἀνάγκη διηνεκῆ ταῖς ψυχαῖς εἶναι εἴγε μέλλοιεν ζῆν ὅλως καὶ ἀναπαύεσθαι Οὔτε γὰρ χωρὶς φωτὸς ὀφθαλμὸς δύναται βλέπειν οὔτε χωρὶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ζωὴν ἀληθινὴν καὶ εἰρήνην ἐνεῖναι ταῖς ψυχαῖς δυνατόν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστι ὁ τῷ Θεῷ καταλλάττων μόνος ὁ τὴν εἰρήνην ταύτην ποιῶνmiddot ἧς χωρὶς ἐχθροὺς ὄντας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ἀγαθῶν τῶν αὐτοῦ μετέχειν ὁπωσοῦν οὐδεμία ἐστὶν ἐλπίς Nicholas Cabasilas Explication de la divine liturgie 252 (44)

64 See Plato Timaeus ed and trans R G Bury (Cambridge 2005) 100ndash105 (45c 46andashb)




Most crucial to understanding Nicholas Cabasilasrsquos theory of vision however is how the text speaks of the particular nature of the union between Christ and the souls Here the inescapability of the mediating interval is reified in the very figure of Christ Christ has a complex operation here on the one hand he is the medium yet on the other hand he as God also unites the faithful to himself as a medium Thus we understand that there is a union that occurs between the meshydiator and the viewer an outpouring toward Christ if one were to describe it in visual terms Hence we can understand that the union of the faithful with God occurs at that intermediary point manifested by Christ the mediator However this union with Christ is not the end of this process for it is Christ who ldquorecshyonciles us to Godrdquo (τῷ Θεῷ καταλλάττων) God unites with the faithful by virtue of their union with Christ in his intermediary role Yet the nature of this union with God is not by virtue of Christrsquos intercessory action alone or rather Christrsquos intercession alone is not the reason God unites himself with humanity for as Nicholas writes ldquoWhat reconciled God to humankind Simply this that he saw his beloved (ἀγαπητόν) son become man Likewise he is reconciled personally to every man who wears the stamp of the Onlyshybegotten and bears his Body and shows himself to be one spirit with himrdquo65

Thus Godrsquos effluence of love (specifically ἀγάπη) for his son leads him then to become united with humanity by virtue of humanityrsquos own union in spirit with Christ Hence what we come to observe here is that there are two vectors of union that make humanity partake of the benefits of Godmdashone emerging from the righteous toward Christ and another emerging from God toward Christ in his love for him Thus it is in Christ the mediator that both these vectors are united so as to enable humanity to partake of Godrsquos image

When we consider Nicholas Cabasilasrsquos text diagrammatically we can quite neatly see the theory of Platonic extramission at play according to which we can say that God emits the rays emanating from visible objects and people emit the rays issuing from the eyes which fuse in that intermediary point here manifested by Christ This reading is only possible however if one is familiar with the lanshyguage of union and the processes of vision being obliquely indexed by the text Thus Nicholas Cabasilasrsquos text can attest to the enduring belief in and nuanced understanding of Platonic extramission up through the fourteenth century The impenetrability and lack of explicit clarification of this process of extramission in his text though should not be understood as the sign of an underdeveloped theory of vision but instead as a telling shorthand that speaks to the manner in which this particular theory may have been taken for granted by Nicholas Above all Nicholasrsquos discussion eloquently and crucially reasserts the primacy of medishyated experience in the process of sight even if one were to put his theory down as another variant of the theory of extramission or intromission For if he were citing a theory of vision that did not privilege mediation then his whole analogy

65 Τί γὰρ τὸ καταλλάξαν τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸν Θεόν Πάντως ὅτι ἄνθρωπον εἶδε τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀγαπητόνmiddot οὕτω καὶ ἑκάστῳ σπένδεται τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἴ τις τὴν μορφὴν κομίζει τοῦ Μονογενοῦς καὶ τὸ ἐκείνου φορεῖ σῶμα καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα μετrsquo αὐτοῦ φαίνεται Nicholas Cabasilas Explication de la divine liturgie 252ndash54 (44) Nicholas Cabasilas Commentary on the Divine Liturgy 101




with the mediation of Christ would be rendered incomprehensible and simply would not work Yet the mediation of Christ envisioned by Nicholas is not one that is lacking an accurate transmission of form Instead Nicholas presents a theshyory of mediation that can provide human beings with access to the divine even if direct and immediate contact between humans and God is lackingmdasha problem here resolved through the perceptibility of Christ

Conclusion

Thus the pairing of tactility and sight should not be taken as a haptic undershystanding of visual perception but rather as alluding to the ritual processes of body and mind that are used to bridge the intervallic gap between representation and that which is represented that is between signifier signified and referent Thus the misguided idea that the Byzantine conception of visuality was tactile emerges paradoxically from that necessary inability of human beings to touch God which is met in the faithful with the insuppressible desire to do just that To suggest then that sight is a species of touch is thus to say that sight could perhaps supshyplant touch or make it wholly unnecessary As Liz James said if sight is haptic ldquoTouching an icon becomes a form of seeing and vice versardquo66 This suggests that Byzantines were or at least could be satisfied with eyesight alone just as if they were modern viewers in a museum for whom the gaze can satisfy all the possible expectations one might have regarding the aesthetic perception of a painted imshyage as Art Yet Robert Nelson himself passionately argued against the sufficiency of visuality alone in his 1989 article ldquoThe Discourse of Icons Then and Nowrdquo Observing the taxidermic display of the Dumbarton Oaks Psalter and New Testament in its museum case bereft of the opportunity to be touched its pages turned its words recited and its images kissed Nelson eloquently wrote

The lucite the special lighting the museum guards standing by and even Dumbarton Oaksrsquo highly polished floors further signify aesthetic importance as well as high monshyetary value in our culture Second this is a book in name only for it cannot be read The viewer cannot take it in his or her hands and turn the pages and moreover most of its viewers do not know Greek The book has become an aesthetic object to be valued in and for itself not as a means of transmitting divine messages In sum the Byzantine manuscript has much in common with a butterfly on display in a natural history mushyseum Both have had their wings forced open and pinned down Both have been labeled which is to say classified according to the intellectual structures of their keepers And finally both are far from their original context The butterfly is dead of course but so is the manuscript67

In this passage we can observe the epistemological foundations that over the next decade led to the development of the theory of the haptic gaze of Nelsonrsquos Byzantine viewer We may see this gaze as a strategy of emancipation for the Byzantine object subjected to the harsh rays of the modern museum upon whose

66 James ldquoSenses and Sensibility in Byzantiumrdquo 52867 Robert S Nelson ldquoThe Discourse of Icons Then and Nowrdquo Art History 122 (June 1989)

144ndash57 esp 145




surface one can do nothing more than gaze no matter how much one might be tempted to touch needing that object so much to be inside onersquos clutch It is in this frus tration with the modernist gaze that I argue the haptic theory of vision in relation to Byzantine art emergesmdashas scholars seek to unite the touching that was intrinsic and necessary to the Byzantine userrsquos rites of veneration with the ineffectual gaze that we as museum goers are limited to enjoying By suggesting that Byzantines believed that they could touch with their gaze we allow ourselves to suspend our own disbelief and imagine that we too could grasp these objects and kiss them with our adoring eyes At least this way these objects would not seem so lonely in a world where they are bereft of their own power and action so radically different from that of Byzantium

These concerns and these temptations were not foreign to the Byzantine viewer but in fact speak to an intertwining of Byzantine history and modern historiograshyphy In John Chrysostomrsquos Homily 16 on Genesis 225 John recounts the tauntshying of the serpent who speaks to humanityrsquos temptation to touch given their perception of what lies at hand As John writes ldquoWhat is the advantage of life in the garden when you arenrsquot free to enjoy the things in it but are even worse off in incurring the more intense pain of having sight (θέα) of things but missing out on the enjoyment that comes from partaking (μεταλήψεως) of themrdquo68

While we might continue to compile examples of Byzantine conflations of senshysory data and with further arguments against the haptic quality of sight John Chrysostomrsquos devilish words alert us to the bristling tension and desire that emerges in response to sight There is a reason our museums are replete with placards and guards chastising those who might graze the objectrsquos surface with anything more than their optical rays This limitation makes sight the perfect sensory medium for contemplating not only acts of salvation through venerashytion but also the damnation that comes from our unbridled lusting to exceed mere sight and touch with the hands as well The serpentrsquos sentiments described here by John tacitly yet eloquently argue for the epistemic separation of touch and sight For if sight were touch the expulsion from Paradise would have never happened Eversquos painful desire having been satisfied by eyesight alone Yet Johnrsquos statement also alerts us to the inevitable desire that sight stirs up in us precisely by urging us to touchmdashwhether in the Byzantine church or the modern museum Sight tempts our gaze with its perception of so many of those tactile qualities that an object possesses Yet since vision can only see and not also feel those tactile features it taunts usmdashjust as the icon taunts us with all that is partially perceptible to our eyes but inaccessible to our earthly hands The experience of gazing upon a Byzantine manuscript in a lucite case then is not so different from that of gazing upon an icon of Christ in a Byzantine church Both show us only a shadow of the living animate body that inherently lies outside human percepshytion discernable in its divine or historical reality only through noetic acts of the imagination that seek to emplace us into the space of its history or divinity Both objects demandmdashas it is put in the Vita of John Chrysostom cited by John of

68 τί τὸ ὄφελος τῆς ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ διαγωγῆς ὅταν μὴ ἐξῇ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀπολαύειν ἀλλὰ ταύτῃ μάλιστα πλείονα τὴν ὀδύνην ἔχειν ὅταν θέα μὲν ᾖ ἀπόλαυσις δὲ ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς μεταλήψεως μὴ γίνηται (PG 53127C)




Damascusmdashthat we ldquogaze at it and attend to him as if he were alive and bless him and bring the whole of [our] thoughts to him imagining that he was speakshying with him through his contemplationrdquo Otherwise the butterfly remains dead splayed and pinned down to the specificity of its optical medium as nothing more than paint on flat canvas for the good modernist to admire

In his 1989 article Robert Nelson discussed John of Damascusrsquos imperative that we ldquoembrace [images] with the eyes the lips the heart bow before them love themrdquo69 This translation differs strikingly from Nelsonrsquos translation of 2000 where John urges us to ldquoKiss (ἀσπάζεσθι) [sic] them with the eyes the lips the heartrdquo His earlier translation while looser grasps the perceptual process I have attempted to trace Following David Andersonrsquos 1980 translation whose rendishytion of the line reads ldquoEmbrace them with the eyes the lips the heart bow before them love them for they are the likeness of Godrdquo70 Nelson seems to render the complicated ἀσπάζεσθαι in two ways not only using ldquoloverdquo to suggest the worshyshipperrsquos cleaving to the icon in the heart but also the phrase ldquobow before themrdquo to reflect the act of greeting the icon Here Nelson shows his comprehension of the complex practice of veneration that John of Damascus was describing and which he himself was attempting to elucidate in relation to the museumrsquos lucite case Rightly then his 1989 analysis concluded ldquoIn essence the image the icon is a mediator a way for the believer to comprehend God and his teachings and a medium through which God and the believer interactrdquo71 This is not the Robert Nelson of 2000 with his emphatic focus on the haptic visuality of the Byzantine viewer whose agentic sight allowed for the immediate contact with the iconrsquos subshyject collapsing sight and touch into one Instead what we see in this 1989 article is an attempt to understand the icon as a sign whose relation to its interpreter not only emerges discursively but also from the inexorable absence present in the icon which seeks to represent rather than reshypresent that which is inherently not there This earlier interpretation uses canonical semioticsmdashthrough the work of Eacutemile Benveniste Roman Jakobson Charles Sanders Peirce and othersmdashto con shystruct an icon that is by nature a communicative medium whereas Nelsonrsquos later interpretation builds upon then recent discourses on reception theory to compreshyhend how the icon itself exceeds the bounds of modernist semiotics Yet in both instances we find a scholar attempting to come to terms precisely with how conshytemporary discourses concerning the medium and mediation in art history and critical theory can contribute to a nuanced understanding of Byzantine art and its relation to its past and present publics72

Let us summarize our findings and conclusions We can point to three primary contexts for the use of haptic language in Byzantine descriptions First the notion of haptic sight emerges from a conflation of terms that often seek to describe in shorthand either the processes of veneration which involved visual and tactile

69 Nelson ldquoThe Discourse of Iconsrdquo 14870 John of Damascus On the Divine Images trans David Anderson (Crestwood NY 1980) 5871 Nelson ldquoThe Discourse of Iconsrdquo 14972 See for example Robert S Nelson ldquoMediationrdquo in Critical Terms for Art History 2nd edition

ed Robert S Nelson and Richard Schiff (Chicago 2003) ixndashxii




actions deployed in sequence or to describe using a language of cognition that uses verbs associated with touch and grasping the perceptions of the mind as it processes sensual data Second we likewise see the diagramming of ritual acts that allude to the literal touching of objects in terms of the five senses as a way of awakening the senses to the spiritual realities at hand The shorthand descripshytions of these practices often deploy a nonspecific sensual language in which a seer might be said to touch an object to his or her eyes as well as with his or her other senses a manner of description that understandably results in confusion Third there appears to be a broader tendency to use synesthetic language in Byzshyantine rhetoric when a writer seeks to transgress the usual sensual boundaries for emphasis or to express complex abstract matters This language of sensual perception is by no means limited to the conflation of sight and touch but rather appears as remediations following Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusinrsquos use of the term73 between all sensory inputs Thus we must qualify the extent to which we see the Byzantine conflation of the senses as an indication of how they believe sensation occurs We ought instead to articulate these conflations as purposeful transgressions made for effect and emphasis Such transgressions of the tradishytional sensory boundaries derive their efficacy not because they claim a percepshytual synesthesia but precisely because they do overstep familiar boundaries and suggest modes or states of perception that exceed the logic of how a given sense functions

Finally three main points are to be made regarding the causes and effects of the theory of haptic visualityrsquos predominance in the field of Byzantine art history First the theory of haptic sight allowed the Byzantine art historian to dispense with the medium in favor of the hypothesis of unmediated presence that was ascribed to the icon Second the notion of haptic sight allowed the scholar to posit the worshipperrsquos aesthetic appreciation of the cult image through eyesight alonemdashan approach favored by the interpretation of postshyRenaissance art that was put forth by Hans Belting and others Third the theory of haptic sight also allowed for a physiological reification of the agency of the viewer which is disshyplaced by the reintroduction of the concept of a mediating middlemdashwhether this be Aristotlersquos transparent Platorsquos united rays or Galenrsquos optical pneuma For the study of Byzantine art these observations will require a change in the language used by scholars regarding visual devotion since we must allow the processes of touch and sight to exist as mutually fruitful yet distinctmdashand must understand that the worshipperrsquos psychosomatic engagement with the icon required not only visual practices but also other functions that deployed the other senses uniquely each within the specificity of its own medium Therefore it is necessary for us not simply to see past metaphor but also not to take metaphors literallymdashrather to understand that metaphors carry their own logic and serve as potent tools in analogical thinking The metaphorrsquos analogical and synesthetic thought not only structures the worshippersrsquo corollary behaviors such as their contemplation

73 Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin Remediation Understanding New Media (Cambridge MA 1998)




embracing and kissing of the icon but also speaks to ways of articulating abshystract notions From this perspective the Byzantine notion that touch was comshymon to all the senses when considered closely clarifies itself not as an argument for haptic sight but rather as a way of speaking about the ineffable contact that lies at the foundation of the aesthetic experience of perceptible featuresmdashagainst the cognitive and spiritual aesthetic experience of imperceptible forms noetic and divine

A final caveat should nonetheless be provided to clarify the point that while the notion of haptic sight may be a scholarly construct visual and tactile experishyences often mentioned together in Byzantine texts were nonetheless crucial to Byzantine religious experience across the centuries Yet sight was not always the result of the viewerrsquos agency alone Sight served as the site of mediation between a person and the divine Rather than taking the icon itself as the location where this mediation occurred however we must understand that it was the faculty of sight that enabled human rays and divine rays to come together and it was in the act of seeing that they did so as Nicholas of Cabasilasrsquos visual metaphors stress At times the external object is said to impinge upon the viewersrsquo sight beyond their complete control a formulation that stresses that perception of august and divine mysteries lay not only in the viewerrsquos agency but also in the participation condescension and grace of the divine which lay in the realm of the unseeable beyond the layer of painted flesh on the icon as suggested by Nicholas and Theoshydore of Andida In this regard perception participated in a tugshyofshywar between divine and earthly agencies a process captured through the language of the joinshying rays that came to fuse seer and seen By negating the role of tactility in the faculty of sight not only do we allow each sense to offer up its own affordances but we also allow a cautious distancing from the idea that true presence is found in the icon itself Instead the icon emerges as a tool in the mediation that is enshyacted by sight Nevertheless to graze the iconrsquos surface with hand or eye alone would permit the worshipper no greater contact with the subject represented in the icon than our own modernist understanding of optics would allow It is only through the imaginationrsquos grasp of the things seen that the likeness can lead the viewer back to its prototype and a glimpse of divine presence perceived Hence by denying tactility to sight we are able to approach the deeper significance of vision in Byzantine thought since the Byzantine conception of vision properly understood necessitates that we stage the mediation of divine presence not in the icon but rather in the visuality of the viewer who deploys eye and mind to sieze hold of the presence that the icon obliquely directs us toward

As the field shifts back to various objectshyoriented ontologies and concerns reshygarding the materiality of artistic media it is necessary to reconsider the discourses that brought us here and also to expand the sources and conceptual frameworks at our disposition in order to generate innovative trajectories for constructing the history of the Byzantine image and its viewer In this process we must be careful to avoid confusing signifiers and signifieds with their referents a confusion that is endemic in the historiography of the field and that the theory of Byzantine haptic sight has in part encouraged Thus when we discuss an artistic medium in Byzshyantium we should avoid restricting our discussion to painting tempera or wood but instead endeavor to understand medium as an expanded field of inquiry in




the exploration of cultural thought and artistic generativity as an interval of adshyjacency between the potentiality and actuality of form its beingshyinshytheshyworld and its perception In other words we must endeavor to think of ldquomediumrdquo as a term that indicates and articulates mediation as a condition of possibility for perceptishybility rather than a reduction of that system to mere material substrates

Roland Betancourt is Assistant Professor of Art History at the University of California Irvine (email rolandbetancourtuciedu)


Tempted to Touch Tactility Ritual and Mediation in Byzantine Visuality

By Ro land Betancour t

While acknowledging Byzantiumrsquos possession of competing antique and postanshytique theories of vision Byzantine historians have often favored a theory in which sight has the ability to physically touch the image as if kissing and embracing its surface an idea developed in primary sources through metaphors and literary tropes This is a model of extramission a theory of sight wherein the eyes emit rays that graze the body of the object and return to the viewer for the enabling of perception thus making vision a species of touch and an active rather than passhysive manner of engaging with visual culture It has often been taken for granted that Byzantium favored the theory of extramission despite the preservation of other classical theories according to which sight emerges from the emission of rays from both viewer and object from the emission of images from objects themshyselves or from various permutations of both Weaving together metaphor science and philosophy haptic extramission has projected itself as an allshyencompassing theory of visual perception wherein viewer and object are not distinct entities but linked as one through the intimate tactility of sight

Elsewhere I have surveyed ancient and lateshyantique sources on perception to argue that the modern understanding of the language of touch emerges from a conflation of the sensory and perceptual processes as a result of which the haptic language of cognition has been ascribed to visual sensation There I have likewise suggested that despite a wide variety of visual theories that rely on models of inshytromission (wherein the eye receives emissions coming from the object of vision) extramission and variants thereof the one thing these various theories relied on was the fact that sight could not be thought of as a form of touch1 This article seeks to contextualize these findings by considering the ritual practices of icon and relic veneration as well as the levels of mediation enabled by this synesthetic language in Byzantine sources

The goal of this article is twofold On the one hand it provides readers with a careful analysis of the language of early Christian and Byzantine writers on vision and its relationship to touch culled from a variety of areas putting religious thinkshyers in dialogue with classical and lateshyantique perceptual theorists In seeking to address the problem of Byzantine visuality an expansive and nonhomogenous category this article focuses specifically on the key authors of the iconoclastic period John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite alongside the church fathers to consider the role of tactility and sight in relation to the practices of veneration of icons relics and the Eucharist On the other hand the essay investigates how and why the historiographic predilection for the theory of haptic sight developed

1 See Roland Betancourt ldquoWhy Sight Is Not Touch Reconsidering the Tactility of Vision in Byzanshytiumrdquo Dumbarton Oaks Papers 70 (forthcoming)

Speculum 913 (July 2016) Copyright 2016 by the Medieval Academy of America DOI 101086686939 0038shy713420169103shy0003$1000



























































































































































































































Conclusion





144ndash57 esp 145



























































































































































































































































Conclusion





144ndash57 esp 145


































Tempted to Touch: Tactility, Ritual, and Mediation in Byzantine Visuality

Documents

Transcript of Tempted to Touch: Tactility, Ritual, and Mediation in Byzantine Visuality